The Performance Evaluation of Iterative PDF

J. .. Vol. XX , No.
X, 20XX, XX-XX
1
2
3
The Performance Evaluation of Iterative Linear BackProjection in Solving The Inverse Problem of Planar
Magnetic Induction Tomography
R Reinaldo1, Agus S Budi1, Marlin R Baidillah2, and Warsito P Taruno2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Abstract. Planar Magnetic Induction Tomography (PMIT) is an emerging

development of Magnetic Induction Tomography (MIT) technique developed to
overcome restriction such measurements can only be taken from one surface of
materials under testing. Recent study made use of Tikonov Regularization
technique to solve the inverse problem of PMIT. It produced satisfactory results.
However, the technique seems quite computationally expensive to satisfy highprocessing speed and high-imaging quality demands in low computational
resources. In this work, PMIT system is demonstrated through simulation. The
forward problem is solved using Finite Element Method (FEM) and the inverse
problem is solved using Iterative Linear Back-Projection (ILBP) technique. The
imaging results are then evaluated in order to quantified the performance of the
inverse solver by measuring several image quality parameters such as
Resolution, Positioning Error, and Shape Deformation. The results showed that
the ILBP algorithm was suitable enough to run in low computational resources,
encouraged by its simplicity and its promising imaging performance.
25
26
Keywords: image reconstruction, inverse problems, magnetic induction tomography,

planar, sensor
27
28
Planar Magnetic Induction Tomography (PMIT) is an emerging development of
29
Magnetic Induction Tomography (MIT) technique developed to overcome
30
restriction such measurements can only be taken from one surface of materials
31
under testing [1]. The sensor design of PMIT makes it more suitable to be
32
implemented in fields such as Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) or non-
33
destructive evaluation besides its contact-less and non-invasive features [2,3].
Department of Physics, State University of Jakarta, Jakarta Timur, Indonesia

CTECH Labs Edwar Technology. Co, Alam Sutera, Tanggerang, Indonesia
Email: rifkyreynaldo@gmail.com
Introduction
Received ________, Revised _________, Accepted for publication __________
R Reinaldo, Agus S Budi, Marlin R Baidillah, and Warsito P Taruno
34
As such, some studies have focused on developing PMIT or similar system [4-
35
9]. In the recent study of PMIT that was carried out by Soleimani el al [10], it
36
was said that PMIT has two main advantages over traditional scanning based
37
eddy current NDT methods. One of the advantages is PMIT employ an array of
38
coils, thus scanning speed can be improved. The speed of image reconstruction
39
process also needs to be considered actually. Tikonov Regularization technique
40
that was used by Soleimani el al to solve inverse problem of PMIT was quite
41
computationally expensive. It can be seen from the Tikonov regularization
42
equation that it requires direct multiplication and inversion of large-size matrix
43
[11-13]. The larger the matrixs size, the higher the required computational
44
resources, makes the technique less possible to satisfy high-processing speed
45
and high-imaging quality demands in low computational resources. For
46
instance, PMIT in the future will be applied in NDT fields as an online portable
47
metallic inspection tool that is able to run imaging process in real-time.
48
Moreover, the system will be developed based on an embedded system, which
49
is platform that is not as much powerful as personal computer todays. Both of
50
these parameters are believed crucial to determine PMIT implementation
51
feasibility in NDT or in other fields. Hence, PMIT system is demonstrated in
52
this work through simulation. Imaging performance of Iterative Linear Back-
53
Projection as the inverse solver is evaluated quantitatively.
The Performance Evaluation of Iterative Linear Back-Projection in Solving

