Evaluation of The Performance of Computed Radiography Systems With Different Sources and Different Configurations

More Info at Open Access Database www.ndt.net/?
id=18594
EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEMS WITH

DIFFERENT SOURCES AND DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS
J. Banchet, A. Peterzol, B. Bader, AREVA, France

C. Caperaa, V. Didier, EDF - CEIDRE, France
ABSTRACT
Computed radiography (CR) is a digital radiographic technique, which uses very similar
equipment to conventional radiography except that in place of a film to create the latent image, an
imaging plate (IP) made of a photostimulable phosphor is used [1]. CR systems are commonly used in
medical applications since they have proven reliability over more than two decades. Conversely, the NDT
community has discussed the efficacy of film replacement by CR for more than 15 years. Though some
standards were introduced in 2005 [ASTM E 2033, CEN EN 14784-2] and in 2013 [ISO 17636-2], CR is
currently not included within the French RCCM although the technique is commonly used in US for
nuclear applications according to ASME (Section V, article 2).
Since 2006, AREVA has had a research and development project on this issue. This project aims to
evaluate the performance differences between these two techniques within the framework of the NF
standard EN 14784 for the CR and the RCCM for the film. The objective was to build a technical
justification report to eventually support introduction of CR into the RCCM.
In 2009 the subject gave rise to collaboration between AREVA NP – NETEC and EDF- CEIDRE, for a
joint project to establish performance limits of CR towards EN 14784 specifications and RCCM image
quality indicator (IQI) requirements [2]. In this paper, we present performance comparison results of four
different CR systems. The measurements were conducted in 2012 and they demonstrate the current states
of achievable image quality in CR. Benchmark comparisons included two gamma sources (Selenium 75
and Iridium 192), and three different material thicknesses. Image quality was assessed in terms of EN 462
and ASTM (E 747, E 1742) IQI. The results have been scored considering ISO 17636-2, RCCM 2007,
and ASME V-2010. This also permitted comparison among the different standards. Additionally,
detectability measurements have been performed with the Selenium 75 gamma source and one system.
Trials considered a real mock-up and different geometry configurations.
1. INTRODUCTION
Computed radiography is based on the use of photo-stimulable storage phosphor (PSP) [1]. By
absorption of X-ray, a latent image is generated in PSP detector (also known as Imaging Plate), and
latterly using a laser scanner, the latent image stored in IP can be read out and releases photo-stimulated
luminescence (PSL) which can be collected by a light guide for reconstructing a digital image. Once the
image acquisition is completed, by applying intense light, all the residual signals are removed, and the
imaging plate is ready for reuse.
CR systems are commonly used in medical applications since they have proven reliability over
more than two decades. Conversely, the NDT community has discussed the efficacy of film replacement
by CR and Digital Detector Arrays (DDA) for more than 15 years. Several standards were published by
CEN, ASTM and ASME [3][4][5][6] to support the application of phosphor imaging plates in lieu of X-
ray film in the year 2005 and a set of standards for DDA application was published by ASTM in 2010
[7][8][9].
1032
The European Community funded the project “FilmFree” (www.filmfree.eu.com), where thirty
three companies and institutes tested the ability of the new technologies and developed guidelines and
standards (2005-2009) [10]. The new ISO 17636-2 [11] was proposed as result of this project and a joined
work group of CEN/TC121 and ISO/TC44 was set up for replacement of the EN 1435 [12]. The content
of EN 1435 was transferred into ISO 17636-1 (radiographic testing of welds with films) and a new part
ISO 17636-2 (radiographic testing of welds with digital detectors) was added for new digital film
replacement methods. One of the key concepts is the usage of signal-to-noise (SNR) measurements as
equivalent to the optical density of film. The standard has been recently published (Jan. 2013).
However, nowadays, CR is not included within the French RCCM [13], while the technique is
commonly used in US for nuclear applications according to ASME (Section V, article 2).
Since 2006, AREVA has been evaluating the performance of CR in comparison to conventional RT in the
framework of EN 14784 for the digital part and the RCCM for the conventional part. The objective was to
build a technical justification report to eventually support introduction of CR into the RCCM.
In 2009 the subject gave rise to collaboration between AREVA NP – NETEC and EDF-CEIDRE, for a
joint project to establish performance limits of CR towards EN 14784 specifications and RCCM image
quality indicator (IQI) requirements [2].
It has been pointed out that computed radiographs, taken with imaging plates, achieve similar IQI
visibility than film radiographs when considering X-ray tube expositions and small steel thickness (< 30
mm). But, for the gamma-graphic inspections, conventional RT achieves typically much better IQI
visibility than CR; in many cases only class A (basic) of EN 14784 is achieved.
In this paper, we present performance comparison results of four different CR systems. Measurements
were conducted in 2012 and demonstrate the current state of achievable image quality in CR.
Performance has been evaluated for steel with thicknesses equal to 21, 26 and 41 mm using Iridium 192
(Ir192) and Selenium 75 (Se75) gamma sources. Image quality has been assessed in terms of EN 462
[14][15][16] and ASTM [17][18] IQI. And results have been scored considering the ISO 17636-2, RCCM
2007, and ASME V-2010.
In addition, for one of the investigated system and for the Se75 gamma source case, also
detectability measurements have been performed with a real mock-up and for different geometry
configurations.
2. METHODS AND MATERIALS
2.1. Image quality evaluation

