Surveillance and certification of industrial x-ray films -

an international project for quality assurance

U. Ewert, J. Stade, H. Heidt , BAM Berlin,
Germany
B. Vaessen, J. Snels, M. Ailliet, W. Markie , Agfa-Gevaert,
Belgium
Contact

1. Introduction

Nobody would drive his car in the rain without using wind screen wipers, -
why a radiograph which is too grainy should be tolerated if the faint image
of a dangerous crack in a pressure vessel is to be detected ? The safety and
reliability of industrial plants, components and products depends on the
quality of the non-destructive testing methods. In radiography the
sensitivity for the detection of flaws is strongly correlated with the image
quality of radiographs and this is influenced in a decisive manner by the
properties of an X-ray film system. Therefore these properties have to be
achieved and supervised with great care.
Already in the seventies the films on the market were investigated and
classified in four different classes [1]. The sudden increase of the price of
silver 1980 forced all manufacturers to react upon and to add chemicals to
the emulsion which gave the films still the desired good properties if the
suitable developer was used. But now the films were sensitive against the
use of developers of other manufacturers and could show in this case
noticeable changes in gradient, granularity and speed. Hence, the film,
developer and the processing procedure have to be considered as a system
which determines the properties. As a consequence of this situation and to
ensure the quality of radiographic testing, a system of standards as ISO
11699, EN 584, ASTM E 1815-95 and JIS K 7627-97 which fix the
minimal demands on industrial X-ray film systems, has been elaborated in
close co-operation of film manufacturers, users and independent
institutions. These standards became valid within the last 4 years. The film
system classes defined in these standards allow to choose the film system
suitable for a certain inspection procedure. However, surveillance and
certification of film systems is necessary. In the following some inherent
problems and difficulties of this task, results of measurements and
conclusions are described and solutions are proposed.

2. The new situation

 The radiographic image quality which is attainable with suitable X-ray
film systems is still the measure for all new X-ray imaging systems and
detectors as fluoroscopic systems, line scanners, imaging plates and flat
panel detectors. These systems have been developed in the meantime to a
high stage and their image qualities respectively the combination of their
detection sensitivities with other properties allow the solution of various
special inspection problems, whereas the film is preferred in a large field
of applications because of its image quality, reliability, robustness,
mobility and archivability.
But to keep film systems at this position, the design parameters of new or
changing products (film and chemistry) have to be kept at the classified
level and the film systems have to be surveyed at the moment of
introduction and during product lifetime. The survey must be performed at
design and during manufacturing in an open co-operation according to ISO
9000 philosophy. Therefore BAM has come up with a proposal for a new
film certification programme with classification of the film system and
surveillance of the production process and production consistency thereby
covering the total of the certified system.
With regard to mixed systems, i. e. film systems in which films and
chemistry of different manufacturers are used, the qualification and
surveillance is already an issue because nobody can take responsibility for
the system. System components may not be matched, and over time
changes may occur which will influence the classification and the quality
performance of these film systems. Mixed film systems will need to be
addressed in a different way.

