Focal spot size measurements for
microfocus X-ray sets
J.U. Madsen
The problems involved in characterizing the focal spot size of a microfocus X-ray
set are presented, and various methods which have been used for the purpose are
discussed.
Keywords. focal spot size, microfocus X-ray sets, performance-related focal spot
criterion
The focal spot size is one of the most important parameters
of a microfocus X-ray set. Unfortunately, it is quite
difficult to measure the focal spot size accurately and
therefore a certain amount of controversy and confusion
has dominated the discussion on microfocus focal spot
sizes. Further, the standards normally employed for focal
spot measurements u - 3] are not applicable below 0.1 or
0.3 mm. Within the last couple of years this question has,
however, been given a more satisfactory foundation, and
a recently drafted British Standard t¢1 now covers this
field. It is the aim of this paper to give a comprehensive
view of the problems involved in measuring microfocus
focal spot sizes and a discussion of some actual methods
which have been applied, for the non-mathematical
reader.
The meaning of "focal spot size"
The first question one has to address when discussing
focal spot sizes is what do we actually mean by the term.
The intuitive answer is that the focal spot size is a measure
of the linear extension of the focal spot, but the fact that
there is more to it than that could be highlighted for
instance by asking what is the size of London (or any
other major city). The built-up regions of London as
indicated on a map of the U K cover a fairly irregularly
shaped area, and one could reasonably quote the maximum
n o r t h - s o u t h length of that area, the maximum east-west
length or the diameter of the minimum circle which can
contain that area as the linear extension; alternatively
one could be more subtle and quote the square root of
the area as the linear extension. Each of these approaches
would have merits in certain circumstances.
The above example regarding the size of London reflects
the problems in categorizing a two-dimensional distribution
in terms of a one-dimensional measure. But the problem
regarding focal spot sizes is actually far more complex
than that. In the first instance the distribution in question
is certainly three-dimensional. The reason is that the
X-rays originate from where the electrons hit the target.
In fact the electrons penetrate a few microns (up to about
10 #m at 160 kV) into the target, so the effective source
0308-9126/89/050292-05/$03.00 O 1989 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd
292
of X-rays is a three-dimensional region several microns
thick and otherwise of a shape reflecting the cross-section
of the electron beam. During radiography, this three-
dimensional distribution is projected in the direction
towards the film and thereby becomes effectively two-
dimensional, but the underlying third dimension manifests
itself in that the focal spot appears different in different
directions; or to put it another way, the focal spot size
created by a certain electron beam depends on the target
angle.
Further, the intensity variation is. gradual. This means
that the intensity is not constant within a well defined
region but instead builds up gradually, in fact rather like
the population density within London. When the
comparison with the size of London was introduced
above, the reference was made to the shape of London
as it appeared on a map. But the decision about what
should be considered inside or outside London is actually
somewhat arbitrary. One geographer might decide that
if the population density exceeds 1000 persons per square
kilometre then the area is considered urban, and the
would draw one map of the outlines of London. Another
might adopt 500 persons per square kilometre and
consider a larger area part of the metropolitan area; yet
another might set his threshold at 2000 and arrive at a
smaller area.
This uncertainty also applies to the distribution of X-ray
intensity within the focal spot, and it would apply even
if the problem were one-dimensional, as seen from
Figure 1, which shows the (hypothetical) variation of
some intensity along a line (the x axis). Also indicated
are two suggestions for the width of the distribution: the
full width at half-maximum ( F W H M ) and the width
of the rectangular distribution with equal area and
maximum value (WRDEAM).
The F W H M is the width (the extension in the direction
of the x axis) of the distribution at an intensity level of
50 % of the maximum. The WRDEAM is the width of a
rectangle which has the same height and area as the
distribution in question. There are other possibilities for
defining a width for such a distribution; in general they
NDT International Volume 22 Number 5 October 1989

Samemaximum
I00%l
50% SameareQ ~-~
-- ,r
4---- ----.= WRDEAM '--I.,--
"~
Fig. 1 FWHM and WRDEAM measures of widths of distributions
will all lead to different results, but of course for a
one-dimensional rectangular distribution (which is
constant within its limits) the F W H M and the WRDEAM
are identical, as should be any other sensible measure of
the width of distributions.