The Inverse Problem of Planar Magnetic Induction Tomography 3
54
System Description
55
PMIT system that is demonstrated in this work has 16 identical and equally
56
spaced inductive coils arranged in 4 x 4 matrix as can be seen in figure 1(a) and
57
in figure 1(b) for the coil sequence. Each coil is designed has 3.9 cm inner
58
diameter, 4.1 cm outer diameter, 3.4 cm coil length, and 100 numbers of turns.
(a)
59
(b)
Figure 1 System description: (a) coil array design, (b) coil sequence
60
61
Each of these16 coils is driven individually with sinusoidal signal of 1Amp
62
current, 50 KHz. According to sensitivity model theory [14], first cycle
63
operation of the system starts from exciting coil number 1, and then voltage
64
measurement is read from the other coils. In second cycle, excitement coil is
65
started from coil number 2 and voltage measurements are collected from coil 3
66
to coil 16 . . . etc. Therefore, for 16-channel system the total number of
67
measurement will be (16 15) / 2 = 120 [15].
68
Methodologies
69
In developing an electrical tomography technique, usually there are two main
70
problems need to be solved, namely forward and inverse problems [16].
71
The forward problem is solved to estimate measurement data while physical
72
properties are given. In MIT, generally the forward problem is eddy current
73
problem that can be solved numerically using technique such as Finite Element
74
Method (FEM) [17-20]. Conversely, inverse problem is solved to estimate
75
physical properties while measurement data are given [21]. For typical MIT
76
system, inductive coils are used as transmitters and receivers or sensors based
77
on mutual inductance theory. By establishing alternating current into the
78
transmitter coil, time varying magnetic field is generated, which induces
79
primary back emf signal at the receiver coils. If now a conductive object is
80
located at sensitive enough region, eddy current will be induced into the object.
81
This current can produce secondary magnetic field, which in turns induce
82
secondary emf signal and perturb the primary signal at the receiver coils. This
83
perturbation can be said proportional to the objects conductivity [22]. The
84
measured emf signal are then collected from the receiver coils and manipulated
85
using tomographic image reconstruction techniques or namely inverse solvers
86
to create image of the object conductivity spatial distribution. In this simulation,
87
measurement is obtained from the solution of forward problem.

88
3.1
Forward Model
89
Forward problem of MIT is eddy current problem that can be derived from
90
Maxwells equation using quasi-static approximation [21]. This derivation can
91
be written in terms of the magnetic vector potential, A for harmonic excitation
92
cases using complex phasor notation as follow:
93
#1
&
% A ( + i A = J s
$
'
(1)
94
Where is magnetic permeability, is electrical conductivity, and Js is driving
95
current density applied at excitation coil. If total current at excitation coil is 1
96
Amp, sensitivity map also known as Jacobian or sensitivity matrix can be
97
defined as [23]:
98
S ij =
Vij
k
= 2 A i . A j dv
(2)
99
Where Vij is measured voltage for i-j coil pair, k is conductivity of k-th voxel,
100
k is volume of k-th voxel, Ai and Aj are respectively solutions of forward
101
problem when excitation coil i is excited with 1 Amp current and sensing coil j
102
is excited with unit current.
103
The sensitivity matrix, S, is obtained by subdividing imaging region of the
104
system into a number of small volumes usually called as voxels [24-26].
105
Therefore, the matrix will has as many rows as measurement pairs and as many
106
columns as the voxels. In this simulation, imaging region of the system is
107
subdivided three dimensionally into 32 x 32 x 32 number of voxels. Thus, the
108
system is capable of producing a 3D tomographic image. Figure 2 shows the
109
system 3D sensitivity map coupling of coil pair 1-2, 1-11, 1-16, and 5-8.
110
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 2 3D Sensitivity map of coil pairs: (a) 1-2, (b) 1-11, (c) 1-16, (d) 5-8