Performance evaluation concerned four different CR systems. Due to confidentiality agreements,
in the following text, the CR models are referred to as S1, S2, S3, and S4. Image quality obtained with the
different systems was assessed accordingly to ISO 17636-2, RCCM 2007, and ASME V-2010. The
following IQI were used:
- Wire IQI reference W6 FE EN 462-1
- Hole IQI reference H5 FE EN 462-2
- Duplex IQI in conformity with NF EN 462-5
- ASTM (Hole type 25, 30 and 35)
Measurements were carried out with and without a test object. For trials aiming at evaluating system
performance, different uniform steel blocks with 21, 26 and 41 mm thicknesses were used. These test
objects were placed in contact with the complete CR system formed by; the front filter (if applicable), the
cassette, (which contains the metal front screen, the phosphor imaging plate (IP) and the back screen) and
the back scatter filter. IQIs were positioned on the source side of the object as depicted in Figure 1, except
for the duplex IQI witch was positioned directly on the image receptor (the cassette) without any test
piece. Finally, when used, a pre-filter was positioned near the source between the source and the test
object.
1033
 Ir192 size - 2.5 mm with source activity of 3,4 TBq (91.6 Ci).
Measurements were carried out with Ir192 and Se75 gamma sources with the following characteristics:
 Se75 size - 3.2 mm anwith source activity of 2.16 TBq (58.5 Ci).
When performing measurements with the Duplex IQI, the source to detector distance was set to 1500 mm
in order to minimize source unsharpness versus detector spatial resolution. Exposure time was adjusted
to obtain, a grey level between ½ and ¾ of the max available signal in the image region containing the
test object. CR scanner parameters were selected by the operator according to the vendor
recommendations excepted for the pixel size, i.e. the nominal spatial resolution, which was fixed at 100
µm.
The source-to-object distance (SOD) and the source-to-detector distance (SDD) were selected accordingly
to [11].
In the following table the SDD values are reported as function of the test object thickness.
OBJECT SDD (mm)

THICKNESS
(mm)
Ir192 Se75
21 483 559
26 508 610
41 610 711
Table 1. SDD values for various sources & thicknesses
Zoom cassette
Front screen IP Back screen
Source to object distance
Cassette
IQI Test
Prefilter
Object
Radiation
source
Front filter Cassette Back scatter filter
Source to detector distance
Figure 1. Schematic (not to scale) set-up representation in section 2.1. Cassette contains the metal front
screen, the imaging plate (IP) and the back screen.
Obtained images were evaluated according to the monitor viewing conditions described in reference [11].
In particular, no processing of original data was considered and performed; only the contrast/brightness
were adjusted by the operator. All radiographic images were interpreted by a COFREND Level 2 operator
[19].
In the following, a description of each test measurement is reported for a single detector. The series of
measurements were applied for each detector under investigation.
1034
2.1.1. Measurements list for a single detector
Object Pixel Prefilter Penetrameter Front filter Front Screen Back BS

