• The Journal of Engineering Geology
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.163-174
• /
• 2001

For quantitative evaluation of geotechnical engineering properties such as rippability and diggability, clear interpretation on the subsUJiace velocity structures should be preceded by figuring out top soil, weathered and soft rock layers, shape of basement, fracture zones, geologic boundary and etC. from the seismic refraction data. It is very important to set up suitable field parameters, which are the configuration of profile and its length, spacings of geophones and sources and topographic conditions, for increasing field data Quality. Geophone spacing of 3 to 5m is reconunended in the land slope area of house land development site. In refraction tomography technique, the number of source points should be more than a Cluarter of available channel number of instrument and the subsurface structure interpretation can be decreased the artifact of inversion by topographic effect. Compared with core logging data, it is shown that the velocity range of the soil is less than 700m/s, weathered rock 700~1,200m/s, soft rock 1,200~1,800m/s on the velocity tomogram section. And the upper limit of P-wave velocity for rippability is estimated 1,200 to 1,800m/s in land slope area of gneiss.

• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.7-10
• /
• 2013

Purpose : This study evaluated the effects of breathing protocols on matching results of PET and CT images using two breathing protocols such as free breathing and acquisition in holding the breathing after the normal expiration in acquiring CT images. Materials and Methods: Whole body FDG PET and CT images of 200 patients (mean age: 58 (range 20~84), 103 males and 97 females) using Discovery VCT (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, USA). When taking CT images, subjects were asked to breathe freely (free breathing, n=100) or hold the breathing after the normal expiration (Hold, n=100). In the whole body image coronal section where PET and CT were matched, the matched error of the boundary between diaphragm and liver was measured in length. The matched errors were compared according to breathing protocol by age, sex and disease. The verification of statistical significance was made by SPSS 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) via one way ANOVA. Results: The matched error in all was 0.87 mm. According to breathing protocol, there was no significant difference in matched error as1.01 mm in free breathing and as 0.73 mm in hold breathing (p=.688). The matched error according to sex did not show significant difference as 1.08 mm of males, and 0.93 mm of females in free breathing (p=.517). In hold breathing, there was no significant difference as 0.79 mm of males and 0.66 mm of females (p=.738). There was no significant difference in matched error by age between free breathing and hold breathing (free breathing (p=.728), hold (p=.465). There was no significant difference in matched error by disease between free breathing and hold breathing (free breathing (p=.197), hold (p=.518) Conclusion: The difference in matched error between free breathing and hold breathing was less than 5 mm at 99%. There was no statistically significant difference in matched error by breathing protocol, age and disease. It was proved that there was no difference in matched error between PET and CT images according to breathing protocol during PET/CT scan.