EVALUATION OF DIGITAL DETECTOR ARRAYS SYSTEMS FOR INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY

Aline Saddock de Sá Silva

doi:10.15392/bjrs.v7i2A.601

Authors

Aline Saddock de Sá Silva Laboratório de Instrumentação Nuclear/COPPE/Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15392/bjrs.v7i2A.601

Keywords:

Digital detector array, Flat Panel, Performance evaluation, Industrial radiography

Abstract

Digital Detector Arrays (DDA) or Flat Panel Detector (FPD) is a highly efficient technique that is used in nondestructive testing of internal features of an object. The evaluation of DDA systems for industrial radiography is important to ensure the image quality and to enables long-term stability of this system. This evaluation is specified by ASTM E2737–10, which describes the fundamental parameters of DDA systems to be measured. The tests require the usage of either the five-groove wedge or the duplex plate phantom with separate Image Quality Indicators (IQIs). The purpose of this work was evaluate the radiographic performance achieved using both techniques in two DDA systems manufactured by GEIT: DXR250P and DXR250V, which have thallium-doped cesium iodide (CsI:Tl) and terbium-doped gadolinium oxysulfide (Gd₂O₂S:Tb - GOS) scintillators, respectively. For this purpose, it was used an X-ray equipment as radiation source. The image quality parameters analyzed were Image Lag (IL), Offset Level (OL), Bad Pixel distribution, Burn In (BI), Spatial Resolution (SR), Material Thickness Range (MTR), Contrast Sensitivity (CS), Signal Level (SL) and Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR). As result of this study, has been observed that the use of the five-groove wedge phantom made the measurements to become easier to execute. Regarding the DDA system, the DXR250P presented more IL and BI, but produced images with better CS and SNR and needed a dose almost twice smaller than the DXR250V to achieve a similar SL.

Views: 2070
PDF Downloads: 188

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

U. Ewert, U. Zscherpel and K. Bavendiek, “Strategies for Film Replacement in Radiography - Films and Digital Detectors in Comparison”, Proceedings of 17th World Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Shanghai, China, 25-28 Oct 2008 (2008).

A. R. Cowen, S. M. Kengyelics and A. G. Davies, “Solid-state, flat-panel, digital radiography detectors and their physical imaging characteristics”, Clinical Radiology, Vol. 63, pp. 487-498 (2008).

W. den Boer, Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays, Newnes, Oxford, U.K. (2005).

D. F. Oliveira, E. V. Moreira, A. S. S. Silva, J. M. Rebello, R. T. Lopes, M. S. Pereira and U. Zscherpel, “Application of the Digital Radiography in Weld Inspection of Gas and Oil Pipelines”, Proceedings of 10th European Conference on Non-Destructive Testing – ECNDT, Moscow, Russia, 7-11 Jun 2010 (2010).

H. J. Kim, H. K. Kim and G. Cho, J. Choi, “Construction and characterization of an amorphous silicon flat-panel detector based on ion-shower”, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, Vol. 505, pp. 155-158 (2003).

R. V. Acharya, U. Kumar and G. Singh, “Experiences in Digital Industrial Radiography using High-Resolution A-Si Flat Panel X-Ray Detector System”, Proceedings of the National Seminar & Exhibition on Non-Destructive Evaluation NDE 2009, Mumbai, India, 10-12 Dec 2009 (2009).

H. K. Kim, I. A. Cunningham, Z. Yin and G. Cho, “On the Development of Digital Radiography Detectors: A Review”, International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 86-100 (2008).

ASTM E 2737, Standard Practice for Digital Detector Array Performance Evaluation and Long-Term Stability (2010).

ASTM E 2002, Standard Practice for Determining Total Image Unsharpness in Radiology (1998).

ASTM E 1025, Standard Practice for Design, Manufacture, and Material Grouping Classification of Hole-Type Image Quality Indicators (IQI) Used for Radiology (1998).

ASTM E 2597, Standard Practice for Manufacturing Characterization of Digital Detector Arrays (2008).

BAM, User Manual for the Measuring Program ISee!,Version 10.2. Available in: http://www.dir.bam.de/ic/ (2017).

V. V. Nagarkar, S. C. Thacker, V. Gaysinskiy, L. E. Ovechkina, S. R. Miller, S. Cool and C. Brecher, “Suppression of Afterglow in Microcolumnar CsI:Tl by Codoping With Sm2+: Recent Advances”, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 565–570 (2009).

J. H. Siewerdsen and D. A. Jaffray, “A ghost story: Spatio-temporal response characteristics of an indirect-detection flat panel imager”, Medical Physics, Vol. 26, No. 8, pp. 1624-1641 (1999).