micromachines

Article
Study of Ultrasonic Near-Field Region in Ultrasonic
Liquid-Level Monitoring System
Wanjia Gao, Wenyi Liu *, Yanjun Hu and Jun Wang
Key Laboratory of Instrumentation Science & Dynamic Measurement, Ministry of Education,
North University of China, Taiyuan 030051, China; 18810577682@163.com (W.G.); 18234125986@163.com (Y.H.);
18834161512@163.com (J.W.)
* Correspondence: liuwenyi@nuc.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-1393-460-7107




Received: 3 July 2020; Accepted: 6 August 2020; Published: 10 August 2020


Abstract: In the method of monitoring the liquid level based on ultrasonic impedance, the near-field
effect can seriously affect the validity of the results. In this paper, we explore the factors affecting
the length of the ultrasonic near field. Based on that, we propose the optimal length and the minimum
length of the buffer block to avoid the near field. The evaluations show that when the parameters
of the ultrasonic probe are 15 mm in diameter, 1 MHz in frequency, and ±15 V in emitted
ultrasonic wave amplitude, the best results are obtained when the length of the buffer block
is 22 mm. When the probe diameter is 10 mm, the buffer block length should be ≥5 mm to ensure
the validity of the measured results. The evaluation precision is 1 mm. This research can effectively
avoid the blind area of emitted waves when using ultrasonic to measure the liquid level. It provides
an effective basis for the selection and design of ultrasonic probes.

Keywords: ultrasonic; liquid level measurement; echo energy; near-field region

1. Introduction
In the field of aerospace, real-time monitoring and accurate measurement of liquid fuel
consumption in fuel tanks are very necessary [1,2]. Therefore, the research and development
of a liquid-level sensor are particularly important.
There are two types of liquid-level measurement technologies, which are invasive
and non-invasive [3]. The invasive types include capacitive [4], resistive [5], float-type [6],
magnetostriction type [7], optical fiber liquid-level meter [8], and many more. As the fuel tank
is a closed container, its internal environment is high pressure, low temperature, etc., and its internal
liquid fuel is inflammable and explosive. Therefore, it is not suitable to use a contact sensor introduced
into the container to measure the liquid level [9,10]. Ultrasonic non destructive testing (NDT)
technology has gradually become the mainstream for liquid-level detection [11,12].
There are some liquid-level measuring devices based on ultrasonic propagation characteristics,
which are mainly divided into three categories: interface reflection method [13], penetrative
method [14], and attenuation method [15]. The detection accuracy of the interface reflection method
and the penetrative method is greatly affected by the temperature of the internal medium. For large
containers with diameters over 1 m, the long transmission distance and bubbles or impurities
in the liquid will seriously affect the transmission of ultrasonic waves. The penetration attenuation
characteristics of liquid medium will also seriously affect the reliability of measurement [16,17].
Attenuation is a relatively new technique that requires only an ultrasonic transducer to be installed
on one side of the container wall. When the internal medium at the measurement point is different,
the attenuation range of ultrasonic echo energy on the container wall is different. According to the time
from the reception of the echo to the attenuation, it can distinguish whether the internal liquid

Micromachines 2020, 11, 763; doi:10.3390/mi11080763 www.mdpi.com/journal/micromachines

Micromachines 2020, 11, 763 2 of 13

level reaches the detection point, so as to play the role of liquid-level monitoring [18,19]. Therefore,
the ultrasonic attenuation method has relatively good measurement accuracy and reliability.
The ultrasonic transducer emits a beam of ultrasonic waves, but due to the existence of the near
field, the effective reflection echo cannot be received, resulting in inaccuracy of the measurement.
Therefore, when using ultrasonic waves for measurement, it is necessary to ensure that the measured
surface is in the far-field area of the sound pressure to obtain an effective signal [20]. Buffer blocks
are widely used in ultrasonic applications. At present, two kinds of rods with cylindrical and cone
structures are used by researchers. Zhang et al. [21] studied the shape and boundary conditions
of the buffer block and proposed a high-performance rod with shape based on a cone reference surface.
Hoppe et al. [22] found an optimized geometry of a buffer rod for an ultrasonic density sensor. They can
measure the amplitude with high accuracy and low noise. Fischer et al. [23] used a conical buffer element
with a combination of two materials to obtain a reference for the pulse amplitude of the emitted signal.
The buffer material connected to the transducer is polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), and the material
in contact with the measured liquid is high-grade steel. However, the acoustic impedance of the buffer
block material is not close to that of the measured liquid, so the sensitivity is low. Liu et al. [24] made
a detailed comparison description of the buffer block materials and drew the curve of the sound
velocity in PMMA varying with frequency and temperature. Combined with other physical properties
of PMMA, it is finally proposed that PMMA is most suitable for the measurement experiment of liquid
acoustic properties.
To sum up, most of the researchers studied the material, shape, boundary conditions, and internal
noise of the buffer block. For the length of the near-field area of ultrasound, the researchers only say
that the acoustic beam range should be more than 3 times the length of the near field when using
the p-wave testing [22]. However, if the length of the buffer block is too short, the near field region
cannot be avoided, and if it is too long, it may cause ultrasonic attenuation. At present, no team has
proposed an exact value of the optimal and the minimum size of the buffer block required to avoid
the near-field area.
In conclusion, based on the attenuation method, this paper builds a fixed-point liquid-level
monitoring system. This method is based on the ultrasonic impedance method: the ultrasonic
transducer emits a group of continuous ultrasonic waves to monitor whether the height of the liquid
level is higher than the transducer by measuring the energy values of the received echo of the container
wall. In this paper, a buffer block is added between the probe and the container wall. We used different
lengths of buffer blocks to conduct experiments and studied the relationship between the length
of the near field of the ultrasonic wave and the amplitude of the received echo. Finally, the experiment
was conducted to find the minimum size of the ultrasonic probe and buffer block that can get effective
results when using this method for liquid-level monitoring. The research in this paper provides
an effective solution to avoid the near-field area for experiments such as liquid-level measurement
based on ultrasound. It also provides a powerful basis for the selection and design of ultrasonic probes
in other experiments.