3. Film classes and visibility of details

For the further discussion some facts are reminded and estimations are
made to give an impression about the influence of chances in a film
system on the detection sensitivity.
The human eye can discern differences of the optical density down to D
= 0.01 at density D = 2. This is of the same order of magnitude as the
standard deviation D of the optical density of NDT X-ray films, as for
example the limiting values of the granularity D of the classes C1 to C6
of the standard EN 584-1 vary between 0.018 to 0.039. Expressed in
percent the granularity of the different film system classes differs only
between 14% and 28% from class to class. These values are comparable to
the quite usual variation of the granularity of 10% to 26% if a film is
processed in a developer of another manufacturer (so called "mixed
system").
An additional insight can be obtained, if one calculates the smallest
 thickness difference d of steel which can be discerned on a radiograph
whose granularity is just as high as the limiting value D of the
corresponding class of the standard EN 584-1. A signal-to-noise ratio of
S/N  2 is assumed as limiting condition for a clear perception of a
density difference. The estimation of the smallest perceptible thickness of
steel at those granularity levels is given in Table 1.
Class C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
d in mm 0.14 0.16 0.23 0.29 0.35 0.47
Table 1: Estimated minimum values of thickness differences d of steel of small lateral extensions visible in
granularities equal to the limiting values of the film system classes.
170 keV, 10mm steel, D-Do = 2
Flaws under these dimensions will be below the critical signal-to-noise
ratio of 2:1 for a given film system class. One can see that for instance for
a borderline film of class C5 a flaw must be already 21% deeper for
perception than for a C4 film. In case of an increase of granularity by 20%
-as for some mixed systems- the estimation results in perceptible flaws
which are 20% deeper as the values in Table 1.
These estimations give only the order of magnitude of the effects caused
by the influence of the film system class and chemistry on the visibility of
flaws, but they help to realize that this influence is of importance.

4. Steps toward a system for quality assurance for industrial X-ray

films

4.1 A round robin test

With the standard EN 584-1 manufacturer and user have a tool which
gives definitions of the film system properties, methods and prescriptions
of the procedures to measure them and the demands which have to be
fulfilled for the different film system classes. The problems pointed out in
the above sections indicate however, that it can be only the common base
and frame of a system for quality assurance for industrial X-ray film
systems. A continuous surveillance and certification of the film systems on
the market within a system of quality assurance is necessary. This system
should be open to all manufacturers and users of X-ray films. As a result
of discussions between manufacturers, users and the independent third
party institution BAM a system was proposed which is based on round
robin tests to harmonize the equipment and procedures for the
measurement of film system parameters and on surveillance of the
production. The check of measuring equipment and procedures is an
important requirement for further steps to provide the users with constant
film quality. The tests allow to analyse the reasons of different results in
different laboratories and the development of better measuring procedures
and algorithms.
Such a round robin test comprehends investigations on the potential
influence of the exposure process, the process of development, the process
of measuring and on the influence of the algorithms for evaluation. It has
been performed already at BAM and Agfa-Gevaert [2].

The results of this first round robin are :

 Neither the exposure process nor the processing in the two

laboratories caused significant differences in the values for the
gradients.
 Differences were found for the gradient D-Do = 4 due to different
calibration of densitometers at densities above D = 4 .
 The values for the granularity measured by BAM were always
greater than those measured by Agfa-Gevaert. The difference
originated in different numeric procedures for the D calculation.

These first results of the round robin test confirmed the necessity of a
round robin test concerning the equipment and procedures as a base for
quality assurance. The difference in the results for granularity were of such
a magnitude that the same film type could be classified into different film
system classes by BAM and Agfa-Gevaert. Each partner of the round
robin trusted in his results and was convinced that his equipment and
algorithms had the best performance. But of course, it is not a question of
wrong or right. It is simply the problem that EN 584-1 allows a variety of
procedures for the D measurement. This analysis had to be done in an
additional cycle of the round robin test with exact and fine definition of
each step of the algorithm.

4.2 Analysis of procedures

4.2.1 Gradient
Both laboratories received slightly different results for the gradients
although both laboratories used the same procedure as prescribed in the
standard EN 584-1. By comparison and exchange of measured data and
the crosswise evaluation it became clear that two differences in the
procedures contributed to the different values of the gradients:

 while in the algorithm of BAM the data set for the film curve was
supplemented by density zero (without fog) for the dose zero this
was not done in the algorithm of Agfa .
  the densitometers of the laboratories measured different values for
densities over D = 4.5. The instrument of Agfa was better calibrated
here.