Thickness Size (IQI) Pb Pb Screen filter Pb
(mm)
21
0,5 mm Fe
Ir192 26 100µm No All on source side 0,5 mm 0,25 mm 4 mm
+ 2mm Pb
41
21
0,5 mm Fe+
Se75 26 100µm No All on source side 0,20 mm 0,20 mm 4 mm
2mm Pb
41
Table 2. Image acquisition conditions for tests objects with the selected thicknesses in section 2.1
2.2. Detectability measurements
Detectability measurements were performed with S3 and for the Se75 gamma source case. Image
quality was assessed using an Inconel mock-up (MU) 19 mm thick with 64 embedded notches. These
rectangular notches are distributed at different radial distances from the MU centre and had variable sizes,
as described in table 3:
Notch Width (mm) Depth (mm) Length (mm)

Type 1 0,015 1,9 5,7
Type 2 0,015 3,8 11,4
Type 3 0,015 5,7 11,4
Type 4 0,023 7,6 11,4
Type 5 0,051 9,5 12,7
Type 6 0,102 9,5 12,7
Table 3. Sizes of the 64 notches embedded in the mock-up
Additional plain steel blocks were used to evaluate performance with total thicknesses equal to
19, 24, 29 and 89 mm. Several relative positions of the steel blocks and the MU were used, as depicted in
Figure 2.
Similarly to image quality measurements (section 2.1), these test objects were placed in contact with the
system formed by the front filter, the cassette and the back scatter filter.
Measurements were carried out with 3 mm/1.7 TBq (46 Ci) activity Se75 gamma source. Source
to detector distances (SDD) were selected according to [11], except for the configuration with an 89 mm
total thickness (Test 7).
Exposure time, CR scanner parameters and image processing were performed similarly to image quality
measurements (see section 2.1), except for the 89 mm configuration (Test 7), for which the exposure time
was adjusted down to 100 min. A description of each test measurement is reported in table 4.
1035
MU MU MU
Radiation Steel Radiation Radiation
source blocks source source
Steel
Front filter Cassette Back Steel
blocks
scatter blocks
filter
SDD SDD SDD
Object position case (a) Object position case (b) Object position case (c)
Figure 2. Schematic (not to scale) setups as described in section 2.2. The cassette contains a metal front
screen, an imaging plate (IP) and a back screen. The plain steel blocks can be positioned at the source
side of MU (a), the MU can be “sandwiched” between two steel blocks (b), or the steel blocks can be
positioned behind the MU in contact with the front filter and the cassette (c).
Object Total Source to Front Back

