Published by IOP Publishing for Sissa Medialab

Received: March 28, 2017

Revised: May 18, 2017
Accepted: June 29, 2017
Published: July 18, 2017

TECHNICAL REPORT

Determination of efficiency of an aged HPGe detector for

2017 JINST 12 T07006

gaseous sources by self absorption correction and point
source methods

R. Sarangapani,a,1,2 M.T. Jose,a,c T.K. Srinivasana and B. Venkatramanb,c

a Radiological Safety Division, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR),
Kalpakkam — 603 102, India
b Health, Safety and Environment Group, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR),

Kalpakkam — 603 102, India

c HBNI, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR),

Kalpakkam — 603 102, India

E-mail: saranga@igcar.gov.in

Abstract: Methods for the determination of efficiency of an aged high purity germanium (HPGe)
detector for gaseous sources have been presented in the paper. X-ray radiography of the detec-
tor has been performed to get detector dimensions for computational purposes. The dead layer
thickness of HPGe detector has been ascertained from experiments and Monte Carlo computations.
Experimental work with standard point and liquid sources in several cylindrical geometries has
been undertaken for obtaining energy dependant efficiency. Monte Carlo simulations have been
performed for computing efficiencies for point, liquid and gaseous sources. Self absorption cor-
rection factors have been obtained using mathematical equations for volume sources and MCNP
simulations. Self-absorption correction and point source methods have been used to estimate the
efficiency for gaseous sources. The efficiencies determined from the present work have been used
to estimate activity of cover gas sample of a fast reactor.

Keywords: Efficiency for gaseous sources, HPGe detector, dead layer thickness, cover gas activity,
Monte Carlo

1Corresponding author.
2Telephone: +9144 27480352, Fax: +9144 27480356.

c 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd and Sissa Medialab

https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/12/07/T07006
Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Materials and methods 2

2.1 Self-absorption correction factor 3
2.1.1 Mathematical equation for cylindrical source of large dimension 4
2.1.2 Mathematical equation for cylindrical source of finite dimension 5

2017 JINST 12 T07006

2.1.3 Liquid-Gas Monte Carlo (LGM) method 5
2.2 Single Point Monte Carlo (SPM) method 6

3 Results and discussions 6

4 Conclusions 13

1 Introduction

Gamma ray spectrometry is widely used for the estimation of radioactivity in various matrices.
Estimation of activity in samples is essential for the assessment of process parameters to effluent
discharges in nuclear facilities and radioactive sources handling laboratories. It is also used
to determine radioactivity in environment. For the estimation of activity in a given sample,
the spectrometer is calibrated with a standard reference source of similar geometry, density and
composition. The full energy peak efficiency obtained with a standard source for a typical source
to detector configuration is used to estimate activity in samples. The efficiency of the detector
determined by performing an experiment is most desirable but sometimes it is difficult to get a set
of standard sources that are similar to sample geometry and emitting required gamma lines. There
could be variations in the efficiency determined from experimental measurements due to differences
in decay tables used for obtaining branching ratio, source accuracy, uses of multiple sources to
cover the entire energy range of interest and restrictions on the availability of sources in various
geometries [1]. In such a situation, the efficiency for a specific source to detector configuration has
been determined by other methods such as direct mathematical equation, semi-empirical procedure
or Monte Carlo (MC) method. The computed efficiency is validated with a few measurements.
Mathematical expressions for the estimation of efficiency for point and disc sources [2, 3] and
spherical gaseous sources [4] have been reported. Semi empirical procedure for the estimation of
efficiency for volume sources based on point source efficiency with suitable correction factors for
attenuation within source, detector housing and detector has been proposed [5].
There are several publications on the estimation of efficiency based on MC methods [6–16] MC
method is a useful tool for the estimation of efficiency for unknown energies after developing a robust
detector model that provides validated accurate detector responses [17]. However, MC computations
also have limitations with respect to actual dimensions of the detector, cryostat parameters and dead

–1–
layer thickness of HPGe detector. The other parameters that could affect MC simulations are crystal
lattice effects resulting in channeling and multiple Compton scattering that could degrade the energy
of gamma ray before it reaches the active volume detector, radiation damage to crystal, variations
in the electric field inside the crystal that affects the charge collection processes [1, 10].
When MC simulations have been carried out with detector specifications provided by the manu-
facturer, deviation between computed and measured efficiencies of 10 to 50 % has been observed [1,
2, 9, 12, 14]. The large deviation between measurement and computations is due to lack of knowledge
on detector dimensions and dead layer thickness [5, 16, 18, 19]. X-ray radiography of the detector has
been generally performed for obtaining the actual detector dimensions [10, 12, 13]. An experimental
arrangement made to scan the detector on the top and sides with a collimated source to obtain actual

