Advertisement

Optimizing Spatial Resolution with the Mechanical Design of an X-Ray Computed Tomography Scanner

  • Lowell D. Harris
  • Richard T. Bernardi
  • Simon H. C. Hughes
  • Robert E. Slocum
Chapter
Part of the Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation book series

Abstract

With an understanding of the x-ray physics of a computed tomography (CT) [1–4] scanner with discrete detectors, and with knowledge of the scanner’s geometry (the spatial relationship among the x-ray source, the detectors, and the object being scanned), it is possible to predict the achievable spatial resolution in images of objects of a certain size and density. However, if the size of the x-ray focal spot must be changed or if an object larger or smaller than the one for which the scanner is optimized is to be scanned, the spatial resolution may change. To maximize spatial resolution for a range of objects and x-ray sources, a scanner can be designed with a variable geometry, so that the spatial relationship of the scanner components can be changed to best fit each application.

Keywords

Turbine Blade Focal Spot Beam Width Variable Geometry Focal Spot Size 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Gordon and G.T. Herman, “Three-dimensional reconstruction from projections: A review of algorithms”, Int. Rev. Cytol., 38, 111–151, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R.D. Brooks and G. DiChiro, “Principles of computer assisted tomography (CAT) in radiographic and radioisotopic imaging”, Phys. Med. Biol., 21, 689–732, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.A. Robb, “X-ray computed tomography: An engineering synthesis of multiscientific principles”, CRC Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 7 (4), 263–334, 1982.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.M. Ter-Pogossian, “Basic principles of computed axial tomography”, Semin. Nucl. Med., 7, 109–127, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E.C. McCullough, “Specifying and evaluating the performance of computed tomography (CT) scanners”, Med. Phys., 7, 291–298, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D.J. Goodenough, K.G. Weaver, and D.O. Davis, “Development of a phantom for evaluation and assurance of image quality in CT scanning”, Opt. Eng. 16, 52, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E.A. Sivers, D.D. Tonner, I.H. Stanley, and J.F. Moore, “Performance of Imaging Systems”, Standard Guide for Computed Tomography Imaging (ed. D.D. Tonner), ASTM (in press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lowell D. Harris
    • 1
  • Richard T. Bernardi
    • 1
  • Simon H. C. Hughes
    • 1
  • Robert E. Slocum
    • 1
  1. 1.Bio-Imaging Research, Inc.LincolnshireUSA

Personalised recommendations