Table 1.
Features of the eight beams considered in this work. These beams and depths are similar to those used previously by Koch et al (2008). Each combination of penetration range and modulation width in water was given a label for ease of reference. Shown in the three far right columns are the D/MU values calculated in a previous work, the D/MU values calculated by the present analytical algorithm and their percent difference.
| Beam label | Nominal range (cm) | Nominal modulation width (cm) | Calibration depth (cm) | MCa (cGy/MU) | Analytical (A) (cGy/MU) | (A-MC)/MC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1500 | 1.5 | – | 0.9 | 14.6 | 14.6 | 0.2 |
| 2000 | 2.0 | – | 0.9 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 0.3 |
| 3000 | 3.0 | – | 0.9 | 19.8 | 19.8 | −0.4 |
| 4000 | 4.0 | – | 0.9 | 22.8 | 22.8 | 0.0 |
| 2011 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 11.6 | 11.7 | 0.5 |
| 2020 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.93 | 8.4 | 8.6 | 2.5 |
| 3015 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 2.3 | 13.0 | 13.0 | 0.0 |
| 3030 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 0.2 |
a
From Koch et al (2008).