Radioisotope Identification System (RadIS)
performance assessment results
Jason Brown
Marc Desrosiers
Lorne Erhardt
Elizabeth Inrig
Aimee Jones
Trevor Jones
David Waller
Ian Watson
DRDC – Ottawa Research Centre
Defence Research and Development Canada
Scientific Report
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
September 2016
Template in use: (2010) SR Advanced Template_EN (051115).dotm
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2016
© Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale,
2016
Abstract
Eight radioisotope identification (RIID) systems have been evaluated for the Canadian Armed
Forces (CAF) to support the Radioisotope Identification System (RadIS) procurement project,
which is led by the Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defence
(D CBRN D) [1]. Three of the eight systems are CAF in-service RIID systems: the GR-135N,
Syclone, and Interceptor. The other five are commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) systems: the
Thermo RIID-EyeX, Berkeley Nucleonics Corporation (BNC) 945 SAM III, FLIR RadHunter,
Radiation Solutions Incorporated Super RIID SR-10, and Smiths RadSeeker. The in-service
systems were evaluated to determine the current CAF baseline RIID performance, and the COTS
thallium-doped sodium iodide (NaI(Tl)) scintillator systems were evaluated to determine whether
currently-available NaI(Tl)-based systems are sufficient to meet the CAF’s RIID requirements.
None of the RIIDs tested scored high enough in all the sub-tests to satisfy the relevant ANSI [2]
or IEC [3] standards. Although none of the five COTS NaI(Tl) RIIDs achieved a high score on all
the sub-tests, we determined that the overall performance of two of them was sufficient for most
CAF radiological/nuclear (RN) identification tasks. These two COTS RIIDs significantly
outperformed the best in-service CAF RIID: scores of 77% and 78%, compared to 56%. As long
as the RIID that is procured is at least as good as these two, then the CAF should be well served.
Significance to defence and security
The detection and identification of radiological and nuclear (RN) threats is a critical component
of the CAF’s CBRN defence capability. RIID systems must be able to reliably identify a wide
range of radioisotopes, including special nuclear material (SNM). The Directorate of CBRN
Defence (D CBRN D) is leading a procurement project, RadIS, to replace the CAF’s current suite
of RIID systems with modern, improved systems [1]. Three different, in-service, CAF RIID
systems and five COTS NaI RIID systems were tested for:
1. radioisotope identification with a variety of radioisotopes, including SNM, under a range of
conditions: shielded, unshielded, multiple isotopes, interfering bremsstrahlung radiation,
varying angles of incidence, etc.;
2. gamma ray dose rate response; and
3. environmental performance.
The in-service CAF RIID systems failed the majority of the tests, indicating the need to replace
them with modern, improved RIIDs. Two of the detectors represented significant improvements
over the in-service systems. The choice of either of these (or an even better system, if it exists)
would improve the CAF’s capability to identify RN threats. That being said, there is still room for
improvement in RIID performance, especially for SNM identification: higher resolution RIIDs
(e.g., lanthanum bromide or strontium bromide) could provide further improvements in
performance, albeit at an increased cost relative to lower-resolution systems.
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
i
Résumé
On a évalué huit dispositifs d’identification de radio-isotopes (RIID) pour les Forces armées
canadiennes (FAC) en appui au projet d’acquisition du Système d’identification de radio-isotopes
(RadIS) sous la gouverne du Directeur – Défense chimique, biologique, radiologique et nucléaire
(DDCBRN) [1]. Trois d’entre eux sont actuellement en service dans les FAC: le GR-135N, le
Syclone, et l’Interceptor. Les cinq autres sont disponibles sur le marché: le Thermo RIID-EyeX,
le Berkeley Nucleonics Corporation (BNC) 945 SAM III, le FLIR RadHunter, le Radiation
Solutions Incorporated Super RIID SR-10 et le Smiths RadSeeker. On a évalué les systèmes en
service dans les FAC afin de déterminer leur rendement de base actuel. On a également évalué les
scintillateurs à l’iodure de sodium dopé au thallium (NaI(Tl)), actuellement disponibles sur le
marché, afin de déterminer s’ils suffisaient pour répondre aux exigences des RIID des FAC.
Aucun des RIID évalués n’a obtenu une note suffisante dans la totalité des sous-tests pour
respecter les normes pertinentes ANSI [2] ou IEC [3]. Par ailleurs, même si aucun des RIID
NaI(Tl) disponibles sur le marché n’a obtenu une note élevée dans la totalité des sous-tests, nous
avons pu déterminer que le rendement général de deux d’entre eux suffisait pour accomplir la
plupart des tâches d’identification radiologique ou nucléaire (RN) des FAC. Le rendement de ces
deux RIID disponibles sur le marché a surpassé considérablement celui du meilleur actuellement
en service dans les FAC, avec des résultats de 77 % et 78 %, contre 56 %. Tant que le RIID dont
on a fait l’acquisition est au moins aussi performants que ces deux-là, les FAC devraient en être
satisfaites.
Importance pour la défense et la sécurité
La détection et l’identification des menaces radiologiques et nucléaires (RN) constituent un
élément crucial de la capacité de défense CBRN des FAC. Les RIID doivent permettre
d’identifier de manière fiable une vaste gamme de radio-isotopes, notamment les matières
nucléaires spéciales (MNS). Le DDCBRN mène actuellement un projet d’acquisition, RadIS, afin
de remplacer l’ensemble des RIID actuels par des systèmes modernes et améliorés. On a donc
procédé aux essais de trois RIID en service dans les FAC et de cinq RIID à l’iodure de sodium
(NaI) pour :
1. identifier divers radio-isotopes, notamment les MNS, dans des conditions variées: avec
blindage, sans blindage, en présence de multiples isotopes, d’un rayonnement brouilleur de
Bremsstrahlung, selon différents angles d’incidence, etc.
2. déterminer l’effet du débit de dose de rayons gamma, et
3. évaluer la performance environnementale.
Les RIID actuellement en service dans les FAC ont échoué la majorité des tests, signe qu’on doit
les remplacer par des systèmes modernes et améliorés. Deux des détecteurs comportaient des
améliorations considérables par rapport aux systèmes actuellement en service. Le choix de l’un
ii
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
ou de l’autre (ou d’un système encore meilleur, s’il en existe) permettrait d’améliorer la capacité
des FAC à identifier les menaces RN. Cela dit, il y a toujours place à l’amélioration côté
rendement, particulièrement en ce qui concerne l’identification des MNS : des RIID à plus haute
résolutions (p. ex. au bromure de lanthane ou de strontium) pourraient améliorer davantage le
rendement à un coût cependant plus élevé que les systèmes à moindre résolution.
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
iii
This page intentionally left blank.
iv
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Table of contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Significance to defence and security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Résumé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
Importance pour la défense et la sécurité . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
v
List of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
List of tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
RIID systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 In-service CAF RIIID systems . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 COTS NaI(Tl) RIIID systems . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Test procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 Radioisotope identification procedures . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1 Single radioisotope identification procedure (SNM) . .
3.1.2 Single radioisotope identification procedure (non-SNM)
3.1.3 Multiple radioisotope identification procedure . . . .
3.1.4 False radioisotope identification procedure . . . . .
3.1.5 Efficiency assessment procedure . . . . . . . . .
3.1.6 Resolution assessment procedure . . . . . . . . .
3.1.7 Angle of incidence procedure . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.8 Interfering bremsstrahlung radiation procedure . . . .
3.1.9 Over-range ID response procedure . . . . . . . .
3.2 Gamma ray dose rate response procedures . . . . . . . .
3.2.1 Response time procedure . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2 Gamma ray dose rate alarm procedure . . . . . . .
3.2.3 Gamma ray dose rate accuracy procedure . . . . . .
3.2.4 Over-range dose rate response procedure . . . . . .
3.3 Environmental performance procedures . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Humidity response procedure . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2 Thermal shock procedure . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.3 Cold start procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.4 Ambient temperature procedure . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
2
2
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
Evaluation of detector performance . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Radioisotope identification scoring . . . . . . . .
4.1.1 Single radioisotope identification scoring (SNM)
4.1.1.1 Mixed oxide fuel identification scoring
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
10
11
11
3
4
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
v
4.2
4.3
4.1.1.2 Enriched uranium scoring . . . . . . . .
4.1.1.3 Reactor grade plutonium identification scoring
4.1.2 Single radioisotope identification scoring (non-SNM) .
4.1.3 Multiple radioisotope identification scoring . . . . .
4.1.4 Scoring for other radioisotope identification sub-tests .
4.1.4.1 False ID scoring . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.4.2 Interfering bremsstrahlung radiation scoring .
4.1.4.3 Over-range ID scoring . . . . . . . . .
4.1.5 Scoring for efficiency and resolution sub-tests . . . .
Scoring of gamma ray dose rate response . . . . . . . . .
Scoring of environmental performance tests . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
RIID testing results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 Radioisotope identification results . . . . . . . . .
5.1.1 SNM radioisotope identification results . . . . .
5.1.2 Single radioisotope identification results . . . .
5.1.3 Multiple radioisotope identification results . . .
5.1.4 False radioisotope identification results . . . . .
5.1.5 Efficiency results . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.6 Resolution results . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.7 Angle of incidence results . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.8 Interfering bremsstrahlung radiation results . . .
5.1.9 Over-range ID response results . . . . . . . .
5.2 Gamma ray dose rate response results . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Response time results . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2 Gamma ray dose rate alarm results . . . . . .
5.2.3 Gamma ray dose rate accuracy results . . . . .
5.2.4 Dose rate response to over-range conditions results
5.3 Environmental performance results . . . . . . . . .
5.3.1 Humidity response results . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.2 Thermal shock results . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.3 Cold start results . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.4 Ambient temperature results . . . . . . . . .
5.3.5 Overall summary of test results . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
15
15
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
23
24
24
25
6
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
7
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Annex A
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
33
33
37
40
41
vi
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Detailed test tesults for radioisotope identification . . . . . . . . . .
Detailed Special Nuclear Material (SNM) radioisotope identification results .
Detailed single radioisotope identification results . . . . . . . . . . .
Detailed multiple radioisotope identification results . . . . . . . . . .
Detailed resolution results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
A.5 Detailed efficiency results . . . . . . . .
A.6 Detailed angle of incidence results . . . . .
A.7 Detailed interfering bremsstrahlung results . .
A.8 Detailed over-range ID results . . . . . . .
Annex B Dose rate response results . . . . . . . .
Annex C Detailed environmental performance test results
C.1 Detailed humidity results . . . . . . . . .
C.2 Detailed thermal shock results . . . . . . .
C.3 Detailed cold start results . . . . . . . . .
C.4 Detailed ambient temperature results . . . .
List of symbols/abbreviations/acronyms/initialisms . . .
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
42
45
47
49
59
59
61
63
64
67
vii
List of figures
Figure 1:
Photos of three in-service CAF RIID systems. From left to right, they are the
Syclone, GR-135N and Interceptor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
Figure 2:
Photos of five COTS RIID systems procured for testing: the RadSeeker (top
left); the RadHunter (top right); the 945 SAM III (centre); the Super RIID
SR-10 (bottom left); and the RIIDEyeTM X-G (bottom right). . . . . . . .
3
viii
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
List of tables
Table 1:
Scoring for identification of a single radioisotope. For cases where daughter or
other associated isotopes are identified in the sample (e.g., 241Am in a 239Pu
sample), see the text for more details on the scoring. . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 2:
Scoring for identification of multiple radioisotopes. For cases where daughter
or other associated isotopes are identified in the sample (e.g., 241Am in 239Pu
sample), see the text for more details on the scoring. . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 3:
Summary of the SNM radioisotope ID results. The top and bottom numbers in
each box are the ID scores (out of 10) for unshielded and shielded (5 mm steel)
SNM, respectively. The overall score is the mean of the scores converted to a
percentage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 4:
Summary of the unshielded, single radioisotope identification results. . . . . 16
Table 5:
Summary of the shielded and in the final column, the overall (shielded and
unshielded) single radioisotope identification results. . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 6:
Summary of the multiple radioisotope identification results. . . . . . . . . 17
Table 7:
Summary of the false radioisotope identification results. . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 8:
Summary of the detector efficiency results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 9:
Summary of the detector resolution (FWHM) results. . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 10:
Summary of the angle of incidence identification results. . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 11:
Summary of the interfering bremsstrahlung radiation identification results. . . 20
Table 12:
Summary of the over-range identification results. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 13:
Summary of the gamma dose rate response results. . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 14:
Summary of the humidity identification results at different Relative Humidity
(RH) and temperature values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 15:
Summary of the thermal shock identification results. . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 16:
Summary of the cold start identification results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 17:
Summary of the ambient temperature identification results. . . . . . . . . 24
Table 18:
Summary of results for CAF in-service (Detectors 1 to 3) and COTS RIID
systems (Detectors 4 to 8). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table A.1:
Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 1. . . 33
Table A.2:
Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 2. . . 33
Table A.3:
Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 3.