2. Theory and Methods

2.1. Principle of Ultrasonic Impedance Method

This paper builds an experimental system for liquid-level monitoring based on the ultrasonic
impedance method. Ultrasonic waves can propagate in any medium in the form of a wave. It propagates
along a straight line [25]. In the process of transmission, diffraction, refraction, reflection, attenuation,
and other phenomena will occur when encountering obstacles in the path [26]. When the ultrasonic
transducer emits a beam of ultrasound and reaches the interface between the inner wall of the container
Micromachines 2020, 11, 763 3 of 13

and the internal medium, transmission and reflection will occur. The sound intensity reflectance, R,
and sound intensity transmittance, T, can be calculated by Equations (1) and (2) [27]:

Ia (Z2 − Zi )2
R= = (1)
I (Z2 + Zi )2

It 4Z2 Zi
T= = 1−R = (2)
I (Z2 + Zi )2
where Ia is the reflected sound intensity, W/m2 , It is the incident sound intensity, W/m2 , I is the incident
sound intensity, W/m2 , Z2 is the acoustic impedance of the tested container, Mrayl, and Zi is the
acoustic impedance of the internal medium, Mrayl. According to Equation (2), transmittance and
reflectance have an inverse relationship, the more ultrasonic waves transmitted into the container,
the less echo energy reflected, and vice versa.
Ultrasonic waves can propagate in solids as longitudinal waves and transverse waves.
Acoustoelastic effect means that in an isotropic solid medium, due to the effect of stress, the material
has the characteristic of acoustoelasticity. That is, the ultrasonic wave velocity changes with the change
of the stress state. But, ultrasonic waves can only propagate in the form of longitudinal wave
in the liquid and gas medium, so the acoustoelastic effect is not considered.

2.2. Ultrasonic Near-Field and Far-Field Areas

A beam of ultrasound emitted by an ultrasonic transducer includes both near-field and far-field
areas [28]. The sound pressure near the wave source fluctuates sharply due to the interference
of the wave and a series of sound pressure maximum and minimum appears, which is cylindrical
in shape. At this time, the sound pressure is irregular, and the ultrasonic propagation is unstable [29].
The distance between the last sound pressure maximum value and the sound source is called the near
field length, which is expressed by N, and the area within the N is called the near-field area. The region
where the distance from the axis of the wave source to the wave source is greater than the length
of the near-field region is divergent and is called the far-field region [30]. Its sound field diagram
is shown in Figure 1. The ultrasonic near-field area can be calculated by Equation (3) [31]:

D2 A
N≈ = (3)
4λ πλ

where D is the ultrasonic sensor diameter, m, A is the sensor area, m2 , and λ is the wavelength
of ultrasonic wave propagation in the medium, which can be calculated using Equation (4):
c
λ= (4)
f

where c is the wave velocity of ultrasonic wave propagation in the medium, m/s, and f is the ultrasonic
frequency, Hz. Therefore, the near-field length of a beam of ultrasound is related to the diameter (area)
of the piezoelectric plate and the speed and frequency of the ultrasound propagation in the medium.
At a certain frequency and speed, the larger the diameter, the longer the near-field length.
Micromachines 2020, 11, 763 4 of 13
Micromachines 2020, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 13

Ultrasonicsound
Figure1.1.Ultrasonic
Figure soundfield.
field.

Thechoice
The choiceofofbuffer
bufferblock
blockmaterial
materialneeds
needsto toconsider
considerseveral
severalfactors,
factors,ofofwhich
whichthe therobustness,
robustness,
durability, and sensitivity are particularly important [21]. Puttmer et al. found that
durability, and sensitivity are particularly important [21]. Puttmer et al. found that a low impedance a low impedance
material is
material is more
moresensitive
sensitivewhen
when its its
acoustic impedance
acoustic impedanceis theissame
the order
same of magnitude
order as the measured
of magnitude as the
liquid [32]. The comparison of acoustic impedance of common buffer
measured liquid [32]. The comparison of acoustic impedance of common buffer materials materials and water andis shown
water
in Table 1.
is shown in Table 1.
Polymershave
Polymers haveaalower
lowerspeed
speedofofsound
sound than
than glass,
glass, ceramics,
ceramics, or or metals,
metals, andand even
even thethe thickness
thickness of
of the buffer block is small, and the delay effect is also good. Moreover, the polymer’s
the buffer block is small, and the delay effect is also good. Moreover, the polymer’s characteristic characteristic
acousticimpedance
acoustic impedanceisis close
close to to water,
water, making
making it more
it more sensitive
sensitive [33]. [33]. Considering
Considering that
that the the block
buffer buffer
block should have lower acoustic impedance and more regular acoustic
should have lower acoustic impedance and more regular acoustic characteristics, therefore, characteristics, therefore,
polymethylmethacrylate
polymethyl methacrylate(PMMA)
(PMMA)isisselected
selectedas asthe
the buffer
buffer block
block inin this
this paper.
paper. The
The characteristic
characteristic
acousticimpedance
acoustic impedanceof ofPMMA
PMMAisisonlyonly3.26
3.26Mrayl,
Mrayl,whichwhichisisparticularly
particularlysuitable
suitablefor
formeasuring
measuringliquidliquid
acoustic characteristics using reflection technology.
acoustic characteristics using reflection technology.

