The present invention is directed to the field of computed tomography detection systems.
On Nov. 16, 2001, the U.S. Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. The Act required U.S. airlines to perform 100% checked baggage inspection starting Jan. 18, 2002 using any means available, with a requirement to inspect 100% of the checked bags using FAA Certified Explosives Detection Systems (EDS) by Dec. 31, 2002. Accordingly, a system that enables the airlines and airports to comply with those regulations while maintaining passenger and baggage flow through the terminal is needed.
The currently available EDS technology can be deployed in the terminal in front of the check-in counter, creating a new passenger queue and significant logistical problems for the airlines, or they can be integrated into the baggage conveyor system behind the check-in counters.
There are currently two deployment options for computed tomography (CT) machines; free standing or integrated. In a freestanding mode, the CT is installed in the airport lobby. Passengers are required to queue for checked baggage inspection prior to queuing for check-in. Freestanding installations consume a great deal of real estate in the airport terminal and require the user to make extensive modifications to existing passenger processing protocols.
Integrated installations are actually built into the conveyor system after check-in. Whether built into the conveyor just aft of the check-in desks or further down the baggage handling system, these installations are very expensive and require extensive modifications to the baggage conveyor system.
In view of the foregoing, a need exists for an operational friendly and usable screening system.
An embodiment of the invention is directed to a computed tomography device, comprising a tunnel to receive baggage, an x-ray source providing an x-ray beam that intersects the tunnel and has a beam angle of 120°, a gantry that oscillates relative to the tunnel through an oscillation angle that equals 270°, and a plurality of detectors. The plurality of detectors are mounted to the gantry and adapted to receive x-rays from the x-ray source. In addition, the plurality of detectors are arranged in a horseshoe-shaped configuration in which at least one first detector is located a furthest distance from the x-ray source and at least one second detector is disposed on each side of the at least one first detector and is disposed closer to the x-ray source than the at least one first detector.
One embodiment of the invention is directed to a smaller and cheaper system than is provided by traditional detection systems, and which is designed to be integrated into a check-in desk. Installing the inspection system within the check-in desk addresses critical drawbacks associated with existing equipment.
Standard check-in time is consistent with the screening time needed by the CT system. Screening at the check-in desk keeps the passenger with his bag until the bag is cleared, thereby avoiding the need to re-unite the passenger and bag at another point. A check-in desk solution does not require the complete baggage handling system to track 100% of all bags, which would require most US airports to update their baggage handling systems (BHS) at significant expense.
The check-in desk system may replace the existing check-in desk. Space requirements may be 15–20% greater than the existing check-in counters. The check-in desk system may be both freestanding and integrated. Because it is freestanding, it consumes none of the existing real estate in the terminal, eliminates the need for additional screening queues in front of the check-in process, and minimizes the need for a significant number of operators and screeners. Because it is integrated, it eliminates the need to replace the existing baggage conveyor system, significantly reduces cost, and allows quick installation of the screening system, rather than a year or more of planning.
The check-in desk system uses Computed Tomography (CT) which involves taking different X-ray projections from many different angles around an object and then performing a series of computations to reconstruct all pixels within an object. CT uses a rotating X-ray source to create “slice” images. CT was the first procedure that let physicians look inside the brain without opening the skull. The same principle holds true for security. CT allows you to see a small object like a sheet of plastic explosive, hidden inside the thick metal walls of a radio or laptop much like CT allows you to see a small tumor hidden behind the skull bone.
Computed Tomography is a proven automated explosives detection technique. FAA certification has been achieved using CT technology.
Most CTs have a rotating gantry holding the X-ray source and detectors, performing continuous 360° rotations. CT systems designed for baggage inspection rotate at speeds between 30 and 120 RPM. Rotating large, heavy components at these speeds significantly complicates the system design. From slip rings and bearings to high speed radio frequency data transmission systems, each element of the machine is designed to support the 360° rotation.
One embodiment of the invention is directed to a very simple, slow CT machine. The CT rotates only 270° and then rotates back. Because the system uses an oscillating, rather than rotating design, the design of each element becomes much more simple and straightforward. The machine may be designed from mostly off-the shelf components, thereby making it easy and inexpensive to develop a production capability.
A unique combination of off-the-shelf technologies may be configured in the smallest possible package designed to be integrated into a standard sized check-in desk.