Detector 3 was often unable to provide an ID of the SNM material within the
allotted 2 min duration. Because of this, only the number of trials that could be
performed within the time for the other detectors to perform were done. . . . 34
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
ix
Table A.4:
Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 4. . . 34
Table A.5:
Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 5. . . 35
Table A.6:
Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 6. . . 35
Table A.7:
Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 7. . . 36
Table A.8:
Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 8. . . 36
Table A.9:
Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 1. . . . . 37
Table A.10:
Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 2. . . . . 37
Table A.11:
Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 3. . . . . 37
Table A.12:
Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 4. . . . . 38
Table A.13:
Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 5. . . . . 38
Table A.14:
Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 6. . . . . 38
Table A.15:
Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 7. . . . . 39
Table A.16:
Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 8. . . . . 39
Table A.17:
Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 1. . . . 40
Table A.18:
Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 2. . . . 40
Table A.19:
Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 3. . . . 40
Table A.20:
Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 4. . . . 40
Table A.21:
Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 5. . . . 40
Table A.22:
Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 6. . . . 41
Table A.23:
Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 7. . . . 41
Table A.24:
Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 8. . . . 41
Table A.25:
Detailed resolution results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table A.26:
Detailed efficiency results (net photopeak counts). . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table A.27:
Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 1. . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table A.28:
Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 2. . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table A.29:
Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 3. . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table A.30:
Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 4. . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table A.31:
Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 5. . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table A.32:
Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 6. . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table A.33:
Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 7. . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table A.34:
Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 8. . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table A.35:
Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 1. . . . . . . . . . 45
Table A.36:
Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 2. . . . . . . . . . 45
x
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Table A.37:
Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 3. . . . . . . . . . 46
Table A.38:
Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 4. . . . . . . . . . 46
Table A.39:
Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 5. . . . . . . . . . 46
Table A.40:
Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 6. . . . . . . . . . 46
Table A.41:
Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 7. . . . . . . . . . 46
Table A.42:
Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 8. . . . . . . . . . 47
Table A.43:
Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table A.44:
Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table A.45:
Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table A.46:
Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table A.47:
Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table A.48:
Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table A.49:
Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table A.50:
Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table B.1:
Background dose rate results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table B.2:
Response time results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table B.3:
Alarm time results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table B.4:
Gamma ray dose rate accuracy results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table B.5:
Dose rate response to over-range conditions results. . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table C.1:
Detailed humidity test results for Detector 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table C.2:
Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 2. . . . . . . . . . 59
Table C.3:
Detailed humidity test results for Detector 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table C.4:
Detailed humidity test results for Detector 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table C.5:
Detailed humidity test results for Detector 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table C.6:
Detailed humidity test results for Detector 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table C.7:
Detailed humidity test results for Detector 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table C.8:
Detailed humidity test results for Detector 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table C.9:
Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Table C.10:
Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Table C.11:
Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Table C.12:
Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Table C.13:
Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table C.14:
Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
xi
Table C.15:
Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table C.16:
Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table C.17:
Detailed cold start test results for Detector 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table C.18:
Detailed cold start test results for Detector 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table C.19:
Detailed cold start test results for Detector 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table C.20:
Detailed cold start test results for Detector 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table C.21:
Detailed cold start test results for Detector 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table C.22:
Detailed cold start test results for Detector 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table C.23:
Detailed cold start test results for Detector 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table C.24:
Detailed cold start test results for Detector 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table C.25:
Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 1. . . . . . . . . . 64
Table C.26:
Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 2. . . . . . . . . . 64
Table C.27:
Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 3. . . . . . . . . . 64
Table C.28:
Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 4. . . . . . . . . . 65
Table C.29:
Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 5. . . . . . . . . . 65
Table C.30:
Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 6. . . . . . . . . . 65
Table C.31:
Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 7. . . . . . . . . . 65
Table C.32:
Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 8. . . . . . . . . . 65
xii
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Major Randall Godfrey of D CBRN D, the project director for RadIS, for his
leadership and support (financial and moral). Also, thank you to Scott Noël of Director of Combat
Systems Equipment Management for providing the RIIDs for testing, as well as feedback on the
test plans and results. We would also like to thank Marc Desormeaux of D CBRN D and Andrew
Feltham of Canadian Special Operations Forces Command for their valuable input.
We are extremely grateful to Ike Dimayuga, Richard Dufour, Patrick Watson, Ghaouti Bentoumi,
Liqian Li, Bhaskar Sur and all the staff at Canadian Nuclear Laboratories for collaborating with
us on the SNM ID measurements. We are indebted to them for obtaining access to their unique
facilities and benefited from their world-class expertise. We look forward to working with them
more in the future.
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
xiii
This page intentionally left blank.
xiv
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
1
Introduction
In August 2014, the Directorate of CBRN Defence (D CBRN D) requested support from DRDC’s
Radiological Analysis and Defence (RAD) Group to determine the requirements for new
radioisotope identification (RIID) systems to be procured under the RadIS project in order to
meet CAF operational requirements [4]. In addition, the RAD Group was asked to develop a
performance assessment plan for evaluating RIID systems. Three existing RIID performance
standards were used as a starting point to determine “achievable” requirements for the CAF:
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 42.34-2006 [2], International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) 62327:2006 [3], and NATO Allied Engineering Publication (AEP)-75 [5]. The
ANSI and IEC standards, in particular, are used as guidance throughout industry and the global
radiation detection community. The generic test methods described in these standards were also
used a starting point to develop more detailed performance assessments that were carried out
mainly at DRDC Ottawa Research Centre (ORC), and supplemented with measurements with
special nuclear material (SNM) at Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) in Chalk River, Ontario.
Initially, the three in-service CAF RIID systems were tested to validate the performance
assessment plan and proposed CAF requirements [6]. In the next phase of testing, five
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) RIID systems were purchased by D CBRN D and evaluated at
DRDC ORC and CNL. This allowed further evolution of the RadIS RIID requirements and
refinement of the performance assessment plan.
Section 2 of this report describes the in-service CAF and COTS RIID systems we evaluated.
Section 3 describes the performance assessment plan and the criteria that were used to judge the
performance of the RIID systems. Section 4 provides details on how each criterion was scored,
and Section 5 provides the detailed results for all the evaluation criteria. Finally, our
recommendations and conclusions are provided in Sections 6 and 7.
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
1
2
2.1
RIID systems
In-service CAF RIIID systems
There are currently three in-service CAF RIID systems:
1. Rad Comm Systems Syclone,
2. Exploranium GR-135, and
3. Thermo Scientific InterceptorTM.
The Syclone is essentially a refurbished and updated GR-135N [7]. Both use 38 mm diameter, 51 mm
height, thallium-doped NaI crystals for the spectrometer. The InterceptorTM uses a 7 × 7 × 3.5 mm3
cadmium zinc telluride (CZT) crystal for its detector. The three systems are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Photos of three in-service CAF RIID systems.
From left to right, they are the Syclone, GR-135N and Interceptor.
2.2
COTS NaI(Tl) RIIID systems
Five COTS NaI(Tl) RIIID systems were tested:
1. Thermo Scientific, RIIDEyeTM X-G;
2. Berkeley Nucleonics Corporation, Model 945 SAM III Isotope Identifier;
3. FLIR, identiFINDER R500 (“RadHunter”);
4. Radiation Solutions Incorporated, Super-RIID SR-10; and
5. Smiths Detection, RadSeeker CS.
All use a NaI(Tl) scintillator crystal for radiation detection. All the crystals are 5 cm (diameter) × 5 cm
(height) except the RadHunter’s, which is 10.2 cm (diameter) × 1.9 cm (height). Figure 2 shows
each of these COTS RIIDs.
2
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
)LJXUH3KRWRVRIILYH&2765,,'V\VWHPVSURFXUHGIRUWHVWLQJWKH5DG6HHNHUWRSOHIWWKH
5DG+XQWHUWRSULJKWWKH6$0,,,FHQWUHWKH6XSHU5,,'65ERWWRPOHIWDQGWKH
5,,'(\H70;*ERWWRPULJKW
'5'&5''&5
3
Test procedures
The RIIDs were subjected to tests derived from three radioisotope identification tests standards:
1. ANSI N42.34-2006, American National Standard Performance Criteria for Hand-Held
Instruments for the Detection and Identification of Radionuclides [2];
2. IEC 62327:2006, Radiation protection instrumentation – Hand-held instruments for the
detection and identification of radionuclides and for the indication of ambient dose rate
equivalent rate from photon radiation [3]; and
3. NATO AEP-75, Capability and systems requirements for nuclear and radiological detection,
identification and monitoring equipment [5].
Before any of the RIIDs were tested, we decided (in close consultation with our military
sponsors) that none of the aforementioned standards were perfect for the requirements of the
CAF. As a result, we generated a hybrid list of tests derived from these three standards [8]. The
tests are divided into three categories, with multiple “sub-tests” in each category:
1. Radioisotope identification (ID):
a. Special nuclear material ID (unshielded and shielded)
b. Single radioisotope ID (unshielded and shielded)
c. Multiple radioisotope ID
d. False positive ID
e. RIID efficiency
f.
RIID resolution
g. Angular response of RIID for single radioisotope ID
h. Single radioisotope ID with interfering bremsstrahlung radiation
i.
Over-range ID performance of RIID
2. Gamma ray dose rate response:
a. Dose rate response time
b. Dose rate alarm
c. Dose rate accuracy
4
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
d. Over-range dose rate response
3. Environmental performance:
a. Humidity response
b. Thermal shock
c. Cold start
d. Ambient temperature
3.1
Radioisotope identification procedures
The detectors were placed in a radiation field that was 0.5 µSv/h above background for all tests
except over-range ID. The dose rate was determined by an independent, calibrated detector: a
RadEye B-20 gamma dose rate meter [9]. Sources were positioned on either a steel or aluminum
surface with as little shielding as possible between the source and the detector. All acquisition
times were 120 seconds, except for the in-service detectors. The GR-135 and Syclone were set to
100 seconds (it was not possible to set the acquisition time to 120 seconds for these RIIDs), and
the Interceptor’s acquisition time was automatically determined by its internal algorithms for
identification time, meaning that the acquisition stops once an internal “confidence level” is
achieved. The detectors were oriented toward the source(s) in the optimal detection orientation
specified by their documentation. Each test was performed 10 times unless stated otherwise.
3.1.1
Single radioisotope identification procedure (SNM)
Special nuclear material is considered one of the most important and difficult materials to
identify. Due to its importance, we placed SNM ID in its own category and gave a high weight to
these results. As there will likely be shielding when SNM is present, we also performed tests with
5 mm of steel shielding. All the SNM tests were performed by DRDC ORC personnel at the
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories in Chalk River, Ontario, except for those using the ORC’s
plutonium-beryllium (PuBe) source. The following sources and materials were used for SNM ID
testing:

239

235
Pu (in a PuBe source);
U, 238U and 239Pu in a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel sample;
 reactor-grade plutonium;

233
U;
 highly enriched uranium (93% 235U); and
 two samples of low enriched uranium (6% and 20% 235U).
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
5
3.1.2
Single radioisotope identification procedure (non-SNM)
This testing was performed in a multi-purpose radiation laboratory at DRDC ORC. The following
radioisotopes were used: 241Am, 133Ba, 60Co, 137Cs, 125I, 192Ir, 226Ra, 232Th and natural U (0.7% 235U).
Shielding (5 mm steel) was used with three of the radioisotopes to determine how the detectors’
performance was affected by shielding: 133Ba, 60Co and 137Cs.
3.1.3
Multiple radioisotope identification procedure
As it would not be unusual for several isotopes to be present in the same location at the same
time, testing with multiple isotopes is also required. The ANSI and IEC standards call for highly
enriched uranium (HEU) to be identified simultaneously with a number of other isotopes (one at a
time). We substituted the HEU with 239Pu as its spectrum is more challenging for simultaneous
identifications. The isotopes paired with the 239Pu were chosen for their gamma-energy range:
from high energy 60Co to low energy 125I. Isotopes whose gamma-energy lines overlap those of
239
Pu (e.g., 133Ba and 192Ir) were also chosen to assess how well the RIIDs differentiate the
overlapping photopeaks.
3.1.4
False radioisotope identification procedure
False identification (i.e., a false positive) is a very undesirable outcome for radiation
detection/identification instrumentation. All the RIIDs were tested in a “typical”, ambient
0.1 µSv/h background. For each RIID, ten 120 second trials were conducted. Identification of any
isotope other than naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) was considered a false
identification.
3.1.5
Efficiency assessment procedure
Efficiency assessment was performed at low (59 keV), medium (662 keV) and high (1173 keV
and 1332 keV) gamma ray energies. The net counts under these photopeaks were compared for
each of these energies. The results for each gamma ray energy were normalized to the results of
the RIID with the highest efficiency at that energy. To eliminate systematic (e.g., software) issues
from RIID-to-RIID, the spectra were extracted from the RIIDs and the efficiencies were
calculated using the PeakEasy software program [10].
3.1.6
Resolution assessment procedure
Photopeak resolution assessment was performed at the same low (59 keV), medium (661 keV)
and high (1173 keV and 1332 keV) energies as for the efficiency assessment. The result from the
RIID with the highest resolution (i.e., smallest full width at half maximum, or FWHM) at each
energy was used to normalize the other results. As with the efficiency measurements, PeakEasy
was used to measure the FWHM of each photopeak to eliminate biases related to detector
software [10].
6
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
3.1.7
Angle of incidence procedure
The ANSI and IEC standards recommend assessing the performance of the RIIDs through ±45
degree angles of incidence relative to the detector’s preferred orientation with respect to the
source (i.e., 0 degree incidence). In consultation with our CAF clients, we decided that a more
realistic assessment would require angular variations of 45, 90, and 180 degrees; 180 degrees
usually represents the worst case performance for the detector as the gamma-radiation often
passes through the RIID’s battery, electronics and outer case. Low energy gamma rays, in
particular, can be significantly attenuated by the RIID at a 180 degree angle of incidence.
3.1.8
Interfering bremsstrahlung radiation procedure
Bremsstrahlung radiation refers to the x-rays produced when beta particles (energetic electrons)
interact with matter. This creates a continuous spectrum (i.e., without any characteristic peaks)
which typically spans the lower-energy part of the gamma ray spectrum and can interfere
significantly with the identification of other radionuclides that may be present. The
bremsstrahlung radiation was created by a 90Sr/90Y source shielded by 3.2 mm (1/8") of lead. The
RIIDs were placed in the resulting field at a position where the dose rate due to bremsstrahlung
was 0.5µSv/h. Identification of a single radioisotope in the presence of bremsstrahlung radiation
was tested, using 241Am as a low-energy source and 60Co as a high-energy source, in order to
determine the effect of this interference on their identification.
3.1.9
Over-range ID response procedure
Although the ANSI standard specifies that the manufacturer shall indicate the maximum Cs-137
exposure rate for identification [2], in practice, this information was not provided in the manuals
for any of the RIIDs tested. The maximum does rate for ID was determined for each detector by
moving it towards the source until it either failed or indicated that the field was too high to
perform radioisotope identification. Failure to indicate an over-range condition at any dose rate
constituted an automatic failure; for those RIIDs for which a maximum dose rate for ID could be
determined, their ability to correctly identify 137Cs at a dose rate that was 80% of the maximum
was tested in order to evaluate their performance at dose rates that were elevated but not
over-range.
3.2
Gamma ray dose rate response procedures
The purpose of these tests was to assess the dose rate response performance of the RIIDs. Each
test was repeated ten times. The data for these tests were collected either by using a video
recording of the dose rate display, or by transferring the recorded data from the instrument after
all repetitions of the test.
3.2.1 Response time procedure
The test method used to determine the response time was based on Section 6.2 of ANSI 42.34-2006
[2]. First, the instrument was exposed to an instantaneous increase in dose rate from ambient
background to a field (due to 137Cs) that was 0.5 μSv/h above background. The field from the
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
7
137
Cs source was then removed (via the introduction of shielding between the source and the
detector) so that the dose rate returned to background levels. The requirement for response time is
that the instrument must indicate an increase in exposure rate within 2 s of exposure to the source.
In addition, the dose rate reported by the detector must be within ±50% of the true exposure rate
within 5 s of the change. Similarly, when the dose rate is decreased to its original level, the
detector must register the decrease within 2 s, and must read within ±50% of the new dose rate
within 5 s.
3.2.2 Gamma ray dose rate alarm procedure
The test method used to determine the dose rate alarm response time was based on Section 6.2 of
ANSI 42.34-2006 [2]. Each instrument’s alarm threshold was set to 10 µSv/h, and the instrument
was then exposed to a 20 µSv/h field produced by 137Cs. The instrument’s alarm must activate
within 3 s of the increased exposure, and there must be a visual indication of the alarm state. This
test was not carried out for the Exploranium GR-135 as the alarms levels could not be modified.