2017 JINST 12 T07006

dimensions of the detector [11, 12] and thickness of dead layer [10] have been reported. It has been
also reported that the dead layer increases with age of the detector that results in the reduction in the
efficiency [19]. Many authors have used MCNP code [20] of various versions for the determination
of efficiency. The variations between computed and measured efficiencies have been further reduced
by implementing methods such as “virtual-peak-total” ratio [5], efficiency transfer [11, 14, 21] and
representative point source method [7]. In the present work, estimation of efficiency for an aged
P-type HPGe detector for gaseous sources based on self-absorption correction and point source
methods has been reported along with the activity estimated in cover gas samples of a fast reactor.

2 Materials and methods

Gamma ray spectrometer installed and operated at Health Physics Unit of Fast Breeder Test Re-
actor (FBTR) consists of HPGe (P-type) coaxial detector (PGC 3018) of DSG@ detector systems,
APTEC@ make high voltage unit and spectroscopic amplifier unit coupled with FASTCOM@ make
MCA card. The detector and MCA system have been in use for about twenty years and most of the
time the detector has been maintained at liquid nitrogen temperature. However, there was loss of
vacuum for the detector, which has been rectified, and preamplifier board has been replaced once.
The gamma spectrum is acquired using a MCDWIN@ software. The spectrometer is used to analyse
various radioactive samples of FBTR such as reactor cover gas, biological shielding cooling water,
traces of primary sodium sample, contaminated cables, swipe papers, filter papers, effluent samples,
etc. The energy/efficiency calibration of the system has been performed with a set of standard sealed
sources i.e. 22 Na (3.01E+3 Bq), 60 Co (1.09E+4 Bq), 133 Ba (1.95E+3 Bq), 137 Cs (2.98E+4 Bq),
152 Eu (2.21E+4 Bq) and 241 Am (3.92 E+4 Bq) procured from RIVERTEC GmbH traceable to a

primary standard in Germany. The test report of the source indicates that the radioactive solution
was dispensed in a polyimide foil with diameter less than 3 mm. The test certificate indicates that
the variation in activity at 2σ confidential level for all the sources is within 3%.
The detector dimensional details have been revised based on X-ray radiography data. The
X-ray image of the HPGe detector is shown in figure 1. The radiography has been performed using
YXLON 225 machine with focal spot size of 0.8 mm × 0. 8 mm. The applied voltage, current and
time of exposure was 90 kV, 10 mA and 90 s respectively. The X-ray image revealed the details of
inner components excepting the dimension of the central hole. The dimensional details of the inner
components have been measured with imaging software. The dimension of the central hole has
been taken from manufacturer supplied data. The dead layer thickness of the detector assumed for

–2–
 2017 JINST 12 T07006
Figure 1. X-ray radiography image of HPGe Detector (1. Germanium Crystal, 2. Inner Aluminium layer, 3.
Outer Aluminium End Cap).

modeling the detector has been finalized based on computed and measured efficiency at 1.33 MeV
gamma line of 60 Co since the relative efficiency of the detector determined by measurement has
been found to be lower than the manufacturer supplied data.
The detector efficiency for gaseous sources has been determined by adopting two different
methods viz., Liquid-Gas Monte Carlo (LGM) and Single Point Monte Carlo (SPM) methods. In
the LGM method, the efficiency has been determined by experiments for liquid sources of known
specific activity in various geometries. MCNP simulations have been carried out for both liquid and
gaseous sources to obtain self-absorption correction factor (SCF). Finally, efficiency for gaseous
sources of various volumes has been estimated based on efficiency for liquid sources and SCFs
determined from MC Simulations. The efficiency obtained by LGM method is compared with
the values obtained by mathematical equation. In the SPM method, efficiency for various source
volumes has been estimated based on experiments and simulations for several point sources that
represent the volume source geometry and MC simulations for gaseous sources.