Table 1. Comparison of acoustic impedance of common buffer materials and water. PMMA:
Table 1. Comparison of acoustic impedance of common buffer materials and water. PMMA:
polymethyl methacrylate.
polymethyl methacrylate.
Materials
Materials Material Types
Material Types AcousticImpedance
Acoustic Impedance (Mrayl)
(Mrayl) Reflectance(R)
Reflectance (R)
Water
Water Liquid
Liquid 1.48
1.48 1100%
PMMA
PMMA [34]
[34] Polymer
Polymer 3.26
3.26 37%37%
Quartz glass [35] Glass 13.1 79.50%
Quartz glass [35]
Glass ceramics [22]
Glass
Glass
13.1
16.5
79.50%
83.30%
Glass
Aluminum [36] [22]
ceramics Glass
Metal 16.5
17.3 83.30%
84%
Aluminum [36] Metal 17.3 84%
2.3. Establishment of Experimental Platform
2.3. Establishment of Experimental Platform
According to the above theory, an external fixed-point liquid-level monitoring experimental
According to the above theory, an external fixed-point liquid-level monitoring experimental
platform is built. The square wave signal with a certain pulse width is amplified by the high-speed
platform is built. The square wave signal with a certain pulse width is amplified by the high-speed
operational amplifier AD603 (Analog Devices, Inc., Norwood, LA, USA) and its peripheral circuits.
operational amplifier AD603 (Analog Devices, Inc, Norwood, America) and its peripheral circuits.
Then, it drives the ultrasonic transducer to emit a group of continuous ultrasonic waves every 25 µs. The
Then, it drives the ultrasonic transducer to emit a group of continuous ultrasonic waves every 25 µs.
system only requires a double crystal probe, which is installed vertically on the outside of the container.
The system only requires a double crystal probe, which is installed vertically on the outside of the
A buffer block is placed between the probe and the container wall, and the gap is filled with an
container. A buffer block is placed between the probe and the container wall, and the gap is filled
ultrasonic coupler to expel the air. When ultrasonic waves reach the interface between inner wall and
with an ultrasonic coupler to expel the air. When ultrasonic waves reach the interface between inner
internal medium, transmission and reflection phenomena occur. The reflected echo energy is received
wall and internal medium, transmission and reflection phenomena occur. The reflected echo energy
by the transducer, the data is collected by Data Acquisition (DAQ, BeijingXinChaoRenDa Technology
is received by the transducer, the data is collected by Data Acquisition (DAQ, BeijingXinChaoRenDa
Ltd., Beijing, China), and the waveform is finally displayed by the relevant software on the computer.
Technology Ltd, Beijing, China), and the waveform is finally displayed by the relevant software on
The designed system is shown in Figure 2.
the computer. The designed system is shown in Figure 2.
Micromachines 2020, 11, 763 5 of 13
Micromachines 2020, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 13

Designed
Figure 2.2.Designed structure
structure of theofliquid-level
the liquid-level monitoring
monitoring system.
system. (PZT (PZT = Piezoelectric
= Piezoelectric ceramic; D =
ceramic; DL==Diameter;
Diameter; Length; Z2L==Aluminum = Aluminum
Length; Z2alloy alloy acoustic
acoustic impedance; ZA =impedance; A = Air acoustic
Air acousticZimpedance; ZW =
impedance;
Water acoustic = Water acoustic
ZW impedance RA = Aluminum RA = Aluminum
impedancealloy–air interfacealloy–air
reflectioninterface reflection
coefficient; coefficient;
TA = Aluminum
TA = Aluminum
alloy–air alloy–air
interface interfacecoefficient;
transmission transmissionRWcoefficient;
= Aluminum RW = Aluminum
alloy–wateralloy–water interface
interface reflection
reflection coefficient; T
coefficient; TW = Aluminum
W = Aluminum alloy–water interface transmission
alloy–water interface transmission coefficient.). coefficient.).

The tested
The tested container
containerusedusedininthisthisexperiment
experiment was
was made
made of of aluminum
aluminum alloyalloy because
because gasgas
tankstanks
are
are mostly made of aluminum alloy in most aerospace and other applications.
mostly made of aluminum alloy in most aerospace and other applications. Its wall thickness is 3 mm. Its wall thickness
is 3 mm.
The Themeasured
internal internal measured
medium medium
is water and is water and material
air. The air. The material of theblock
of the buffer bufferis block
PMMA, is and
PMMA, the
and the ultrasonic probe is piezoelectric ceramic (PZT). The experiment
ultrasonic probe is piezoelectric ceramic (PZT). The experiment is carried out at a constant roomis carried out at a constant
room temperature
temperature of 20so◦ C,
of 20 °C, thesochange
the change of sound
of sound velocity
velocity caused
caused by temperature
by temperature can can be ignored.
be ignored. In
In addition, the sound velocity of PMMA varies approximately linearly
addition, the sound velocity of PMMA varies approximately linearly with temperature with temperature and frequency,
and
so the change
frequency, of sound
so the changevelocity
of soundcausedvelocity bycaused
temperature will not will
by temperature affectnot
the law the
affect presented by the
law presented
evaluations
by in this paper,
the evaluations in thisand the conclusions
paper, obtained through
and the conclusions obtained thethrough
experiment. Moreover, the
the experiment. variable
Moreover,
in this experiment is the length of the buffer block PMMA. The density and material
the variable in this experiment is the length of the buffer block PMMA. The density and material are constant, andare its
stress remains
constant, and itsunchanged, whichunchanged,
stress remains does not cause whichchanges
doesin thecause
not velocity of sound.
changes The
in the aluminum
velocity alloy
of sound.
container used in the experiment is not affected by stress. Therefore, we ignore
The aluminum alloy container used in the experiment is not affected by stress. Therefore, we ignore the acoustoelastic effect
in this
the paper. The device
acoustoelastic effect inphoto
this is shown
paper. Thein device
Figure 3. The is
photo relevant
showninitial values
in Figure 3. of
The therelevant
experimental
initial
Micromachines 2020, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 13
device and the measured liquid are shown in Table 2.
values of the experimental device and the measured liquid are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Experimental parameters and initial values.

Specification Symbol Initial Values

Container material MC Aluminum alloy 2219 (AL)
Wall thickness h 3 mm
Transducer material MTX Piezoelectric ceramic (PZT)-5A
Buffer material MB PMMA
AL acoustic impedance Z2 32 Mrayl
Water acoustic impedance ZW 1.48 Mrayl
Air acoustic impedance ZA 4 × 10-4 Mrayl
PMMA acoustic impedance ZPMMA 3.26 Mrayl
Ultrasound velocity c 2775 m/s
Transducer diameter D 10 mm, 15 mm
Working frequency 1 MHz
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Photo of designed liquid-level monitoring
monitoring system.
system.
Ultrasonic amplitude Am ±15 V
Experimental
Substituting Z2, ZW, andtemperature
ZA in Table 2 intoT Equations (1) and ℃ respectively, the reflection
20(2)
coefficient and transmission coefficient when the ultrasonic wave reaches the aluminum–water
interface are: RW = 83.10%, TW = 16.90%, and at the aluminum alloy–air interface are: RA = 99.99%, TA
= 0.01%. It can be concluded that the liquid medium has a higher transmission capacity than the gas
medium. Thus, it is proven that the amplitude of ultrasonic echo received from the inner wall of the
container when the liquid level is higher than the sensor should be significantly smaller than that
when the liquid level is lower than the sensor.
Substituting c and f0 in Table 2 into Equation (4) can obtain the wavelength of ultrasonic waves
Micromachines 2020, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 13

Micromachines 2020, 11, 763 6 of 13

Table 2. Experimental parameters and initial values.