Test Object Front filter BS filter
position case Thickness detector distance Screen Screen
Test 1 MU in contact with FC none 19 mm 340 mm
(5 mm of Fe + MU) in contact
Test 2 (a)
with FC
24 mm 400 mm
(MU + 5mm of Fe) in contact
Test 3 (c)
with FC
(10 mm of Fe + MU) in 0,5 mm Fe
Test 4 (a)
contact with FC 0,2 mm Pb 0,2 mm Pb + 4 mm Pb
(5 mm of Fe + MU + 5 mm of 0,2 mm Pb
Test 5 (b) 29 mm 460 mm
Fe) in contact with FC
(MU + 10 mm of Fe) in
Test 6 (c)
contact with FC
(MU + 70 mm of Fe) in
Test 7 (c) 89 mm 533 mm
contact with FC
Table 4. Image acquisition conditions for tests objects with the selected thicknesses in section 2.2.
FC is unit composed by the Front filter and the Cassette.
3. RESULTS
Before presenting the results, some explanations/definitions concerning the symbols used in the
following tables must be introduced:
- 1) Letter Y is used when conformity to the code/standard is achieved, N when not.
- 2) In the ISO 17636-2 it is stated that “In the case where Ir192 or Se75 sources are used, IQI values
worse than listed in tables B.1 to B.12 may be accepted by agreement of contracting parties as follows
(single wall single image and double wall single image techniques, class B):
– 10 mm < w ≤ 40 mm 1 wire or step-hole value less for Ir192
– 5 mm < w ≤ 20 mm 1 wire or step-hole value less for Se75”
1036
When the conformity to the standard requirements is achieved by invoking this rule, the symbol “*” is
added to the letter Y, which indicates the conformity being respected.
- 3) When scoring the IQI values, it has been noted also if the obtained value is equal to the minimum
required by the standard or the code (Y) or is larger (Y(+1), Y(+2), …).
- 4) During an examination, the operator can choose between a wire and a hole IQI type. It is not
mandatory to use both. As a consequence, an X-ray image satisfies the standard requirements if the value
of at least one of the IQI (wire or hole) is ≥ than that listed in the standard reference tables.
However, in order to make a detailed analysis of the results, it was decided to distinguish between two
cases: if both IQI values satisfy the standard requirements, then the phrase “conformity is achieved” is
used, whereas if one of the IQI values satisfies the standard requirements, then the phrase “conformity is
partially achieved” is used. It is important to underline that the second sentence does not make sense in
the standards context. It is only used in order to better characterize/compare the performance of the
different investigated systems. First, image quality results obtained for each investigated system
will be presented. Then, the systems are compared using the ISO 17636-2, RCCM and ASME image
quality criteria, and also the exposure time. Finally, detectability results using the measurements carried
with the mock-up are commented.
3.1. System performance comparisons
With Ir192
Hole Duple
SNRN
Wire IQI Hole IQI Wire IQI IQI x IQI
Wire IQI Hole IQI Hole Duple requir SNRN
Thick required required Hole IQI required Wire IQI requir requir
required by Wire IQI saw required by IQI x IQI ed by meas
mm by by saw by saw ed by ed by
Ir 192 ISO 17636
RCCM
ISO 17636
RCCM ASME ASM
saw
ISO
saw ISO .
17636
E 17636
21 0,25mm/W12 0,25mm 0,25mm/W12 0,50mm/H7 0,63mm 0,63mm/H8 0,51mm 0,25mm 25/2T 20/1T 10D 9D 100 455
S1 26 0,25mm/W12 0,32mm 0,25mm/W12 0,50mm/H7 0,80mm 0,63mm/H8 0,64mm 0,25mm 30/2T 25/1T 10D 9D 100 524
41 0,40mm/W10 0,50mm 0,32mm/W11 0,80mm/H9 1,25mm 0,80mm/H9 0,81mm 0,33mm 35/2T 1T 9D 9D 100 532
21 0,25mm/W12 0,25mm 0,32mm/W11 0,50mm/H7 0,63mm 0,63mm/H8 0,5 mm 0,33mm 25/2T 20/2T 10D 10D 100 837
Table 5. All Systems performance evaluation results
1037
With Se75
Hole Duple
SNRN
Wire IQI Hole IQI Wire IQI IQI x IQI
Wire IQI Hole IQI Hole Duplex requir SNRN
Thick required required Hole IQI required Wire requir requir
required by Wire IQI saw required by IQI IQI ed by meas
mm by by saw by IQI saw ed by ed by
Se75 ISO 17636
RCCM
ISO 17636
RCCM ASME ASM
saw
ISO
saw ISO .
17636
E 17636
S1 26 0,25mm/W12 0,32mm 0,32mm/W11 0,50mm/H7 0,80mm 0,63mm/H8 0,64mm 0,33mm 30/2T 1T 10D 9D 100 643
41 0,40mm/W10 0,50mm 0,63mm/W8 0,80mm/H9 1,25mm 1mm/H10 0,81mm 0,63mm 35/2T 2T 9D 10D 100 354
Table 6. All Systems performance evaluation results
3.2. Systems comparison in terms of wire/hole IQI ISO 17636-2 requirements
In the following table, image quality evaluation results via conformity to the wire/hole IQI ISO
17636-2 requirements are reported.
Conformity to ISO 17636-2 W/H IQI
S1 S2 S3 S4
W H W H W H W H
Thickness
(mm) Se75 Ir192 Se75 Ir192 Se75 Ir192 Se75 Ir192 Se75 Ir192 Se75 Ir192 Se75 Ir192 Se75 Ir192
21 Y Y Y Y* N N N N N Y* Y Y* Y Y* Y Y
26 N Y N Y* N N N N N Y* N Y* N N N Y*
41 Y(+1) Y(+1) Y Y N Y(+1) Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y
Table 7. Systems comparison in terms of wire/hole IQI ISO 17636-2 requirements with the two gamma
sources
From table 7, it emerges that:
With Ir192:
S1 satisfies the conformity for 3/3 thicknesses, (both IQI 3/3)
S4 satisfies the conformity for 2/3 thicknesses (partially 3/3),
S2 satisfies the conformity for 1/3 thicknesses (both IQI 1/3).
With Se75:
S4 satisfies the conformity for 2/3 thicknesses (both IQI 2/3),
S2 satisfies the conformity for 0/3 thicknesses (partially 1/3)
1038
3.3. Systems comparison in terms of wire/hole IQI RCCM requirements
In the following table, image quality evaluation results via conformity to the wire/hole IQI
RCCM requirements are reported.
Conformity to RCCM W/H IQI Requirements