2.1 Self-absorption correction factor

For the standardization of the system for liquid sources, standard radioactive liquid source of
152 Eu has been procured from Board of Radiation and Isotope Technology (BRIT), Bhabha Atomic

Research Centre. Diluted solution of 152 Eu with specific activity of 65 Bq/ml has been prepared
from the procured solution and dispensed with distilled water in PVC bottles of volume 1000 cc,
500 cc, 250 cc, 100 cc and 60 cc. The variation of the specific activity of the diluted solution has

–3–
 2017 JINST 12 T07006
Figure 2. Schematic of a cylindrical source and detector region.

been estimated to be less than 4% at 2σ confidential level. The liquid sources have been kept on top
of the detector and each one has been counted for 5000 s. The efficiency of the detector for various
gamma energies has been calculated from the net counts registered under full energy peaks of 152 Eu.
SCF can be incorporated through computations using mathematical equations or simulations.
While using mathematical equations, the energy specific photon fluence rate on the surface of the
bottle for both liquid and gaseous sources can be estimated from an expression that accounts for
self absorption within the source. The experimentally determined efficiency for a liquid source and
SCF are used for the determination of efficiency for gaseous source.

2.1.1 Mathematical equation for cylindrical source of large dimension

The uncollided fluence rate on the surface of the bottle can be estimated by deriving a simple
equation for volume sources [22]. Consider a cylindrical source of height “t” cm and radius ‘’r” cm
as shown in figure 2. The specific source strength is Cv photons s−1 cm−3 and the linear absorption
coefficient for the medium of the source is µ cm−1 . The source strength on the surface of the bottle
due to a layer dx at a depth of x is given by

d(Sa ) = Cv dxe−µx

Integrating the above expression over the thickness‘t’ yields the effective surface source as
∫ t
Cv
Sa = Cv e−µx dx = 1 − e−µt


0 µ

–4–
Considering the surface source as a disc source, the fluence rate along the axial line at the location
P at distance “a” is calculated from the equation given below.

r2
 
Cv
φp = 1−e −µt

ln 1 + 2
4µ a
The ratio of the fluence rate at the location P due to a cylindrical source with absorbing medium
being gas and liquid is given by
φgas 1 − e−µgas tgas µliquid
  
=
φliquid 1 − e−µliquid tliquid µgas

2017 JINST 12 T07006

The efficiency of the detector for gaseous source is determined using the equation (2.1) and it is
applicable for sources with large dimensions [22].

1 − e−µgas tgas µliquid

  
gas = liquid (2.1)
1 − e−µliquid tliquid µgas

Thus, equation (2.1) gives the efficiency for a gaseous source based on experimentally determined
efficiency for liquid sources and the ratio of the uncollided fluence rate estimated on the surface of
the source with media as gas and liquid.

2.1.2 Mathematical equation for cylindrical source of finite dimension

Point kernel method based equation can be derived for obtaining fluence rate for finite cylindrical
sources [23]. The uncollided photon fluence rate at a point P with distance “a” from the surface
of an absorbing cylindrical source in the axial direction can be obtained from equation (2.2) and it
can be solved using MATHCAD@ software. The energy dependant efficiency of the detector for
the gaseous source can be obtained using equation (2.3).
 q 
)2 +1
∫ t∫ r r
Cv r dr dx −(µx) ( x+a
φ=  e (2.2)
2 0 0 r 2 + (x + a)2
φgas
 
gas = liquid (2.3)
φliquid

Equation (2.3) uses the experimentally determined efficiency for liquid sources and the ratio of the
fluence rate is obtained at 30 mm from the surface of the source in the axial direction, which is the
geometric centre of the detector.

2.1.3 Liquid-Gas Monte Carlo (LGM) method

MC simulations have been performed by modeling the HPGe detector with liquid and gaseous
sources. For computational purposes, the geometry of the volume source has been considered as
a right circular cylinder. The radius (cm) and height (cm) of the source of 1000 cc, 500 cc, 250
cc, 100 cc and 60 cc have been assumed as 4.5 × 16.5, 3.5 × 13.5, 2.9 × 10.2, 2.25 × 7.0 and
2.0 × 6.0 respectively based on actual measurements. The volume source has been assumed to be
at 2 mm above the detector top surface. Simulations have been carried out for the major gamma
lines of 152 Eu and 133 Ba i.e. from 81 keV to 1408 keV. F8 tally has been used to score the counts

–5–
under full energy peaks for a photon emitted from the source and number of histories used for each
computation has been 107 . The maximum standard error associated with the computed efficiency
has been 1.8 % for liquid source of 1000 cc. The energy dependant efficiency εgasLGM for gaseous

sources can be computed using equation (2.4).