Industry average processing times at the check-in area are one passenger every 2.5 minutes. Because the CT scanner is built into the check-in desk in accordance with one embodiment, bags may be inspected as passengers are checking in. Thus, a complete bag scan can take up to one minute. Scanning slowly allows the X-ray source to oscillate, rather than requiring a complete rotation for each “slice”. Since a complete 360° rotation is not required, the CT scanner does not require a slip ring, which comprises the most complex parts of a conventional CT system, and is used to transfer power and data to the rotating X-ray gantry. Instead, in one embodiment the design uses an oscillating “horseshoe” architecture.
When computed tomography is performed without a complete 360° rotation, a number of technical issues become significantly easier to address. A first group of issues relate to the power supply. Traditional slip-ring CTs require the X-ray source and power supply be mounted to the gantry. Rather than mounting the X-ray source and high voltage power supplies on the rotating gantry, these components can be mounted in the chassis of the system, thereby simplifying the system design and minimizing technical risk.
Another group of issues relate to the Data Acquisition System (DAS). Traditional slip-ring CTs require that the data acquisition system be mounted to the gantry, with a means, typically a radio frequency (RF) transmitter, to transfer data to a CPU located in the chassis of the machine. In one embodiment, rather than mounting the DAS and associated components to the gantry, these components can be mounted in the chassis of the system, thereby simplifying the system design, reducing cost and minimizing technical risk.
A further group of issues relate to system size. Mounting all of the system electronics, including a complete power supply and X-ray source, quickly expands the size of the gantry itself. By mounting many of these components in the chassis of the machine, the gantry can be minimized, which provides a significant advantage when placing a CT inside a check-in desk sized envelope, as it facilitates minimizing the size of the system's external envelope.
The size of the CT gantry depends on the size of the circle of reconstruction and the X-ray source angle. Most CTs use an X-ray source with between 60° and 80° angle. The “horseshoe” system architecture, because so few components reside on the rotating device, allows the use of a commercial off-the-shelf X-ray source. X-ray sources from commercial non-destructive testing market are available with up to 180° beam angle. As the beam angle gets wider, the total size of the CT shrinks. This is illustrated in
Having thus described some illustrative embodiments of the invention, various modifications and improvements will readily occur to those skilled in the art. Accordingly, the foregoing description is by way of example only and is not intended as limiting. The invention is limited only as defined in the following claims and the equivalents thereto.
This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/677,976, entitled “Folded Array CT Baggage Scanner” and filed on Oct. 2, 2003.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4029963 | Alvarez et al. | Jun 1977 | A |
4070581 | Gibbons et al. | Jan 1978 | A |
4075492 | Boyd et al. | Feb 1978 | A |
4138721 | Boyd | Feb 1979 | A |
4149078 | Hahn et al. | Apr 1979 | A |
4149079 | Ben-Zeev et al. | Apr 1979 | A |
4247774 | Brooks | Jan 1981 | A |
4266136 | Duinker | May 1981 | A |
4298799 | Oliver | Nov 1981 | A |
4315157 | Barnes | Feb 1982 | A |
4599740 | Cable | Jul 1986 | A |
4756015 | Doenges et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4759047 | Donges et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4783794 | Dietrich | Nov 1988 | A |
4796183 | Ermert et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4798183 | Hataura et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4817121 | Shimizu et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4841554 | Doenges et al. | Jun 1989 | A |
4870670 | Geus | Sep 1989 | A |
5164973 | Takahashi et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
5367552 | Peschmann | Nov 1994 | A |
5570403 | Yamazaki et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5583903 | Saito et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5661774 | Gordon et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5692029 | Husseiny et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5848117 | Urchuk et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5867553 | Gordon et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5912938 | Dobbs et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5917876 | Fujii et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
6018562 | Willson | Jan 2000 | A |
6185272 | Hiraoglu et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6218943 | Ellenbogen | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6301326 | Bjorkholm | Oct 2001 | B2 |
6335957 | DiBianca | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6647091 | Fenkart et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6658082 | Okumura et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6707879 | McClelland et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
20040120454 | Ellenbogen et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0 471 455 | Feb 1992 | EP |
0 816 873 | Jan 1998 | EP |
0 825 457 | Feb 1998 | EP |
WO 9613839 | May 1996 | WO |
WO 9718462 | May 1997 | WO |
WO 03029844 | Apr 2003 | WO |
WO 03065077 | Aug 2003 | WO |
WO 2004031755 | Apr 2004 | WO |
WO 2004031755 | Apr 2004 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20050169422 A1 | Aug 2005 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10677976 | Oct 2003 | US |
Child | 10971453 | US |