Specification Symbol Initial Values

Container material MC Aluminum alloy 2219 (AL)
Wall thickness h 3 mm
Piezoelectric ceramic
Transducer material MTX
(PZT)-5A
Buffer material MB PMMA
AL acoustic impedance Z2 32 Mrayl
Water acoustic impedance ZW 1.48 Mrayl
Air acoustic impedance ZA 4 × 10−4 Mrayl
Figure 3.
PMMA acoustic Photo of designed
impedance liquid-level monitoring
ZPMMA system.
3.26 Mrayl
Ultrasound velocity c 2775 m/s
Substituting Z 2, ZW, and
Transducer ZA in Table 2 intoDEquations (1) and
diameter (2) respectively,
10 mm, 15 mm the reflection
Working frequency
coefficient and transmission coefficient when thef 0 ultrasonic wave reaches
MHz the aluminum–water
interface are: RW =Ultrasonic
83.10%, Tamplitude Am ±15 V
W = 16.90%, and at the aluminum alloy–air interface are: RA = 99.99%, TA
Experimental temperature T 20 ◦ C
= 0.01%. It can be concluded that the liquid medium has a higher transmission capacity than the gas
medium. Thus, it is proven that the amplitude of ultrasonic echo received from the inner wall of the
Substituting
container when the Z2liquid
, ZW , and
levelZisA in Tablethan
higher 2 into
theEquations
sensor should(1) and (2) respectively,
be significantly the reflection
smaller than that
coefficient and transmission
when the liquid level is lower coefficient
than thewhen the ultrasonic wave reaches the aluminum–water interface
sensor.
W = 83.10%, cTand
are: RSubstituting W = f16.90%,
0 in Table and at theEquation
2 into aluminum (4) alloy–air
can obtain interface are: RA = of
the wavelength 99.99%, TA = waves
ultrasonic 0.01%.
It can be concluded that the liquid medium has a higher transmission capacity
propagating in PMMA, which is λ = 2.775 × 10 m. Substituting λ, D1, and D2 into Equation (3)
-3 than the gas medium.
Thus,
gives Nit1is= proven thatNthe
0.9 cm and 2 = amplitude of ultrasonic
2.03 cm. Therefore, echotoreceived
in order explore from the inner wall
the relationship of thethe
between container
length
when the liquid level is higher than the sensor should be significantly smaller than
of the near-field area and the ultrasonic echo energy, we customized some PMMA rods with different that when the liquid
level is lower than the sensor.
lengths and conducted experiments in groups. The physical picture of PMMA rods is shown in Figure
4. ItsSubstituting
parameters are c and f 0 in in
shown Table 2 into
Table 3. Equation (4) can obtain the wavelength of ultrasonic waves
propagating in PMMA, which is λ = 2.775 × 10−3 m. Substituting λ, D1 , and D2 into Equation (3) gives
N1 = 0.9 cm and N2 = 2.03 cm.Table Therefore, in orderPMMA
3. Experimental to explore the relationship between the length
parameters.
of the near-field area and the ultrasonic echo energy, we customized some PMMA rods with different
PMMA Diameters (mm) PMMA Lengths (mm)
lengths and conducted experiments in groups. The physical picture of PMMA rods is shown in Figure 4.
10 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Its parameters are shown in Table 3.
15 10, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 40, 50

Figure 4. Photo of PMMA bars (mm).

Figure 4. Photo of PMMA bars (mm).
Micromachines 2020, 11, 763 7 of 13

Table 3. Experimental PMMA parameters.

PMMA Diameters (mm) PMMA Lengths (mm)

10 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
15 10, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 40, 50

3. Results and Discussion

Based on the above principles and devices, this paper conducted experiments in groups to explore
the factors affecting the near-field length and the relationship between the length of the buffer blocks
and the amplitudes of the ultrasonic echo.

3.1. Optimum Length Selection

The ultrasonic probe with D1 = 15 mm, f 0 = 1 MHz, Am = ±15 V in Table 2 and the buffer
block with D = 15 mm and L = 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50 mm in Table 3 were selected for the first
group of experiments. The experiments were performed three times in each group. We recorded
the amplitude of the echo received by the sensor and calculated the average values, V, the average
deviations, |∆E|, and the difference values, Vd . The evaluations are shown in Table 4. Figure 5 shows
the contents of Table 4.

Table 4. Evaluations of the first group.

L (mm) Medium V1 (V) V2 (V) V3 (V) V (V) |∆E| (V) Vd (V)

Water 5.20 5.12 5.84 5.39 0.30
10 2.19
Air 7.60 7.68 7.44 7.57 0.09
Water 3.88 2.80 2.84 3.17 0.47
15 2.37
Air 5.40 5.56 5.68 5.55 0.10
Water 3.24 3.44 3.52 3.40 0.11
20 2.84
Air 6.28 6.28 6.16 6.24 0.05
Water 4.24 4.24 4.32 4.27 0.04
25 3.25
Air 7.76 7.28 7.52 7.52 0.16
Water 2.60 2.80 3.00 2.80 0.13
30 2.20
Air 4.68 4.96 5.36 5.00 0.24
Water 2.32 2.60 2.88 2.60 0.19
40 1.60
Air 3.96 4.16 4.48 4.20 0.19
Water 2.36 2.32 2.48 2.39 0.06
50 1.49
Air 3.64 3.84 4.16 3.88 0.19
V1 : The first measured voltage value; V2 : The second measured voltage value; V3 : The third measured voltage
value; V: The average values; |∆E|: The average deviations; Vd : The difference values.