exp t εgas
MC
εgas
LGM
= εliquid (2.4)
εliquid
MC

exp t
Where, the efficiency of liquid sources obtained from measurement isεliquid and efficiency of liquid
and gaseous sources obtained from MCNP computations are εliquid
MC and ε MC respectively.
gas

2017 JINST 12 T07006

2.2 Single Point Monte Carlo (SPM) method
SPM method discussed in the present work is different from the method proposed by Saegusaa et
al. [7]. Experiments have been performed to estimate efficiencies for point sources kept at various
locations above the detector surface in the axial direction. About 30 locations have been chosen
along the axial direction of the detector up to 15 cm height and radial direction up to 4 cm. It is
ensured that the coordinates for the point sources are located within the volume of respective sources.
The counting time has been in the range of 1000 s to 2000 s. The standard deviation of measured
efficiency including the standard deviation of source activity has been below 5% at 2σ confidential
level. The mean experimental efficiency representing each source volume has been calculated based
on the coordinates of the point sources. The mean experimental efficiency is a better approximation
compared to normalization of the computed efficiency based on a point source at a solitary location.
MCNP simulations have been carried out by modeling the detector and point sources at various
locations above the detector. The coordinates of the point source for simulation and experiment
have been kept identical. The efficiency has been computed for point sources using F8 tally and a
mean efficiency has been obtained. The standard error of the computed efficiencies by MC method
is within 5%.
The energy dependant efficiency εgasSPM for gaseous sources based on SPM method is given in

equation (2.5).
exp t εgas
MC
εgas = εpoint MC
SPM
(2.5)
εpoint
exp t
Where, the mean efficiency of point sources obtained from measurement is εpoint and mean efficiency
of point sources and efficiency for gaseous sources obtained from MCNP computations are εpoint MC

and εgas
MC respectively.

3 Results and discussions

HPGe detector has been operated with an applied voltage of 2000 V after maintenance of the
preamplifier card instead of recommended voltage of 2300 V. The relative efficiency and resolution
of the detector have been experimentally determined with a standard 60 Co source. The relative
efficiency has been found to be 22 % with an energy resolution of 2.46 keV for 1.33 MeV against
30% and 2 keV mentioned in the original calibration certificate. The lower relative efficiency is
due to lesser operating voltage and ageing of the detector. A few simulations carried out with

–6–
 2017 JINST 12 T07006
Figure 3. Schematic of HPGe detector and sources (1. Hole, 2. Germanium, 3. Gap between detector and
Aluminium end cap, 4. Aluminium end cap 5. Volume source and point sources).

Table 1. Dimensional details of P-type HPGe coaxial detector.

Region Dimension (Manufacturer) Dimension (Radiography)

Core Hole 44 mm (length ) × 9 mm (dia.) 44 mm∗ (length ) × 11.4 mm (dia.)
Ge Thickness 55.5 mm (length) × 56.1 mm (dia.) 57.1 mm (length) × 56.2 mm (dia.)
Dead Ge layer 0.3–0.5 mm 1 mm$
Teflon layer 0.5 mm 0.5 mm
Inner Al layer 1.0 mm (top 1.0 mm (side) 1.2 mm (top) 1.8 mm (side)
Al end cap layer 0.75 mm (top) 1.0 mm (side) 0.65 mm (top) 1.4 mm (side)
* Assumed from manufacturer data
$ Assumed from experiment and simulation

MCNP code revealed that the dead layer thickness of the detector is the major factor affecting the
efficiency. A similar observation has been reported [10, 19]. Prior to the finalization of detector
geometry for computations, simulations have been undertaken by varying the dead layer thickness
for its optimization and to ensure that the estimated efficiency by MCNP code is in conformity with
measured efficiency. The results of the work revealed that the computed efficiency is in agreement
with the experimentally determined value for 1.33 MeV of 60 Co for a dead layer thickness of 1 mm.
The dead layer thickness assumed in the present work is about twice the suggested nominal value
by the manufacturer. It has been reported that the dead layer thickness increased from 0.35 mm to
1.16 mm after an operation time of nine years [19]. The schematic of the detector model is shown
in figure 3. The dimensional details provided by manufacturer of the HPGe detector are given along
with the geometry data obtained from X-ray radiography measurements in table 1.
Experiments have been performed to determine the efficiency of the detector for point sources
viz., 152 Eu, 133 Ba, 137 Cs and 60 Co at 10 cm from detector surface in the energy range of 81 keV to
1408 keV. MCNP simulations have been carried out for the same reference location and for the same