111
3.2
112
Landweber algorithm, also known as Iterative Linear Back-Projection, is a
113
linear inverse technique that is widely used in several electrical tomography
114
modalities. The algorithm aims to find minimum least square error of a cost
115
function through iterative regularized manner [12]. The algorithm of Iterative
116
Linear Back-Projection is given by the following procedure:
117
Inverse Solver
x i +1 = x i + S T (V S x i )
(3)
118
Generally, x is reconstructed parameter vector, S is sensitivity matrix, V is
119
measurement vector, and is relaxation parameter. Therefore, in this case x will
120
be conductivity vector. The relaxation parameter and number of iterations in
121
this work are found through convergence test of the algorithm as the results can
122
be seen in figure 3(b). The cost function itself is defined as:
123
J (x) =
1
2
S xV
(4)
124
From figure 3(b), it can be seen the best relaxation parameter is 14E-12. Values
125
below 14E-12 give slower convergence rate (e.g. 5E-13, 1E-12). Values near
126
14E-12, 5E-12, give better convergence rate but not as much better as 14E-12.
127
Values slightly higher than 14E-12, 15E-12, doesnt improve the convergence
128
rate, instead converge to unstable least-square solution proven by the cost
129
function over iteration number is increasing rather than decreasing. Therefore, It
130
would be better to set the relaxation parameter as 14E-12 and 100 numbers of
131
iteration as it gives lowest cost and better convergence rate performance.
132
133
134
Figure 3 Convergence plot of ILBP algorithm in this work
135
3.3
Image Quality Measures
136
In order to get overall performance of ILBP algorithm, its imaging performance
137
needs to be measured by means several image quality parameters. These
138
parameters had been already proposed and used by Adler el al and Soleimani el
139
al in previous study which consist of resolution (RES), positioning error (PE),
140
and shape deformation (SD) [27,28]. Procedure used to implement this method
141
as follow: one corresponded layer of 3D reconstructed image is selected and
142
then converted to binary image that is defined as:

143
b j = [x j 14 max(x)]
(5)
144
Where [.] is truth statement that is 1 if the condition is satisfied, else 0. RES is
145
defined as:
146
RES =
(6)
A0
147
Where A0 is pixel area of true conductivity distribution. RES should be close to
148
1 in order for the algorithm correctly represents the true area of conductivity
149
distribution. In this work, we define our own equation to calculate SD as:
150
SD = 1
b
j C
j C j
(7)
151
Where C is the boundary region of A0. So, the first term inside the vertical bars
152
in equation (7) means total pixel amplitude of b outside C. SD should be close
153
to 0, means there is no quality degradation. PE, measures the extent to which
154
reconstructed image faithfully represents position of image target based on
155
Center of Mass (CoM) of both images [10]. The defined SD measures both RES
156
and PE generally. Hence, we can only consider SD to evaluate imaging results.
10
157
Results and Discussion
158
In this work, several tests were conducted to evaluate ILBP performance. The
159
first column in figure 4 shows inclusions setup used in every test that are steel
160
cube with side length of 3 cm, conductivity of 4.02x106 S/m, and relative
161
permittivity and permeability of 1. Every inclusion is equally spaced 2 cm
162
against the coil array. Row index represents the test number. The algorithm was
163
run on personal computer (AMD Hexa-Core 3.2 GHz CPU, 4 GB RAM) and
164
required around 6s for a 3D tomographic image production with 32 x 32 x 32
165
resolution and 100 numbers of iteration. It can be seen from the imaging results
166
that the algorithm is able to produce satisfactory image. Every reconstructed
167
image correctly represents how many inclusions are given and where inclusions
168
are located. Moreover, image evaluation data in table 1 give satisfactory results
169
either. SD for each reconstructed image is less then 10%. However, in the case
170
of three inclusions, SD is slightly higher than the others.

Test setup
Slice plot
Iso-surface plot

12
171
172
173
Figure 4 Imaging performance test resuslts

Table 1
No.
Test
1
2
3
4
5
6
Image evaluation results
RES
error (%)
0
CoM
(x, y)
24.50, 8.50
POS
(%)
0
SD
(%)
0
Reconstructed
1.60
37.53
24.00, 8.76
2.18
2.48
True
16.00, 16.00
Reconstructed
1.22
17.80
16.00, 16.00
1.20
True
8.50, 24.50
Reconstructed
1.60
37.53
9.24, 9.24
2.17
2.48
True
16.50,16.50
Reconstructed
1.30
23.30
16.71,16.41
0.96
2.85
True
17.56, 15.22
Reconstructed
1.36
26.37
16.77, 16.23
5.48
3.88
True
17.28, 15.56
Reconstructed
1.18
15.29
17.18, 15.69
0.73
8.26
Image
RES
True
174
175
Algorithm or number of inclusions actually does not cause higher deformation
176
in reconstructed images. PMIT detectability depends on its sensitivity and
177
location of inclusion(s). In previous study, it had been discovered that sensitive
178
region of PMIT tends to have trapezoidal or spherical shape [10]. Working

