4.6 Article

Performance testing of a FastScan whole body counter using an artificial neural network

期刊

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 54, 期 8, 页码 3043-3050

出版社

KOREAN NUCLEAR SOC
DOI: 10.1016/j.net.2022.03.008

关键词

Internal radioactive contamination; Artificial neural networks; Gamma ray spectroscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Korea, all nuclear power plants participate in annual performance tests, most of which meet the criteria, but some fail in additional tests. An artificial neural network was developed in this study to improve the performance of FastScan in lung configuration testing, showing promising results.
In Korea, all nuclear power plants (NPPs) participate in annual performance tests including in vivo measurements using the FastScan, a stand type whole body counter (WBC), manufactured by Canberra. In 2018, all Korean NPPs satisfied the testing criterion, the root mean square error (RMSE) <= 0.25, for the whole body configuration, but three NPPs which participated in an additional lung configuration test in the fission and activation product category did not meet the criterion. Due to the low resolution of the FastScan NaI(Tl) detectors, the conventional peak analysis (PA) method of the FastScan did not show sufficient performance to meet the criterion in the presence of interfering radioisotopes (RIs), Cs-134 and Cs-137. In this study, we developed an artificial neural network (ANN) to improve the performance of the FastScan in the lung configuration. All of the RMSE values derived by the ANN satisfied the criterion, even though the photopeaks of Cs-134 and Cs-137 interfered with those of the analytes or the analyte photopeaks were located in a low-energy region below 300 keV. Since the ANN performed better than the PA method, it would be expected to be a promising approach to improve the accuracy and precision of in vivo FastScan measurement for the lung configuration. (C) 2022 Korean Nuclear Society, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据