The final complication regarding the focal spot size
concerns the fact that even when the incoming electrons
all have the same energy (kilovolts), the resulting X-rays
have a variety of energies up to the energy of the incoming
electrons; and as mentioned above, some of the X-rays
are generated below the surface of the target. From these
deep regions the low-energy (soft) X-rays are attenuated
more strongly than the high-energy (hard) X-rays and
therefore the effective distribution of the X-ray intensity
also depends on the X-ray energy. If the radiographic
technique is such that the overwhelming contrast is
created by the soft X-ray component then the apparent
focal spot will be smaller than if the major contribution
to the radiographic contrast were from hard X-rays,
simply because the soft X-rays seem to originate from a
smaller region.
This effect must not be confused with the fact that the
focal spot discussed here has a shape and size which are
a function of the kilovoltage, the milliamperage and the
adjustment of the electron optics. For each set of these
parameters the focal spot intensity distribution will be a
function of two linear dimensions, the direction towards
the film/detector (which accounts for the third spatial
dimension) and the X-ray photon energy.
M e a s u r i n g t h e "focal s p o t size'
After the full complexity of the focal spot size problem
has now been introduced, it must be obvious that any
attempt to characterize the focal spot size by one or a few
numbers must involve simplifications and arbitrary
choices. A few procedures which have so far been applied
will now be described and discussed.
The ANDREX performance-related focal spot
criterion
This criterion is inspired by the widely applied wire-type
image quality indicators. It has been used by ANDREX
since about 1981 for want of a better and internationally
standardized method. The criterion is that if a wire of a
certain thickness can be imaged onto radiographic film
through at least 50 times the wire thickness of the same
material and with at least five times linear magnification,
then the focal spot size is considered to be less than the
wire diameter; if unity magnification were used, details
N DT International October 1989
several orders of magnitude smaller than the focal spot
could of course be imaged tS]. If one wishes to decide the
actual focal spot size according to this criterion, the
proper procedure is to use a range of wires with diameters
both below and above the expected focal spot size, and
to prepare for each wire a slab of the same material of a
thickness 50 times the wire diameter. Each wire and
associated slab should then be radiographed at a minimum
of five times magnification, and the focal spot size
according to the criterion is then between the diameter
of the largest wire which would not be seen and the
smallest which could be seen.
This focal spot criterion has the great advantage that it
can be applied in any radiographic laboratory using only
a fairly inexpensive wire penetrameter covering the relevant
range of diameters. ANDREX makes available a stainless
steel wire penetrameter with 10 wires in the range from
14 to 120/~m mounted on adhesive tape; the distance
between the wires is 3 mm and the length is 90 mm, but
it can of course easily be cut to other lengths. The Harwell
Portcullis IQI is more compact and, as the name implies,
is in the form of a grid of crossed wires; these cover the
range from 40 to 125 pm in six steps. A less decisive
advantage of this focal spot criterion is that it gives a
direct indication of the level of defect sensitivity one
should be able to expect, which is also the reason why it
is called a performance-related criterion.
The drawbacks are that wire perception in radiographs
is subjective, that the film type and processing are not
specified and that it leads to focal spot size values which
are smaller by a factor of 2 - 4 than those determined by
the more satisfactory (BAM and BS 6932) methods
described below (or to put it another way, in magnification
radiography it is possible to resolve wires at the 2 % level
not just down to the focal spot size according to these
methods, but down to one-half or one-quarter of that).
But then again, if a given radiographic laboratory applies
the performance-related method in a consistent manner,
this is an inexpensive way to perform a periodic check
on the focal spot performance.
As an alternative to wire penetrameters, fine mesh grids
are sometimes used; these can be produced by galvanic
deposition methods. As an example, electron microscopy
specimen grids are available in a variety of materials
(copper, silver, titanium, and even beryllium) and, for
copper, to at least 1000 mesh (per inch). Typical dimensions
are 2.3 or 3 mm diameter, and they are quite cheap, so
they are normally acquired in quantities of 100 pieces and
used only once. They are quite good for a quick check
of resolution and roundness of the focal spot, but they
must be considered as less suitable for quantitative
measurements, since their thickness is not necessarily very
well defined.