179
frequency used in this work, 50 KHz also possible made the system obtained
180
less information about the inclusion because the eddy current cannot penetrate
181
much than the depth of the inclusion itself. It should be noted that in this
182
simulation skin effect was not neglected. Therefore, eddy current can only
183
penetrate approximately 0.112 cm into each of the inclusions.
184
185
This study has shown the performance evaluation of the Iterative Linear Back-
186
Projection algorithm in solving the inverse problem of PMIT. The algorithm is
187
quite powerful enough to solve the inverse problem of PMIT. It is clear that the
188
algorithm still require large computational resources to satisfy high-processing
189
speed and high-quality image demands. Nevertheless, the algorithm has shown
190
potential that it is suitable to be implemented in low computational resources,
191
encouraged by its simplicity and its promising imaging performance.
192
193
[1]
Conclusion
References
Ramli, S. and Peyton, A. J., Feasibility Study of Planar-Array
194
Electromagnetic Inductance Tomography (EMT), 1st World Congress on
195
Industrial Process Tomography, Buxton, Greater Manchester, pp. 1417,
196
1999.
197
[2]
Soleimani, M., Computational Aspects of Low Frequency Electrical and
198
Electromagnetic Tomography: A Review, J. Numerical Analysis and
199
Modeling. Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 407-440, 2008.
14
200
[3]
Wei, H.Y., Soleimani, M., A Magnetic Induction Tomography System for
201
Prospective Industrial Processing Applications, Int. Chinese J. Chemical
202
Engineering. Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 406-410, 2012.
203
[4]
Mukhopadhyay, S. C., Novel Planar Electromagnetic Sensors: Modeling
204
and Performance Evaluation, Sensors, Vol. 15, No. 12, pp. 546-579,
205
2005.
206
[5]
Mukhopadhyay, S. C., S. Yamada, and M. Iwahara, Inspection of electro-
207
plated materials-performance comparison with planar meander and mesh
208
type magnetic sensor, Int. Journal. Applied Electromagnetics and
209
Mechanics, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 323 330, 2002.
210
[6]
Mukhopadhyay, S. C., S. Yamada, and M. Iwahara, Investigation of
211
Near-surface Material Properties Using Planar Type Meander Coil,
212
JSAEM Studies on Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics, Vol. 11,
213
pp. 6169, 2001.
214
[7]
Yin, W. and Peyton, A. J., A Planar EMT System for The Detection of
215
Faults on Thin Metallic Plates, Physiological Measurement, Vol. 17, No.
216
8, pp. 2130-2135, 2006.
217
[8]
Watson, S., Igney C. H., Dossel, O., Williams, R. J., Griffiths, H., A
218
Comparison of Sensors for Minimizing The Primary Signal in Planar-
219
Array Magnetic Induction Tomography, Physiol. Meas. Vol. 26, pp. 1
220
13, 2006.

