Monte Carlo simulations - ars.els-cdn.com€¦ · Web viewSupplementary materials. Monte Carlo...
Transcript of Monte Carlo simulations - ars.els-cdn.com€¦ · Web viewSupplementary materials. Monte Carlo...
Supplementary materials
1.1. Monte Carlo simulations
Monte Carlo simulations (Harrison, 2009; Likar et al., 2004; Malins et al., 2015; Narayan et
al., 2012) are sometimes the only feasible way to resolve real-world radiation transport
problems as many geometries are often too complex to model within a calibration facility or
problems are encountered in the complete removal of background contributions (Kirk, 2010).
Furthermore, results derived from physical calibration tend to only describe one specific
geometry due to cost restrictions and controls on radioactive source dispersal (Maučec et al.,
2009). In this application, Monte Carlo codes were the only feasible means to optimise the
lead shielding design and correct the count rate with respect to variables such as tree diameter,
wood density and radial distribution of 137Cs throughout the tree. The software package Monte
Carlo N-particle (MCNP5) code released by Los Alamos Laboratories in the United States
was used (Briesmeister, 1993). It was chosen for its flexibility and the fact it provides a
relatively high-level interface whereby the user can define fairly complex geometries, source
descriptions and collect specified response data in the form of tallies. The program operates
by providing input cards, coded in its own custom language, that describe the system’s
geometry and the materials contained within it. The number of source starting particles is
also described alongside their energy and spatial distribution and finally tally specifications
are used to collect relevant information about certain components of the system. Only the 662
keV photon, emitted from its daughter 137Ba with a probability of 0.85 per decay, was used in
simulations. Background contributions from natural radionuclides were not considered as the
number of counts within the 137Cs dwarfed other contributions in that spectral area.
1.2. Detector and shield
Arguably the most sensitive component of the entire model was the detector and its shield
given that small deviations in geometry, materials or density from the actual detector could
lead to significant systematic errors in estimated count rates (Maučec et al., 2004). Hence,
considerable time was taken to recreate the manufacturer’s detector specifications (released
by Bicron) within the MCNP5 environment. A cross-sectional diagram can be found in the
supplementary materials. The active volume was modelled as a 76 76 mm cylinder of
NaI:Tl (density of 3.65 g cm-3), which was surrounded by 2 mm of aluminium (density of 2.70
g cm-3) outer. The complex geometry of the photomultiplier tube was simplified to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
protective aluminium outer canning (2 mm) with an empty vacuum contained inside. The
multichannel analyser was described as 5 mm of aluminium. The dimensions of the lead
shield and steel clasps (used to hold the detector in place) were measured precisely using
callipers and a tape measure. Recorded measurements alongside its relative position
surrounding the detector were carefully encoded into MCNP5 geometry. A density of 11.34
and 8.05 g cm-3 was used for lead and steel, respectively. A detailed diagram can be found in
the supplementary materials.
To simulate the response of a gamma-ray detector the F8 tally within MCNP5 was
implemented to produce a pulse height distribution. Gaussian Energy Broadening was applied
to this tally to recreate the statistical spread of photon across the spectrum brought about by
imperfect conversion of photons to electrical signal by the detector (de Groot et al., 2009). To
ensure that simulated spectral responses were comparable to ones obtained by the actual
detector a simple benchmark experiment was undertaken where a 0.3 MBq 137Cs point source
was placed 0.3 m in front of the detector. The number of counts in the peak at 662 keV
recorded in lab experiments were found to be within 1% of Monte Carlo simulation.
1.3. Tree model
It was determined that full energy photons where likely to be out of the detector’s field of
view beyond 2 m, above and below the detector, given the angle of the detector and amount of
shielding presented by the lead shield on its sides of the detector. Consequently, the tree
model was 4 m long with the detector situated in the middle. For each geometry, the diameter
of the tree was varied between 10 and 140 cm, which spanned the diameter range that was
present at the sampling sites in the PSRER. Unlike the circumference of the tree that could be
easily measured in the field, parameters such as wet wood density and bark thickness could
not be measured without causing damage to the tree. Subsequently, to account for natural
variation that was likely to be encountered in the field, these parameters were assumed to
follow normal distributions (Auty et al., 2014). A mean and standard deviation of 0.8 g cm-3
and 0.13 g cm-3, respectively, was used for green wood density for the models. Values were
estimated from historical records maintained by the PSRER. Another factor that was likely to
change between trees depending on the age of the tree was the bark thickness. Bark thickness
variation data was not available within the PSRER, therefore a simplified model based upon
Strandgard and Walsh’s (2011) data was used to estimate bark thickness for a given tree
diameter. Wet wood density and bark thickness were randomly sampled for individual
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
diameters based upon these distribution models providing natural variance likely to be found
in the field.
