NTU

Lab NS1
X-ray Imaging and Tomography

Daniils Ganins
 Part 1.

The intensity of the X-ray beam,I, which is detected by the camera, is attenuated by any material,
with thickness, δx. Therefore all along the materials’ area the thickness should be the same. That is
why I have used these areas for the empty vial and the vial filled with water.

Picture 1
Area used for the measurements of the empty vial

Picture 2
Area used for the measurements of the vial filled with water
 As one can see, these areas avoid the corners of the vial. I’ve decided to avoid them due to the fact
that the amount of glass in these regions is bigger and the actual picture looks dimmer. These are
not adequate results, therefore It’s been decided to completely avoid the areas of curvature.

It is confirmed by these graphs:

Graph 1
Energy versus thickness of glass (empty)

As one can see, on both graphs there are areas (0-10 px) and (107-120 px) where graph suddenly
changes within a single pixel. This data was not taken in the account.

The raw data:

Water inside the vial:

1 12736 4899.763 160.794 3130 6413 1

2 12736 4932.579 180.157 3243 6343 2
3 12736 5008.284 183.357 3236 6550 3
4 12736 5224.771 223.002 3128 6313 4
5 12736 5779.197 312.295 3380 7213 5
6 12736 6989.023 451.293 4543 8447 6
7 12736 8946.016 695.051 5853 11029 7
8 12736 11471.52 877.038 8523 13858 8
9 12736 13854.956 1011.544 11038 16432 9
10 12736 15119.98 1073.305 12239 17899 10

No Area Mean StDev Min Max Slice

Water outside the vial:

 1 9196 6998.187 291.443 6038 8819 1
2 9196 11337.548 430.849 9832 13058 2
3 9196 17248.972 548.203 15405 18612 3
4 9196 23982.818 682.388 21926 25759 4
5 9196 31795.239 800.916 29305 33626 5
6 9196 39258.634 912.567 36637 41297 6
7 9196 46379.361 934.435 43752 48409 7
8 9196 53211.176 1004.259 50331 55223 8
9 9196 57125.837 914.859 54645 59059 9
10 9196 57145.815 886.334 54775 59017 10

Glass inside the vial:

1 13248 4865.237 153.456 4375 6092 1

2 13248 4999.238 178.507 4337 6030 2
3 13248 5402.531 223.439 4711 6472 3
4 13248 6708.72 481.258 5318 8091 4
5 13248 9339.721 872.881 6654 11362 5
6 13248 13337.653 1208.846 9457 15782 6
7 13248 17729.426 1522.221 12640 20465 7
8 13248 22301.155 1879.32 16442 25707 8
9 13248 25578.525 2157.945 18888 29337 9
10 13248 27338.923 2259.232 20238 31194 10

No Area Mean StDev Min Max Slice

Glass outside the vial:

1 12600 6882.832 391.68 3038 8597 1

2 12600 11119.208 676.912 3561 12835 2
3 12600 16835.195 867.355 5153 18689 3
4 12600 23295.888 1084.37 8832 25493 4
5 12600 30609.608 1277.377 21938 33207 5
6 12600 38079.488 1322.136 33274 40643 6
7 12600 44980.838 1386.492 40802 47924 7
8 12600 51366.591 1525.807 46916 54430 8
9 12600 54059.778 1429.853 49395 56747 9
10 12600 54150.528 1376.601 49769 56730 10

In order to find the absorption due to glass only and the absorption due to water and glass I will
use this equation:
 I =I 0 e(−2 μ d ), where I is an intensity at any time, I0 is an intensity in time 0, and e (−2 μ d ) is an
g g

absorption due to glass.

Similar equation applies for the absorption due to water and glass.

I =I 0 e−(2 μ d + μ D)
g w
, where I is an intensity at any time, I0 is an intensity in time 0, and e−(2 μ d +μ
g w D)
is an
absorption due to glass and water.

In order to obtain e−(2 μ d +μ D ) and e (−2 μ d ) I am doing to divide I/I0 for water and I/I0 for glass and
g w g

produce tables. The graph of I/I0 against Energy will fulfill the results.

