1 / 52

Optimization Studies on PGNAA Coal Analysis Improvement for Patent Development

Optimization Studies on PGNAA Coal Analysis Improvement for Patent Development. Jiaxin Wang and Robin P. Gardner . Oct 6 th 2011, CEAR at NC State University, Raleigh, NC. Agenda. 1. Overview 2. Detector Response Function 3. Code CEARCPG 4. Prompt Gamma-ray Modeling

tarika
Download Presentation

Optimization Studies on PGNAA Coal Analysis Improvement for Patent Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Optimization Studies on PGNAA Coal Analysis Improvement for Patent Development JiaxinWang and Robin P. Gardner Oct 6th 2011, CEAR at NC State University, Raleigh, NC

  2. Agenda 1. Overview 2. Detector Response Function 3. Code CEARCPG 4. Prompt Gamma-ray Modeling 5. Simulation Results 6. Mc(do)lls Quantitative Analysis 7. Conclusions and Future work

  3. Overview-PGNAA Pb S Ca Hg Excited level Pb C S Hg O Mg Pb C S C O Mg Ground level Ca Neutron Source Ca S Hg S O Bulk sample 3

  4. Overview-PGNAA • Disadvantages • Inherently large background • Interference from the neutron excitation source. • Natural background • Structure materials • Detector activation (NaI) • Summing and pulse pile-up effect • Hydrogen Peak • Advantages: • Nondestructive • Simultaneous • In Situ • Quantitative • sensitive to the entire periodic table. • shape of the sample are relatively unimportant.

  5. Overview-CPGNAA • Solution: introduce gamma – gamma coincidence technique • Advantages • Increase the signal – to – noise ratio • Reduce the interference of background • Eliminate the hydrogen prompt gamma-ray peak • Disdvantages • The coincidence response is about 2 order of magnitude lower than single response • Long measurement time

  6. Overview-CPGNAA • Source  Bulk Sample  Detector • Reach maximum prompt gamma ray/coincidence prompt gamma ray counting rates under certain neutron source (cf-252) strength

  7. Overview-MC Simulation MCNP5 The general purpose Monte Carlo simulation parameter study, distribution maps CEARCPG Specified code for prompt gamma and coincidence prompt gamma Pulse height spectra, elemental library spectra Computation power CEAR ‘Spectral’ cluster with 41 running nodes, each with a Quad-core CPU.

  8. Overview-MC Simulation • Detector response function-> More scintillators, more shapes, more size, etc. -> New DRF generation code – CEARDRFs • CEARCPG was written for serial computation only -> Parallel feature implement of CEARCPG • MCLLS Quantification -> Differential Operator implement in CEARCPG

  9. Overview-Quantification • Peak analysis • Matrix effect? • Detector resolution (NaI, BGO, or HPGE)? • Monte Carlo Library Least Square

  10. Overview-Quantification MCLLS - procedure Compositions of a unknown sample are assumed and the PGNAA measurement is simulated Elemental library spectra are generated with the simulation Least-squares fit for the experimentally measured sample spectrum to obtain compositions of it. Compare calculated values with the originally assumed ones, if not close enough, repeat the process from step 1.

  11. Agenda 1. Overview 2. Detector Response Function 3. Code CEARCPG 4. Prompt Gamma-ray Modeling 5. Mc(do)lls Quantitative Analysis 6. Conclusions and Future work

  12. DRF-MC simulation Because the same detector has been repeatedly used under different situations, the particle-transport inside the detector (DRF) could be pre-calculated through MC simulation to improve future simulation speed and accuracy. MCNP5 General purpose for neutron, photon and electron transport G03 Specific for Cylindrical NaI detector *CEARDRFs For more shapes, more scintillation detector: BGO, plastic, etc.

  13. DRF-Advantages • (1) on the order of one-half of the calculations per history can be omitted by the use of a DRF • (2) use of the DRF has a natural smoothing effect which reduces the number of histories necessary for the desired accuracy by a factor of about 100 • (3) use of the DRF yields better accuracy in spectral simulations because they can be more accurate than calculations of particle transport with existing physics inside the detector.

  14. DRF-Simulation VS Exp • Compton Edge • Flat continuum • X-ray escape peaks from BGO

  15. DRF-Simulation VS Exp

  16. DRF-Accuracy and Speed The DRFs generated by CEARDRFs have much better agreement with experiments than commonly used MCNP5 The speed of CEARDRFs is very fast. It costs 69 seconds for 2.754 MeV energy and 29 seconds for 0.662 MeV, which almost hundreds of times faster than original MCNP5. Thus, a complete set of DRF could be simulated in a reasonable time.