To allow for the distribution of contamination within the tree to be changed at the final and
accounted for a specified diameter of tree, the tree was split into 1 cm layers and separate
simulations were run for individual layers. This was performed for each set of sampled of
bark thickness, wet wood density and diameter. Weighting of individual layers could then be
performed to enable a projected distribution to be modelled (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Cross-sectional diagram of detector setup and tree
1.4. Ground model
The ground model aimed to develop the ground calibration coefficient (Gcal), which was
derived from the ratio of unshielded (Gu) and shielded (Gs) counts coming from the ground as
a function of changing tree diameter (eq. 3). Estimating ground activity was not the primary
focus of this study, consequently only a simplified model of the ground was used, and no
attempt was made to distinguish activities in field results using the final model. The reason for
this was that the vertical burial depth distribution was likely to change significantly on a
different spatial scale making estimation difficult without the peak-to-valley method. The
model consisted of a uniform disc of 137Cs source extending 10 m horizontal to the tree and to
a depth of 10 cm. The soil was modelled on the standard soil composition outlined by Beck et
al. (1972) and had a density of 1.3 g cm-3.
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
Figure 2. Example exponential radial distribution
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
1.5. Sample sites
Table 1. Soil sample locations and dose rate measurements at the three field sites. Soil 137Cs
activities given in Bq/kg and dose rates in µSv/hr at 1 m.Tulgovichskoe Vorotetskoe Krukovskoe
Coords. Soil activity
(Bq kg-1)
Dose rate
(µSv hr-1)
Coords. Soil
activity
(Bq kg-1)
Dose rate
(µSv hr-1)
Coords. Soil activity
(Bq kg-1)
Dose
rate
(µSv
hr-1)
51°52,731'
29°38,112'
996 ± 199 0.35 51°45,528'
30°00,808'
4450 ±
890
1.24 51°33,371'
30°13,194'
50500 ± 11000 10.1
51°52,744'
29°38,130'
997 ± 199 0.29 51°45,521'
30°00,836'
4340 ±
868
1.25 51°33,365'
30°13,218'
70600 ± 14100 12.5
51°52,732'
29°38,144'
1030 ± 205 0.31 51°45,507'
30°00,827'
6060 ±
1212
1.25 51°33,356'
30°13,213'
34100 ± 6810 9.8
51°52,723'
29°38,132'
1240 ± 248 0.29 51°45,512'
30°00,800'
4940 ±
987
1.04 51°33,355'
30°13,187'
58200 ± 11600 10.5
51°52,734'
29°38,129'
1030 ± 205 0.33 51°45,516'
30°00,817'
4810 ±
960
1.15 51°33,360'
30°13,198'
35400 ± 7070 8.8
96
97
98
99
Figure 3. In situ detector in position.
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
1.6. Transfer factors
Table 2. Cs-137 concentration ratios from IAEA (2014). AM – arithmetic mean, AMSD –
standard deviation of the arithmetic mean, GM – geometric mean, GMSD – standard
deviation of the geometric mean.