3.2.3 Gamma ray dose rate accuracy procedure
The test method used to determine the gamma ray dose rate accuracy was based on Section 7.1 of
IEC 62327:2006 [3]. The instruments were exposed to ambient effective dose rates of 5 µSv/h,
20 µSv/h, and 80 µSv/h. Each RIID was exposed to the source for 20 seconds to allow the dose
rate to stabilize, after which ten consecutive measurements were taken (with a one second refresh
rate) and the mean reported dose rate calculated. The requirement was that the average reported
effective dose rate be within ±30% of the nominal dose rate.
3.2.4 Over-range dose rate response procedure
The test method used to determine the gamma ray over-range dose rate response was based on
Section 7.3 of IEC 62327:2006 [3]. The instruments were exposed to a step change in the dose
rate from the ambient (background) dose rate to ten times the manufacturer-stated maximum dose
rate. As most of the RIIDs tested employ two separate detectors (one for identification and low
dose rates, and another for high dose rates), the over-range dose rate specified for the high dose
rate detector was used (if present). A RIID passed the test if two conditions were satisfied. First, it
had to indicate that an over-range condition existed within 5 s of the step change. Second, when
the radiation field was reduced to the pre-test (i.e., background) level following the over-range
exposure, the instrument was required to indicate the correct background dose rate within five
minutes.
3.3
Environmental performance procedures
All environmental tests evaluated the detector’s ability to simultaneously identify both a low-energy
and a high-energy radioisotope (241Am and 60Co, respectively) under the specified conditions. The
detectors were placed inside an environmental chamber in their manufacturer-specified optimal
orientation, connected to external power, and turned on. In the case of the BNC SAM 945, the
wireless display tablet was not placed inside the chamber both for ease of reading and because the
display was not rated to work across the range of temperature and humidity used for testing. The
8
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
same procedure was used for all simultaneous identification trials described below: the
environmental chamber was opened, the identification process was initiated on each detector, the
chamber was closed, and the 60Co and 241Am sources were deployed at the appropriate distances
(one to three meters) to achieve a 0.5 µSv/h effective dose rate per source at the detector, as
determined by the RadEye B-20. In order to ensure that the detectors were exposed to the two
sources for a minimum of 120 seconds, the total data acquisition time per trial was 180 seconds.
3.3.1
Humidity response procedure
This testing was done to evaluate the detectors’ performance under various relative humidity
(RH) conditions. Testing was performed under three conditions: 40% RH at ambient temperature
(22°C), 40% RH at 35°C and 93% RH at 35°C. Ten radiological identification trials (241Am and
60
Co) were performed under each of the three conditions.
3.3.2
Thermal shock procedure
These tests evaluated the detectors’ performance after repeated, rapid temperature changes. First,
ten ID trials were conducted at ambient/room temperature (22°C), then the temperature was
increased to 50°C over a five minute period. As soon as 50°C was achieved, three consecutive
two minute IDs were performed. After one hour, ten more IDs were performed. Immediately after
the tenth trial, the temperature was decreased back to ambient temperature within five minutes.
As at 50°C, thirteen measurements were taken at ambient temperature (three immediate and ten
after one hour). The same procedure was repeated at -20°C, again followed by a return to ambient
temperature.
3.3.3
Cold start procedure
This test evaluated each detector’s performance following start-up in a cold environment. The
detectors were placed inside a temperature chamber set to -20°C. After 1.5 hours in this
environment, the detectors were turned on, initialized and tested using ten simultaneous
identification trials.
3.3.4
Ambient temperature procedure
These tests evaluated the performance of the detectors over the range of temperatures specified by
both the ANSI and IEC standards (-20°C to +50°C). Testing was first performed at ambient
temperature (22°C); as usual, ten ID trials were performed per RIID. The temperature was then
raised to 50°C, and after 5.5 hours, another ten ID trials were performed. This procedure was
repeated at -20°C.
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
9
4
Evaluation of detector performance
For each of the seventeen types of sub-tests, the measurements recorded with each RIID were
compared to the specifications derived from the ANSI and IEC standards [8]. The comparison of
the measurements to the specifications resulted in a score for each measurement, and an overall,
average score for each sub-test.
4.1
Radioisotope identification scoring
Assessing the results of the radioisotope sub-tests is somewhat nuanced, as there are more
possible results than simply “right” or “wrong”. For example, if the test is to identify 60Co when
the RIID is in a 60Co field that is 0.5 Sv/h greater than background (typically 0.1 Sv/h for our
tests), some of the possible results reported by a RIID might be:
1.
60
2.
60
Co (only one radioisotope and it is correct);
Co and another radioisotope (two radioisotopes reported with 60Co having a higher
confidence level than the other; the higher confidence isotope is correct, the other is
incorrect);
3. Another radioisotope along with 60Co (two radioisotopes reported with the other radioisotope
having a higher confidence level than 60Co; the higher confidence isotope is incorrect, the
other is correct);
4. one or more radioisotopes, not including 60Co (all incorrect); or
5. no radioisotope identified (incorrect).
When there are multiple radioisotopes to identify, the number of combinations of “partially right”
measurements grows even larger. In order to deal with these nuances in a systematic manner, we
have developed a simple scoring system for each measurement which adheres to the following
philosophy: correct identifications are rewarded and incorrect identifications are penalized,
depending on the relative confidence of the incorrect IDs compared to the correct IDs. If there is
only one radioisotope to identify, Table 1 is used to score the results. If there are two or more
radioisotopes to identify, Table 2 is used instead. If there are three or more radioisotopes to
identify, identification of two radioisotopes is deemed sufficient for “correctly” identifying the
isotopes (though the identification of extra, spurious radioisotopes reduces the score for a
measurement). The identification of NORM (e.g., 40K) that is part of the background is ignored in
the scoring. In other words, identifying (or not identifying) NORM radioisotopes does not affect
the score for a measurement. “Shielded”, “unknown”, and “not in library” measurements also do
not affect the measurement score. In more complicated cases where daughter or other associated
radioisotopes may be present in the sample, the scoring is more complicated; these specific cases
will be discussed in more detail in the following sub-sections.
10
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Table 1: Scoring for identification of a single radioisotope. For cases where daughter or other
associated isotopes are identified in the sample (e.g., 241Am in a 239Pu sample),
see the text for more details on the scoring.
Score
1
Result
Only one isotope identified and it is correct.
0.5
2+ isotopes identified: one isotope is correct isotope and it has the highest confidence.
0.25
2+ isotopes identified: one isotope is correct, but an incorrect isotope has the highest
confidence.
0
No isotope identified.
-1
1+ isotopes identified but none is correct
Table 2: Scoring for identification of multiple radioisotopes. For cases where daughter or other
associated isotopes are identified in the sample (e.g., 241Am in 239Pu sample),
see the text for more details on the scoring.
Score
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
Result
Two isotopes identified and both are correct.
3+ isotopes identified, including the two correct isotopes (and one of the correct
radioisotopes has the highest confidence).
3+ isotopes identified, including the two correct isotopes (but the highest confidence
isotope is not correct), or 1 isotope identified and it is correct.
2+ isotopes identified but only one is correct.
0
No isotopes identified.
-1
1+ isotope(s) identified but none is correct.
4.1.1
Single radioisotope identification scoring (SNM)
The single radioisotope identification tests were split into two parts: identification of SNM and
identification of other (non-SNM) radioisotopes. Assessing the SNM identification measurements
is more complicated than the rest of the identification measurements due to the larger number of
radioisotopes present in the samples. For this reason, the scoring of the SNM results is described
in more detail in the following sub-sections.
4.1.1.1
Mixed oxide fuel identification scoring
The mixed oxide (MOX) reactor fuel sample that was measured was 1.5% 235U and 0.26% Pu by
weight, with the remainder being 238U and oxygen. An isotopic breakdown of the Pu was not
provided by CNL, but it is reasonable to assume that only 239Pu should be identifiable by the
gamma ray emissions. As a result 235U, 238U and 239Pu are considered “correct” radioisotopes to
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
11
identify. For this reason, Table 2 should be used to score the MOX measurements, with a few
additional modifications:
1.
U and/or 238U, and 239Pu should be identified. Given the complexity of the spectrum, it is
acceptable to identify only one of the two U isotopes, as long as 239Pu is also identified.
Identifying both U and Pu is sufficient to suggest that the sample is a MOX fuel. In other
words, the following ID results, in no particular order, are sufficient for a score of 1.0: (a)
235
U, 238U, 239Pu; (b) 235U, 239Pu; (c) 238U, 239Pu.
235
2. Identification of 241Am is not incorrect. 241Am almost always exists where there is Pu, as
neutron capture on 240Pu produces 241Am after the beta-decay of 241Pu. If both 239Pu and 241Am
are identified, 241Am is ignored for the scoring. If 239Pu is not identified, but 241Am is
identified, then the score is reduced by only 0.25 compared to the score if 239Pu had been
identified. For example, if the RIID reported 235U, 238U and 241Am, the score is 0.75 (0.25 less
than 1.0) and if the RIID reported only 241Am, the score is 0.25 (0.25 less than 0.5).
3. Reporting “U”, “U-mix”, or “U-enriched” is sufficient for correctly identifying the U portion
of the MOX, just as identifying 235U and/or 238U is sufficient, as described in (1), above.
4.1.1.2
Enriched uranium scoring
Uranium identification was tested for several different levels of enrichment. We tested 6%, 20%,
and 93% 235U (by mass), with nearly all of the remainder being 238U. It is important that there is
some indication by the RIID that the uranium is enriched and therefore represents a higher threat
than natural uranium. The standards are somewhat ambiguous on the identification criteria, but
the IEC standard does require that the identification distinguish between low enriched uranium
(LEU, 3–5% 235U), and highly enriched uranium (HEU, >90% 235U). For our scoring, the
following was considered correct:
1. LEU: An identification of (a) 238U and 235U, (b) uranium, or (c) U-Mix will be considered
mostly correct and given a score of 0.75. If there is an indication of a low level of enrichment
then the score will be increased to 1. If only one of the uranium isotopes is reported then the
score will be 0.5.
2. HEU: An identification of (a) 238U and 235U, (b) uranium, or (c) U-Mix will be considered
mostly correct and given a score of 0.75. If there is an indication of a high level of enrichment
or if only 235U is identified, then the score will be increased to 1.
4.1.1.3
Reactor grade plutonium identification scoring
There were two samples that included reactor grade plutonium (RGPu): the 239PuBe at DRDC
Ottawa Research Centre and the CNL Pu sample that was 87% 239Pu (in oxide form). As
explained in the previous section on MOX fuel scoring, identification of 241Am is not incorrect
when 239Pu is present. The scoring for RGPu follows the single radioisotope table (Table 1) with
the following modifications:
1. If both 239Pu and 241Am are identified, the identification of 241Am can be ignored;
12
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
2. If 241Am is identified and 239Pu is not identified, then the score is halved (e.g., if only 241Am is
identified, the score is 0.5; if 241Am is identified with the highest confidence and one or more
incorrect isotopes are identified with lower confidence, then the score is 0.25).
4.1.2
Single radioisotope identification scoring (non-SNM)
The only non-SNM source that was measured for which the scoring is not completely
straightforward is natural uranium. The nuance in scoring these results is due to the different
ways that the RIIDs report the identification of U. Since natural U is only 0.7% 235U, full points
are given for any of the following reports: “U”, “U-natural”, or “U-238”. If the identification was
“U-SNM” or “235U and 238U”, the detector was given a score of 0.75. The angular response tests
for single radionuclide identification were scored in the same way.
4.1.3
Multiple radioisotope identification scoring
For the multiple radioisotope identification sub-tests, DRDC ORC’s PuBe source was used (as
representative of RGPu) in conjunction with 133Ba, 137Cs, or 60Co. As previously mentioned,
scoring results with RGPu are complicated by the presence of 241Am. For these sub-tests, we
followed the scoring guidelines detailed in Section 4.1.1.3.
4.1.4
4.1.4.1
Scoring for other radioisotope identification sub-tests
False ID scoring
If no false IDs occurred for any of the ten trials, then a perfect score (1.0) was obtained. If one
false positive occurred, the score was 0.5. If two or more false IDs were reported then the score
was 0.
4.1.4.2
Interfering bremsstrahlung radiation scoring
For a perfect score, the RIID must identify both the presence of the bremsstrahlung radiation
(e.g., suspected beta emitter) and the isotope of interest. If only the isotope of interest is
identified, then the score is 0.5.
4.1.4.3
Over-range ID scoring
To achieve a perfect score, a RIID (a) must indicate an over-range condition when the dose rate is
too high to perform radioisotope identification reliably, and (b) must correctly ID the radioisotope
at 80% of the dose rate at which the over-range condition exists. The score is split equally
between these two criteria. If the RIID does not indicate an over-range condition, then it scores
0.0/0.5 for this criterion. The scoring for the ID criterion at 80% over-range follows the “regular”
single-radioisotope scoring presented earlier in Table 1, but the weight is halved, giving a
maximum score of 0.5 for this criterion.
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
13
4.1.5
Scoring for efficiency and resolution sub-tests
The scores for efficiency and resolution are relative to the best performer in each category, which
receives a score of 1.0. A RIID’s resolution score for each radioisotope depends on the
full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) of the relevant photopeak (expressed as a percentage of the
gamma ray energy). The resolution score for the ith RIID is equal to the minimum of all the RIID
FWMH values divided by the FWHM for the ith RIID:
scoreresolution_i = FWHMmin/FWHMi
The efficiency of each RIID is calculated by determining the net counts in the relevant photopeak
(after normalizing for data acquisition time and gamma ray flux, if necessary). A RIID’s
efficiency score for each radioisotope is given by:
scoreefficiency_i = effi /effmax
where effi is the efficiency of the ith RIID and effmax is the maximum efficiency achieved by any of
the RIIDs.
4.2
Scoring of gamma ray dose rate response
Each of the simple pass/fail tests (dose rate alarm, and over-range dose rate response) was scored
as follows: no failures in ten trials gave a score of 100%; one failure gave a score of 50%, while
more than one failure resulted in a score of 0%. For the dose rate response time, there are
effectively four sub-tests: (i) indicate increase in dose rate within 2 s; (ii) indicate correct,
increased dose rate (± 50%) within 5 s; (iii) indicate decrease in dose rate within 2 s; (iv) indicate
correct, decreased dose rate (± 50%) within 5 s. Each of the sub-tests contributes 25% of the score
for the dose rate response time criterion and is scored the same way as dose rate alarm and
over-range dose rate response (0%, 50% or 100% for ≤ 8/10, 9/10 or 10/10 trials passed,
respectively). For dose rate accuracy, if the average dose rate was within 30% of the nominal
dose rate, the score is 100%, but 0% otherwise. As the dose rate accuracy was evaluated at three
different dose rates, the scores for the three dose rates were averaged.