S1 S2 S3 S4
Thickness W H W H W H W H
21 Y Y Y(+1) Y N N Y N N N Y(+1) Y Y N Y(+1) Y(+1)
26 Y Y(+1) Y(+1) Y(+1) Y N Y(+1) Y Y Y Y(+1) Y(+1) Y N Y Y(+1)
41 Y(+2) Y(+2) Y(+2) Y(+2) Y Y(+2) Y(+2) Y(+2) N Y Y(+1) Y(+2) Y(+1) Y(+1) Y(+2) Y(+2)
Table 8. Systems comparison in terms of wire/hole IQI RCCM requirements with the two gamma sources

With Ir192:
S3 satisfies the conformity for 2/3 thicknesses (partially 3/3).
With Se75:
S4 satisfies the conformity for 3/3 thicknesses (both IQI 3/3),
S2 satisfies the conformity for 2/3 thicknesses (partially 3/3)
3.4. Systems comparison in terms of wire/hole IQI ASME requirements
In the following table, image quality evaluation results via conformity to the wire/hole IQI ASME
requirements are reported.
Conformity to ASME IQI Requirements
S1 S2 S3 S4
Thickness W H W H W H W H
21 Y(+3) Y(+3) Y(+5) Y(+3) Y(+2) Y(+1) Y(+5) Y(+3) Y(+2) Y(+2) Y(+5) Y(1) Y(+3) Y(+2) Y(+5) Y(+3)
26 Y(+3) Y(+4) Y(+4) Y(+3) Y(+3) Y(+2) Y(+4) Y(+1) Y(+3) Y(+3) Y(+4) Y(+3) Y(+3) Y(+2) Y(+4) Y(+3)
41 Y(+4) Y(+4) Y(+4) Y(+2) Y(+2) Y(+4) Y Y(+2) Y(+1) Y(+2) Y Y(+2) Y(+3) Y(+3) Y(+4) Y(+2)
Table 9. Systems comparison in terms of wire/hole IQI ASME requirements with the two gamma sources
From table 9, it emerges that: all systems largely satisfy the conformity to ASME IQI requirements, with
both gamma sources.
1039
3.5. Systems comparison in terms of ISO 17636 Duplex IQI and SNRN
In the following table, image quality evaluation results via conformity to the ISO 17636 Duplex
IQI and SNRN requirements are reported.
Conformity to ISO 17636-2 DUPLEX IQI and SNRN requirements