Wildlife
group
Concentration ratio (CR) Bq/kg,fresh weight whole
organism:Bq/kg, dry weight soil
AM AMSD GM GMSD Min. Max N
Trees 0.14 0.24 0.075 3.1 0.0012 1.8 487
Trees-
broadleaf0.14 0.22 0.075 3.1 0.0012 1.3 252
Trees
coniferous0.15 0.25 0.075 3.2 0.0012 1.8 235
Table 3. Values of 137Cs activity in trees at the three sites based on the soil data available for
each site and application of the appropriate concentration ratio. Soil and tree activities in
Bq/kg
Tulgovichskoe Vorotetskoe Krukovskoe
Soil
activity
Birch and
Pine activity
Soil activity Birch and Pine
activity
Soil activity Birch and Pine
activity
996 ± 199 60 - 90 4450 ± 890 267 - 400 50480 ± 11000 2960 – 4610
997 ± 199 60 - 90 4340 ± 868 260 - 390 70550 ± 14100 4230 – 6350
1030 ± 205 62 - 93 6060 ± 1212 364 - 545 34070 ± 6810 2040 – 3070
1240 ± 248 74 - 112 4940 ± 987 296 - 445 58200 ± 11600 3500 – 5240
1030 ± 205 62 - 93 4810 ± 960 289 - 434 35400 ± 7070 2130 - 3190
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
Table 4. Cs-137 wood and bark activity in trees sampled
Site ID Tree
Circ.
(cm)
Specie
s
Bark activity Wood activity
Krukovskoe 1 141 Pine 22390 ± 4640 3410 ± 705
Krukovskoe 2 122 Pine 17370 ± 3600 3200 ± 680
Krukovskoe 4 96 Pine 44800 ± 9240 4010 ± 840
Krukovskoe 5 82 Pine 28600 ± 5900 3600 ± 750
Vorotetskoe 12 114 Pine 2320 ± 492 578 ± 123
Vorotetskoe 13 169 Pine 1280 ± 275 575 ± 125
Vorotetskoe 15 178 Pine 3310 ± 693 1010 ± 209
Tulgovichskoe 21 110 Birch 268 ± 57 54 ± 12
Tulgovichskoe 22 152 Pine 274 ± 61 48 ± 11
Tulgovichskoe 24 213 Pine 312 ± 66 67 ± 16
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
Table 5. Activity of 137Cs in trees at field sites derived from sampling and in situ measurement. Activity estimates derived from concentration
ratios provided for comparison. Activities provided in Bq/kgCore samples In situ gamma-ray spectrometry Mobile gamma-ray spectrometry Transfer factor
Site ID Tree Circ.
(cm)
Species Wood activity Wood activity Ground activity Ground activity Depth (cm) Wood activity
Krukovskoe 1 141 Pine 3414 ± 705 3310 ± 1050 7180 ± 2230 5302 ± 636 6 ± 3 2044 – 6349
Krukovskoe 2 122 Pine 3202 ± 680 3930 ± 1270 6560 ± 2160 5302 ± 636 6 ± 3 2044 – 6349
Krukovskoe 3 122 Pine 3202 ± 680 4900 ± 1610 5770 ± 1900 5302 ± 636 6 ± 3 2044 – 6349
Krukovskoe 4 96 Pine 4014 ± 840 4490 ± 1550 7240 ± 2620 5302 ± 636 6 ± 3 2044 – 6349
Krukovskoe 5 82 Pine 3600 ± 750 4280 ± 1450 7110 ± 2730 5302 ± 636 6 ± 3 2044 – 6349
Krukovskoe 6 117 Pine - 4160 ± 1400 5730 ± 1920 5302 ± 636 6 ± 3 2044 – 6349
Krukovskoe 7 118 Pine - 3270 ± 1100 5880 ± 1970 5302 ± 636 6 ± 3 2044 – 6349
Krukovskoe 8 138 Pine - 3200 ± 1010 6770 ± 2120 5302 ± 636 6 ± 3 2044 – 6349
Krukovskoe 9 119 Pine - 4110 ± 1370 7180 ± 2390 5302 ± 636 6 ± 3 2044 – 6349
Krukovskoe 10 87 Pine - 5330 ± 2010 8240 ± 3100 5302 ± 636 6 ± 3 2044 – 6349
Krukovskoe 11 120 Pine - 3670 ± 1220 6180 ± 2050 5302 ± 636 6 ± 3 2044 – 6349
Vorotetskoe 12 114 Pine 578 ± 123 521 ± 177 794 ± 270 509 ± 91 9 ± 10 260 - 545
Vorotetskoe 13 169 Pine 575 ± 125 463 ± 162 742 ± 215 509 ± 91 9 ± 10 260 - 545
Vorotetskoe 14 169 Pine 575 ± 125 445 ± 156 773 ± 224 509 ± 91 9 ± 10 260 - 545
Vorotetskoe 15 178 Pine 1010 ± 209 435 ± 158 615 ± 174 509 ± 91 9 ± 10 260 - 545
Vorotetskoe 16 114 Pine - 593 ± 201 778 ± 264 509 ± 91 9 ± 10 260 - 545
Vorotetskoe 17 111 Pine - 417 ± 143 681 ± 234 509 ± 91 9 ± 10 260 - 545
Vorotetskoe 18 112 Pine - 382 ± 131 716 ± 245 509 ± 91 9 ± 10 260 - 545