I/I0 for water

Energy (keV) I/I0

12.5 0.700147481
15 0.435065766
17.5 0.290352608
20 0.217854758
22.5 0.181762968
25 0.178025119
27.5 0.192887867
30 0.215584786
32.5 0.242533969
35 0.264585954

I/I0 for glass

Energy (keV) I/I0

12.5 0.706865575
15 0.449603785
17.5 0.320906945
20 0.28797872
22.5 0.305123836
25 0.350258202
27.5 0.394155084
30 0.434156804
32.5 0.473152609
35 0.504869001
 I/I0 vs Energy
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
I/I0

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Energy (kV)

Water Glass

Absorption coefficient of glass, μ g and the absorption coefficient of water, μw are presented in the
graph below.

d = 1.14 ± 0.01 cm
D = 2.052 ± 0.01 cm

𝜇g and 𝜇w vs Energy
6

5
𝜇g and 𝜇w cm-1)

4
Glass
3
Water

0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Energy (keV)
Questions:

1) The best beam energy to use to maximise the contrast between the glass and water is
around 20 keV, what might easily be seen if one may take a look on a graph μg and μw vs
Energy.
2) The beam energy I have selected is aligned to the peak absorption coefficient of glass. The
significance of that is that there is a maximal difference between absorption of water and
absorption of glass exactly with the beam with this energy (20 keV).

Part 2

HU Glass HU Water
1060 -510
990 -500
1180 -550
1240 -510
1300 -530
1050 -540
710 -520
1150 -460
1160 -490
1400 -480

Mean pixel intensity for water is -509 HU and for glass is 1124.

μw =0.6

μ i−μw
By using the formula p1=1000 ( )
μ w −μair
and setting μair to zero, the value μi=0.2946 ≈ 0.3 was

obtained.
It occurred that μi=0.3 is the smallest value of μi that is possible to put into the program.
By putting the value μi=0.3 into the program the following data was obtained:

HU Glass HU Water HU Perspex

2810 90 -360
2860 -40 -310
2770 20 -180
3120 -40 -270
3100 -100 -170
3580 -70 -200
3740 -50 -180
3420 0 -160
2970 80 -270
 3420 40 -310

Mean pixel intensity for water is now -7, which is very close to 0, for glass it is 3179 and for Perspex
it is -241.
The change in the mean pixel intensity for water is observable. It used to be -509, after calibrating it
is -7. Setting μi ¿ 0.3 means calibrating the scanner so that the intensity of water is 0 on average. It is
a medical thing.

Part 3

Data:
The diameter of the steel ball is 31.55 ± 0.05 mm.
Working out the physical dimension (cm) of one pixel.

Graph 2.

The peals on a graph of intensity correspond to the empty (air) areas in the apparatus.
Picture 3

Graph 3
 Picture 4

Therefore the actual diameter of the sphere corresponds to the distance from 40 to 200
pixels. In total it is 160 pixels. Therefore by using this formula:

diameter of the sphere (cm)

Dimension ( cm ) of pixel=
N pixels

3.155
one may calculate the dimension (cm) of pixel. It is D= =0.024 cm
130
The example was taken of the 35 keV graph (Graph 2 – relate to Picture 3.). I have chosen
that graph due to the couple of reasons, but mostly because there are simply more photons
in the 35 keV graph so less noise than in the 15 keV graph (Graph 3 – relate to Picture 4).
The results are more adequate comparing to the 15 keV graph.

Questions:
1) The signal does not change in one pixel. This happens because the ball is thinner on
the edge, so the photon penetration is a lot less on the edge. If we a cylinder instead
it would be perfect.
 2) Spatial resolution is pixels/cm. It might be obtained if this formula is used:

N pixels
Spatial resolution= Therefore
diameter of the sphere(cm)
130
Spatial resolution= =4.12± 0.05 pixels/cm
31.55

3) The plastic sphere could not be used instead of the steel one. Photons would just
penetrate that sphere and one will get less clarity on the graph.

Part 4

Derivation:

−( μ g d + (f w u w+ f 0 u 0) D )
I =I 0 e
Total fraction of water and oil is:
f w +f 0 =1

Once the oil and water has separated:

− ( μ g d+ (f w u w+ f 0 u 0) D)
J=J 0 e

If measured for water section of the wial: f o=0

− ( μ g d+ (f w uw) D )
J=J 0 e

If f o=0 , f w =1

− ( μ g d+ (uw ) D )
J=J 0 e

By dividing the two images (I and J)to get the division image (P):

( ( − μg d + f w uw +f 0 u0 D )
)
I I0 e
P= =
J − μ d +( u ) D )
J0 e ( g w

In an ideal world, nothing has changes in terms of the intensity in the photon beam between image I
and image J.
 − ( μg d + ( f w uw +f 0 u0 ) D )
I I e
P= = 0
J −μ
I0e ( g
d + ( uw ) D )

By taking log of both sides:

ln ( P )=−f w∗D∗u w −D∗uo∗f o + D∗uw

−f w∗D∗uw =ln ( P )+ D∗uo∗f o−D∗uw
ln ( P ) + D∗u o∗f o−D∗uw ln ( P ) + D(f o u o−u w )
−f w = =
D∗uw D(uw )
( f o uo−u w ) ln ( P )
f w= −
(uw ) D ( uw )

Area used in an anvestigation in all 180 pictures obtained.