X-ray Computed Tomography Instrument Performance Evaluation, Part II: Sensitivity
                to Rotation Stage Errors

Muralikrishnan, Balasubramanian; Shilling, Meghan; Phillips, S. E.; Ren, Wei; Lee, Vincent; Kim, Felix H.

doi:10.6028/jres.124.015

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Processing each individual simulated dataset is an unreasonably inefficient approach, both in terms of the requirements for data storage and data processing. Muralikrishnan et al [73,74] presented a computationally efficient single point ray tracing method that can be used to determine the contribution of geometrical instrument errors to errors in the x-ray CT measurement of point-to-point distance measurements for simple geometrical features, e.g. spheres.…”

Section: Componentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Charting the course towards dimensional measurement traceability by x-ray computed tomography

Ferrucci

Ametova

2021

Meas. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long synonymous with medical imaging, x-ray computed tomography (CT) is proving its worth in industrial applications such as material characterization, defect analysis, and dimensional inspection e.g. of manufactured components. Since 2005, when the first purpose-built industrial x-ray CT instrument was made commercially available, there have been significant efforts to understand just how reliable x-ray CT dimensional measurements are. In metrology, the ultimate measure of confidence is metrological traceability-a clearly-defined but often not well-understood property of a measurement result. Metrological traceability places measurements on a comparable scale and provides a quantitative indication of measurement quality in the form of an uncertainty statement. From a practical perspective, achieving traceability can be divided into two tasks: (a) ensuring traceability of the scale with which the measurements are made and (b) assessing uncertainty in the resulting quantity assigned to the measurand. Based on this breakdown of the traceability problem, we provide a high-level discussion about traceability of x-ray CT dimensional measurements, review relevant work in understanding x-ray CT measurement uncertainty, and propose a framework for model-based uncertainty assessment per the Monte Carlo Simulation method and instrument scale calibration as a unified approach to traceability.

show abstract

Section: Componentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Charting the course towards dimensional measurement traceability by x-ray computed tomography

Ferrucci

Ametova

2021

Meas. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We calculated the outer ring radius R of the reference object and the radius r of the individual spheres in that object and determined the center locations of each of the 125 spheres. We then used the single-point ray tracing method (described in [1][2]) to determine the sphere centers of the reconstructed object in the presence of the detector X location error of 0.1 mm. We calculated sphere center-to-center distance errors for all pairs of spheres and the form error for each of the 125 spheres.…”

Section: Simulation Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In two prior National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Journal of Research publications (Parts I and II [1,2]), we focused on one error source, geometry errors in conebeam XCT systems, and its effect on dimensional measurements. Geometry errors include errors associated with the position and pose of the detector, position of the rotation stage, and error motions of the rotation stage (such as axial, radial, wobble, and scale (angular indexing) errors).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity to x-ray computed tomography instrument geometry errors as a function of rotation stage position, detector position, and detector size

Muralikrishnan¹,

Jaganmoha²,

Shilling³

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two prior National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Journal of Research publications (Parts I and II) [1-2], we presented test procedures to detect instrument geometry errors in industrial cone beam X-ray computed tomography (XCT) systems. These test procedures were based on simulations performed at one position of the measurement volume (one geometrical configuration of the instrument), i.e., for fixed locations of the rotation stage (400 mm from the source) and the detector (1177 mm from the source). In a subsequent NIST Journal of Research publication (Part III) [3], we reported results from simulations performed at various combinations of the rotation stage and detector distances from the source. Because of the large number of simulations, we abstracted the information and reported key observations only. This internal report presents the underlying data generated from the simulations performed for the Part III publication and may therefore be considered an addendum to that publication.

show abstract

“…We then utilized this technique to describe the effect of detector geometry errors on the sphere center-to-center distance error and sphere form error. In Part II of this series [ 16 ], we focused on the effect of rotation stage errors on the sphere center-to-center distance error and sphere form error, again using SPRT. Those studies identified the placement of spheres in the measurement volume so that each of the error sources could be captured most effectively, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, we identified the need to extend the studies in Parts I and II to cover the working range of an XCT system with a movable detector so that we may provide more specific guidance to documentary standards committees developing these documents and to users of such systems that want to establish whether their instrument meets the manufacturer’s specifications. In this Part III, we extend the work done in the first two parts [ 15 – 16 ] by repeating the SPRT simulations for several combinations of d and D . We discussed some early results in Ref.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Jaganmohan

Muralikrishnan

Shilling

et al. 2021

J. RES. NATL. INST. STAN.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

X-ray Computed Tomography Instrument Performance Evaluation, Part II: Sensitivity to Rotation Stage Errors

Cited by 8 publications

References 3 publications

Charting the course towards dimensional measurement traceability by x-ray computed tomography

Charting the course towards dimensional measurement traceability by x-ray computed tomography

Sensitivity to x-ray computed tomography instrument geometry errors as a function of rotation stage position, detector position, and detector size

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About