4.3
Scoring of environmental performance tests
These tests followed the scoring guidelines previously detailed in Table 2. As mentioned
previously, the RIID performance was not penalized for identification of 40K or 232Th as these are
NORM. Also, one RIID had a built in 137Cs source (for gain stabilization), so detectors that were
located immediately next to it were not penalized if they identified 137Cs.
14
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
5
RIID testing results
For the purpose of this report, the RIID test results have been anonymized. The different detectors
are not referred to by their manufacturer and model, but are instead designated Detector 1,
Detector 2, and so on. Detectors 1, 2, and 3 are the in-service CAF RIIDs, while Detectors 4 to 8
are the COTS RIIDs. This allows comparison of the newer RIIDs to the older, CAF RIIDs.
5.1
Radioisotope identification results
5.1.1
SNM radioisotope identification results
The radioisotope identification testing for SNM was conducted according to the procedure
detailed in Section 3.1.1, and the scoring of the results was done according to the scoring scheme
detailed in Section 4.1.1. The results of the single SNM ID tests are summarized in Table 3
below. These results are for identifications of the following SNM materials: MOX1, RGPu2, 233U
(65%), HEU3, LEU of two different 235U concentrations (6% and 20%), and a 239PuBe source.
Table 3: Summary of the SNM radioisotope ID results. The top and bottom numbers in each box
are the ID scores (out of 10) for unshielded and shielded (5 mm steel) SNM, respectively. The
overall score is the mean of the scores converted to a percentage.
Detector
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Scores
MOX
RGPu
2.5
0.5
2.5
0
1.5
-1
4.75
6.25
-10
-10
2.5
5.5
5
-2.5
5.25
5.25
-3.75
0
-1
3
2.25
7.25
6.5
-0.5
0.25
-10
-3.25
3.5
-10
6.5
7.75
3.5
233
U
HEU
9.25
10
-5
-5
3
3
10
10
-7
0
-10
-9
-10
-8
7.5
10
7
1
0
1
1.5
5.5
3.5
-10
-7
3.75
5
-10
-10
7.5
6
9.5
6%
LEU
6
6
2
1
1.25
2
8.5
8.25
-10
-1
5
3
-3.5
-10
7.5
7.5
20%
LEU
5
5.5
5
2
2
3.25
10
10
0
0
4.5
5
-3.75
-6.25
9.25
7.25
239
PuBe
2.5
0
2.5
0.5
2.5
0
3.75
0.25
-5
-7.75
2.5
-7.75
3.25
0
4.75
-2
Overall score
46%
9%
18%
67%
-49%
-2%
-44%
63%
1
MOX included 1.5% 235U and 0.26% 239Pu.
RGPu included 87% 239Pu.
3
0.5 kg of 93% 235U metal.
2
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
15
The results show that Detector 4 and Detector 8 have a similar overall performance for
identification of SNM, under this scoring scheme and these test conditions. Both perform slightly
better than Detector 1 and significantly better than the other detectors that were tested.
However, no detectors were consistently successful at identifying 239Pu (more than 8/10 for
unshielded and shielded). Additionally, only one RIID provided an indication of the enrichment
level of the uranium. Finally, the addition of 5 mm of steel shielding decreased the ID
performance for all RIIDs. The shielded 239Pu performance, in particular, was very poor.
5.1.2
Single radioisotope identification results
The detectors were all tested with single radioisotopes in a 0.5 µSv/h field. Table 4 shows the
results of unshielded radioisotopes, while Table 5 shows the results for shielded radioisotopes,
and the overall single radioisotope results. Measurements of 232Th and 125I were not made with the
CAF in-service RIIDs (Detectors 1 to 3) as we did not possess those sources when those RIIDs
were tested (several months before the COTS RIIDs). The scoring is as described in Tables 1 and 2
in Section 4.1.
Table 4: Summary of the unshielded, single radioisotope identification results.
Detector
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Scores
241
Am
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
133
60
Ba
Co
5
5
9
10
4
10
5.5
10
5
0.5
0
9.5
0
10
10
10
137
Cs
5
5
0
8.5
10
10
10
10
192
226
5
-10
0
10
5.5
10
10
10
6
-2.5
0
10
-3
10
10
10
Ir
Ra
U
(nat)
7.5
7
1.25
10
-10
7.5
5
8.75
232
Th
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
-10
10
10
10
125
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
10
10
0
5
Table 5: Summary of the shielded and in the final column, the overall (shielded and unshielded)
single radioisotope identification results.
Scores
Detector
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
16
133
Ba
shielded
5
9.25
9
10
-8
10
-10
10
60
Co
shielded
5
9
0
10
0
10
10
10
137
Cs
shielded
5
5
0
9.5
0
10
10
10
Overall score
(unshielded
and shielded)
53.5%
33.3%
29.3%
97.9%
7.1%
97.9%
67.1%
94.8%
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
The results indicate that Detectors 4, 6, and 8 can all perform within the specifications for single
radioisotope ID. Each of these three performs better than the CAF in-service RIIDs.
5.1.3
Multiple radioisotope identification results
Multiple ID was performed using PuBe as one source and varying the second source. While
241
Am was used for Detectors 1 to 3, 125I was used with Detectors 4 to 8.
Table 6: Summary of the multiple radioisotope identification results.
Detector
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
241
Scores
125
Am or I,
PuBe
2.5
2.5
3.25
0
0
5
2.5
3.5
133
Ba, PuBe
60
Co, PuBe
5
7.5
7
7
-8
5
-10
5
192
Ir, PuBe
5
2.5
-2
7.5
2.5
5
7.5
8.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
7
0
5
2.5
7.5
Overall
score
37.5%
37.5%
26.9%
53.8%
13.8%
50%
6.3%
61.3%
Detectors 4 and 8 performed the best; however, none of the detectors consistently identified the
239
Pu in the PuBe.
5.1.4
False radioisotope identification results
The false identification results are provided in Table 7.
Table 7: Summary of the false radioisotope identification results.
Detector
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
False IDs
1/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
Scores
Overall score
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
17
5.1.5
Efficiency results
The efficiency results are calculated relative to the estimated number of photons detected with a
canonical 2" × 2" NaI(Tl) crystal. Table 8 summarizes the results for the three radioisotopes that
were used: 241Am, 137Cs, and 60Co. Both 60Co peaks at 1173 and 1333 keV were used for the
efficiency results.
Table 8: Summary of the detector efficiency results.
Detector
Scores
Co
(peak 1)
Co
(peak 2)
Overall
score
23.7%
18.4%
0%
10.1%
38.3%
15.4%
10.7%
12.1%
NA
NA
NA
9.4%
37.8%
14.2%
9.8%
11.6%
26%
21%
0%
27%
89%
65%
23%
33%
60
241
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Am
78.8%
69.5%
2.4%
69.3%
184.0%
274.3%
37.4%
98.0%
137
Cs
15.2%
12.3%
0%
26.1%
86.6%
48.8%
24.4%
28.3%
60
The efficiency results are driven by the dimensions of the detector crystals (NaI(Tl) or CZT). The
larger the crystal is, the higher the efficiency tends to be.
5.1.6
Resolution results
The RIID resolution results in Table 9 show the FWHM (as a percentage of the gamma ray peak
energy) for three different radioisotopes. Both 60Co peaks at 1173 and 1333 keV were used for the
efficiency results. The overall score (right column) is calculated as per Section 4.1.4.
Table 9: Summary of the detector resolution (FWHM) results.
Detector
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
18
Scores
241
Am
20.6%
22.7%
10.8%
16.2%
19.3%
15.1%
14.5%
14.0%
137
Cs
7.8%
8.1%
2.3%
6.9%
7.3%
7.7%
6.7%
6.6%
60
Co(1173)
5.0%
7.8%
2.1%
5.0%
5.3%
5.5%
4.8%
5.1%
Co(1333) Overall
score
4.7%
41%
6.7%
34%
2.2%
100%
4.7%
48%
5.1%
43%
5.7%
47%
4.8%
51%
4.9%
52%
60
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
The resolution results are fairly similar for most of the RIIDs. This is not surprising as most use
NaI(Tl) for the detector medium.
5.1.7
Angle of incidence results
Table 10 summarizes the radioisotope identification results when the RIID is not oriented ideally
with respect to the radioactive source. Three angles of incidence are shown for each radioisotope.
The scores (out of 10) are shown in all columns, with the overall score (expressed as a
percentage) given in the rightmost column.
Table 10: Summary of the angle of incidence identification results.
133
Detector
45
0
60
Ba
90
0
180
0
45
Scores
137
Cs
Co
0
90
0
180
0
45
0
90
0
PuBe
180
0
45
0
90
0
180
0
Overall
Score
1
5
5
5
5.5
5
7.5
5
5
5.5
2.5
2.25
0
44.4%
2
5
5
-4
0
0
-1
1.5
0
0
5
0.5
0
10.0%
3
8
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
13.3%
4
10
10
10
9
9.5
10
10
9
8.5
0
2.5
2.5
75.8%
5
10
10
-1
0
0
0
10
10
10
2.5
-1
-10
33.8%
6
6.5
-3.5
-0.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
2.5
0
-10
46.3%
7
7
7.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2.5
3.25
0
75.2%
8
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
5.5
3.5
1.25
82.7%
Detectors 4, 7, and 8 show significantly better performance compared to the current in-service
CAF RIIDs; however, all of the RIIDs, again, perform poorly at identifying plutonium. Some of
the detectors perform particularly poorly when the source is “behind” the RIID (180° angle of
incidence); however, changes in orientation appear to have little impact on the performance of
Detectors 4, 7, and 8.
5.1.8
Interfering bremsstrahlung radiation results
A shielded beta-radiation-emitting source produces a continuous spectrum of bremsstrahlung
(brem) radiation (x-ray photons), which should be identified by a RIID as an indication of a
beta-emitting radioisotope. The RIID should also be able to identify gamma-emitting
radionuclides in the presence of bremsstrahlung radiation. Table 11 shows the results for the ten
trials with bremsstrahlung from a 90Sr/90Y source shielded with 1/8" of lead, and for trials with the
bremsstrahlung plus 241Am or 60Co sources. The scores are out of ten, with the total column
giving the average score as a percentage.
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
19
Table 11: Summary of the interfering bremsstrahlung radiation identification results.
Scores
Detector
90
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
90
Sr/ Y brem only
10
9.25
0
-10
0
-10
0
6
Sr/90Y brem + 241Am
241
Am
10
10
6.75
5
4.75
5
5
4.5
90
Sr/90Y brem + 60Co
60
Co
9
10
0
2.75
0
5
4.75
4.25
Overall
score
96.7%
97.5%
22.5%
-2.25%
15.8%
0%
32.5%
49.2%
Some detectors did sometimes identify the presence of bremsstrahlung; however, the in-service
CAF RIIDs produced identifications of “unknown” or “shielded” at all times, and did not
specifically identify bremsstrahlung. Only two RIIDs provided this explicit identification:
Detectors 4 and 8. It is worth noting that Detector 4 was penalized for misidentifying Xe-133: this
gamma ray energy (81 keV) is very close to the energies of the Pb x-ray peaks (73, 75, 85 keV)
which are likely to occur in conjunction with bremsstrahlung from a Pb shield. A modified
isotope/gamma ray library that proposed Pb x-rays at the same time as Xe-133 would have
allowed this RIID to perform better in this particular test.
5.1.9
Over-range ID response results
The in-service CAF RIIDs did not indicate an over-range condition, regardless of the ambient
dose or count rate, and as a result, it was not possible to test at 80% over-range for the in-service
CAF RIIDs. This behaviour constitutes a failure for this test. The COTS RIIDs do have
over-range warnings; the over-range count rate is different for each COTS RIID. The over-range
results are summarized in Table 12. The over-range rate is given in counts per second (cps). The
overall score for these tests is given in the right column.
Table 12: Summary of the over-range identification results.
20
Detector
Over-range rate
(cps)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
None
None
None
40,000
70,000
150,000
90,000
500,000
137
Scores
Cs @ 80 %
points
NA
NA
NA
4.75
-10
10
-10
10
Overall score
0%
0%
0%
73.8%
0%
100%
-100%
100%
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
The COTS detectors all provide an indication of the optimal range of dose rates for identification by
instructing the operator to move closer to or further from the source as required; however, one
detector, Detector 7, recommended moving closer to the source of radiation once the dose rate was
over-range, at which point it entered an “overload” condition and the count rate dropped to zero. This
was the worst (most dangerous) failure mode for this test as it recommended the operator move into a
high radiation field that the detector could not measure. At 80% over-range, Detector 4 sometimes
misidentified spurious gamma ray peaks, and Detector 5 consistently failed to identify 137Cs.
5.2
Gamma ray dose rate response results
As it was generally difficult to extract time-stamped dose rate data from the RIIDs, the dose rate
information was typically obtained from video footage capturing the variation of the dose rate on
the display under different exposure conditions. This data could be used to determine the response
time when an elevated radiation field was introduced or removed, as well as the (steady state)
reported dose rate under given exposure conditions. Due to the limitations of the data collection
method (manual recording of dose rates using video playback software), the uncertainty in the
measured times is taken to be ±1 second.
5.2.1
Response time results
The testing was conducted as described in Section 3.2.1. All RIIDs met the ANSI 42.34
requirements for dose rate accuracy after 5 s (±50%), which was the requirement that we had
initially planned to use. Detector 3, however, did not continue to display the correct dose rate
(within 50%) over an extended duration (we chose 20 s for this time period). This appeared to be
a feature of a changing time window for dose rate averaging. For this reason, we decided to
consider this sub-test a failure for Detector 3.
Due to difficulty in measuring the response time to better than ±1 second, we recommend
changing this requirement to increase the allowable response time to 3 seconds instead of
2 seconds. We also recommend that all future testing use the modified requirement that the
detector maintains the correct dose rate (±50%) for 20 seconds after the dose rate increase to
penalize undesirable behaviour like that shown by Detector 3.
Table 13: Summary of the gamma dose rate response results.
Detector
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Response time
Dose rate
alarm
Scores
Dose rate
accuracy
100%
100%
25%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
67%
100%
67%
100%
67%
67%
33%
67%
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Over range
Overall
score
100%
75%
0%
75%
0%
0%
0%
50%
53%
95%
18%
95%
73%
73%
67%
83%
21
5.2.2
Gamma ray dose rate alarm results
The testing was conducted as described in Section 3.2.2. One detector did not meet the
requirements and another could not be tested since we could not change the alarm settings. All
other instruments satisfied the criteria.