  17. MC simulation outside detector (CEARCPG) DRF-Usage Convolute the incident gamma flux with DRF Simulated pulse height spectra Elemental analysis DRF generation (CEARDRF) Experimental spectra 1. A complete set of DRF needs to be generated by MC simulation, i.e. CEARDRFs. For example, an energy range from 0 to 11 MeV in 1024 channels. 2. Build up the model of surrounding geometry of detector, run the MC simulation to record the photon energy flux reaching the detector surface and its path length. 3. Adjust the photon weight according to the path length and convolute the recorded energy flux with DRF to get the final simulated spectra.

  18. Agenda 1. Overview 2. Detector Response Function 3. Code CEARCPG 4. Prompt Gamma-ray Modeling 5. Simulation Results 6. Mc(do)lls Quantitative Analysis 7. Conclusions and Future work

  19. CEARCPG-Overview CEARCPG (Han, 2005) was developed as the first specific code that can be used to simulate both the single and coincidence spectrum of coincidence PGNAA, including relatively complicated neutron and photon transportation. The most important contribution of CEARCPG is a new algorithm is developed to sample the neutron-produced coincidence gamma-rays following nuclear structure.

  20. CEARCPG-Parallel implement Random seeds generated and distributed to slave nodes File I/O path preparation Master node collects recorded data from each slave nodes

  21. CEARCPG-DO The Differential Operator method is very powerful tool for measurement sensitivity study and system optimization. The basic idea of the differential operator technique is, if the magnitude of perturbation is very small, the ratio of changed response can be found by using Taylor series expansion.

  22. CEARCPG-comparison

  23. Agenda 1. Overview 2. Detector Response Function 3. Code CEARCPG 4. Prompt Gamma-ray Modeling 5. Simulation Results 6. Mc(do)lls Quantitative Analysis 7. Conclusions and Future work

  24. Prompt Gamma-ray Modeling Source Moderator Bulk sample Detector 1 Detector 2 • General optimization • Moderator • Neutron distribution • Prompt gamma-ray distribution • Detector • Cross-section • Detector Efficiency • Neutron response • Plastic detector setup • Geometry arrangement • Lab sample • Large sample

  25. Modeling-Neutron Maps Neutron capture rate Thermal neutron Fast neutron(1-10MeV) Radioactive capture reaction happens all through the coal sample with highest production in the center area, if the source is placed under the sample Thus, it is better to place the source under the large size bulk sample. No moderator is needed as the self moderation of sample is enough for 252Cf neutron source

  26. Modeling-Photon Maps • Photon flux spatial distribution maps around the large rectangular shape coal sample and the conveyor belt shape coal sample. In coincidence detection, it is better to place the detectors facing the top and bottom surfaces separately if possible. Otherwise, placing the two detectors together on the opposite side of neutron source is also a good arrangement.

  27. Modeling-Geometry Lab size sample (55cm x 9.7cm x 6.7 cm) 6”x6” NaI Cylindrical detector 2”x4”x16” Slab NaI detector

  28. Modeling-Geometry

  29. Modeling-Geometry

  30. Modeling-Geometry Thinner paraffin (7.3cm)will increase the overall detector response about a factor of 4.3 and3.4for single andcoincidence, respectively. Changing the 6”x6” detectors position from bottom to left-right sides can further increase the overall detector response another factor around 1.6 and 3.8. Two slab detectors replacing the 6”x6” cylindrical NaI detectors can gain another increase of a factor around 9.5 and 17.2. In sum, the slab detector left-right arrangement can detect around 65 and 223 times more gamma-ray events than the reference setup. The ratio of increase (ROI) for different setup as a function of energy: Higher efficiency for higher energy

  31. Modeling-Geometry * All ROI values are calculated based on reference setup

  32. Modeling-Geometry Large size sample (25cm x 100cm x 100 cm) 6”x6” NaI Cylindrical detector 2”x4”x16” Slab NaI detector 70cm x 50cm x 10cm plastic detector