–7–
 -1
10

1000 cc
500 cc
250 cc
100 cc
60 cc

Efficiency (fraction)
-2
10

2017 JINST 12 T07006

-3
10
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Gamma Energy (keV)

Figure 4. Efficiency of HPGe detector for liquid sources from spectrometry measurements.

energy range. The ratio of computed (C) from MCNP simulations and experimental (E) efficiencies
has been found to vary between 1 % and 9 % with a mean variation of 3 %. The variations of
C/E ratio is attributed to standard deviation of source activity, small changes in source to detector
distance, modeling errors of detector geometry and finally errors associated with MCNP tallies.
Many authors reported a C/E value up to 12 % [1, 14, 21]. Therefore, a mean variation of 3%
observed in the preliminary calculations indicates that the detector dimensions given in table 1 can
be used for further simulations.
The efficiency obtained from measurements with 152 Eu liquid source in PVC bottles of 60 cc,
100 cc, 250 cc, 500 cc and 1000 cc is shown in figure 4. The dead time observed during spectral
acquisition has been between 1% and 3 %. The efficiency for the source in 60 cc is higher compared
to 1000 cc by an average factor of 4.4. Similarly, the efficiency for volume source of 100 cc, 250
cc and 500 cc is higher compared to 1000 cc by an average factor of 3.5, 2.3 and 1.4 respectively.
The efficiency for 1000 cc is lowest compared to other source volumes due to self-absorption
and geometrical attenuation. The computed efficiencies for gaseous sources obtained by MCNP
simulations with detector parameters given in table 1 are shown in figure 5. The efficiencies for
500 cc, 250 cc, 100 cc and 60 cc are higher compared to 1000 cc by a factor of 1.3, 1.8, 2.6 and 3.1
respectively. The variations are mainly due to differences in the geometric efficiency. The computed
MC ) for both LGM and SPM methods.
efficiency shown in figure 5 is one of the input parameters (εgas
Prior to the determination of efficiency by LGM method for various source volumes, the
computed efficiency for 1000 cc is compared with the values determined using equations (2.1)
and (2.3). The measured efficiency for aqueous source for 1000 cc is given in table 2 along with
computed efficiency for the gaseous source of same volume using mathematical equations (2.1), (2.3)
and LGM method of equation (2.4). The mean variation of efficiency obtained using equation (2.1)
and equation (2.3) is higher than the values obtained with LGM method by 25.6 % and 3.9 %
respectively. The efficiency obtained using equations (2.1) and (2.3) is based on the computed
uncollided fluence rate on the surface of the source and at 30 mm in the detector region respectively.

–8–
 -1
10

1000 cc
500 cc
250 cc
100 cc

Efficiency (fraction)
60 cc

-2
10

2017 JINST 12 T07006

-3
10
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Gamma Energy (keV)

Figure 5. Efficiency of HPGe detector for gaseous sources estimated by Monte Carlo computations.

Table 2. Efficiency for aqueous source based on measurement and for gaseous source based on self-absorption
correction factors for source volume of 1000 cc.
Efficiency (fraction)
Energy (keV) Liquid medium Gaseous medium
Experiment Equation (2.1) Equation (2.3) Equation (2.4) — LGM method
121.78 (8.9±0.2∗ )E-03 (2.51±0.05)E-02 (1.48±0.03)E-02 (1.56±0.04)E-02
244.69 (7.1±0.1)E-03 (1.69±0.03)E-02 (1.08±0.02)E-02 (1.12±0.03)E-02
344.27 (5.5±0.1)E-03 (1.21±0.02)E-02 (8.1±0.2)E-03 (8.5±0.2)E-03
443.98 (4.6 ±0.1)E-03 (9.3±0.2)E-03 (6.5±0.1)E-03 (6.8±0.2)E-03
778.89 (2.81±0.05)E-03 (5.0±0.1)E-03 (3.7±0.1)E-03 (3.9±0.1)E-03
964.01 (2.44±0.05)E-03 (4.2±0.1)E-03 (3.2±0.1)E-03 (3.2±0.1)E-03
1112.00 (2.29±0.04)E-03 (3.8±0.1)E-03 (2.9±0.1)E-03 (3.1±0.1)E-03
1274.50 (2.00±0.09)E-03 (3.2±0.1)E-03 (2.5±0.1)E-03 (2.6±0.1)E-03
1408.00 (1.90±0.04)E-03 (3.0±0.1)E-03 (2.36±0.04)E-03 (2.4±0.1)E-03
* Standard deviation at 1σ confidence level