221
[9]
Gursoy, D., Scharfetter, H., Magnetic Induction Pneumography: A
222
Planar Coil System For Continuous Monitoring of Lung Function Via
223
Contactless Measurements, J. Elect. Bioimp, Vol. 1, pp. 5662. 2010.
224
[10] Ma, L., Wei, H.Y, Soleimani, M., Planar Magnetic Induction
225
Tomography
226
Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 138, pp. 65-82, 2013.
For
3D
Near
Subsurface
Imaging,
Progress
in
227
[11] Soleimani, M., Willuhn, K.J., Image Reconstruction for Magnetic
228
Induction Tomography, Proceedings of the 26th Annual International
229
Conference of the IEEE EMBS, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2004.
230
[12] Soleimani, M., Lionheart, W.R.B., Peyton, A.J., Ma, X., Image
231
Reconstruction In 3D Magnetic Induction Tomography Using a FEM
232
Forward Model, 3rd World Congress On Industrial Process Tomography,
233
Banff, Canada. 2003.
234
[13] Soleimani, M., Lionheart, W. R. B., Peyton, A. J., Image Reconstruction
235
For
236
Tomography for Industrial Applications, Trans. Inst. Meas. Vol. 56, No.
237
5, pp. 2024-2032, 2007.
238
239
High-Contrast
Conductivity
Imaging
in
Mutual
Induction
[14] Ma, L., Wei, H.Y, Soleimani, M., Volumetric Magnetic Induction
Tomography, Meas. Sci. Technol, Vol. 23, No. 5, 055401, 2012.
240
[15] Vauhkonen, M., Hamsch, M., Igney, C. H., A Measurement System and
241
Image Reconstruction in Magnetic Induction Tomography, Physiol.
242
Meas. Vol. 29, pp. 445-454, 2008.
16
243
244
[16] Griffiths, H., Magnetic Induction Tomography, Meas. Sci. Technol. Vol.
12, pp. 11261131, 2001.
245
[17] Palka, R., Gratkowski S., A. J., Stawitcki, K., Baniukiewicz, P, The
246
Forward and Inverse Problems in Magnetic Induction Tomography of
247
Low Conductivity Structures, Int. J. Computer-Aided Engineering and
248
Software. Vol. 26, No. 8, pp. 897-910. 2009.
249
[18] Soleimani, M., Lionheart, W.R.B., Riedel, C.H., Dossel, O., Forward
250
Problem in 3D Magnetic Induction Tomography (MIT), 3rd World
251
Congress On Industrial Process Tomography, Banff, Canada. 2003.
252
[19] Ktistis, C., D. W. Armitage, and Peyton A. J., Calculation of The
253
Forward Problem For Absolute Image Reconstruction in MIT,
254
Physiological Measurement, Vol. 29, S455S464, 2008.
255
[20] Ma, L., Wei, H. Y., Soleimani, M., Pipeline Inspection Using Magnetic
256
Induction Tomography Based on Narrowband Pass Filtering Method,
257
Progress in Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 23, pp. 65-78, 2012.
258
[21] Merwa, M., Hollaus, K., Brunner, P., Scharfetter, H., Solution of The
259
Inverse Problem of Magnetic Induction Tomography, Physiol. Meas, Vol.
260
26, pp. 241250, 2005.
261
[22] Wei, H. Y and Soleimani, M., Two-Phase Low Conductivity Flow
262
Imaging
263
Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 131, pp. 99-115, 2012.
Using
Magnetic
Induction
Tomography,
Progress
in

264
[23] Hollaus, K., Magele, C., Merwa, R., Scharfetter, H., Fast Calculation of
265
The Sensitivity Matrix in Magnetic Induction Tomography by Tetrahedral
266
Edge Finite Elements and The Reciprocity Theorem, Physiological
267
Measurement, Vol. 25, pp. 159-168, 2004.
268
[24] Lionheart, W.R.B., Soleimani, Peyton, A.J., Sensitivity Analysis of 3D
269
Magnetic Induction Tomography (MIT), 3rd World Congress On
270
Industrial Process Tomography, Banff, Canada. 2003.
271
[25] Nakazawa, A.G., Yang, W., Peyton, A.J., An Analytical Approach to
272
Obtaining 3D Sensitivity Maps for Electro-Magnetic Tomography, J.
273
Information and system sciences. Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 607-619, 2006.
274
[26] Rosell, J., Casanas, R., Scharfetter, H., Sensitivity Maps and System
275
Requirements for Magnetic Induction Tomography using A Planar
276
Gradiometer, Physiol. Meas. Vol. 22, pp. 121130, 2001.
277
[27] Adler, A., Arnold, J., H., Bayford, R., Borsic, A., Brown, B., Dixon, P.,
278
Faes, T., J., C., Frerichs, I., Gagnon, H., Garber, H., Grychtol, B., Hahn,
279
G., Lionheart, W., R., B., Malik, A., Patterson, R. P., Stocks, J., Tizzard,
280
A., Weiler, N., and Wolf, G. K., GREIT: A unified approach to 2D linear
281
EIT reconstruction of lung images, Physiol. Meas., 30(6), pp. S35S55,
282
2009.
283
[28] Wei, H. Y & Soleimani, M., Theoretical and Experimental Evaluation Of
284
Rotational Magnetic Induction Tomography, Trans. Inst. Meas, 61(12),
285
pp. 3324-3331, 2012.