The BAM method
BAM stands for Bundesanstalt fiir Materialforschung
und -Prfifung, the Federal Institute for Materials Research
and Testing, Berlin. The BAM method is based on
profiling the X-ray intensity distribution in the radiographs
of straight edges. In the actual implementation the
straight edges are created by 0.4 mm platinum wire (at
BAM 1.0 mm wires have also sometimes been used trj)
and these are imaged at between 30 and 70 times
293
magnification. An appealing aspect of using round wires
is that the set-up is not very critical, neither for magnification
ratio nor for alignment of the wires. If rectangular-shaped
absorbers were used, the edge of the absorber would have
to be aligned very carefully with the X-ray beam direction,
but for a round wire the effective edge will always be
parallel to the beam, and the magnification ratio is
calibrated after the exposure from the width of the image
of the wire in the radiograph.
The BAM method involves measuring the radiographic
density in the image of the wire with a microdensitometer
and it defines the focal spot size in the direction normal
to the wire as the width of the penumbra divided by the
magnification ratio less one. The width of the penumbra
is defined as the distance in the radiograph between the
intersections of a line tangential to the microdensitometer
trace at its point of maximum slope with the two
radiographic density levels representing 100 % absorption
(behind the wire) and 100% transmission (outside the
wire). Mathematically this approach is equivalent to
finding the WRDEAM as introduced above. A schematic
representation of the microdensitometer trace is shown
in Figure 2.
S 1 and S2 both represent the focal spot dimension in the
direction normal to the wire imaged. They should in
principle be identical, but may be slightly different in an
actual measurement (see below).
The BAM method is quite well defined, for instance the
film type, density and processing are all specifiedt6'7], and
in theory it could be fully automated so that no subjective
human influence would distort the results. It has the
further advantage that its results are broadly in line with
the intuitive assignment of width of distributions: it would
assign the proper width to a one-dimensional rectangular
distribution as opposed to the performance-related criterion
discussed above which would assign a somewhat smaller
value. It is normally applied in two orientations (wires
parallel to and at right angles to the electron beam for
largest and smallest focal spot dimension), but could in
theory be applied in a large number of non-parallel
orientations, and from such density traces the actual
two-dimensional focal spot intensity distribution could
be reconstructed by the same mathematical process as is
used in computer tomography.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the BAM method
is also somewhat arbitrary. For instance, the method does
not involve transforming back the recorded film densities
-..-~- Wired~K~eterx magnificationratio
X placed too close to the focus. Otherwise, the active surface
Fig. 2 BAM and BS 6932 analyses of microdensitometer traces
from radiographs of test objects
294
to X-ray intensity values or compensating for partial
transmission of X-rays through the platinum wire near
the effective edge, but the added complications of either
of these would not very likely be outweighed by results,
which in any more precise way reflected a true focal spot
size; they would, however, probably be necessary if a
tomography-like reconstruction were to be attempted.
One consequence is that an asymmetrical focal spot
distribution can result in two slightly different widths
from the images of either side of the wire owing to the
non-linear characteristic curve of the film. So in fact also
for the BAM method it is important to apply it in a
consistent manner in order to obtain results which can
be compared - and of course always to compare like with
like (BAM with BAM, performance-related with perform-
ance-related).
It is possible to make a fast check of the focal spot size
by an electronic adaptation of the BAM method using a
TV-based X-ray detector and a storage oscilloscope (but
without the need for a microdensitometer), and good
agreement with the proper (film-based) BAM method has
been reported TM.
The BS 6932 m e t h o d
The philosophy behind the method for measuring focal
spot sizes defined in BS 6932[4] could have been inspired
by the BAM method. Instead of 0.4 mm platinum wires
it is proposed to use a 5 mm tungsten carbide ball. This
is advantageous if focal spot sizes in the range directly
below 0.3 mm are to be measured. This is the upper limit
to the range of focal spot sizes where BS 6932 applies,
and in this range the penumbra from either side of the
wire could start to overlap when using the BAM method;
the penumbra can extend beyond the nominal focal spot
size (see Figure 2). The larger diameter probably also
more than compensates for the increased tendency for
partial X-ray transmission through the test object for
tungsten carbide relative to platinum. Partial transmission
of X-rays will increase the apparent focal spot size; the
BS 6932 method probably leads to a smaller increase due
to this mechanism than does the BAM method.