  33. Modeling-Geometry

  34. Modeling-Geometry

  35. Modeling-Geometry Replacing the two 6”x6” cylindrical detectors with two 2”x4”x16” slab NaI detectors could gain the ROI of 1.6 and 6.2 in single response and coincidence response, respectively The plastic/NaI special setup could gain the ROI of 2.5 and 1.7. NaI detector in the special setup has a better efficiency to high energy gamma-rays in single response while the slab detectors setup has better efficiency to high energy gamma-rays in coincidence response

  36. Agenda 1. Overview 2. Detector Response Function 3. Code CEARCPG 4. Prompt Gamma-ray Modeling 5. Simulation Results 6. Mc(do)lls Quantitative Analysis 7. Conclusions and Future work

  37. Results Through CEARCPG, the 2D coincidence spectrum of these setups has been simulated with a coal sample (H-2.892%, C-5.28%, N-%1.4, O-5.487%, Na-1.121%, Al-2.38%, Si-1.943%, S-5.6%, Cl-1.729, Hg-2.168%). Three setups: slab detectors for lab and large sample, the special setup with plastic detector.

  38. Results

  39. Results-Plastic Projection

  40. Results-Interference Fission gamma and prompt gamma-rays from structure materials still contribute to true coincidence.

  41. Results-Interference Everything source of gamma-rays could be included in the coincidence response through chance coincidence. When , The chance coincidence counting rate is only 2% of the true coincidence rate. However, when the single detector counting rate increases to 105/s the chance coincidence counting rate is 20% of the true coincidence rate

  42. Results-Dose Rate MCNP5 F4 mesh tally and FM card (flux-to-dose conversion factor for human) For neutron and photon separately. If a 10 microgram (μg) source is used, it is allowed to stay close the device behind the shielding material for 2000 hours annually, even under the public limits

  43. Agenda 1. Overview 2. Detector Response Function 3. Code CEARCPG 4. Prompt Gamma-ray Modeling 5. Simulation Results 6. Mc(do)lls Quantitative Analysis 7. Conclusions and Future work

  44. MC(DO)LLS Two coal samples Two set of libraries

  45. MC(DO)LLS-DO results

  46. MC(DO)LLS-Fitting Results • Sample 2, the results of both sulfur and mercury are improved through Q-value projection. • Sample 1, the result of sulfur is improved while the result of mercury has degradation. • This result is reasonable since there is little interference in the high-energy window. The reason of mercury result in sample 1 is that the 8-9 MeV windows is too close to Mercury Q-value to include the whole peaks. • When the concentration of Mercury is low as in sample 1, the benefited of less interference might be canceled out by the drop of signal due to energy window projection.

  47. Agenda 1. Overview 2. Detector Response Function 3. Code CEARCPG 4. Prompt Gamma-ray Modeling 5. Simulation Results 6. Mc(do)lls Quantitative Analysis 7. Conclusions and Future work

  48. Conclusions 1. A new code named CEARDRFs has been developed to generate pretty accurate detector response function at a very fast speed to improve accuracy and efficiency of CEARCPG. 2. Parallel computation feature has been implemented in CEARCPG by a simple script approach, which dramatically simplified the job while keeping all the original features and could nearly reach the ideally linear speed-up feature. 3. With derivatives to second order Taylor expansion, the DO has also been implemented into CEARCPG and validated, including the consideration of collision kernel, transportation kernel and variance reduction kernel.

  49. Conclusions 4. For lab size sample, replacing the detectors with two 2”x4”x16” slab NaI detectors could gain the ROI of 66.5 and 223.7 for single and coincidence response, with higher efficiency for higher energy gamma-rays. 5. For large size sample, two 2”x4”x16” slab NaI detectors setup could gain the ROI of 1.6 and 6.2 in single response and coincidence response, respectively and the special setup of plastic VS NaI could gain the ROI of 2.5 and 1.7. The NaI detector in the special setup has a better efficiency to high energy gamma-rays in single response while the slab detectors setup has better efficiency to high energy gamma-rays in coincidence response

  50. Conclusions 6. The simulated 2D coincidence spectra show the feasibility of using the plastic detector as a trigger to another detector that has better energy resolution. 7. Among all the interference, in the total coincidence spectra, the fission gamma remains the major factor while the interference from structure material still contributes. 8. Q-value projection on the 2D spectra could further suppress the interference. The MCLLS analysis on the Q-value projected spectra shows better accuracy than using the total coincidence spectra. 9. With proper shielding, the dose rate around the analyzer is pretty low.

More Related