4.2.2 Granularity
Differences in the granularity can arise due to deviations in the aperture of
the microdensitometer and analysing software. A deviation of a few
micrometers from the correct size of 100 m would result in a few percent
difference in the values for granularity. As the real mechanical size of the
aperture of microdensitometers is reduced to the effective size in the image
plain by the magnification of the microdensitometer, some efforts are
necessary for the measurement of this size. With a special procedure
developed at Agfa-Gevaert, the effective sizes of the apertures of both
instruments could be determined. From the results of these measurements
it became clear that the differences in the values for granularity had to
have other reasons. Therefore, the algorithms for the calculation of the
granularity were analysed. For this purpose the same film samples were
measured in both laboratories and the data sets were exchanged for
crosswise evaluation with the own algorithms and those of the partner.
One result was that the conversion of the measured values of specular
density into diffuse density had to be performed by direct calculation of
each measured value from the Callier curve. It turned out to be important
in which way this conversion was done and when it happened in the
algorithm. The difference in the results could rise up to 4%.
The way how the granularity was calculated could also influence the
result. The standard EN 584-1 prescribes only a spatial filtering of the
measured values before D is calculated. Due to the great number of
checked film samples to be tested normally by the manufacturer, it can
happen that some of the measured film samples contain scratches or dust
which would result in far to high granularity values in these cases.
Therefore, D was calculated as the median at Agfa-Gevaert as originally
proposed by Buhr et all. and included in the working draft ISO 10505 WD
#3 [3]. The result of this median calculation is robust against minor
scratches, dust and spots on the film sample. Depending on the number of
groups into which the data set is subdivided for the calculation of the
median this algorithm can yield results which are not equal to the value
of D as result of the normal standard deviation.

4.3 New algorithm for the calculation of granularity

Based on the experiences of the round robin the following algorithm
for D -measurement is proposed:
  step exposure of 6 or more films
 measurement of specular and diffuse density
 third order polynomial fit for calculation of the conversion function
from specular density into diffuse density
 scan of exposed steps of density ~2, at least 20 mm per scan line,
step width 0,1 mm
 conversion of the scan data into diffuse density values
 digital filtering of this values by a high pass filter with a cut off
frequency of 0,1 lp/mm
 grouping of the complete data set of more than 1200 data points into
at least 60 groups with a group length of 2 mm
 for each group the standard deviation is calculated and the median
of all single group values is determined including the suitable
statistical factor demanded by the ISO working draft

This algorithm should be one base of the surveillance and certification of

industrial X-ray films.

5. Results of sample test measurements

Parallel to the round robin test the BAM made additional measurements on
film systems procured on the market to get an overview of the situation
and a broader statistical base. The film systems of the manufacturers
(original systems) were processed according to the prescriptions of the
manufacturers. For mixed systems, where film and developer originate
from different manufacturers, one of these procedures was chosen without
claiming it as optimal for this special mixed system. For reasons of
comparison to former measurements the procedures and algorithms of
BAM were not changed.
While the results of these measurements indicate nothing striking for the
gradients they indicate for some film systems some remarkable changes of
granularity. The results prove the necessity of surveillance and
certification of X-ray film systems and the harmonization of the
measurement equipment and procedures by round robin tests. In the
following the results concerning granularity and gradient-to-noise ratio
will be given.
The first figure shows the granularities of the systems as they were
measured by the manufacturers themselves (BAM measured
corresponding values) in a round robin of 1988 which was one important
base of the standard EN 584-1. Exact the results of this round robin were
used to define the limiting values of the film system classes.
Fig 1: Granularity values of film systems measured by the manufacturers in a round robin 1988. These values
were used to define the limiting values of the system classes.

Fig 2: Granularity values of film systems measured by BAM 1998/1999/2000. The system classes are cited
according to the manufacturers

The results of measurements of the granularity made by BAM in the years

1998/1999/2000 are shown in figure 2. It can be seen that the granularity
 of some of the film systems of the manufacturers has increased nearer to
the class limit and that some of the values are even beyond it but within
the +10% error range of the standard EN 584-1. If mixed film systems are
included as in figure 3 the granularity varies considerably, mostly to the
bad side.

Fig 3: Granularities of film systems including mixed systems measured by BAM 1998/1999/2000. The original
systems are classified according to the manufacturers.