S1 S2 S3 S4
Thickness Duplex SNRN Duplex SNRN Duplex SNRN Duplex SNRN
21 N N Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y N N Y N
26 N N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y
41 Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N
Table 10. Systems comparison in terms of ISO 17636 Duplex IQI and SNRN with the two gamma sources

With both gamma sources:
S3 satisfies the conformity to both Duplex IQI and SNRN,
S1 does not satisfy the conformity to the Duplex IQI in two cases out of 3 (2/3 cases), but it does for the
SNRN
With Ir192:
S4 does not satisfy the conformity to Duplex IQI in 2/3 cases, and does not for the SNRN in 2/3 cases,
S2 does not satisfy the conformity to Duplex IQI in 2/3 cases, and does not satisfy conformity to SNRN in
0/3 cases.
With Se75:
S4 does not satisfy the conformity to Duplex IQI in 2/3 cases, but it does for the SNRN in 3/3 cases,
S2 satisfy the conformity to the Duplex IQI in 3/3 cases, and does satisfy conformity to SNR N in 1/3
cases.
3.6. Systems comparison in terms of exposure time
In the following table, systems comparison in terms of exposure time is reported. To ease a direct
comparison between Se75 and Ir192 trials, exposure times were recalculated for Ir192 in taking into
account an equivalent activity and distance than for the Se75 source. Results are presented in Table 11.
Thick in
S1 S2 S3 S4
mm
Ir192 Se 75 Ir192 Se 75 Ir192 Se 75 Ir192 Se 75
21 2 9 2 5 3,1 12 5,1 11
26 7,1 12 3,1 15 4,3 12 17 22
41 20,4 24 15,5 27 14,4 15 46 50
Table 11. Systems comparison in terms of exposition time with the two gamma sources
Regarding the exposure time, it is apparent that each system operates differently. If we consider the
exposure time mean value for the three considered thicknesses, we can list the systems from the fastest to
the slowest as follows:
1040
With Ir192:
S2 presents a mean exposure time of 6,8 min
With Se75 :
S3 presents a mean exposure time of 13 min
S1 and S2 present a similar mean exposure time of 15 min and 15,6 min
3.7. Detectability performance of a single system
In these trials using a mock-up, it was shown that the notches’ visibility was not very dependent
on the object position and thickness. In general, visibility degradation was observed when the additional
10 mm of steel were positioned in contact with the FC (moving from Test 5 to Test 6).
The image quality obtained in Test 7 (89 mm total thickness) did not allow for the detection of
any IQI or any notch.
Except for Test 7, type 4 and type 5 notches were detected in all situations.
Detection of type 1, 2, 3 and 6 notches is not systematic and depends on the different tests. The relation
between radial distance to mock-up centre (i.e. source axe) and detectability is not linear.
4. DISCUSSION
It has been pointed out that if we use the ISO 17636-2 wire/hole IQI requirements to “score”
system performance, we obtain the following grading:
From table 5, with Ir192 it emerged that:
S2 satisfies the conformity for 1/3 thicknesses (partially 1/3).
From table 6, with Se75 it emerged that:
S1 satisfies conformity for 2/3 thicknesses, (both IQI 2/3)
S4 satisfies conformity for 2/3 thicknesses (both IQI 2/3),
S3 satisfies conformity for 0/3 thicknesses (partially 1/3),
S2 satisfies conformity for 0/3 thicknesses (partially 1/3),
On the other hand, if we consider the SNRN for the three thicknesses as criterion, the grading is as
follows:
With Ir192:
S3 presents a mean SNRN of 620,
S4 presents a mean SNRN of 73.
With Se75:
S2 presents a mean SNRN of 105
1041
These rankings are not consistent. Indeed, system S3 which presents the best SNR and spatial resolution,
in many cases, does not detect the required wire/hole IQI. A possible explanation may be associated with
a high level of the so-called structured noise affecting the imaging plates. Two systems presenting the
same SNR, can be characterized by a different content of the structured noise giving rise to different
performance. A method to verify this hypothesis could be to measure the noise power spectrum. On the
other hand, with Se75, the system S1 is the best, respecting both ISO and SNR criteria. The S3 results are
equivalent with the Ir192. We see, in any cases, that the SNR for Se75 is higher than the required
reference (100).
As far as spatial resolution is concerned, in general, though systems were set at 100 µm pixel size
(100 µm corresponds to the Duplex IQI D10, i.e. the value required by the ISO 17636-2 for a thickness
comprised between 12 and 40 mm), in practice, the effective measured pixel size is slightly larger: D9,
i.e. 130 µm. Rigorously, we shall say that it is comprised between 100 and 130 µm. Besides, it was
pointed out that systems achieving the best image quality in terms of the wire/hole IQI are those which do
not completely satisfy the IQI Duplex requirement (one value less). Combining this outcome with the
SNR results, it seems that two of the outstanding parameters are the noise level (compared to the signal)
and its “quality” (namely a good white noise versus a bad structured one).
It emerged also that to satisfy Duplex IQI along the ISO standard, imaging system has to be set at a
nominal spatial resolution smaller than required.
It has been also highlighted that the ISO standard is the most severe, followed by the RCCM and