It can be seen from the experimental results in Table 4 and Figure 5 that under the condition
of certain probe parameters, the experimental results are not good when the buffer block is too short
or too long. When the length of the buffer block is 10 mm, the measured echo energy is the largest,
but the energy difference between different mediums is small. When the length of the PMMA rod is 20
and 25 mm, the difference of echo voltage value between air and water inside the sensor is the largest,
and the experimental effect is the most obvious. Therefore, PMMA rods with D = 15 mm and L = 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, and 25 mm in Table 3 were selected for the second group of experiments to find the optimal
length of buffer block required in this experiment. The experiments were performed three times in each
group. We recorded the amplitude of the echo received by the sensor and calculated the average
values, V, the average deviations, |∆E|, and the difference values, Vd . The evaluations are shown
in Table 5. Figure 6 shows the contents of Table 5.
 30 2.20
Air 4.68 4.96 5.36 5.00 0.24
Water 2.32 2.60 2.88 2.60 0.19
40 1.60
Air 3.96 4.16 4.48 4.20 0.19
Water 2.36 2.32 2.48 2.39 0.06
50
Micromachines 2020, 11, 763
1.49 8 of 13
Air 3.64 3.84 4.16 3.88 0.19

9
V-Water
8 V-Air 4
Vd

Difference Values(V)
7

Echo Energy Vi(V)

Micromachines 2020, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13
6
3
5
the energy difference between different mediums is small. When the length of the PMMA rod is 20
and 25 mm, the difference of
4 echo voltage value between air and water inside the sensor is the largest,
and the experimental effect is the most obvious. Therefore, PMMA rods with 2 D = 15 mm and L = 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 mm 3in Table 3 were selected for the second group of experiments to find the
2
optimal length of buffer block required in this experiment. The experiments were performed three
times in each group. We recorded
1 the amplitude of the echo received by1the sensor and calculated
10 20
the average values, V , the average deviations, 30 and the
|∆E|, 40 difference
50 values, Vd. The evaluations
A
are shown in Table 5. Figure 6 shows the contents m (V)
of Table 5.
Figure 5. Results comparison diagram of the first group.
Figure 5.Table 5. Evaluations
Results comparisonof the second
diagram group.
of the first group.
Table 5. Evaluations of the second group.
L (mm) Medium V1 (V) V2 (V) V3 (V) V (V) |∆E| (V) Vd (V)
It can be seen from the experimental results in Table 4 and Figure 5 that under the condition of
L
certain probe(mm) Water
Medium V3.56
1 (V) V3.80
2 (V) 3.64
V (V) 3.67
3 good when |∆E|
0.09
(V) V (V)
V (V)the buffer block isdtoo
20 parameters, the experimental results are not 3.37short or
too long. When Air of the buffer
Water
the length 6.80 block
3.56 7.00
3.80
is 10 mm,7.30
3.64 7.03 0.18 is the largest, but
3.67 echo energy
the measured 0.09
20 3.37
Water
Air 3.16
6.80 3.40
7.00 3.32
7.30 3.29
7.03 0.09
0.18
21 3.84
Air
Water 7.40
3.16 6.80
3.40 7.20
3.32 7.13
3.29 0.22
0.09
21 3.84
Water
Air 3.24
7.40 3.72
6.80 3.72
7.20 3.56
7.13 0.21
0.22
22 4.01
Air
Water 7.00
3.24 7.40
3.72 8.30
3.72 7.57
3.56 0.49
0.21
22 4.01
Water
Air 1.60
7.00 1.52
7.40 1.60
8.30 1.57
7.57 0.04
0.49
23 1.81
Air
Water 3.12
1.60 3.48
1.52 3.56
1.60 3.39
1.57 0.18
0.04
23 1.81
Air
Water 3.12
2.12 3.48
1.96 3.56
2.20 3.39
2.09 0.18
0.09
24 2.65
Air
Water 4.72
2.12 4.72
1.96 4.80
2.20 4.75
2.09 0.04
0.09
24 2.65
Air
Water 4.72
3.32 4.72
3.72 4.80
3.72 4.75
3.59 0.04
0.18
25 3.51
Air
Water 6.80
3.32 7.20
3.72 7.30
3.72 7.10
3.59 0.20
0.18
25 3.51
Air 6.80 7.20 7.30 7.10 0.20

9 5
V-Water
8 V-Air
Vd
Difference Values(V)

7 4
Echo Energy Vi(V)

6
5 3
4
3 2
2
1 1
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Am(V)

Figure 6. Results comparison diagram of the second group.

Figure 6. Results comparison diagram of the second group.
It can be seen from the results that when the buffer block length is 22 mm, the echo difference
between
It canair
be and
seen water reaches
from the resultsthe
thatmaximum. At 23block
when the buffer mm, length
the difference
is 22 mm,drops to the
the echo lowest,
difference
and thenair
between theand
effect
waterslowly getsthe
reaches better. Compared
maximum. At 23 with the difference
mm, the calculateddrops
lengthtoof
thethe near-field
lowest, area
and then
the effect slowly gets better. Compared with the calculated length of the near-field area that N1 = 2.03
cm, the evaluations were basically consistent, and the average difference was less than 0.49 V.
Therefore, this experiment has high reliability.

3.2. Minimum Length Selection

Micromachines 2020, 11, 763 9 of 13

that N1 = 2.03 cm, the evaluations were basically consistent, and the average difference was less than
0.49 V. Therefore, this experiment has high reliability.