5.2.3
Gamma ray dose rate accuracy results
The testing was conducted as described in Section 3.2.3, with the exception that in a few
instances, fewer than ten trials were conducted at a given dose rate (through accidental omission);
however, scoring was based on the average response, so this did not result in any detectors being
unfairly penalized. Only two RIIDs, one in-service and one COTS detector, report dose rates
within ±30% of the nominal dose rates for all three dose rates tested. The other RIIDs reported at
least one dose rate outside ±30%. It should be noted though that the nominal dose rates were not
verified with a reference instrument at the time of the measurements. Instead, previous, calibrated
dose rate measurements were decay-corrected.
Although two of the detectors met the dose rate accuracy criteria, they did not perform
significantly better than the others, and only marginally met the requirement. We recommend
loosening the criteria to ±50% since these instruments should not be used as gamma dose rate
survey meters or for radiation safety purposes. The CAF employ other, more accurate, equipment
dedicated to gamma dose rate measurements.
5.2.4
Dose rate response to over-range conditions results
The testing was conducted as described in Section 3.2.4. Three detectors performed reasonably
well in the over-range conditions: Detectors 1, 2 and 4. The other five detectors failed either the
time requirement of the over-range test, or did not report an over-range condition at dose rates
above the manufacturers’ stated maximum dose rates. We recommend that this test be eliminated
for future RIID testing since these instruments should not be used as gamma dose rate survey
meters, so this is not an important measure of performance.
5.3
Environmental performance results
All environmental performance tests require the simultaneous identification of 60Co and 241Am
under various conditions, and were conducted according to the procedures in Section 3.3. The
results of the following tests were scored according to the scheme laid out in Section 4.1.3.
5.3.1
Humidity response results
The results of the humidity response tests, conducted at 40% RH (22°C and 35°C) and 93% RH
(22°C) are summarized in Table 14 below.
22
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Table 14: Summary of the humidity identification results at different
Relative Humidity (RH) and temperature values.
Detector
Scores
40% RH
35°C
0
1
40% RH
22°C
6.75
93% RH
35°C
7.5
Overall
score
48%
2
8.5
7.5
7.5
78%
3
3.25
5.5
5.25
47%
4
10
10
10
100%
5
6
9
9
80%
6
5
5
5
50%
7
9.5
10
9.5
97%
8
10
9.75
10
99%
Detectors 4, 7, and 8 performed very well in the humidity conditions tested, while Detectors 1, 3,
and 6 performed poorly (scores below 50%).
5.3.2
Thermal shock results
The results of the thermal shock tests are summarized in Table 15. Detectors 4 and 8 performed
very well in response to the thermal shock, while Detectors 2, 3, and 5 performed worst.
Table 15: Summary of the thermal shock identification results.
Detector
Scores
50°C to
20°C
20°C to
-20°C
-20°C to
20°C
Overall
score
7.19
0.94
9.06
0.00
83%
15%
1
20°C to
50°C
8.46
2
2.50
8.46
2.50
3
3.65
5.19
5.00
3.75
18%
4
9.25
9.25
10.00
10.00
96%
5
0
-7
-10
-10
-67.5%
6
5
5
5
5
50%
7
7.5
9
7
9
81.3%
8
9.75
10
10
10
99.4%
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
23
5.3.3
Cold start results
The results of the humidity response tests are summarized in Table 16. Detector 1, 2, 4, and 8
performed the best under the cold start-up condition. Detector 7 was not able to perform any IDs
in the cold start test: after having its power turned on, it displayed the error message “system
error”.
Table 16: Summary of the cold start identification results.
Scores
Detector
5.3.4
-20°C start
Overall score
1
9.5
95%
2
9.5
95%
3
6
60%
4
9.75
97.5%
5
5
50%
6
5
50%
7
0
0%
8
10
100%
Ambient temperature results
The ambient temperature response results are summarized in Table 17. Detectors 4 and 8
performed the best.
Table 17: Summary of the ambient temperature identification results.
Scores
Detector
24
Overall
score
22°C
50°C
-20°C
1
7.5
7.75
7.75
76.7%
2
8
6.5
0
48.3%
3
4.5
5
4.5
46.7%
4
10
10
10
100.0%
5
10
10
5
83.3%
6
5
5
5
50.0%
7
8
10
10
9
10
5.5
9
81.7%
96.7%
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
5.3.5
Overall summary of test results
Each of the tests was assigned a weight, or maximum number of points, which was determined in
consultation with the CAF sponsors at D CBRN D. To obtain an overall score for each RIID,
points were awarded by multiplying the (percentage) score for each test by the weight assigned to
that test, then summing these points over all of the tests to arrive at a total score. For ease of
interpretation, the total points were divided by the maximum possible points (60) to give a
“percentage total” score.
Table 18 lists the tests in the left-most column, followed by the maximum points for each test.
The scores for each RIID are shown in the columns to the right. The subtotals for the
identification, dose rate response, and environmental performance tests are provided, and the
overall score for each RIID is given in the last row. As one can see, the two highest-scoring
RIIDs were Detectors 4 and 8, both of which are COTS RIIDs.
It is important to note that two of the COTS RIIDs performed worse than all three in-service CAF
RIIDs. The implication is that simply buying a new, COTS RIID—even one that purports to meet
the ANSI N42.34 standard—does not guarantee an improved radioisotope identification
capability for the CAF. Evaluation of detector performance through comprehensive testing is
essential in order to ensure an appropriate RIID is actually procured.
In almost every sub-test, the scores for Detectors 4 and 8 were similar or superior to the other
detectors. Notable exceptions were efficiency, bremsstrahlung with single radioisotope
identification, and gamma dose rate response, none of which carried a significant weight in the
overall score.
In retrospect, the efficiency and resolution tests were not relevant for rating the automatic ID
performance of the RIIDs, as resolution and efficiency do not appear to have a strong influence
over the ID capabilities of the RIIDs: the correlation coefficients between the radioisotope ID
scores and the scores for efficiency and resolution are -0.53 and 0.07, respectively. Before the
testing began, we hypothesized that there would be a positive correlation between ID
performance and both the efficiency and resolution scores. Based on these results, we believe that
the quality of the proprietary auto-ID algorithms and the stability of the energy calibration are far
more important for the automatic ID performance. That being said, spectral resolution is still very
important for manual analysis via reachback to scientific support.
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
25
Table 18: Summary of results for CAF in-service (Detectors 1 to 3) and
COTS RIID systems (Detectors 4 to 8).
Detector scores
In-service
COTS
Max
points
1
2
3
a. SNM ID
20
9.20
1.80
3.60
b. Single radioisotope ID
6
3.21
2.00
c. Multiple radioisotope
ID
3
1.13
d. False ID
2
e. Efficiency
Test
5
6
7
8
-9.71
-0.46
-8.89
12.50
1.76
4
13.4
0
5.88
0.43
5.88
4.03
5.69
1.13
0.81
1.61
-0.41
1.50
0.19
1.84
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2
2.00
1.62
0.00
0.54
1.78
1.30
0.46
0.66
f. Resolution
g. Angular response for
ID
h. Single radioisotope ID
with brem
3
1.23
0.99
3.00
1.45
1.29
1.40
1.54
1.55
2
0.89
0.20
0.27
1.52
0.68
0.93
1.50
1.65
1
0.97
0.98
0.23
-0.08
0.16
0.00
0.33
0.49
i. Over range response
1
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.74
0.00
1.00
-0.50
1.00
1 Radioisotope ID total
40
19.6
10.7
12.2
27.0
-3.8
13.5
0.6
27.4
a. Dose rate response
time
b. Dose rate alarm
1
1.00
1.00
0.25
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2
0.00
2.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
c. Dose rate accuracy
1
0.67
1.00
0.67
1.00
0.67
0.67
0.33
0.67
1
1.00
0.75
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
5
4.7
4.3
0.9
4.6
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.8
a. Humidity Response
6
4.28
4.70
2.80
6.00
4.80
4.50
5.80
5.95
b. Thermal Shock
4
3.32
0.59
1.76
3.88
-1.50
2.04
3.21
3.96
c. Cold Start
2
1.90
1.90
1.20
1.95
1.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
3
2.30
1.45
1.40
3.00
2.50
1.50
2.45
2.90
15
11.8
8.6
7.2
14.8
6.8
9.0
11.5
14.8
100%
57%
40%
34%
78%
11%
44%
26%
77%
d. Over-range dose rate
response
2 Dose rate response
total
d. Ambient
Temperature
3 Environmental
performance total
Overall score
26
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
6
Recommendations
Although none of the five COTS NaI(Tl) RIIDs achieved a high score on all the sub-tests, overall,
the performance of two of them was deemed sufficient for CAF RN identification tasks, with
overall scores of 77% and 78% (with all other COTS RIIDs scoring below 50%). As long as the
RIID that is procured is at least as good as Detector 4 or 8, then the CAF should be well served.
The fact that none of the RIIDs scored high enough in all the tests to satisfy the relevant ANSI [2]
or IEC [3] standards suggests that neither of these standards should define the minimum
requirements for RadIS. (Note: Not all the tests followed either of the standards but those that did
still resulted in failures for all of the RIIDs on at least one of the tests.) Adopting one of the
standards would likely result in failure of the procurement project as our experience in this
evaluation process suggests that no COTS RIID will meet these standards. This conclusion is
consistent with a recent testing report produced by the United States Department of Homeland
Security[11]. It should also be noted that the COTS RIID manufacturers claimed that their RIIDs
were “ANSI 42.34 compliant”, “designed to meet ANSI 42.34”, or performed “according to
ANSI 42.34”, although none of them achieved this standard in our tests.
We believe that a paper evaluation, by itself, is not sufficient to differentiate good RIIDs from
bad RIIDs. Based on their specifications, all five COTS RIIDs appeared to be comparable and
sufficient for the CAF, but in reality some performed much worse than others and would be of
limited value to the CAF, even compared to the current, in-service equipment. The wide range in
performance is likely due to a combination of the auto-ID software and the stability of the
spectrometers’ energy calibrations.
Most of the criteria used in these tests can be used as criteria for the RadIS procurement. Only
two criteria should be removed from consideration (efficiency and resolution) and what
constitutes a “pass” should be modified for some of the other criteria:
1. SNM ID and multiple radioisotope ID should obtain a score of at least 50% for each isotope
(or combination of isotopes);
2. the gamma dose rate accuracy pass threshold should be +/-50% instead of +/-30% as the CAF
have other, better instruments for measuring gamma dose rates;
3. the gamma dose rate over-range minimum score should be 0.5;
4. single radioisotope ID false ID and all the humidity and temperature response tests should
have a minimum score of 0.9;
5. all other tests should require a minimum score of 0.75.
Implicit in this recommendation is that the scoring system we employed be adopted for evaluating
candidate systems. ANSI’s or IEC’s pass/fail assessment of RIIDs does not address the nuances
of radioisotope ID that have been discussed in a previous scientific letter [8].
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
27
In order to ensure that the performance of the candidate systems is accurately assessed, the
systems should be tested. Relying on manufacturers’ specifications and/or claims of
ANSI-compliance is not sufficient. We recommend that after a preliminary down-selection to the
best four or five RIID proposals, the RIIDs be tested as we have done with the COTS systems.
Not every test needs to be performed as some tests are clearly better than others at separating the
good from the bad RIIDs. We recommend that the following tests be performed at a minimum:
1. a subset of the single radioisotope ID tests: 133Ba, U natural, 125I, 60Co;
2. multiple radioisotope ID: Pu with each of 133Ba, 125I, 60Co separately;
3. bremsstrahlung with single radioisotope ID;
4. gamma ID over-range response;
5. cold start temperature response;
6. ambient temperature response.
SNM ID testing is also very good at differentiating RIID performance, but most of that testing
must be done at CNL, so access to the SNM in a timely manner is not guaranteed.
Due to RadIS budget constraints, COTS RIIDs with much better resolution than NaI(Tl)
(e.g., lanthanum bromide, cerium bromide, strontium iodide, cadmium zinc telluride (CZT)) were
not tested. As a result, it is not possible for us to make specific comments about the performance
of higher resolution RIIDs, other than to say that they should perform better than the NaI(Tl)
RIIDs for some of the most challenging radioisotope combinations (e.g., Pu alone or mixed with
other isotopes) [12]. The trade-off is that these systems can cost up to twice as much as NaI(Tl)
RIIDs.
Although the ease of data transfer and compliance of detector file formats (i.e., ANSI N42.42)
were not formally assessed, some detectors were much more user-friendly than others in this
respect. It was difficult or impossible to transfer data from the three in-service detectors, and
several of the COTS detectors required proprietary software and drivers to be installed in order to
access detector data. If possible, detectors should be required to store spectral data in such a way
that the files can be copied directly to a computer without software (e.g., via removable media or
USB connection) for analysis with a program such as PeakEasy.
We did not quantitatively assess non-performance features of the RIIDs like “ease-of-use”, but
some were clearly more ergonomic than others. For example, the distribution of weight on the
RIIDs varied substantially from system-to-system: some were well-balanced and easy to hold;
others were very awkward and required much more effort. The weight distribution (or centre of
gravity) could be included as one of the criteria in the RadIS RFP to improve ease-of-use for
operators.
28
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
7
Conclusions
The radiation detection and identification performance of three in-service CAF RIIDs and five
COTS NaI(Tl) RIIDs were thoroughly tested in order to better understand the RN identification
requirements and capabilities of the CAF. Our main conclusions and recommendations are as
follows:
1. The best COTS NaI(Tl) RIIDs we tested should meet the minimal CAF requirements.
2. The performance of COTS NaI(Tl) RIIDs varies considerably. Three of the five COTS RIIDs
that we tested performed significantly worse than the best performing in-service RIID.
3. It is impossible to predict which RIIDs perform the best based on manufacturer-provided
specifications. Testing the RIIDs is the only way to assess their performance.
4. None of the RIIDs we tested actually passed all the ANSI 42.34 or IEC 62327 standard tests.
Neither standard should be used to set the minimum criteria.
5. The criteria against which we have tested the COTS RIIDs are appropriate for the RadIS
procurement project (with the modifications noted the previous section). Care must be taken
though to avoid setting the mandatory criteria too high. Instead, the performance of several
down-selected RIIDs should be measured to determine the best-performing RIIDs.
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
29
This page intentionally left blank.
30
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
References
[1] “Radiation identification system (RadIS)”, Synopsis Sheet, Director of Chemical, Biological,
Radiological and Nuclear Defence and Operational Support, Version 0.7 (2014).
[2] “American National Standard Performance Criteria for Hand-Held Instruments for the
Detection and Identification of Radionuclides”, ANSI 42.34-2006 (2007).