Equations (2.1) and (2.3) take into account geometric and self-absorption of the source but do not
consider the characteristics of the detector in the computations. But in the LGM method, detector
is modeled to estimate the counts registered under the full energy peak area for liquid and gaseous
sources. Though LGM method is more accurate, efficiency determined by equations (2.1) and (2.3)
helps to detect any defect either in modeling or parameters chosen in MC computations. The
absorption of gamma rays only along the axial direction is considered in equation (2.1). However
the absorption of gamma rays in both axial and other directions is considered in equations (2.3)
and (2.4), therefore the efficiency determined by equation (2.1) is higher compared to equations (2.3)
and (2.4). On the other hand, the normalization factor used in equation (2.3) is based on the estimated

–9–
 1.5
1000 cc

Ratio of efficiency for liquid source (C/E)

1.4 500 cc
250 cc
100 cc
1.3
60 cc

1.2

1.1

1.0

2017 JINST 12 T07006

0.9

0.8
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Gamma energy (keV)

Figure 6. Ratios of Monte Carlo method based computed and experimental (C/E) efficiencies for various
gamma energies for liquid sources.

fluence rate at a point in the detector region. However, volume detector with full description is
modeled in LGM method. Despite the change in computational method, the efficiency obtained
with equation (2.3) is in good agreement with the values obtained by LGM method. Hence further
computations have been performed to determine the efficiency using LGM method for other source
geometries. The ratios of C/E for 152 Eu liquid source (i.e. the inverse of the ratio entering in the
LGM method) are shown in figure 6. The computed efficiencies are generally higher than the
experimental values and the deviation for 1000 cc and 500 cc is between 1.16 and 1.23. However,
the variation for source of 250 cc, 100 cc and 60 cc is between 0.96 and 1.10. The decreasing
trend of the C/E values for source of 1000 cc to 60 cc indicates that the self-absorption is under
estimated in MC computations. The estimated efficiency for gaseous sources by LGM method is
shown in figure 7. The efficiency of detection decreases as the source volume increases. This is
due to geometric attenuation of source. The efficiency of detection decreases as the gamma energy
increases which is due to the variation in the intrinsic efficiency of the detector.
The C/E values of mean efficiency of distributed point sources obtained from MC computations
and measurements used in SPM method are shown in figure 8. The standard deviation of the values
estimated based on error propagation formula is shown at 1σ confidence level in figures 6 and 8.
The number of source points chosen to represent the source geometry of 1000 cc, 500 cc, 250 cc,
100 cc and 60 cc are 30, 19, 16, 10 and 8 respectively. The maximum and average deviation of C/E
from the mean value for point sources representing the source of 1000 cc is 6% and 1% respectively.
Similarly, the corresponding value for 60 cc is 18% and 11% respectively. The computed efficiencies
are higher than the experimental values when the point sources are nearer to the detector surface.
When the point source is nearer to the detector surface, any small variation in the coordinates
between experiment and simulation could result in large difference in the C/E value. The estimated
efficiency for gaseous sources by equation (2.5) of SPM method is shown in figure 9. The trend
of the efficiency obtained by SPM method is similar to the LGM method. However, the maximum
deviation observed between the estimated efficiencies by these two methods is 23%. The mean

– 10 –
 -1
10

1000 cc
500 cc
250 cc
100 cc
60 cc

Efficiency (keV)
-2
10

2017 JINST 12 T07006

-3
10
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600
Gamma Energy (keV)

Figure 7. Efficiency for gaseous sources estimated by Liquid-Gas Monte Carlo method.

1.5
Ratio of efficiency for point source (C / E)

1.4 1000 cc
500 cc
1.3 250 cc
100 cc
60 cc
1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Gamma Energy (keV)

Figure 8. Ratio of the mean efficiency of distributed point sources by Monte Carlo computations and
measurements.

efficiency estimated for 1000 cc and 500 cc gaseous sources by SPM method is higher compared
to the values by LGM method by 19% and 12% respectively. The reverse trend is observed for
source volume of 100 cc and 60 cc for which the mean efficiency estimated by SPM method is lower
compared to LGM by 4% and 9% respectively. The standard deviation of efficiencies is shown at
2σ confidence level in figures 4, 5, 7 and 9.
For the validation of the determined efficiency of gaseous sources, cover gas samples of FBTR
have been collected in 60 cc, 250 cc, 500 cc and 1000 cc PVC bottles in ambient pressure and
subjected to gamma spectrometry. In FBTR, a mixture of argon and helium is used as the cover
gas during reactor operation. The activity estimated in the cover gas samples by LGM and SPM
methods are given in tables 3 and 4 respectively. The major radionuclides identified in the gas

– 11 –
 -1
10

1000 cc
500 cc
250 cc
100 cc
60 cc

Efficiency (fraction)
-2
10

2017 JINST 12 T07006

-3
10
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Gamma energy(keV)

Figure 9. Efficiency for gaseous sources estimated by Single Point Monte Carlo method.