The BS 6932 method prescribes about 20 times
magnification, which is rather less than the 30-70 times
of the BAM method, but owing to the larger-diameter
test object, the image of the test object in the BS 6932
method is approximately 100 mm as compared with
12-28 mm for the BAM method. The higher the degree
of magnification, the better the precision in the focal spot
measurement, so in that respect the BAM method is
probably superior for very small focal spots. The BS
6932 method is specified down to 5 #m, and it can be
argued that the BS 6932 method covers the interesting
range anyway. The size of the aperture in the micro-
densitometer is not specified in BS 6932. The micro-
densitometer aperture (and the film unsharpness) will
add to the apparent focal spot size depending on the
magnification rates from test object to film and in the
microdensitometer; this increase will tend to be lowest
with the BAM method.
It has been pointed out [6] (but is not part of BS 6932)
that the relatively large-diameter ball should not be
part of the ball in profiling the X-ray intensity distribution
will lie on a circle which is smaller than a great circle,
NDT International October 1989
and this will lead to an apparent decrease of the
magnification ratio, which is computed using the diameter
of the ball on the implicit assumption that the active
surface part is on a great circle. The consequence is that
the focal spot size will be calculated to be larger than it
would have been with the ball far from the focal spot -
and the size will depend on the distance. If the ball is
squeezed against a beam exit window 5 mm from the
focal spot (a typical distance), then the focal spot will
appear 6.1% enlarged.
Compared with the BAM method, there is a small difference
in the way the focal spot size is arrived at by geometrical
construction. The BS 6932 method prescribes that the
line representing the idealized penumbra should coincide
with the microdensitometer trace at the 25% and 75%
density levels; this is in most cases probably a more
practical and repeatable prescription than the BAM
method's tangent of maximum slope. The BS 6932
method could yield slightly larger focal spot sizes than
the BAM method owing to this difference, since BS 6932
uses an average slope which can be less than the maximum
slope of the BAM method.
The use of a spherical ball in the BS 6932 method means
that all orientations of the focal spot are explored in one
recording, whereas as mentioned above, the BAM method
explores only two crossed directions in one recording. It
is unfortunate that the image of the ball cannot be
recorded on 100 mm wide roll film which is quite
common. The BAM method is easily performed even with
60 mm wide roll film.
The microlithographic test mask method
This method is based on imaging a special test mask [a'91
on film and evaluating the resulting radiograph. The test
mask is made by a microlithographic process of the same
type as is used when manufacturing integrated circuits,
and is quite (but not prohibitively) expensive, about £250.
The contrast stems from gold line patterns with thickness
about 0.8-2 pm and with widths and separations in the
range 1-20 #m. Owing to the range of widths and
separations, a clever analysis can reveal the focal spot
size, but the procedure is still somewhat subjective. It has
in one instance been found that a focal spot when
measured using a Siemens star and the same analysis (an
approach which is equivalent to the test mask method)
appeared at least two times smaller than when measured
by the BAM method TM, and this is a surprisingly large
discrepancy. It may be that the microlithographic test
mask method, which owing to the extreme thinness of
the gold lines is perhaps only applicable in the fairly low
kilovoltage range (up to about 100 kV, although it has
been possible to use it up to 160 kV[5"61),in fact only probes
the lowest kilovoltage part of the X-ray spectrum - and
as mentioned above, the lowest kilovoltage X-rays may
seem to originate from a smaller focal spot than the rest.
But again, once the test mask has been acquired, it is an
inexpensive way of measuring the focal spot and one
which can be applied in all radiographic laboratories, and
if one is comparing only like with like it can be used to
monitor the performance of a microfocus X-ray set.