[3] “Radiation protection instrumentation – Hand-held instruments for the detection and
identification of radionuclides and for the indication of ambient dose rate equivalent rate from
photon radiation”, International Standard IEC 62327:2006, International Electrotechnical
Committee (2006).
[4] “Radiation identification system (RadIS) project; statement of operational requirements”,
Director of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defence and Operational
Support, Version 0.3 (2014).
[5] “NATO Standard AEP-75: Capability and systems requirements for nuclear and radiological
detection, identification and monitoring equipment, Version 1” (March 2012).
[6] Waller, D., Watson, I., Jones, A., Desrosiers, M., Jones, T., Brown, J. “Performance of
current CAF RIID systems: testing completed for the Radioisotope Identification System
(RadIS) project”, DRDC Scientific Letter, DRDC-RDDC-2016-L004, Defence Research and
Development Canada (January 2016).
[7] http://www.radcommsystems.com/images/PDF/March2013/syclone_radcomm.pdf. (Accessed
on January 8, 2016).
[8] Waller, D., Erhardt, L.S., Watson, I., Jones, A. “Evaluation of candidate systems for the
Radiation Identification System (RadIS) procurement project”, DRDC Scientific Letter,
DRDC-RDDC-2014-L233, Defence Research and Development Canada (October 2014).
[9] https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/4250685 (Accessed on June 28, 2016).
[10] https://peakeasy.lanl.gov/ (Accessed on June 28, 2016).
[11] Murphy, L., “ITRAP+10 Summary Report”, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, 200-ITRAP-124860V1.0 (January 2016).
[12] Mibrath, B.D., Fast, J.E., Kouzes, R.T., Choate, B.J., Hensley, W.K., Schweppe, J.E.
“Comparison of LaBr3:Ce and NaI(Tl) Scintillators for Radio-Isotope Identification
Devices (Revision 0)”, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory report for the Radiation
Portal Monitor Project, PNNL-15831 (2006).
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
31
This page intentionally left blank.
32
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Annex A
Detailed test tesults for radioisotope
identification
This annex provides detailed results of all the radioisotope identification tests. The score of every
trial for each RIID is included.
A.1
Detailed Special Nuclear Material (SNM) radioisotope
identification results
Table A.1: Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 1.
Shielded
Unshielded
SNM
Material
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
Detector 1 – Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
0.25
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.25
0
0.25
1
0
0.5
1
0
0.25
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.25
0
0.25
1
0
0.5
0.5
0
0.25
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.25
0
0.25
1
0
0.5
0.5
0
0.25
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0.25
0.5
1
1
1
0.5
0.25
0
0.25
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
0.5
0.5
0.25
0
-1
1
1
1
0.5
0
0.25
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.25
0
-1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0.25
0.5
1
1
1
0.5
0.25
0
-1
1
1
1
0.5
0
0.25
0.25
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.25
0
-1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0.25
0.25
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.25
0
-1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
2.5
5.25
9.25
10
6
5
2.5
0.5
-3.75
10
7
6
5.5
0
Table A.2: Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 2.
Shielded
Unshielded
SNM
Material
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
Detector 2 – Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
0.25
0
-1
0
0
0.5
0.25
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.25
0
0
1
0.5
0.5
0.25
0
0
-1
0
0
0.25
0
-1
0
0
0.5
0.25
0
0
-1
0
0.5
0.25
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
-1
0
0
0.5
0.25
0
0
-1
0
0
0.25
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.25
0
0
-1
0
0
0.25
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
-1
0
0
0.5
0.25
0
-1
-1
0
0
0.25
0
-1
0
0.5
0.5
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
2.5
0
-5
1
2
5
2.5
0
-1
-5
0
1
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
33
20% LEU
239
PuBe
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0
0.5
0
0.5
0
0.5
2
5
Table A.3: Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 3. Detector 3
was often unable to provide an ID of the SNM material within the allotted 2 min duration.
Because of this, only the number of trials that could be performed within the time for the other
detectors to perform were done.
SNM
Material
Shielded
Unshielded
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
Detector 3– Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
0.25
0.75
0.5
1
0.5
0.25
0
0.25
0.25
1
1
0.25
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
1
0.5
0.5
1
0
0.5
1
0.5
0.75
0.25
0
1
0.5
0.5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.25
-1
1
0
0
0.25
1
0
6
7
8
9
10
Total
1.5
3
3
1
1.25
2
2.5
-1
2.25
3
1.5
2
3.25
0
Table A.4: Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 4.
Shielded
Unshielded
SNM
Material
34
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
Detector 4 – Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
0.75
0.5
1
0.5
1
1
0
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
1
1
0.75
0.75
0.5
1
0.5
1
1
0
0.25
0.5
1
0.5
1
1
0.25
0.75
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.25
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.25
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
1
1
0
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.25
0.75
1
1
-1
0.75
1
0
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.25
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
1
1
0.25
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
1
1
0
0.5
0.25
1
0.5
0.25
1
0.25
0.75
0.5
1
0.5
1
1
0
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.25
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.25
1
-1
0.5
0.5
1
1
0.25
1
0.25
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.25
1
0.25
4.75
7.25
10
5.5
8.5
10
3.75
6.25
6.5
10
3.5
8.25
10
-0.5
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Table A.5: Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 5.
Shielded
Unshielded
SNM
Material
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
Detector 5 – Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
-1
0.25
0
-1
-1
0
0.25
-1
0.25
0
-1
0
0
0
-1
1
0
-1
-1
0
0.25
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
-1
0.25
0
-1
-1
0
-1
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0.25
-1
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
-1
-1
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
0.25
-1
-1
-1
0
-1
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
-1
-1
0.25
-1
-1
-1
0
0.25
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
-1
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
-1
-1
0.25
-1
-1
-1
0
-1
-1
0
0
-1
-1
0
-1
-1
0.25
-1
-1
-1
0
-1
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
-1
-10
-0.5
-7
-10
-10
0
-5
-10
0.25
0
-7
-1
0
-7.75
Table A.6: Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 6.
Shielded
Unshielded
SNM
Material
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
Detector 6 – Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
0.25
-1
-1
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.5
-1
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
-1
0.25
-1
-1
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.5
-1
-1
0.5
0.5
0.5
-1
0.25
-1
-1
0.25
0.5
0
0.25
0.5
-1
-1
0.5
0
0.5
-1
0.25
-1
-1
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.5
-1
-1
0.5
0.5
0.5
-1
0.25
-1
-1
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
-1
0.5
0.5
0.5
-1
0.25
-1
-1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
1
-1
-1
0.5
0
0.5
0.25
0.25
-1
-1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.5
-1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.25
-1
-1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.5
-1
0.5
0
0.5
-1
0.25
-1
-1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
-1
0.5
0.5
0.5
-1
0.25
-1
-1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
-1
0.5
0
0.5
-1
2.5
-10
-10
3.75
5
4.5
2.5
5.5
-3.25
-9
5
3
5
-7.75
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
35
Table A.7: Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 7.
SNM
Material
Shielded
Unshielded
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
Detector 7 – Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
0.5
0.5
-1
-1
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
-1
0
-1
-1
0.25
0
0.5
0.5
-1
-1
-1
0.25
0.25
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0.5
0.5
-1
-1
0.25
-1
0.25
0.25
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0.5
0.5
-1
-1
0.25
-1
0.25
-1
-1
0
-1
-1
-1
0
0.5
0.5
-1
-1
-1
-1
0.25
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0.5
-1
-1
-1
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
-1
-1
-1
-1
0.25
0
0.5
0.5
-1
-1
-1
-1
0.25
0.25
-1
-1
-1
-1
0.25
0
0.5
0.5
-1
-1
-1
0.25
0.25
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0.5
0.5
-1
-1
-1
-1
0.25
0.25
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0.5
0.5
-1
-1
0.5
0.25
1
0.25
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
5
3.5
-10
-10
-3.5
-3.75
3.25
-2.5
-10
-8
-10
-10
-6.25
0
Table A.8: Detailed single SNM radioisotope identification test results for Detector 8.
Shielded
Unshielded
SNM
Material
36
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
MOX
RGPu
233
U
HEU
6% LEU
20% LEU
239
PuBe
Detector 8 – Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
0.75
0.5
0.5
1
0.75
1
0.25
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.75
1
-1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.5
0.5
1
1
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.75
1
1
0.25
-1
1
1
0.75
0.75
0.25
1
0.5
1
1
0.75
1
0.25
1
0.5
1
1
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.75
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.5
1
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.75
0.75
-1
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.75
0.75
-1
0.5
1
1
1
0.75
1
0.25
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.75
0.75
-1
0.25
0.5
0.5
1
0.75
0.75
0.25
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.75
0.25
5.25
6.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
9.25
4.75
7.75
3.5
6
9.5
7.5
7.25
-2
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
A.2
Detailed single radioisotope identification results
Table A.9: Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 1.
Detector 1 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Am-241
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
Ir-192
U Nat
Ra-226
sh Ba-133
sh Co-60
sh Cs-137
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
5
5
5
5
5
7.5
6
5
5
5
Table A.10: Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 2.
Detector 2 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Am-241
Ba-133
Co-60
137Cs
Ir-192
U Nat
Ra-226
sh Ba-133
sh Co-60
sh 137Cs
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
-1
0.5
-1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
-1
0.75
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
-1
0.75
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
-1
0.75
-1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
-1
0.75
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
-1
0.75
-1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
-1
0.75
-1
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
-1
0.5
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
-1
0.75
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
-1
0.75
-1
1
0.5
0.5
5
5
0.5
5
-10
7
-2.5
9.25
9
5
Table A.11: Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 3.
Detector 3 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Am-241
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
Ir-192
U Nat
Ra-226
sh Ba-133
sh Co-60
sh Cs-137
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0.75
0
1
0
0
1
0.5
0
0
0
-1
0
0.5
0
0
1
0.5
0
0
0
0.75
0
0.5
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0.25
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
-1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0.5
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0.75
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0.25
0
1
0
0
10
9
0
0
0
1.25
0
9
0
0
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
37
Table A.12: Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 4.
Detector 4 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Am-241
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
Ir-192
U Nat
Ra-226
Th-232
I-125
sh Ba-133
sh Co-60
sh Cs-137
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
9.5
8.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9.5
Table A.13: Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 5.
Detector 5 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Am-241
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
Ir-192
U Nat
Ra-226
Th-232
I-125
sh Ba-133
sh Co-60
sh Cs-137
1
0.25
0
1
0.5
0
-1
-1
1
0
0
0
1
0.5
0
1
0.5
0
-1
-1
1
-1
0
0
1
0.5
0
1
1
-1
-1
-1
1
-1
0
0
1
0.5
0
1
0.5
0
-1
-1
1
-1
0
0
1
0.25
0
1
0.5
0
-1
-1
1
-1
0
0
1
0.5
0
1
0.5
-1
-1
-1
1
-1
0
0
1
0.25
0
1
0.5
0
-1
-1
1
-1
0
0
1
0.25
0
1
0.5
0
-1
-1
1
-1
0
0
1
0.5
0
1
0.5
-1
-1
-1
1
-1
0
0
1
0.5
0
1
0.5
0
-1
-1
1
0
0
0
10
4
0
10
5.5
-3
-10
-10
10
-8
0
0
Table A.14: Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 6.
Detector 6 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Am-241
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
Ir-192
U Nat
Ra-226
Th-232
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
7.5
10
38
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
I-125
sh Ba-133
sh Co-60
sh Cs-137
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
10
10
Table A.15: Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 7.
Detector 7 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Am-241
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
Ir-192
U Nat
Ra-226
Th-232
I-125
sh Ba-133
sh Co-60
sh 137Cs
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0
-1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0
-1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0
-1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0
-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0
-1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0
-1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0
-1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0
-1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0
-1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0
-1
1
1
10
5.5
10
10
10
10
5
10
0
-10
10
10
Table A.16: Detailed single radioisotope identification test results for Detector 8.
Detector 8 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Am-241
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
Ir-192
U Nat
Ra-226
Th-232
I-125
sh Ba-133
sh Co-60
sh Cs-137
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
0.5
1
1
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
8.75
10
5
10
10
10
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
39
A.3
Detailed multiple radioisotope identification results
Table A.17: Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 1.
Detector 1 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotopes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Ir-192/PuBe
Co-60/PuBe
Am-241/Pube
Ba-133/PuBe
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.5
2.50
5.00
2.50
5.00
Table A.18: Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 2.
Detector 2 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotopes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Ir-192/PuBe
Co-60/PuBe
Am-241/Pube
Ba-133/PuBe
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
2.50
2.50
2.50
7.50
Table A.19: Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 3.
Detector 3 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotopes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Ir-192/PuBe
Co-60/PuBe
Am-241/Pube
Ba-133/PuBe
0.25
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
0.25
-1
0.25
0.25
0.25
0
1
1
0.25
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
-1
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
0.25
-1
0.25
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
2.50
-2.00
3.25
7.00
Table A.20: Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 4.
Detector 4 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotopes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Ir-192/PuBe
Co-60/PuBe
Am-241/Pube
Ba-133/PuBe
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
-1
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
-1
0.75
7.00
7.50
0.00
7.00
Table A.21: Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 5.
Radioactive
Isotopes
Ir-192/PuBe
Co-60/PuBe
Am-241/Pube
Ba-133/PuBe
40
Detector 5 – Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
0.00
2.50
0.00
-8.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0
-1
0
-1
0
-1
0
-1
0
0
0
-1
0
-1
0
-1
0
0
0
-1
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Table A.22: Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 6.
Detector 6 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotopes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Ir-192/PuBe
Co-60/PuBe
Am-241/Pube
Ba-133/PuBe
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Table A.23: Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 7.
Detector 7 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotopes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Ir-192/PuBe
Co-60/PuBe
Am-241/Pube
Ba-133/PuBe
0.25
0.75
0.25
-1
0.25
0.75
0.25
-1
0.25
0.75
0.25
-1
0.25
0.75
0.25
-1
0.25
0.75
0.25
-1
0.25
0.75
0.25
-1
0.25
0.75
0.25
-1
0.25
0.75
0.25
-1
0.25
0.75
0.25
-1
0.25
0.75
0.25
-1
2.50
7.50
2.50
-10.0
Table A.24: Detailed multiple radioisotope identification test results for Detector 8.
Detector 8 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotopes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Ir-192/PuBe
Co-60/PuBe
Am-241/Pube
Ba-133/PuBe
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.5
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.5
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.75
1
0.25
0.5
7.50
8.50
3.50
5.00
A.4
Detailed resolution results
Table A.25: Detailed resolution results.
Detector
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Am-241
20.6%
22.7%
10.8%
16.2%
19.3%
15.1%
14.5%
14.0%
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Cs-137
7.8%
8.1%
2.3%
6.9%
7.3%
7.7%
6.7%
6.6%
Co-60 (1)
5.0%
7.8%
2.1%
5.0%
5.3%
5.5%
4.8%
5.1%
Co-60 (2)
4.7%
6.7%
2.2%
4.7%
5.1%
5.7%
4.8%
4.9%
Score
0.41
0.34
1.00
0.48
0.43
0.47
0.51
0.52
41
A.5
Detailed efficiency results
Table A.26: Detailed efficiency results (net photopeak counts).
