Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:30:39.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dimensional Quantification of Embedded Voids or Objects in Three Dimensions Using X-Ray Tomography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2012

Brian M. Patterson ,
Juan P. Escobedo-Diaz ,
Darcie Dennis-Koller  and
Ellen Cerreta
Brian M. Patterson*
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Materials Science and Technology Division, P.O. Box 1663, MS E549, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
Juan P. Escobedo-Diaz
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Materials Science and Technology Division, P.O. Box 1663, MS G755, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
Darcie Dennis-Koller
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Materials Science and Technology Division, P.O. Box 1663, MS P952, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
Ellen Cerreta
Affiliation:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Materials Science and Technology Division, P.O. Box 1663, MS G755, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Scientific digital imaging in three dimensions such as when using X-ray computed tomography offers a variety of ways to obtain, filter, and quantify data that can produce vastly different results. These opportunities, performed during image acquisition or during the data processing, can include filtering, cropping, and setting thresholds. Quantifying features in these images can be greatly affected by how the above operations are performed. For example, during binarization, setting the threshold too low or too high can change the number of objects as well as their measured diameter. Here, two facets of three-dimensional quantification are explored. The first will focus on investigating the question of how many voxels are needed within an object to have accurate geometric statistics that are due to the properties of the object and not an artifact of too few voxels. These statistics include but are not limited to percent of total volume, volume of the individual object, Feret shape, and surface area. Using simple cylinders as a starting point, various techniques for smoothing, filtering, and other processing steps can be investigated to aid in determining if they are appropriate for a specific desired statistic for a real dataset. The second area of investigation is the influence of post-processing, particularly segmentation, on measuring the damage statistics in high purity Cu. The most important parts of the pathways of processing are highlighted.

Keywords

X-ray tomography3D quantificationcopper spall3D statistics
Type
Techniques and Software Development
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 390 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Babout, L., Ludwig, W., Maire, E. & Buffiere, J.Y. (2003). Damage assessment in metallic structural materials using high resolution synchrotron X-ray tomography. Nucl Instrum Methods B 200, 303–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boon, J.J., Oberthaler, E., Ferreira, E.S.B., Marone, F. & Stampanoni, M. (2010). X-ray tomographic microscopic studies a resin embedded paint sample from a mechanical failing area in floor tiles of The Art of Painting by Johannes Vermeer (1632–1675). Microsc Microanal 16(Suppl 2), 1872–1873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buffiere, J.Y., Ferrie, E., Proudhon, H. & Ludwig, W. (2006). Three-dimensional visualisation of fatigue cracks in metals using high resolution synchrotron X-ray micro-tomography. Mater Sci Technol 22(9), 1019–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrich, K.M., Rau, C. & Krill, C.E. III (2004). Quantitative characterization of the three-dimensional microstructure of polycrystalline Al-Sn using X-ray microtomography. Metall Mater Trans A 35(7), 1953–1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudek, M.A., Hunter, L., Kranz, S., Williams, J.J., Lau, S.H. & Chawla, N. (2010). Three-dimensional (3D) visualization of reflow porosity and modeling of deformation in Pb-free solder joints. Mater Charact 61, 433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddinger, S.A., Huang, H. & Schoff, M. (2009). Three-dimensional wallmapping using Xradia with distortion correction. Fusion Sci Technol 55(4), 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmoutaouakkil, A., Salvo, L., Maire, E. & Peix, G. (2002). 2D and 3D characterization of metal foams using X-ray tomography. Adv Eng Mater 4(10), 803–807.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, E.S.B., Boon, J.J., Scherrer, N.C., Marone, F. & Stampanoni, M. (2009). 3D synchrotron X-ray microtomography of paint samples. Proc SPIE 7391(73910L).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garzon, F.H., Lau, S.H., Davey, J.R. & Borup, R.L. (2007). Micro and nano X-ray tomography of PEM fuel cell membranes after transient operation. ECS Trans 11(1), 1139–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertzen, A.L., Beekman, F. & Cherry, S.R. (2002). Effect of phantom voxelization in CT simulations. Med Phys 29(4), 292–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, H., Eddinger, S.A. & Schoff, M. (2009). Quantitative dimension measurement of ICF components using Xradia MicroXCT microscope. Fusion Sci Technol 55(4), 373–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koller, D.D., Hixson, R.S., Gray, G.T. III, Rigg, P.A., Addessio, L.B., Cerreta, E.K., Maestas, J.D. & Yablinsky, C.A. (2005). Influence of shock-wave profile shape on dynamically induced damage in high-purity copper. J Appl Phys 98, 103518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montminy, M., Tannenbaum, A.R. & Macosko, C.W. (2004). The 3D structure of real polymer foams. J Col Interf Sci 280, 202–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morigi, M.P., Casali, F., Bettuzzi, M., Bianconi, D., Brancaccio, R., Cornacchia, S., Pasini, A., Rossi, A., Aldrovandi, A. & Cauzzi, D. (2007). CT investigation of two paintings on wood tables by Gentile da Fabriano. Nucl Instrum Methods A 580, 735–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, D.B. (2001). Fundamentals of Light Microscopy and Electronic Imaging. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Liss Inc.Google Scholar
Park, H. & Miwa, K. (2003). X-ray computed tomography for micro porosity in AZ91D alloy. Mater Trans 44(11), 2326–2333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, B.M. & Hamilton, C.E. (2010). Dimensional standard for micro X-ray computed tomography. Anal Chem 39(3), 184–190.Google Scholar
Russ, J.C. (2002). The Image Processing Handbook. Raleigh, NC: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinka, I.C., Burch, S.F., Tweed, J.H. & Cunningham, J.C. (2004). Measurement of density variations in tablets using X-ray computed tomography. Int J Pharm 271, 215–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanisako, A., Tsuruta, S., Hori, A., Okumura, A., Miyata, C., Kuzuryu, C., Obi, T. & Yoshimura, H. (2006). Micro-CT of small insects by projection X-ray microscopy. Proc SPIE 631B, 63180B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zbijewski, W. & Beekman, F. (2004). Characterization and suppression of edge and aliasing artefacts in iterative X-ray CT reconstruction. Phys Med Biol 49, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zehbe, R., Goebbels, J., Ibold, Y., Gross, U. & Schubert, H. (2010). Three-dimensional visualization of in vitro cultivate chondrocytes inside porous gelatine scaffolds: A tomographic approach. Acta Biomater 6, 2097–2107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, H., Qu, P.C., Sakaguchi, Y., Toda, H., Kobayashi, M., Uesugi, K. & Suzuki, Y. (2010). Three-dimensional characterization of fatique crack propagation behavior in an aluminum alloy using high resolution X-ray microtomography. Mater Sci Forum 638–642, 378–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar