Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

X-ray Computed Tomography Instrument Performance Evaluation, Part III: Sensitivity to Detector Geometry and Rotation Stage Errors at Different Magnifications

Published

Author(s)

Prashanth Jaganmohan, Bala Muralikrishnan, Meghan Shilling, Ed Morse

Abstract

With steadily increasing use in dimensional metrology applications, especially for delicate parts and those with complex internal features, X-ray computed tomography (XCT) has transitioned from a medical imaging tool to an inspection tool in industrial metrology. This has resulted in the demand for standardized test procedures and performance evaluation standards to enable reliable comparison of different instruments and support claims of metrological traceability. To meet these emerging needs, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) recently released the B89.4.23 standard for performance evaluation of XCT systems. There are also ongoing efforts within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to develop performance evaluation documentary standards that would allow users to compare measurement performance across instruments and verify manufacturer's performance specifications. Designing these documentary standards involves identifying test procedures that are sensitive to known error sources. This paper, which is the third in a series, focuses on geometric errors associated with the detector and rotation stage of XCT instruments. Part I recommended positions of spheres in the measurement volume such that the sphere center-to-center distance error and sphere form errors are sensitive to the detector geometry errors. Part II reported similar studies on the errors associated with the rotation stage. The studies in Parts I and II only considered one position of the rotation stage and detector; i.e., the studies were conducted for a fixed measurement volume. Here, we extend these studies to include varying positions of the detector and rotation stage to study the effect of magnification. We report on the optimal placement of the stage and detector that can bring about the highest sensitivity to each error.
Citation
Journal of Research (NIST JRES) -
Volume
126

Keywords

cone-beam, distance error, documentary standards, form error, geometry errors, performance evaluation, radiograph-based method, sensitivity analysis, single-point ray tracing method, X-ray computed tomography

Citation

Jaganmohan, P. , Muralikrishnan, B. , Shilling, M. and Morse, E. (2021), X-ray Computed Tomography Instrument Performance Evaluation, Part III: Sensitivity to Detector Geometry and Rotation Stage Errors at Different Magnifications, Journal of Research (NIST JRES), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, [online], https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.126.029, https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=932388 (Accessed November 28, 2021)
Created September 29, 2021