3.2. Minimum Length Selection

Micromachines 2020, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13
The minimum diameter of PZT available commercially is 10 mm. In order to find out the minimum
the
sizeultrasonic probeprobe
of ultrasonic with D2 = 10
that canmm, bef0used
= 1 MHz, Amliquid-level
in the = ±15 V in Table 2 and the
monitoring buffer in
system block
thiswith D
paper,
=the
15 mm and L probe
= 3, 4, with
5, 6, D2
7, 8,= 9,10and 10 f mm in Table 3 were selected for the third group of
ultrasonic mm, 0 = 1 MHz, Am = ±15 V in Table 2 and the buffer
experiments. The experiments were performed
block with D = 15 mm and L = 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and three times in each
10 mm group.3We
in Table recorded
were thefor
selected amplitude
the third
of the echo
group received by The
of experiments. the sensor and calculated
experiments the average
were performed threevalues,
times inV each
, the group.
averageWe
deviations,
recorded
the amplitude of the echo received by the sensor and calculated the average values, V, thecontents
|∆E|, and the difference values, V d. The evaluations are shown in Table 6. Figure 7 shows the average
of Table 6. |∆E|, and the difference values, Vd . The evaluations are shown in Table 6. Figure 7 shows
deviations,
the contents of Table 6.
Table 6. Evaluations of the third group.
Table 6. Evaluations of the third group.
L (mm) Medium V1 (V) V2 (V) V3 (V) V (V) |∆E| (V) Vd (V)
L (mm) Medium
Water V10.60
1 (V) V 2 (V)
10.80 V3 (V)
10.20 V (V)
10.53 |∆E|
0.22(V) Vd (V)
10 3.53
Air
Water 14.20
10.60 14.20
10.80 13.80
10.20 14.07
10.53 0.18
0.22
10 3.53
Air
Water 14.20
12.00 14.20
12.40 13.80
12.20 14.07
12.20 0.18
0.13
9 4.27
Air
Water 16.60
12.00 16.40
12.40 16.40
12.20 16.47
12.20 0.09
0.13
9 4.27
Air
Water 16.60
14.40 16.40
14.20 16.40
14.00 16.47
14.20 0.09
0.13
8 4.20
Air
Water 18.40
14.40 18.60
14.20 18.20
14.00 18.40
14.20 0.13
0.13
8 4.20
Air
Water 18.40
10.20 18.60
10.60 18.20
10.00 18.40
10.27 0.13
0.22
7 4.13
Water
Air 10.20
14.60 10.60
14.40 10.00
14.20 10.27
14.40 0.22
0.13
7 4.13
Air
Water 14.60
7.36 14.40
7.44 14.20
8.08 14.40
7.63 0.13
0.30
6 Water 7.36 7.44 8.08 7.63 0.30
2.28
6 Air 9.68 9.84 10.20 9.91 0.20 2.28
Air 9.68 9.84 10.20 9.91 0.20
Water 10.80 10.00 10.40 10.40 0.27
5 Water 10.80 10.00 10.40 10.40 0.27 3.20
5 Air 13.40 13.40 14.00 13.60 0.27 3.20
Air 13.40 13.40 14.00 13.60 0.27
Water 24.40 24.60 24.40 24.47 0.09
4 Water 24.40 24.60 24.40 24.47 0.09 −0.13
4 Air 24.40 24.40 24.20 24.33 0.09 −0.13
Air 24.40 24.40 24.20 24.33 0.09
Water 13.80 14.00 14.00 13.93 0.09
3 Water 13.80 14.00 14.00 13.93 0.09 0.27
3 Air 14.00 14.40 14.20 14.20 0.13 0.27
Air 14.00 14.40 14.20 14.20 0.13
Water 53.60 54.00 53.00 53.53 0.36
0 Water 53.60 54.00 53.00 53.53 0.36 2.27
0 Air 56.00 55.60 55.80 55.80 0.13 2.27
Air 56.00 55.60 55.80 55.80 0.13

30 5
V-Water
V-Air
25 4
Vd
Difference Values(V)
Echo Energy Vi(V)

3
20

2
15
1
10
0
5
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Am(V)

Figure 7. Results comparison diagram of the third group.

Figure 7. Results comparison diagram of the third group.

According to Table 6 and Figure 7, when the buffer block length is 9 mm, the echo difference
between air and water reaches the maximum, and the experimental effect is most ideal. Compared
with the theoretical calculation, the length of the near-field area is N2 = 9 mm, and the evaluations are
consistent with the theoretical results. The average difference is less than 0.36 V. When the buffer
Micromachines 2020, 11, 763 10 of 13

According to Table 6 and Figure 7, when the buffer block length is 9 mm, the echo difference
between air and water reaches the maximum, and the experimental effect is most ideal. Compared
with the theoretical calculation, the length of the near-field area is N2 = 9 mm, and the evaluations
are consistent
Micromachines 2020,with the theoretical
11, x FOR PEER REVIEW results. The average difference is less than 0.36 V. When the10buffer of 13
block length is 5 mm, it can still effectively distinguish the medium type inside the sensor. However,
along
whenthethe container wallbuffer
length of the uponblock
reaching
is lessthe container
than wall,
5 mm, the and generates
emitted ultrasonicseveral
wave times more laterally
propagates energy
than the emitted ultrasonic wave. The data measured at this time are invalid. Therefore,
along the container wall upon reaching the container wall, and generates several times more energy the minimum
size
thanofthe
theemitted
probe that can be wave.
ultrasonic used inThethisdata
experiment
measuredisatDthis
= 10time
mmarein diameter and L = 5 the
invalid. Therefore, mmminimum
in delay
block length. The probe is 2 mm, so it is 7 mm in total.
size of the probe that can be used in this experiment is D = 10 mm in diameter and L = 5 mm in delay
The
block received
length. echo signal
The probe is 2 mm,is collected
so it is 7 mmandindisplayed
total. by the computer software. In the above
experiment, the signal waveform obtained without
The received echo signal is collected and displayed by buffer block
theiscomputer
shown insoftware.
Figure 8a,Inb.the
When
abovea
buffer block with a length of 9 mm is added between the probe and the container wall,
experiment, the signal waveform obtained without buffer block is shown in Figure 8a, b. When a buffer the resulting
signal
block waveform
with a lengthis shown
of 9 mmin Figure
is added 8c,d.
between the probe and the container wall, the resulting signal
waveform is shown in Figure 8c,d.

30 Vp-p=56.0V 30 Vp-p=53.6V

20 20
Voltage Values(V)

Voltage Values(V)
10 10

0 0

-10 -10

-20 -20

-30 Time(s) -30 Time(s)

0 10µ 20µ 0 10µ 20µ

(a) (b)

15 15
Vp-p=16.6V Vp-p=12.4V

10 10
Voltage Values(V)

Voltage Values(V)

5 5

0 0

-5 -5

-10 -10

Time(s) Time(s)
-15 -15
-10µ 0 10µ -10µ 0 10µ

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure8.8. Echo
Echoimages
imagesdrawn
drawnby
bycomputer:
computer:(a)(a)For
Forair
airwithout
withoutbuffer
bufferblock,
block,(b)
(b)for
forwater
waterwithout
without
buffer
bufferblock,
block,(c)
(c)for
forair
airwith
with99mm
mmbuffer
buffer block,
block, and
and (d)
(d) for
for water
water with
with 99 mm
mm buffer
buffer block.
block.

