Nuclear Science and Techniques

《核技术》(英文版) ISSN 1001-8042 CN 31-1559/TL     2019 Impact factor 1.556

Nuclear Science and Techniques ›› 2019, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (9): 133

• ACCELERATOR, RAY AND APPLICATIONS •

Evaluation of the calibration factors of neutron dose rate meters in a 241Am–Be neutron field

Thiem Ngoc Le,1 Sy Minh Tuan Hoang,2 Quynh Ngoc Nguyen,1  Hoai-Nam Tran2

1. 1Institute for Nuclear Science and Technology, VINATOM, 179 Hoang Quoc Viet, Hanoi, Vietnam
2Institute of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, Duy Tan University, Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam
• Received:2019-03-16 Revised:2019-04-15 Accepted:2019-05-09
• Contact: Hoai-Nam Tran E-mail:tranhoainam4@dtu.edu.vn
• Supported by:
This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Vietnam under Grant 07/HÐ/ÐTCB.
PDF ShareIt Export Citation
Thiem Ngoc Le, Sy Minh Tuan Hoang, Quynh Ngoc Nguyen, Hoai-Nam Tran. Evaluation of the calibration factors of neutron dose rate meters in a 241Am–Be neutron field.Nuclear Science and Techniques, 2019, 30(9): 133

Abstract: Calibrations were performed for three types of neutron ambient dose equivalent rate meters, i.e., Aloka TPS- 451C (Hitachi), KSAR1U.06 (Baltic Scientific Instruments) and Model 12-4 (Ludlum), using a standard field of a 241Am-Be source. The measured total neutron ambient dose equivalent rates, H(10)0 tot, were analyzed to obtain the direct neutron ambient dose equivalent rates, H(10)0 dir, using the ISO 8529-2 recommended the generalized-fit method (GFM), semi-empirical fit method (SEM), and reduced-fitting method (RFM) fit methods. The calibration factor (CF), defined as the ratio between the conventional true value of the neutron ambient dose equivalent rates in a free field, H(10)0 FF, and H(10)0 dir, was evaluated as one of the important characteristics of the neutron meters in the present work. The fitting results show that the H(10)0 dir values of the meters are in good agreement within the theoretical data within 4%. The averaged CFs of the three neutron meters were evaluated as 0:99  0:01, 1:00  0:03 and 0:99  0:08, respectively. The largest standard uncertainty of these values was determined to be approximately 18.47% (k = 1). The standard uncertainty of the CFs obtained using the RFM method was less than 4.23% (k = 1), which is the smallest uncertainty among the three methods.