Fig 4: Granularity values of film systems measured by the manufacturers in a round robin 1988. These values
were used to define the limiting values of the system classes.
 Concerning the gradient/granularity-ratio a similar trend can be stated. In
figure 4 the results of the round robin 1988 measured by the manufacturers
are shown. Again these values were used to set the limiting values of the
film system classes. These results can be compared with values BAM
measured for the systems in the years 1998/1999/2000 as shown in figure
5. Again some values are nearer to the class limit and some systems are
beyond it.

Fig 5: Gradient/granularity-ratio of film systems measured by BAM 1998/1999/2000. The system classes are
cited according to the manufacturers.
Fig 6: Gradient/granularity-ratio of film systems including mixed systems measured by BAM 1998/1999/2000.
The original systems are classified according to the manufacturers.

The effect of mixed systems is shown in figure 6. By comparison with

figure 5 it can be seen that the gradient/granularity-ratio of a mixed system
becomes mostly worse than for the original system but in some cases it
becomes even better.
Changes in the granularity are related with changes of the speed of a film
system. With respect to the results above it would be of interest how they
are mirrored in a diagram where the granularity is put into relation to the
dose for a certain density. In figure 7 this is done in a special way: The
ordinate gives the values of 2/D for the film systems as a kind of signal-
to-noise ratio over the square root of the dose for D-Do = 2 as a measure
related to the quantum noise. On a first glance one would expect a straight
line as relation between these two quantities, but as figure 7 shows this is
valid only on the whole but not in detail. The relation is ambiguous as for
some dose values, more than one value of 2/D is possible. This is
especially true if mixed systems are included and has consequences for the
application of the film test strips according to EN 584-2. These film test
strips are used for a quality check of a classified film system where film
and developer originate from the same manufacturer, their use as quality
check for unknown combinations of mixed systems has to be discussed.
Fig 7: The values of 2/granularity (~ signal/noise-ratio) in relation to the square root of the dose for D-Do = 2
(~ quantum noise) for different film systems inclusive mixed systems.

6. Conclusions

The results of this international project for quality assurance of film

systems as they are described in the sections above give evidence for the
necessity of surveillance and certification of industrial X-ray films. As
shown above is that only possible with an obligatory round robin test for
the harmonization of the equipment and the algorithms for measurement.
Obviously, the prescriptions of the standard EN 584-1 are not precise
enough to enable identical results in different laboratories, therefore a
revision of this standard seems necessary. A proposal for a possible
procedure to measure the granularity is given in section 4.3. The
participation of other film manufacturers and users in a round robin test for
the measurement of such film system properties would be a step forward
towards an international accepted surveillance and certification system.
Interested parties are invited to such a round robin test and the further
analysis of the present status of film systems.
The continuous surveillance of all important film system properties by the
manufacturers supported by periodical measurements of film samples and
chemistries from production by independent third party institutions like
BAM will be a contribution to the stability of the radiographic testing
quality. Together with an obligatory round robin test for the harmonization
 of the measurement equipment the surveillance will be a presupposition
for a long term certification of each film system.

References:

1. D. Schnitger, E. Mundry : "Über die Klassifizierung von Röntgenfilmen"

Amts- und Mitteilungsblatt der Bundesanstalt fÜr MaterialprÜfung 1,
1970, No.4
2. J. Stade, U. Ewert, D. Schnitger, J. Snels, W. Markie, M. Ailliet:
"Klassifizierung am Markt befindlicher Röntgenfilmsysteme",
Proceedings of the annual conference 1999 of the German Society of Non-
destructive Testing, Celle 10.-12. May 1999, Vol. 68, 2, p.663-673
3. E. Buhr et all. PTB Mitteilungen 101 3/91 p. 183-191 , 1991,
ISO 10505 WD#3 Photography - Root-mean-square (rms)-granularity of
photographic film - method of measurement

https://www.ndt.net/article/wcndt00/papers/idn409/idn409.htm