Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.17946/JRST.2018.41.6.603

Comparison of Accuracy and Output Waveform of Devices According to Rectification Method  

Lee, In Ja (Department of radiological Technology, Dongnam Health University)
Publication Information
Journal of radiological science and technology / v.41, no.6, 2018 , pp. 603-610 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study examined the following: accuracy of the exposure conditions in the inverter device and three-phase device; output waveform over the exposure conditions; and average and standard deviation of the output waveform. After assessing whether the dose corresponding to the theoretical dose was presented, the following conclusions were obtained: 1. The accuracy of the tube voltage(kVp) and tube current(mA) exposure time(sec) was within the tolerable level prescribed in Korea's Safety Management Standards. In the error, Inverter device was large the tube voltage and exposure time, the three-phase device was large the tube current. 2. In terms of the output waveform of the exposure conditions and the average and standard deviation of the output waveform, the higher tube voltage and larger tube current resulted in greater standard deviation in pulsation. Moreover, the standard deviation of pulsation was shown to be greater in the inverter device than the three-phase device; there was also greater standard deviation in the inverter device considering the exposure time. 3. Regarding the exposure conditions over the output dose, all linearity showed the coefficient of variation which had an allowable limit of error within 0.05. Although the output dose ratio for the inverter device was 1.00~1.10 times no difference that of the three-phase device, there was almost no difference in dose ratio between the tube currents.
Keywords
Inverter device; Three phases device; Output waveform; Ripple factor; Dose ratio;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 ICRP. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP publication 103, Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4).
2 Carlton RR, Adler AM. Principle of Radiographic Image, An Art and a science. 4th Edition. Thomson Delmar Learning; 2006.
3 Kang SS, Kwon DG, Kim KK. Diagnostic X-ray equipment 2nd ed. Chung-ku Pub; co.; 2011.
4 Koo BY, Han SH. A Study on the Performance Evaluation of Portable Radiation Shielding Apparatus. J. of radiological science & technology. 2018;41(4):289-95.   DOI
5 Jang DG, Shin SH. Analysis of Cosmic Radiation Dose of People by Abroad Travel. J. of radiological science & technology. 2018;41(4):339-44.   DOI
6 Kim SC. Feasibility of Using the Clamp Meter in Measuring X-Ray Tube Current. International Journal of Contents. 2013;9(1):38-41.   DOI
7 Seoung YH. Evaluation of accuracy and Reproducibility of Clinical General X-rat System by Safety Management Standard of Diagnostic Radiation Generators. J. Health. Med. Sci.. Cheongju Univ. 2018;6(2):41-8.
8 Kim JM, Lee IJ, Park JS, et al. innovation Radiation Image Information. Shin-Kwang Pub. co.; 2017.
9 Kwon DM, Kim YG, Kim YI, Kim HT, Park BL, Park YS, et al. Analoge & Digital.PACS Medical Image Information. Daihak Pub. co.; 2016.
10 Commissions of Diagnostic Image equipment Management. Diagnostic Image equipment Management experiments. Chung-ku Pub. co.; 2018.
11 Ministry of Health and Welfare : Rule Revision about Safety Management of Diagnosis Radiation Occurrence System (85th Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, 2011.11.25.).
12 Kim JM, Kim SC, Ko SG. X-ray equipment & Management experiments. Daihak Pub. co.; 2000.
13 Kang SS, Kim CS, Ko SJ. Usefulness of Non-Invasive Measurement Tool on Performance Evaluation of Inverter Type X-ray Unit. J. of radiological science & technology. 2008;31(2);123-7.
14 Kang BS, Lee KM, Shim WY, Park SC, Choi HD, Cho YK. Analyze for the Quality Control of General X-ray Systems in Capital region. J. of radiological science & technology. 2012;35(2):93-102.
15 Thompson TT. A practical approach to modern X-ray Equipment. Brown co.; 1978.