The Performance Evaluation of Iterative PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Performance Evaluation of Iterative PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

J. .. Vol. XX , No.

R Reinaldo1, Agus S Budi1, Marlin R Baidillah2, and Warsito P Taruno2

Abstract. Planar Magnetic Induction Tomography (PMIT) is an emerging

Keywords: image reconstruction, inverse problems, magnetic induction tomography,

Planar Magnetic Induction Tomography (PMIT) is an emerging development of

Magnetic Induction Tomography (MIT) technique developed to overcome

implemented in fields such as Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) or non-

destructive evaluation besides its contact-less and non-invasive features [2,3].

Department of Physics, State University of Jakarta, Jakarta Timur, Indonesia

Received ________, Revised _________, Accepted for publication __________

R Reinaldo, Agus S Budi, Marlin R Baidillah, and Warsito P Taruno

process also needs to be considered actually. Tikonov Regularization technique

computationally expensive. It can be seen from the Tikonov regularization

equation that it requires direct multiplication and inversion of large-size matrix

resources, makes the technique less possible to satisfy high-processing speed

and high-imaging quality demands in low computational resources. For

metallic inspection tool that is able to run imaging process in real-time.

Moreover, the system will be developed based on an embedded system, which

is platform that is not as much powerful as personal computer todays. Both of

these parameters are believed crucial to determine PMIT implementation

feasibility in NDT or in other fields. Hence, PMIT system is demonstrated in

this work through simulation. Imaging performance of Iterative Linear Back-

Projection as the inverse solver is evaluated quantitatively.

The Performance Evaluation of Iterative Linear Back-Projection in Solving

Each of these16 coils is driven individually with sinusoidal signal of 1Amp

current, 50 KHz. According to sensitivity model theory [14], first cycle

to coil 16 . . . etc. Therefore, for 16-channel system the total number of

measurement will be (16 15) / 2 = 120 [15].

R Reinaldo, Agus S Budi, Marlin R Baidillah, and Warsito P Taruno

In developing an electrical tomography technique, usually there are two main

problems need to be solved, namely forward and inverse problems [16].

The forward problem is solved to estimate measurement data while physical

Method (FEM) [17-20]. Conversely, inverse problem is solved to estimate

on mutual inductance theory. By establishing alternating current into the

transmitter coil, time varying magnetic field is generated, which induces

perturbation can be said proportional to the objects conductivity [22]. The

using tomographic image reconstruction techniques or namely inverse solvers

to create image of the object conductivity spatial distribution. In this simulation,

measurement is obtained from the solution of forward problem.

The Performance Evaluation of Iterative Linear Back-Projection in Solving

Maxwells equation using quasi-static approximation [21]. This derivation can

be written in terms of the magnetic vector potential, A for harmonic excitation

cases using complex phasor notation as follow:

Where is magnetic permeability, is electrical conductivity, and Js is driving

current density applied at excitation coil. If total current at excitation coil is 1

Amp, sensitivity map also known as Jacobian or sensitivity matrix can be

k is volume of k-th voxel, Ai and Aj are respectively solutions of forward

is excited with unit current.

The sensitivity matrix, S, is obtained by subdividing imaging region of the

system into a number of small volumes usually called as voxels [24-26].

R Reinaldo, Agus S Budi, Marlin R Baidillah, and Warsito P Taruno

columns as the voxels. In this simulation, imaging region of the system is

subdivided three dimensionally into 32 x 32 x 32 number of voxels. Thus, the

system is capable of producing a 3D tomographic image. Figure 2 shows the

The Performance Evaluation of Iterative Linear Back-Projection in Solving

Landweber algorithm, also known as Iterative Linear Back-Projection, is a

linear inverse technique that is widely used in several electrical tomography

function through iterative regularized manner [12]. The algorithm of Iterative

Linear Back-Projection is given by the following procedure:

Generally, x is reconstructed parameter vector, S is sensitivity matrix, V is

measurement vector, and is relaxation parameter. Therefore, in this case x will

be conductivity vector. The relaxation parameter and number of iterations in

be seen in figure 3(b). The cost function itself is defined as:

Received ____, Revised _, Accepted for publication ______