Detector
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A.6
Am-241
46
40
1
40
107
159
22
57
Cs-137
21
17
0
36
119
67
33
39
Co-60 (1)
38
30
Co-60 (2)
16
62
25
17
19
15
61
23
16
19
Score
0.26
0.21
0.00
0.27
0.89
0.65
0.23
0.33
Detailed angle of incidence results
Table A.27: Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 1.
Radioisotope
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
Pu239/Be
Detector 1 – Trial Number
Angle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
180
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.25
0.25
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0
0
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.50
5.00
7.50
5.00
5.00
5.50
2.50
2.25
0.00
Table A.28: Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 2.
Radioisotope
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
42
Detector 2 – Trial Number
Angle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
-1
0
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
-1
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
-1
0
0
0
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
-1
0
0
0
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
-1
0
0
0
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
-1
0
0
0
0.5
0
5.00
5.00
-4.00
0.00
0.00
-1.00
1.50
0.00
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Pu-239/Be
180
45
90
180
0
0.5
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.00
5.00
0.50
0.00
Table A.29: Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 3.
Radioactive
Isotope
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
Pu-239/Be
Detector 3 – Trial Number
Angle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
180
1
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
1
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
1
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
0.5
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
0.5
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
0.5
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
1
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
8.00
0.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
Table A.30: Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 4.
Radioactive
Isotope
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
Pu-239/Be
Detector 4 – Trial Number
Angle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
180
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
-1
0.25
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-1
0.25
0.25
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
10.00
10.00
10.00
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.00
9.00
8.50
0.00
2.50
2.50
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
43
Table A.31: Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 5.
Radioactive
Isotope
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
Pu-239/Be
Detector 5 – Trial Number
Angle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
180
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.25
0
-1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.25
0
-1
1
1
-1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.25
0
-1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.25
0
-1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.25
0
-1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.25
0
-1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.25
0
-1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.25
-1
-1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.25
0
-1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.25
0
-1
10.00
10.00
-1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
2.50
-1.00
-10.00
Table A.32: Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 6.
Radioactive
Isotope
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
Pu-239/Be
Detector 6 – Trial Number
Angle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
180
1
0.5
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
-1
1
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
-1
1
0.5
-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
-1
0.5
-1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
-1
0.5
-1
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
-1
0.5
0.25
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
-1
0.5
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
-1
-1
0.5
-1
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
-1
-1
0.5
-1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
-1
0.5
0.25
-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
-1
6.50
-3.00
-0.50
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
2.50
0.00
-10.00
Table A.33: Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 7.
Radioactive
Isotope
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
44
Detector 7 – Trial Number
Angle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
7.00
7.50
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Pu-239/Be
90
180
45
90
180
1
1
0.25
0.25
0
1
1
0.25
0.25
0
1
1
0.25
0.25
0
1
1
0.25
0.25
0
1
1
0.25
0.25
0
1
1
0.25
0.25
0
1
1
0.25
0.25
0
1
1
0.25
0.25
0
1
1
0.25
0.25
0
1
1
0.25
1
0
10.00
10.00
2.50
3.25
0.00
Table A.34: Detailed angle of incidence test results for Detector 8.
Radioactive
Isotope
Ba-133
Co-60
Cs-137
Pu-239/Be
A.7
Detector 8 – Trial Number
Angle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
180
45
90
180
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
1
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-1
0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
10.00
10.00
9.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
5.50
3.50
1.25
Detailed interfering bremsstrahlung results
Table A.35: Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 1.
Detector 1 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Sr-90 brem
brem + Am-241
brem + Co-60
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10.00
10.00
9.00
Table A.36: Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 2.
Detector 2 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Sr-90 brem
brem + Am-241
brem + Co-60
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.25
1
1
9.25
10.00
10.00
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
45
Table A.37: Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 3.
Detector 3 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Sr-90 brem
brem + Am-241
brem + Co-60
0
1
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.5
0
0
1
0
0
0.25
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.5
0
0.00
6.75
0.00
Table A.38: Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 4.
Detector 4 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Sr-90 brem
brem + Am-241
brem + Co-60
-1
0.5
0.25
-1
0.5
0.25
-1
0.5
0.5
-1
0.5
0.25
-1
0.5
0.25
-1
0.5
0.25
-1
0.5
0.25
-1
0.5
0.25
-1
0.5
0.25
-1
0.5
0.25
-10.
5.0
2.75
Table A.39: Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 5.
Detector 5 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Sr-90 brem
brem + Am-241
brem + Co-60
0
0.5
0
0
0.25
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.5
0
0
0.5
0
0.00
4.75
0.00
Table A.40: Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 6.
Detector 6 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Sr-90 brem
brem + Am-241
brem + Co-60
-1
0.5
0.5
-1
0.5
0.5
-1
0.5
0.5
-1
0.5
0.5
-1
0.5
0.5
-1
0.5
0.5
-1
0.5
0.5
-1
0.5
0.5
-1
0.5
0.5
-1
0.5
0.5
-10.0
5.00
5.00
Table A.41: Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 7.
Detector 7 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Sr-90 brem
brem + Am-241
brem + Co-60
0
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.25
0
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0.00
5.00
4.75
46
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Table A.42: Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 8.
Detector 8 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Sr-90 brem
brem + Am-241
brem + Co-60
1
0.5
0.25
1
0.25
0.25
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.25
0.5
-1
0.5
0.25
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
-1
0.5
0.5
6.00
4.50
4.25
9
10
Total
9
10
Total
A.8
Detailed over-range ID results
Table A.43: Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 1.
Radioactive
Isotope
Detector 1 – Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
No Over Range response
Table A.44: Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 2.
Radioactive
Isotope
Detector 2 – Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
No Over Range response
Table A.45: Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 3.
Detector 3 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Over Range
Response
137
Cs ID @ 80%
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
10
0
Table A.46: Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 4.
Detector 4 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Over Range
Response (40 kcps)
137
Cs ID @ 80%
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.25
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
10.0
4.75
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
47
Table A.47: Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 5.
Detector 5 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
Over Range
Response(70 kcps)
137
Cs ID @ 80%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
1
-1
10
-10
Table A.48: Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 6.
Detector 6 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Over Range Response
(150 kcps)
137
Cs ID @ 80%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
Table A.49: Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 7.
Radioactive
Isotope
Over Range
Response
137
Cs ID @ 80%
Detector 7 – Trial Number
1
-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-1
Does not indicate (drops to 0 @ 90 kcps.)
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
10
Total
-1
-1
-10
-10
9
Table A.50: Detailed over-range ID test results for Detector 8.
Detector 8 – Trial Number
Radioactive
Isotope
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Over Range Response
(500 kcps)
137
Cs ID @ 80%
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
48
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Annex B
Dose rate response results
Table B.1: Background dose rate results.
Run #
Detector 1
Dose Rate
(Sv/hr)
Detector 2
Dose Rate
(Sv/hr)
Detector 3
Dose Rate
(Sv/hr)
Detector 4
Dose Rate
(Sv/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.079
0.09
0.086
0.082
0.091
0.094
0.089
0.087
0.082
0.098
0.072
0.069
0.065
0.067
0.066
0.061
0.073
0.067
0.065
0.064
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.13
0.19
0.09
0.11
0.16
0.14
0.18
0.13
0.15
0.16
Average
0.0878
0.0669
0.024
0.144
Run #
Detector 5
Dose Rate
(Sv/hr)
Detector 6
Dose Rate
(Sv/hr)
Detector 7
Dose Rate
(Sv/hr)
Detector 8
Dose Rate
(Sv/hr)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.113
0.14
0.121
0.134
0.128
0.142
0.124
0.125
0.122
0.116
0.091
0.086
0.084
0.085
0.087
0.085
0.08
0.086
0.085
0.085
0.078
0.08
0.078
0.093
0.092
0.094
0.084
0.089
0.085
0.077
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
Average
0.1265
0.0854
0.085
0.057
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
49
Detector 3
Detector 2
Detector 1
Detectors
Table B.2: Response time results.
50
Test Criteria
Background --> 0.5 Sv/hr
0.5 Sv/hr --> Background
5 seconds to
2 Seconds to
5 seconds to Reach 2 Seconds to
Reach 50% of
show an
50% of the applied show an
the applied dose
Increase
dose rate.
decrease
rate.
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
2
3
1
3
1
4
2
3
1
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
1
3
2
2
1
3
2
3
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
3
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Table B.2: Response time results (cont’d).
Detector 6
Detector 5
Detector 4
Detectors
Test Criteria
Background --> 0.5 Sv/hr
0.5 Sv/hr --> Background
2 Seconds to
show an
Increase
1
2
1
1
1
less than 1
1
1
1
less than 1
1
1
1
1
less than 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
5 seconds to Reach
50% of the applied
dose rate.
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 Seconds to
show an decrease
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
less than 1
1
1
1
less than 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5 seconds to
Reach 50% of the
applied dose rate.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
51
Table B.2: Response time results (cont’d).
Detector 8
Detector 7
Detectors
Test Criteria
Background --> 0.5 Sv/hr
0.5 Sv/hr --> Background
52
2 Seconds to
show an
Increase
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
less than 1
less than 1
1
less than 1
less than 1
less than 1
1
1
less than 1
less than 1
5 seconds to Reach
50% of the applied
dose rate.
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
less than 1
1
1
less than 1
less than 1
less than 1
1
1
less than 1
less than 1
2 Seconds to
show an
decrease
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
1
less than 1
less than 1
less than 1
less than 1
less than 1
less than 1
1
1
less than 1
5 seconds to
Reach 50% of the
applied dose rate.
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
1
less than 1
less than 1
less than 1
less than 1
less than 1
less than 1
1
1
1
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Table B.3: Alarm time results.
Run
Detector 1
Time to Alarm
(s)
Detector 2
Time to Alarm
(s)
Detector 3
Time to Alarm
(s)
Detector 4
Time to Alarm
(s)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NA
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
Run
Detector 5
Time to Alarm
(s)
Detector 6
Time to Alarm
(s)
Detector 7
Time to Alarm
(s)
Detector 8
Time to Alarm
(s)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
NA
NA
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
NA
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
NA
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
53
Table B.4: Gamma ray dose rate accuracy results.
Detector 1
Avg
Std dev
Bkgd
Bkgd Cor
%
Difference
Detector 2
5 Sv/hr
20 Sv/hr
80 Sv/hr
5 Sv/hr
20 Sv/hr
80 Sv/hr
5.50
5.50
5.52
5.49
5.48
5.51
5.50
5.52
5.49
5.47
5.50
0.02
0.09
5.41
17.86
17.85
17.88
17.80
17.90
17.79
17.79
17.80
17.84
17.75
17.83
0.04
0.09
17.74
52.24
51.15
52.42
51.83
49.44
51.13
49.68
51.45
52.86
54.84
51.70
1.48
0.09
51.62
4.87
4.92
4.90
4.91
4.90
4.87
4.88
4.88
4.89
4.82
4.88
0.03
0.07
4.82
14.44
14.41
14.39
14.45
14.52
14.45
14.42
14.36
14.40
NA
14.43
0.04
0.07
14.36
71.04
66.62
64.89
65.88
61.32
65.53
61.94
59.09
63.43
64.79
64.45
3.12
0.07
64.38
9.96
-10.87
-35.37
-2.32
-27.87
-19.44
Detector 3
Avg
Std dev
Bkgd
Bkgd Cor
%
Difference
54
Detector 4
5 Sv/hr
20 Sv/hr
80 Sv/hr
5 Sv/hr
20 Sv/hr
80 Sv/hr
4.11
4.10
4.08
4.07
4.01
4.00
4.03
4.08
4.05
4.02
4.06
0.04
0.02
4.03
12.78
12.72
12.81
12.89
12.81
12.73
12.80
12.81
12.61
12.60
12.76
0.09
0.02
12.73
64.38
64.73
64.53
64.31
64.69
65.06
64.92
64.47
64.96
64.17
64.62
0.28
0.02
64.60
6.54
6.62
6.57
6.59
6.61
6.63
6.60
6.63
6.59
NA
6.60
0.03
0.14
6.45
22.68
22.72
22.63
22.75
22.62
22.85
22.84
22.93
22.78
NA
22.76
0.10
0.14
22.61
96.23
95.74
96.06
95.74
95.74
95.79
96.36
96.48
95.20
NA
95.93
0.37
0.14
95.78
-18.87
-36.22
-19.22
29.09
13.78
19.91
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Table B.4: Gamma ray dose rate accuracy results (cont’d).
Detector 5
Avg
Std dev
Bkgd
Bkgd Cor
%
Difference
Detector 6
5 Sv/hr
20 Sv/hr
80 Sv/hr
5 Sv/hr
20 Sv/hr
80 Sv/hr
6.25
6.07
6.02
5.71
5.79
5.90
5.57
5.74
5.89
6.03
5.90
0.19
0.13
5.77
19.00
18.52
18.27
19.07
18.46
18.53
18.38
18.38
19.06
19.16
18.55
0.33
0.13
18.42
52.92
51.09
51.63
50.75
50.88
51.05
50.47
51.19
51.19
51.22
51.47
0.64
0.13
51.34
6.53
6.50
6.40
6.51
6.37
6.31
6.42
6.47
6.43
6.46
6.44
0.06
0.09
6.35
23.14
22.56
22.40
22.60
22.26
22.55
22.25
22.03
NA
NA
22.47
0.31
0.09
22.39
47.30
48.10
47.20
46.70
51.10
48.09
49.40
49.10
45.40
46.69
47.91
1.55
0.09
47.82
17.94
-7.25
-35.66
27.08
12.37
-40.12
Detector 7
Avg
Std dev
Bkgd
Bkgd Cor
%
Difference
Detector 8
5 Sv/hr
20 Sv/hr
80 Sv/hr
5 Sv/hr
20 Sv/hr
80 Sv/hr
3.57
3.46
3.46
3.48
3.58
3.51
3.52
3.51
3.54
22.90
22.00
22.20
22.40
22.50
22.90
22.70
22.70
NA
45.64
46.73
42.00
42.09
38.55
46.27
46.73
45.18
43.64
3.20
3.21
3.22
3.20
3.18
3.21
3.19
3.20
3.22
15.31
15.37
15.43
15.41
15.39
15.42
15.45
15.37
15.38
60.43
60.33
60.43
63.95
64.11
63.68
63.44
64.48
63.08
3.55
3.52
0.04
0.09
3.43
NA
22.54
0.30
0.09
22.45
49.55
44.64
2.97
0.09
44.55
3.20
3.20
0.01
0.06
3.14
15.45
15.40
0.04
0.06
15.34
63.68
62.76
1.59
0.06
62.70
-31.34
12.69
-44.20
-37.11
-23.01
-21.55
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
55
Table B.5: Dose rate response to over-range conditions results.