ItItcan
canbebeseen from
seen fromFigure 8 that
Figure without
8 that buffer
without block,block,
buffer the amplitudes of the echo
the amplitudes signal
of the echocannot
signal
distinguish differentdifferent
cannot distinguish internal mediums, and the waveforms
internal mediums, do not have
and the waveforms do an
notenvelope
have an shape.
envelopeIt means
shape.
that the emitted
It means ultrasonic
that the wave is inwave
emitted ultrasonic the near-field area, andarea,
is in the near-field the peak values
and the peakare irregular,
values so the
are irregular,
measurement results results
so the measurement are invalid. Therefore,
are invalid. it is necessary
Therefore, to add atobuffer
it is necessary add a block
bufferfor transition
block when
for transition
using
whenultrasonic probesprobes
using ultrasonic for research. After After
for research. adding the buffer
adding block,
the buffer the front
block, partpart
the front of the waveform
of the waveform is
an envelope
is an envelopeshape, followed
shape, followedby by
a sine shape
a sine shapewith stable
with amplitudes.
stable amplitudes.TheThe
echo energy
echo in the
energy air air
in the is
greater than that in the water, with a difference of 4.27 V. Therefore, the platform built in this paper
can be used to effectively monitor liquid level.

4. Conclusions
Based on the ultrasonic impedance method, we built a non-contact, fixed-point, liquid-level
monitoring system. Then, we studied the relationship between the length of the near-field area and
Micromachines 2020, 11, 763 11 of 13

is greater than that in the water, with a difference of 4.27 V. Therefore, the platform built in this paper
can be used to effectively monitor liquid level.

4. Conclusions
Based on the ultrasonic impedance method, we built a non-contact, fixed-point, liquid-level
monitoring system. Then, we studied the relationship between the length of the near-field area
and the ultrasonic echo energy. The evaluations show that under the situation of 20 ◦ C in temperature,
1 MHz in ultrasonic probe frequency, and ±15 V in amplitude of the emitted ultrasonic wave,
when the probe diameter is 15 mm, the optimal length of the buffer block is 22 mm. The maximum
average difference of the results is 0.49 V. When ultrasonic probe is in its minimum size of 10 mm
in diameter and 2 mm in thickness, the minimal length of the buffer block is 5 mm. The maximum
average difference is 0.36 V and the evaluation precision is 1 mm. Our evaluations are consistent
with the theory, which proves the reliability of the research. Our approach provides an effective
solution to avoid the near-field area for all experiments based on ultrasonic. It provides a powerful
basis for the selection and design of ultrasonic probes. The liquid-level monitoring system built
in this paper has the advantages of convenient installation, high reliability, and high sensitivity.
It can be applied to industrial and aerospace applications and has important practical significance.
Moreover, the parameters such as the buffer block boundary shape can be further studied. Next, our
team will research the influence of parameters such as tilt angle and width of buffer block on results
in the oblique-incidence ultrasonic experiment, to design a complete set of ultrasonic probe structures.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, W.G. and W.L.; Data curation, W.G. and J.W.; Formal analysis, W.G.;
Funding acquisition, W.L.; Investigation, W.G. and Y.H.; Methodology, W.G. and W.L.; Project administration,
W.G., W.L., and J.W.; Resources, W.L.; Software, J.W.; Supervision, W.L. and Y.H.; Validation, W.L., Y.H., and J.W.;
Visualization, Y.H.; Writing—original draft, W.G.; Writing—review and editing, W.G. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Shanxi ‘1331 Project’ Key Subject Construction; National Science Foundation
of Shanxi Province, China, grant number 201701D121065.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sakharov, V.; Kuznetsov, S.; Zaitsev, B.; Kuznetsova, I.; Joshi, S. Liquid level sensor using ultrasonic Lamb
waves. Ultrasonics 2003, 41, 319–322. [CrossRef]
2. Vargas, E.A.; Ceres, R.; Marti’n, J.M.; Caldero’n, L. Ultrasonic sensor for liquid-level inspection in bottles.
Sens. Actuators A Phys. 1997, 61, 256–259. [CrossRef]
3. Zakaria, Z.; Idroas, M.; Samsuri, A.; Adam, A.A. Ultrasonic instrumentation system for Liquefied Petroleum
Gas level monitoring. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2017, 45, 428–435. [CrossRef]
4. Yin, L.; Qin, Y.; Liu, X.-W. A new interface weak-capacitance detection ASIC of capacitive liquid level sensor
in the rocket. Mod. Phys. Lett. B 2017, 31, 1750302. [CrossRef]
5. Lata, A.; Kumar, B.; Mandal, N. Design and development of a level transmitter using force resistive sensor as
a primary sensing element. IET Sci. Meas. Technol. 2018, 12, 118–125. [CrossRef]
6. Kumar, B.; Mandal, N. Study of an Electro-Optic Technique of Level Transmitter Using Mach-Zehnder
Interferometer and Float as Primary Sensing Elements. IEEE Sens. J. 2016, 16, 4211–4218. [CrossRef]
7. Yoo, J.H.; Jones, N.J.; Flynn, K.; Jacobs, R. Development of a water level sensor using magnetostrictive
materials. AIP Adv. 2019, 9, 035119. [CrossRef]
8. Wang, N.; Zhang, Y.; Jin, B.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, M. Quasi-Distributed Optical Fiber Sensor for Liquid-Level
Measurement. IEEE Photon. J. 2017, 9, 1–7. [CrossRef]
9. Vrba, J.; Karch, J.; Vrba, D. Phantoms for Development of Microwave Sensors for Noninvasive Blood Glucose
Monitoring. Int. J. Antennas Propag. 2015, 2015, 1–5. [CrossRef]
10. Khairi, M.T.M.; Ibrahim, S.; Yunus, M.A.M.; Faramarzi, M. Contact and non-contact ultrasonic measurement
in the food industry: A review. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2015, 27, 012001. [CrossRef]
Micromachines 2020, 11, 763 12 of 13