Vorotetskoe 19 89 Pine - 518 ± 194 896 ± 336 509 ± 91 9 ± 10 260 - 545
Vorotetskoe 20 99 Pine - 529 ± 190 758 ± 272 509 ± 91 9 ± 10 260 - 545
128
129
Tulgovichskoe 21 110 Birch 54 ± 12 125 ± 44 172 ± 60 121 ± 62 BDL 60 - 112
Tulgovichskoe 22 152 Pine 48 ± 11 96 ± 29 138 ± 42 121 ± 62 BDL 60 - 112
Tulgovichskoe 23 152 Pine 48 ± 11 94 ± 29 141 ± 43 121 ± 62 BDL 60 - 112
Tulgovichskoe 24 213 Pine 67 ± 16 70 ± 19 143 ± 38 121 ± 62 BDL 60 - 112
Tulgovichskoe 25 211 Oak - 87 ± 23 178 ± 47 121 ± 62 BDL 60 - 112
Tulgovichskoe 26 185 Pine - 65 ± 18 163 ± 45 121 ± 62 BDL 60 - 112
Tulgovichskoe 27 169 Pine - 76 ± 23 137 ± 41 121 ± 62 BDL 60 - 112
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
References
Auty, D., Achim, A., Macdonald, E., Cameron, A.D., Gardiner, B.A., 2014. Models for predicting wood density variation in Scots pine. Forestry
87, 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpu005
Beck, H., DeCampo, J., Gogolak, C., 1972. In situ Ge(Li) and NaI(Tl) gamma-ray spectrometry. New York. https://doi.org/10.2172/4599415
Briesmeister, J.F., 1993. MCNP-A general Monte Carlo N-particle transport code. LA-12625.
de Groot, A. V., van der Graaf, E.R., de Meijer, R.J., Maučec, M., 2009. Sensitivity of in-situ γ-ray spectra to soil density and water content.
Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A Accel. Spectrometers, Detect. Assoc. Equip. 600, 519–523.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2008.12.003
Harrison, R.L., 2009. Introduction to Monte Carlo simulation, in: AIP Conference Proceedings. pp. 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3295638
Kirk, B.L., 2010. Overview of Monte Carlo radiation transport codes, in: Radiation Measurements. Pergamon, pp. 1318–1322.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2010.05.037
Likar, A., Vidmar, T., Lipoglavsek, M., Omahen, G., 2004. Monte Carlo calculation of entire in situ gamma-ray spectra. J. Environ. Radioact. 72,
163–168.
Malins, A., Okumura, M., Machida, M., Takemiya, H., Saito, K., 2015. Fields of View for Environmental Radioactivity 2–7.
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
Maučec, M., De Meijer, R.J., Van Der Klis, M.M.I.P., Hendriks, P.H.G.M., Jones, D.G., 2004. Detection of radioactive particles offshore by
gamma-ray spectrometry Part II: Monte Carlo assessment of acquisition times. Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A Accel.
Spectrometers, Detect. Assoc. Equip. 525, 610–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2004.01.075
Maučec, M., Hendriks, P.H.G.M., Limburg, J., de Meijer, R.J., 2009. Determination of correction factors for borehole natural gamma-ray
measurements by Monte Carlo simulations. Nucl. Instruments Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A Accel. Spectrometers, Detect. Assoc. Equip. 609,
194–204. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2009.08.054
Narayan, R.D., Miranda, R., Rez, P., 2012. Monte Carlo simulation for the electron cascade due to gamma rays in semiconductor radiation
detectors. J. Appl. Phys. 111, 64910. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3698370
Strandgard, M., Walsh, D., 2011. Improving harvester estimates of bark thickness for radiata pine ( Pinus radiata D.Don). South. For. a J. For.
Sci. 73, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.2989/20702620.2011.610876
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165