then by ASME. The latter does not include a SNR and spatial resolution evaluation criteria since only the
wire/hole IQI are used to assess image quality. On the other hand, it emerged that in some cases it was not
possible to outline a “linear” correspondence between wire/hole IQI results, SNR and duplex IQI values.
From section 3.7, a modeling study using MODERATO code was deemed necessary in the future, in order
to understand the notches’ visibility degradation that was observed for types 1, 2, 3 and 6 notches.
5. CONCLUSIONS
All the investigated systems satisfy the ASME IQI requirements for all the tested thicknesses.
From the RCCM and the ISO perspective, S1 was in conformity and S3 and S4 were in partial conformity
using the Ir192 source. With Se75, S1 and S4 are fully in conformity to the RCCM, and partially for the
others, while from the ISO point of view only S1 and S4 are partially in conformity.
It must be reiterated that measurements were performed with a spatial resolution set at 100 µm. It
is realistic to predict that with a smaller pixel size, conformity would be more easily achieved.
It can be said that, in most cases, two of the considered systems (S1 and S4) satisfy the ISO
standard at 100 µm, and that at 50 µm they would probably be three (S1, S4 plus S3). For all the
thicknesses, three systems, S1, S3 and S4, satisfy the RCCM requirements at 100 µm. This is an
important result supporting the introduction of CR into the RCCM.
In general, and for the considered thickness range, it is not evident to establish which source
furnishes best results. For S1, the two sources are almost equivalent in terms of IQI values. For S2, better
results are obtained with the Se75 gamma source, while the opposite trend is observed for S4. For S3,
slightly better results are obtained with Ir192, but only for the 41 mm thickness case. These results are
quite surprising since the energy spectrum of Se75 contains lower energies than that of Ir192. It would be
very useful to investigate this outcome in detail both experimentally and theoretically via X-ray image
simulation tools.
As expected, exposure time is larger with the Se75 source. However the ratio between Se75 and
Ir192 exposure time is not constant for the considered thickness range (21-41 mm). When moving from
the Se75 to the Ir192 source, exposure time is multiplied by a factor 2,5-6 at 21 mm, and by a factor 1-3,5
at 41 mm. Exposure time ratio decrease with test piece thickness increase could arise from the increased
similarity of the transmitted photon spectrum. With the thicker the sample, the spectrum is more filtered
resulting in a more high energy spectrum.
1042
The detectability results obtained on mock-up with notches gave a first quantitative approach using a
Se75 source with a CR system.
Finally, it is thought that the existing discrepancy between the different standards poses non negligible
difficulties in the process of introducing CR into nuclear inspection practice.
Harmonization among these standards and codes would certainly benefit manufacturers, in enabling them
to fulfil all requirements and end-users, who could then choose a CR system to comply with their
applications and needs.
REFERENCES
[1] The physics of computed radiography J.A. Rowlands Phys. Med. Biol. 47(2002) R123-R166.
[2] Digital radiography performance study in the nuclear context D. Tisseur, J. Banchet, E. Martin,
and C. Luc COFREND 2011 conference.
[3] EN 14784-1:2005: Non destructive testing- industrial computed radiography with storage
phosphor imaging plates. Part 1 : Classification of system
[4] EN 14784-2:2005: Non destructive testing- industrial computed radiography with storage
phosphor imaging plates. Part 2 : General principles for testing of metallic materials using X-
rays and gamma rays
[5] ASTM E2033 - 99(2006) Standard Practice for Computed Radiology (Photostimulable
Luminescence Method)
[6] ASME Section V Article 2: Radiographic examination (2005)
[7] ASTM E2698 - 10 Standard Practice for Radiological Examination Using Digital Detector
Arrays
[8] ASTM E2736 - 10 Standard Guide for Digital Detector Array Radiology
[9] ASTM E2737 - 10 Standard Practice for Digital Detector Array Performance Evaluation and
Long-Term Stability
[10] Strategies for Film Replacement in Radiography - Approaches Used in the New Standards, Uwe
ZSCHERPEL, Uwe EWERT, Klaus BAVENDIEK, Mirko JECHOW, DIR2011 Conference
[11] ISO 17636-2 : Non-destructive testing of welds- Radiographic testing – Part 2 : X and gamma
ray techniques with digital detector
[12] EN 1435:1997 Non-destructive examination of welds. Radiographic examination of welded
joints
[13] RCCM – Edition 2007- MC 3000
[14] EN 462-1 : Non destructive testing – Image quality of radiographs – Part 1 : Image quality
indicators (wire type), determination of image quality value
indicators (step/step hole)
indicators (duplex wire type), determination of image unsharpness value
[17] ASTM E747 - 04(2010) Standard Practice for Design, Manufacture and Material Grouping
Classification of Wire Image Quality Indicators (IQI) Used for Radiology
[18] ASTM E1025 - 11 Standard Practice for Design, Manufacture, and Material Grouping
Classification of Hole-Type Image Quality Indicators (IQI) Used for Radiology
[19] ISO 9712 : Qualification and certification of the NDT personnel – general principles
1043