The B A M and BS 6932 m e a s u r e s o f
"idealized focal s p o t s '
It has been stated above that the BAM method (and
NDT International October 1989
therefore the roughly equivalent BS 6932 method) gives
intuitively reasonable measures of focal spot sizes. It has
also been pointed out that it is difficult to assign unique
sizes to two-dimensional distributions. As examples, the
sizes assigned to two idealized focal spot shapes have
been calculated. It is assumed that the measuring
procedures could be performed in ways that are also
idealized, for instance that there is no film unsharpness
or X-ray transmission through the test object, and that
the film density is linear with the X-ray intensity. The
two idealized focal spot shapes are: (1) a square of side
s with uniform X-ray intensity within; (2) a circle of
diameter d with uniform X-ray intensity within. In both
cases these are assumed to be the optical focal spot shapes
as projected in the direction of the recording.
The square focal spot
The size of the square focal spot depends on the orientation
of the square relative to the edge imaged in the measuring
process. If the side of the square is parallel to the edge,
both the BAM and the BS 6932 methods give as the focal
spot size s the side length of the square.
If the diagonal of the square is parallel to the edge, the
BAM method will profile a one-dimensional distribution
which is triangular with base length x/~s. The WRDEAM
is then half the base length, s/x/~ = 0.707s. The BS 6932
method now yields a different result: the focal spot size
is here the width of an equal-area rectangle with height
equal to the average height of the middle 50 % area of
the triangle. The details of the calculation are unimportant;
the result is 0.828s.
The circular focal spot
The size of the circular focal spot according to the BAM
method is drc/4 = 0.785d, which is the width of a rectangle
of height d and area equal to that of a circle with diameter
d. Again the BS 6932 method (after a little more complex,
but uninteresting calculations) yields a slightly larger
value, 0.808d.
It is interesting to note that in these cases (except that
of a square focal spot measured parallel to the side) both
methods give smaller values than those intuitively assigned,
but the values are of course of the right order of
magnitude. It is perhaps surprising that the size of the
square focal spot is smallest when measured parallel to
the diagonal, but this probably corresponds to the
effectiveness of a peaked intensity distribution in imaging
small details.
Conclusions
It has been the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that
the confusion about focal spot sizes to a large degree
reflects some inherent difficulties in defining sensible ways
of measuring them. It is fortunate that a standardized
way of measuring is now gaining acceptance, but even
then it is important to realize the limitations of the
method and to compare only results which have been
obtained by identical methods.
Acknowledgements
Useful discussions with Mr E. Nabel of BAM (Federal
Institute for Materials Research and Testing, Berlin) and
295
with Mr Peter Moiler of A N D R E X are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
1 International Electrotechnical Commission 'Measurement of the
dimensions of focal spots of diagnostic X-ray tubes using a pinhole
camera' IEC 336 (1970)
2 International Electrntechnical Commission 'Characteristics of focal
spots in diagnostic X-ray tube assemblies for medical use' IEC 336
( 1982); also British Standards Institution BS 6530 (1984)
3 Deutsches Institut ffir Normung 'X-ray tube assemblies for medical
use; determination of the intensity distribution of focal spots of
diagnostic X-ray tube assemblies using a pinhole camera' DIN 6823
Part 1 (1983)
4 British Standards Institution'Measurement of the effective focal spot
size of mini-focus and micro-focus X-ray tubes used for industrial
radiography' BS 6932 (1988)
5 Nabel, E. and Heidt, H. 'Quick methods of supervising microfocal
X-ray sources for real-time radiography' in Proc 4th European Conj
on Non-Destructive Testing, London vol 3, ed J.M. Farley and R.W.
Nichols, Pergamon, Oxford (1987) pp 1993-1999
6 Nabel, E. private communication (1988)
7 Nabel, E., Heidt, H. and Stade, J. 'Comparison of microfocus X-ray
units' Br J N D T 28 (1986) pp 133-138
8 Baumann, J. 'Determination of the focal spot size in a microfocal
X-ray tube by using X-ray lithography masks' Siemens AG, Munich
(possibly unpublished internal report)
9 Br J N D T 27 (1985) p 343 (a reprint of the test mask in an editorial
comment)
Author
T h e a u t h o r is w i t h A N D R E X R a d i a t i o n P r o d u c t s AS,
8 H a l f d a n s g a d e , D K 2300 C o p e n h a g e n S, D e n m a r k .

Paper received 19 September 1988. Revised 12 January 1989

296 N DT International October 1989