Table 3. Specific activity of radionuclides in cover gas of FBTR estimated by Liquid-Gas Monte Carlo
Method.
Energy Specific activity (Bq/cc)
Radionuclide
(KeV) 1000 cc 500 cc 250 cc 60 cc Average RMS∗
85m Kr 151.18 15.91± 0.65$ 20.92± 0.86 18.11± 0.70 17.53±0.84 17.81±0.37 0.77
88 Kr 196.32 38.53±2.61 55.52±4.04 43.02±2.37 43.62±2.66 43.39±1.38 2.99
135 Xe 249.79 74.92± 2.61 98.11±3.25 80.00±2.51 77.84±2.87 81.35±1.38 2.82
41 Ar 1293.6 3353.09±117.62 4694.52±157.52 3943.07±122.32 3756.73±133.85 3846.32±65.20 133.72
$ Standard deviation at 1σ confidence level, *Root mean square value of standard deviation

Table 4. Specific activity of radionuclides in cover gas of FBTR estimated by Single Point Monte Carlo
Method.
Energy Specific activity (Bq/cc)
Radionuclide
(KeV) 1000 cc 500 cc 250 cc 60 cc Weighted average RMS∗
85m Kr 151.18 18.98±0.56$ 18.90±0.55 18.23±0.50 19.09±0.75 18.73±0.29 0.60
88 Kr 196.32 45.25±2.78 50.83±3.40 44.11±2.11 48.11±2.62 46.35±1.30 2.77
135 Xe 249.79 86.84±1.71 91.11±1.51 83.20±1.27 87.15±2.14 86.65±0.79 1.69
41 Ar 1293.6 4165.25±83.97 4068.59±70.87 3828.78±55.52 4129.74±94.02 3995.14±35.84 77.45
$ Standard deviation at 1σ confidence level, *Root mean square value of the standard deviation

sample are 85m Kr, 88 Kr, 135 Xe and 41 Ar. The maximum variation of estimated activity by LGM and
SPM method is within 23% and 8 % respectively. The estimated activity using LGM for gas samples
collected in 500 cc are higher than the mean value by 19%. However, the estimated activities for
gas samples of 1000 cc, 250 cc and 60 cc are lower than the mean value by 2 to 13%. The mean
variation of specific activity estimated using SPM method for different source volumes is within 5%.

– 12 –
4 Conclusions

The estimation of efficiencies for gaseous sources for an aged P-type HPGe detector has been
carried out by two methods viz., LGM and SPM methods. In LGM method, self-absorption in the
source region has been estimated by experiments and computations. In SPM method, experiments
and computations have been performed for distributed source points which represent the source
region to obtain necessary normalizing factors. The detector geometry details have been obtained
from X-ray radiography. The dead layer thickness of the detector has been optimized based on
measurements and computations. The C/E values of efficiency for liquid sources used in LGM
method indicate that the self-absorption factor is under estimated in MC computations especially

2017 JINST 12 T07006

for source of 1000 cc and the maximum variation is 23%. The maximum variation in the C/E
values for source of 1000 cc in SPM method is 6%. The efficiency determined for gaseous sources
has been used to compute the specific activity of cover gas sample obtained from FBTR. The mean
variation of specific activity estimated by LGM and SPM methods for various source volumes is
19% and 5% respectively. The present work reveals that the SPM method is more suitable for the
estimation of efficiency for gaseous sources.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Shri K.V. Suresh Kumar, Director, Reactor Facilities Group, IGCAR for
his encouragement. The authors also thank Shri N. Raghu, QAD, IGCAR for performing X-ray
radiography of the detector and acknowledge the services rendered by colleagues at HPU, FBTR
during counting of various sources.