Evaluation of The Performance of Computed Radiography Systems With Different Sources and Different Configurations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of The Performance of Computed Radiography Systems With Different Sources and Different Configurations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

More Info at Open Access Database www.ndt.net/?

EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEMS WITH

J. Banchet, A. Peterzol, B. Bader, AREVA, France

2. METHODS AND MATERIALS

2.1. Image quality evaluation

OBJECT SDD (mm)

Table 1. SDD values for various sources & thicknesses

Source to object distance

Front filter Cassette Back scatter filter

Source to detector distance

Object Pixel Prefilter Penetrameter Front filter Front Screen Back BS

2.2. Detectability measurements

Notch Width (mm) Depth (mm) Length (mm)

Table 3. Sizes of the 64 notches embedded in the mock-up

Object Total Source to Front Back

3.1. System performance comparisons

Table 5. All Systems performance evaluation results

Table 6. All Systems performance evaluation results

3.2. Systems comparison in terms of wire/hole IQI ISO 17636-2 requirements

Conformity to RCCM W/H IQI Requirements

From table 8, it emerges that:

3.4. Systems comparison in terms of wire/hole IQI ASME requirements

Conformity to ISO 17636-2 DUPLEX IQI and SNRN requirements

From table 10, it emerges that:

3.6. Systems comparison in terms of exposure time

3.7. Detectability performance of a single system

You might also like