2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2011.11.033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Depth profiling 137Cs and 60Co non-intrusively for a suite of industrial shielding materials and at depths beyond 50mm

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In fact, the activity intensity of the Cs-137 used in this work was about 10 times weaker than that of the Cs-137 used in those studies. Hence, the maximum detectable depth of 21 cm for both weakly active 0.94-µCi Cs-137 and 0.69-µCi Co-60 sources buried in sand was indeed a significant improvement in comparison to existing methods [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Third, the proposed technique provided a much faster and more accurate estimation of depths up to the maximum detectable depth (i.e., 21 cm), which was achieved within 60 s, even for sources with a weak activity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In fact, the activity intensity of the Cs-137 used in this work was about 10 times weaker than that of the Cs-137 used in those studies. Hence, the maximum detectable depth of 21 cm for both weakly active 0.94-µCi Cs-137 and 0.69-µCi Co-60 sources buried in sand was indeed a significant improvement in comparison to existing methods [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Third, the proposed technique provided a much faster and more accurate estimation of depths up to the maximum detectable depth (i.e., 21 cm), which was achieved within 60 s, even for sources with a weak activity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Traditional destructive methods, such as logging and core sampling, have been used for depth estimation; however, they are expensive and time-consuming [7,8]. Thus, various non-destructive techniques have been developed for remote-depth profiling including the relative attenuation method [9,10], principal component analysis (PCA) [11][12][13], and the approximate three-dimensional linear-attenuation method [14][15][16]. The relative attenuation method takes the relative difference in the attenuations of two primary peaks (i.e., the 32-keV X-ray and 662-keV gamma-ray peaks of Cs-137) in a measured spectrum to find the depth profile.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, traditional methods of depth estimation such as core sampling and logging are slow and have limited spatial sampling extent because of their intrusive nature. Furthermore, the nonintrusive methods reported in [5,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] are either based on regressional models whose parameters typically have no physical significance or are limited to specific radioactive sources. Also, other nonintrusive methods reported in [15,16] use specialised shielding and collimator arrangements while those that employ machine learning [17][18][19] require significant amount of data to train the algorithms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, various remote depth profiling methods have been investigated and reported in literature. These include: the relative attenuation method [ 13 , 14 , 15 ] and principal component analysis (PCA) method [ 16 , 17 , 18 ]. The relative attenuation method exploits the relative difference in the attenuation of two prominent peaks (typically the X-ray and gamma photo peaks) in the measured energy spectrum of the buried radionuclide.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%