Author Affiliations
1College of Nuclear Science and Technology, Beijing normal university, Beijing 100875, China2Institute of Ionizing Radiation Metrology, National Institute of Metrology, Beijing 100013, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. CT images of HPGe detector
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of MCNP model of HPGe detector
Fig. 3. Diagram of calibration measuring situation for HPGe detector
Fig. 4. Comparison of experimental detection efficiency and simulated detection efficiency
Fig. 5. Experimental device for measuring radioactive source with high purity germanium detector
Fig. 6. Experimental device for measuring radioactive sources in a 10L spherical ionization chamber
Fig. 7. Energy spectrum of different energies simulated by MCNP
Fig. 8. Energy spectrum of Co-60 and Cs-137 simulated by MCNP
Fig. 9. Results of G and GE for energy group No. 1
Fig. 10. Results of G and GE for energy group No. 2
Fig. 11. Energy spectrum of Co-60 of high purity germanium detector
Fig. 12. Energy spectrum of Cs-137 of high purity germanium detector
radioactive source | energy/keV | FWHM/MeV | detection efficiency/% | Co-57 | 122.06 | 2.74×10−3 | 0.239 | 136.47 | 2.67×10−3 | 0.274 | Co-60 | 1173.24 | 3.44×10−3 | 0.057 | 1332.51 | 3.51×10−3 | 0.052 | Cs-137 | 661.66 | 3.36×10−3 | 0.092 | Na-22 | 1274.54 | 3.17×10−3 | 0.054 |
|
Table 1. Result of the calibration measurement of HPGe detector
E/keV | experimental detection efficiency/% | simulated detection efficiency at different dead layer/% | 0.05 cm | 0.07 cm | 0.10 cm | 0.12 cm | 0.17 cm | 0.22 cm | 122.06 | 0.278 | 0.230 | 0.273 | 0.264 | 0.250 | 0.228 | 0.208 | 136.47 | 0.275 | 0.293 | 0.283 | 0.288 | 0.264 | 0.245 | 0.227 | 511.00 | 0.128 | 0.078 | 0.119 | 0.116 | 0.116 | 0.112 | 0.108 | 661.66 | 0.092 | 0.098 | 0.098 | 0.091 | 0.095 | 0.092 | 0.089 | 1173.24 | 0.058 | 0.031 | 0.063 | 0.062 | 0.062 | 0.060 | 0.059 | 1274.54 | 0.055 | 0.021 | 0.060 | 0.058 | 0.058 | 0.056 | 0.055 | 1332.51 | 0.052 | 0.029 | 0.057 | 0.056 | 0.056 | 0.054 | 0.053 |
|
Table 2. Simulated detection efficiency results of HPGe detector with different dead layer thickness
average energy/MeV | simulated dose rate/(nGy·h−1) | dose rate of conversion of complete spectra without deconvolution method /(nGy·h−1) | residue/(nGy·h−1) | 0.055 | 1.80×10−5 | 1.80×10−5 | 0 | 0.070 | 1.72×10−5 | 1.72×10−5 | 0 | 1.000 | 2.20×10−5 | 2.20×10−5 | 0 | 0.125 | 2.82×10−5 | 2.82×10−5 | 9.83×10−20 | 0.170 | 4.11×10−5 | 4.11×10−5 | 9.49×10−20 | 0.662 | 2.00×10−3 | 2.00×10−3 | 0 | 1.250 | 3.44×10−3 | 3.44×10−3 | 9.97×10−18 |
|
Table 3. Dose rate of conversion of complete spectra without deconvolution method and simulation of energy group No. 2
radioactive source | distance/m | measured dose rate/(nGy·h−1) | standard value of dose rate/(nGy·h−1) | relative error of measured value and standard value/% | Cs-137 | 3.0 | 5343 | 5397 | −1.001 | Cs-137 | 3.5 | 3965 | 3962 | 0.076 | Cs-137 | 4.0 | 3018 | 3028 | −0.330 | Cs-137 | 4.5 | 2395.5 | 2396 | −0.021 | Co-60 | 3.0 | 1368 | 1355.4 | −0.921 | Co-60 | 3.5 | 1005 | 988.5 | −1.642 | Co-60 | 4.0 | 769 | 776.1 | 0.923 | Co-60 | 4.5 | 607 | 602.55 | −0.733 |
|
Table 4. The results of measuring the dose rate of Co-60 and Cs-137 in a 10 L spherical ionization chamber at different distances
radioactive source | distance/m | dose rate of conversion of complete spectra without deconvolution method/(nGy·h−1) | live time rate/% | standard value of dose rate/(nGy·h−1) | relative error of calculated value and standard value/% | Cs-137 | 3.0 | 6115.9 | 0.55 | 5830.0 | 8.02 | Cs-137 | 3.5 | 4497.1 | 0.63 | 4286.5 | 8.19 | Cs-137 | 4.0 | 3372.5 | 0.72 | 3214.1 | 6.15 | Cs-137 | 4.5 | 2688.6 | 0.75 | 2562.1 | 6.93 | Co-60 | 3.0 | 1363.1 | 0.92 | 1339.7 | −2.07 | Co-60 | 3.5 | 1010.5 | 0.93 | 993.0 | −1.20 | Co-60 | 4.0 | 770.5 | 0.95 | 757.0 | −1.56 | Co-60 | 4.5 | 609.7 | 0.96 | 598.9 | −1.33 |
|
Table 5. Comparison of dose rate of Conversion of complete spectra without deconvolution method and the standard value