References

[1] I.O.B. Ewa, D. Bodizs, S. Czifrus and Z. Molnar, Monte Carlo determination of full energy peak
efficiency for an HPGe detector, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 55 (2001) 103.
[2] M.I. Abbas, HPGe detector absolute full-energy peak efficiency calibration including coincidence
correction for circular disc sources, J. Phys. D 39 (2006) 3952.
[3] J.C. Aguiar, An analytical calculation of the peak efficiency for cylindrical sources perpendicular to
the detector axis in gamma ray spectrometry, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 66 (2008) 1123.
[4] L. Pibida, S.S. Nafee, M. Unterweger, M.M. Hammond, L. Karam and M.I. Abbas, Calibration of
HPGe gamma-ray detectors for measurement of radioactive noble gas sources, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 65
(2007) 225.
[5] H. Aaltonen, S. Klemola and F. Ugletveit, Validation of a method for computer calculation of
germanium detector efficiencies, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 339 (1994) 87.
[6] D. Karamanisa, V. Lacosteb, S. Andriamonjea, G. Barreaua and M. Petita, Experimental and
simulated efficiency of a HPGe detector with point-like and extended sources, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A
487 (2002) 477.
[7] J. Saegusaa, K. Kawasakia, A. Miharaa, M. Itob and M. Yoshidaa, Determination of detection
efficiency curves of HPGe detectors on radioactivity measurement of volume samples, Appl. Radiat.
Isot. 61 (2004) 1383.

– 13 –
 [8] J. Rodenas and S. Gallardo, Application of the Monte Carlo method to develop a model to estimate the
internal contamination of pipes in a nuclear reactor, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 580 (2007) 134.
[9] M. Schlager, Precise modelling of coaxial germanium detectors in preparation for a mathematical
calibration, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 580 (2007) 137.
[10] J. Boson, G. Agren and L. Johansson, A detailed investigation of HPGe detector response for
improved Monte Carlo efficiency calculations, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 587 (2008) 304.
[11] F.P. Cabal et al., Monte Carlo based geometrical model for efficiency calculation of an n-type HPGe
detector, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 68 (2010) 2403.
[12] R. Berndt and P. Mortreau, Monte Carlo modeling of a N-type coaxial high purity germanium

2017 JINST 12 T07006

detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 694 (2012) 341.
[13] E. Andreotti, M. Hult, L.G. Marissens, A. Garfagnini, S. Hemmer and K.V. Sturm, Determination of
dead-layer variation in HPGe detectors, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 87 (2014) 331.
[14] Y.M. Gomez, H.A.C. Aguila, C.M.A. Hernández, J.L.B. Castillo and A.G. Arruebarrena, Application
of the Monte Carlo efficiency transfer method to an HPGe detector with the purpose of environmental
samples measurement, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 97 (2015) 59.
[15] S. Chagren, M. Ben Tekaya, N. Reguigui and F. Gharbi, Efficiency transfer using the GEANT4 code of
CERN for HPGe gamma spectrometry, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 107 (2016) 359.
[16] E. Chham et al., Monte Carlo analysis of the influence of germanium dead layer thickness on the
HPGe gamma detector experimental efficiency measured by use of extended sources, Appl. Radiat.
Isot. 95 (2015) 30.
[17] W.L. Dunn and J.K. Shultis, Monte Carlo methods for design and analysis of radiation detectors,
Radiat. Phys. Chem. 78 (2009) 852.
[18] J. Rodenas, A. Pascuala, I. Zarza, V. Serradell, J. Ortiz and L. Ballesteros, Analysis of the influence of
germanium dead layer on detector calibration simulation for environmental radioactive samples
using the Monte Carlo method, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 496 (2003) 390.
[19] N.Q. Huy, D.Q. Binhb and V.X. Ana, Study on the increase of inactive germanium layer in a
high-purity germanium detector after a long time operation applying MCNP code, Nucl. Instrum.
Meth. A 573 (2007) 384.
[20] J.F. Briesmeister ed., A general Monte Carlo N-particle transport code, version 4B, LA-12625-M,
(1997).
[21] L. Liye, M. Jizenga, D. Franck, L.D. Carlan and Z.Z. Binquana, Monte Carlo efficiency transfer
method for full energy peak efficiency calibration of three type HPGe detectors: a coaxial N-type, a
coaxial P-type and four BEGe detectors, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 564 (2008) 608.
[22] H. Cember and T.E. Johnson, Introduction to health physics, fourth edition, McGraw-Hill Medical,
New York U.S.A., (2009).
[23] R.G. Jaeger et al. eds., Engineering compendium on radiation shielding, volume 1, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin Germany, (1968).

– 14 –