11. Greenwood, M.; Bamberger, J.A. Ultrasonic sensor to measure the density of a liquid or slurry during pipeline
transport. Ultrasonics 2002, 40, 413–417. [CrossRef]
12. Tenoudji, F.C.; Citerne, J.M.; Dutilleul, H.; Busquet, D. Non-contact ultrasonic defect imaging in composites.
AIP Conf. Proc. 2016, 1706, 080003.
13. Zhang, M.; Li, S. A method of the untouched ultrasonic liquid level measurement with high precision.
In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Computer Application and System Modeling
(ICCASM 2010), Taiyuan, China, 22–24 October 2010; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE): Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 7, pp. V7–V144.
14. Jun, L. Impact of pressure and temperature upon ultrasonic velocity in two sorts of hydraulic oil. Tech. Acoust.
2007, 26, 1155.
15. Hao, H.-H.; Xiong, J.-Q. A method of liquid level measurement based on ultrasonic echo characteristics.
In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Computer Application and System Modeling
(ICCASM 2010), Taiyuan, China, 22–24 October 2010; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE): Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 11, pp. V11–V682.
16. Muravieva, O.V.; Bogdan, O.; Dudina, Y.S.; Kuznetsov, E.P. Modeling of gas bubble dynamics in liquid
media under Doppler effect of ultrasound radiation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Ural Symposium on
Biomedical Engineering, Radioelectronics and Information Technology (USBEREIT), Yekaterinburg, Russia,
7–8 May 2018.
17. Peng, J.-X.; Zhao, G.-P.; Liang, Z.-F. Effect of Bubble Volume Fraction on Distribution of Ultrasonic Field
in Liquid. J. South China Univ. Technol. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2008, 26.
18. Zhang, B.; Wei, Y.-J.; Liu, W.-Y.; Zhang, Y.-J.; Yao, Z.; Zhang, L.; Xiong, J.-J. A Novel Ultrasonic Method
for Liquid Level Measurement Based on the Balance of Echo Energy. Sensors 2017, 17, 706. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
19. Liu, B.; Wang, D.Y.; Wang, A. Liquid-Surface-Level Sensing Based on Transverse Pulse Train Technique.
IEEE Sens. J. 2016, 16, 2317–2321. [CrossRef]
20. Matsuda, Y.; Yoshioka, M.; Uchida, T. Absolute Hydrophone Calibration to 40 MHz Using Ultrasonic
Far-Field. Mater. Trans. 2014, 55, 1030–1033. [CrossRef]
21. Zhang, D.-L.; Wu, M.; Chen, Z.; Li, Y. High Performance Ultrasonic Buffer Rods with Novel Structure
for Polymer Process Monitoring. J. Test. Eval. 2016, 45, 1231–1237. [CrossRef]
22. Hoppe, N.; Püttmer, A.; Hauptmann, P. Optimization of buffer rod geometry for ultrasonic sensors
with reference path. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 2003, 50, 170–178. [CrossRef]
23. Fischer, B.; Magori, V.D.P.; Von, J.A. Ultrasonic Device for Measuring Specific Density of a Fluid.
EP, 0483491B1 AI [P], 5 June 1991.
24. Liu, J.; Li, G. Frequency and Temperature Characteristics of an Ultrasonic Method for Measuring the Specific
Gravity of Lead-Acid Battery Electrolyte. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 2012, 51, 026601. [CrossRef]
25. Dikov, I.; Boychuk, A. The review of FRP volume porosity definition with ultrasonic non-destructive
technique (review). Proc. VIAM 2017, 10. [CrossRef]
26. Castagnède, B.; Aknine, A.; Melon, M.; Depollier, C. Ultrasonic characterization of the anisotropic behavior
of air-saturated porous materials. Ultrasonics 1998, 36, 323–341. [CrossRef]
27. Liu, Y.; Li, H.-J. Wave reflection and transmission by porous breakwaters: A new analytical solution.
Coast. Eng. 2013, 78, 46–52. [CrossRef]
28. Ohbuchi, T.; Mizutani, K.; Wakatsuki, N.; Nishimiya, K.; Masuyama, H. Reconstruction of Three-Dimensional
Sound Field from Two-Dimensional Sound Field Using Optical Computerized Tomography and Near-Field
Acoustical Holography. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 2009, 48, 07GC03. [CrossRef]
29. Lukosevicius, A.; Jurkonis, R. Ultrasonic near field in lossy media: Method of simulation.
Ultragarsas “Ultrasound” 1997, 27, 33–37.
30. Breakey, D.; Jordan, P.; Cavalieri, A.V.G.; Léon, O. Near-field Wavepackets and the Far-field Sound of
a Subsonic Jet. In Proceedings of the 19th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Berlin, Germany,
27–29 May 2013; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA): Reston, VA, USA, 2013.
31. Lim, C.W.; Tong, L.; Li, Y. Theory of suspended carbon nanotube thinfilm as a thermal-acoustic source.
J. Sound Vib. 2013, 332, 5451–5461. [CrossRef]
32. Püttmer, A.; Höppe, N.; Henning, B.; Hauptmann, P. Ultrasonic density sensor—Analysis of errors due to
thin layers of deposits on the sensor surface. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 1999, 76, 122–126. [CrossRef]
Micromachines 2020, 11, 763 13 of 13

33. Liu, J.-X.; Wang, Z.-Q.; Li, G.-F.; Wang, N. Acoustic method for obtaining the pressure reflection coefficient
using a half-wave layer. Ultrasonics 2011, 51, 359–368. [CrossRef]
34. Mcclements, D.J.; Fairley, P. Ultrasonic pulse echo reflectometer. Ultrasonics 1991, 29, 58–62. [CrossRef]
35. Kuskibiki, J.; Akashi, N.; Sannomiya, T.; Chubachi, N.; Dunn, F. VHF/UHF range bioultrasonic spectroscopy
system and method. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 1995, 42, 1028–1039. [CrossRef]
36. Bjorndal, E.; FrOysa, K.-E.; Engeseth, S.-A. A novel approach to acoustic liquid density measurements
using a buffer rod based measuring cell. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 2008, 55, 1794–1808.
[CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).