Detector 1
Detector 2
Run
#
Time to indicate
Over exposure (s)
Time to
resettle (s)
Time to indicate
Over exposure (s)
Time to
resettle (s)
1
3
8
9
2
2
3
9
1
1
3
3
9
2
1
4
2
7
2
0
5
1
8
1
1
6
1
7
2
0
7
2
9
2
1
8
1
8
1
0
9
2
8
1
1
10
3
7
NA
NA
Detector 3
56
Detector 4
Run
#
Time to indicate
Over exposure (s)
Time to
resettle (s)
Time to indicate
Over exposure (s)
Time to
resettle (s)
1
5
Did not
return
3
6
2
4
55
3
7
3
11
56
7
7
4
12
30
2
8
5
3
3
8
6
10
54
Did not
return
3
3
7
4
30
4
8
8
2
31
3
7
9
2
58
2
7
10
11
56
2
2
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Table B.5: Dose rate response to over-range conditions results (cont’d).
Detector 5
Run
#
1
Time to indicate
Over exposure (s)
Detector 6
Time to
resettle (s)
Time to indicate
Over exposure (s)
Time to
resettle (s)
Never Gave an Over Range
Never Gave an Over Range
Detector 7
Detector 8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Run
#
Time to indicate
Over exposure (s)
Time to
resettle (s)
5
103
2
5
76
3
5
68
4
6
70
5
5
70
6
6
80
7
8
69
8
8
72
9
8
54
10
10
NA
1
Time to indicate
Over exposure (s)
Time to
resettle (s)
Never Gave an Over Range
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
57
This page intentionally left blank.
58
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Annex C
Detailed environmental performance test
results
All testing for this section uses 241Am and 137Cs as the isotopes to be identified.
C.1
Detailed humidity results
Table C.1: Detailed humidity test results for Detector 1.
Detector 1 – Trial Number
Humidity/
Temp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
40%/22°C
93%/ 35°C
40%/35°C
1
0.75
0
1
0.75
0
0.75
0.75
0
0.75
0.75
0
0.5
0.75
0
0.75
0.75
0
0.5
0.75
0
0.5
0.75
0
0.5
0.75
0
0.5
0.75
0
6.75
7.50
0.00
Table C.2: Detailed interfering radiation test results for Detector 2.
Detector 2 – Trial Number
Humidity/
Temp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
40%/22°C
93%/ 35°C
40%/35°C
0.75
0.75
0.75
1
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
1
0.75
0.75
1
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
1
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
8.50
7.50
7.50
Table C.3: Detailed humidity test results for Detector 3.
Detector 3 – Trial Number
Humidity/
Temp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
40%/22°C
93%/ 35°C
40%/35°C
0.25
0.75
0.25
0
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
1
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.25
3.25
5.50
5.25
Table C.4: Detailed humidity test results for Detector 4.
Detector 4 – Trial Number
Humidity/
Temp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
40%/22°C
93%/ 35°C
40%/35°C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
10
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
59
Table C.5: Detailed humidity test results for Detector 5.
Detector 5 – Trial Number
Humidity/
Temp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
40%/22°C
93%/ 35°C
40%/35°C
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
6.00
9.00
9.00
Table C.6: Detailed humidity test results for Detector 6.
Detector 6 – Trial Number
Humidity/
Temp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
40%/22°C
93%/ 35°C
40%/35°C
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
5.00
5.00
5.00
Table C.7: Detailed humidity test results for Detector 7.
Detector 7 – Trial Number
Humidity/
Temp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
40%/22°C
93%/ 35°C
40%/35°C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
9.5
10
9.5
Table C.8: Detailed humidity test results for Detector 8.
Detector 8 – Trial Number
Humidity/
Temp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
40%/22°C
93%/ 35°C
40%/35°C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
9.75
10
60
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
C.2
Detailed thermal shock results
Table C.9: Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 1.
Temp
(°C)
20 to 50
50 to 20
20 to -20
-20 to 20
Achieving Temp
1
2
3
1
0.75
1
1
1
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
1
0.75
0.75
Detector 1 – Trial Number
1
2
1
0.75
0.75 0.75
0.75 0.75
0.75
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
0.75
0.75
0.75
1
0.75
0.75
0.75
1
0.75
1
0.75
1
0.75
1
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
1
1
1
1
8.46
8.46
7.19
9.06
9
10
Total
Table C.10: Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 2.
Temp
(°C)
20 to 50
50 to 20
20 to -20
-20 to 20
Achieving Temp
1
2
3
Detector 2 – Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25 0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.50
2.50
0.94
0.00
Table C.11: Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 3.
Temp
(°C)
20 to 50
50 to 20
20 to -20
-20 to 20
Achieving Temp
Detector 3 – Trial Number
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.25
0.75 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.75
0.25
0.25
3.65
5.19
5.00
3.75
Table C.12: Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 4.
Temp
(°C)
20 to 50
50 to 20
20 to -20
-20 to 20
Achieving Temp
Detector 4 – Trial Number
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 12.25
1 0.75 0.75 0.75 1
1
1
1
1
12.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13.00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13.00
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
1
61
Table C.13: Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 5.
Achieving Temp
Temp
(°C)
20 to 50
50 to 20
20 to -20
-20 to 20
Detector 5 – Trial Number
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
0
0.5
-1
-1
0
0
-1
-1
0
0
-1
-1
0
-1
-1
-1
0 0
-1 -1
-1 -1
-1 -1
0
-1
-1
-1
5
6
7
8
9
0
0
0.5 -1
-1 -1
-1 -1
0
-1
-1
-1
0 0
-1 -1
-1 -1
-1 -1
Total
10
0
0.00
0.5 -6.50
-1 -13.00
-1 -13.00
Table C.14: Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 6.
Achieving Temp
Temp
(°C)
20 to 50
50 to 20
20 to -20
-20 to 20
Detector 6 – Trial Number
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
7.00
6.50
6.50
6.50
Table C.15: Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 7.
Temp
(°C)
20 to 50
50 to 20
20 to -20
-20 to 20
Achieving Temp
1
2
3
1
1
1
0
0.25
1
1
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
Detector 7 – Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
0.75 1
1
1 1 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.75 9.25
1
1 0.5 0.5 1
1
1
1
1
1
12.00
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1
1
1
1
0.5 0.5 9.50
0
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
11.00
Table C.16: Detailed thermal shock test results for Detector 8.
Achieving Temp
Detector 8 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
20 to 50
50 to 20
20 to -20
-20 to 20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12.75
13.00
12.75
13.00
62
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
C.3
Detailed cold start results
Table C.17: Detailed cold start test results for Detector 1.
Detector 1 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
-20 cold start
0.75
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
9.50
Table C.18: Detailed cold start test results for Detector 2.
Detector 2 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
-20 cold start
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
0.75
1
9.50
Table C.19: Detailed cold start test results for Detector 3.
Temp
(°C)
Detector 3 – Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
-20 cold start 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.25
6.00
Table C.20: Detailed cold start test results for Detector 4.
Detector 4 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
-20 cold start
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9.75
Table C.21: Detailed cold start test results for Detector 5.
Detector 5 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
-20 cold start
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
5.00
Table C.22: Detailed cold start test results for Detector 6.
Detector 6 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
-20 cold start
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
5.00
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
63
Table C.23: Detailed cold start test results for Detector 7.
Detector 7 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
-20 cold start
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Table C.24: Detailed cold start test results for Detector 8.
C.4
Detector 8 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
-20 cold start
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10.00
Detailed ambient temperature results
Table C.25: Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 1.
Detector 1 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
22
50
-20
0.75
1
1
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
7.50
7.75
7.75
Table C.26: Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 2.
Detector 2 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
22
50
-20
22
50
-20
0.75
0.75
0
1
0.75
0
0.75
0.75
0
1
0.25
0
0.75
0.75
0
0.75
0.75
0
0.75
0.75
0
0.75
0.75
0
0.75
0.25
0
0.75
0.75
0
Table C.27: Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 3.
Detector 3 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
22
50
-20
22
50
-20
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.25
64
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
Table C.28: Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 4.
Detector 4 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
22
50
-20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
10
Table C.29: Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 5.
Detector 5 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
22
50
-20
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
10
10
5.0
Table C.30: Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 6.
Detector 6 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
22
50
-20
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
Table C.31: Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 7.
Detector 7 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
22
50
-20
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0.5
1
1
0
10
9.0
5.5
Table C.32: Detailed ambient temperature test results for Detector 8.
Detector 8 – Trial Number
Temp
(°C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
22
50
-20
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
9.0
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
65
This page intentionally left blank.
66
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
List of symbols/abbreviations/acronyms/initialisms
AEP
Allied Engineering Publication
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
BNC
Berkeley Nucleonics Corporation
CAF
Canadian Armed Forces
CANSOFCOM
Canadian Special Operations Forces Command
CBRN
Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear
CNL
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
COTS
Commercial-Off-the-Shelf
CZT
Cadmium Zinc Telluride
D CBRN D
Director Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Defence
DND
Department of National Defence
DRDC
Defence Research and Development Canada
DSTKIM
Director Science and Technology Knowledge and Information Management
FWHM
Full-Width-Half-Maximum
HEU
Highly Enriched Uranium
ID
Identification
IEC
International Electrotechnical Commission
LEU
Low Enriched Uranium
MOX
Mixed Oxide
NaI(Tl)
Sodium Iodide (Thallium-Doped)
NORM
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material
ORC
Ottawa Research Centre
PuBe
Plutonium-Beryllium
RadIS
Radioisotope Identification System
R&D
Research & Development
RGPu
Reactor Grade Plutonium
RH
Relative Humidity
RIID
Radioisotope Identification
RN
Radiological/Nuclear
SNM
Special Nuclear Material
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
67
This page intentionally left blank.
68
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA
(Security markings for the title, abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the document is Classified or Designated)
1.
ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the document.
Organizations for whom the document was prepared, e.g., Centre sponsoring a
contractor's report, or tasking agency, are entered in Section 8.)
DRDC – Ottawa Research Centre
Defence Research and Development Canada
3701 Carling Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Z4
Canada
3.
2a. SECURITY MARKING
(Overall security marking of the document including
special supplemental markings if applicable.)
UNCLASSIFIED
2b. CONTROLLED GOODS
(NON-CONTROLLED GOODS)
DMC A
REVIEW: GCEC DECEMBER 2012
TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification should be indicated by the appropriate abbreviation (S, C or U) in
parentheses after the title.)
Radioisotope Identification System (RadIS) performance assessment results
4.
AUTHORS (last name, followed by initials – ranks, titles, etc., not to be used)
Brown, J.; Desrosiers, M.; Erhardt, L.; Inrig, E.; Jones, A.; Jones, T.; Waller, D.; Watson, I.
5.
DATE OF PUBLICATION
(Month and year of publication of document.)
September 2016
7.
6a. NO. OF PAGES
(Total containing information,
including Annexes, Appendices,
etc.)
87
6b. NO. OF REFS
(Total cited in document.)
12
DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g., technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of report,
e.g., interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.)
Scientific Report
8.
SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The name of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development – include address.)
DRDC – Ottawa Research Centre
Defence Research and Development Canada
3701 Carling Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Z4
Canada
9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable research
and development project or grant number under which the document
was written. Please specify whether project or grant.)
9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under
which the document was written.)
10a. ORIGINATOR’S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The official document
number by which the document is identified by the originating
activity. This number must be unique to this document.)
10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers which may be
assigned this document either by the originator or by the sponsor.)
DRDC-RDDC-2016-R182
11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY (Any limitations on further dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.)
Unlimited
12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to the
Document Availability (11). However, where further distribution (beyond the audience specified in (11) is possible, a wider announcement
audience may be selected.))
Unlimited
13. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly desirable that
the abstract of classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the security classification of the
information in the paragraph (unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in
both official languages unless the text is bilingual.)
Eight radioisotope identification (RIID) systems have been evaluated for the Canadian Armed
Forces (CAF) to support the Radioisotope Identification System (RadIS) procurement project,
which is led by the Directorate of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defence
(D CBRN D) [1]. Three of the eight systems are CAF in-service RIID systems: the GR-135N,
Syclone, and Interceptor. The other five are commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) systems: the
Thermo RIID-EyeX, Berkeley Nucleonics Corporation (BNC) 945 SAM III, FLIR RadHunter,
Radiation Solutions Incorporated Super RIID SR-10, and Smiths RadSeeker. The in-service
systems were evaluated to determine the current CAF baseline RIID performance, and the
COTS thallium-doped sodium iodide (NaI(Tl)) scintillator systems were evaluated to determine
whether currently-available NaI(Tl)-based systems are sufficient to meet the CAF’s RIID
requirements.
None of the RIIDs tested scored high enough in all the sub-tests to satisfy the relevant ANSI [2]
or IEC [3] standards. Although none of the five COTS NaI(Tl) RIIDs achieved a high score on
all the sub-tests, we determined that the overall performance of two of them was sufficient for
most CAF radiological/nuclear (RN) identification tasks. These two COTS RIIDs significantly
outperformed the best in-service CAF RIID: scores of 77% and 78%, compared to 56%. As long
as the RIID that is procured is at least as good as these two, then the CAF should be well served.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------On a évalué huit dispositifs d’identification de radio-isotopes (RIID) pour les Forces armées
canadiennes (FAC) en appui au projet d’acquisition du Système d’identification de radioisotopes (RadIS) sous la gouverne du Directeur – Défense chimique, biologique, radiologique et
nucléaire (DDCBRN) [1]. Trois d’entre eux sont actuellement en service dans les FAC: le GR135N, le Syclone, et l’Interceptor. Les cinq autres sont disponibles sur le marché: le Thermo
RIID-EyeX, le Berkeley Nucleonics Corporation (BNC) 945 SAM III, le FLIR RadHunter, le
Radiation Solutions Incorporated Super RIID SR-10 et le Smiths RadSeeker. On a évalué les
systèmes en service dans les FAC afin de déterminer leur rendement de base actuel. On a
également évalué les scintillateurs à l’iodure de sodium dopé au thallium (NaI(Tl)),
actuellement disponibles sur le marché, afin de déterminer s’ils suffisaient pour répondre aux
exigences des RIID des FAC..
Aucun des RIID évalués n’a obtenu une note suffisante dans la totalité des sous-tests pour
respecter les normes pertinentes ANSI [2] ou IEC [3]. Par ailleurs, même si aucun des RIID
NaI(Tl) disponibles sur le marché n’a obtenu une note élevée dans la totalité des sous-tests, nous
avons pu déterminer que le rendement général de deux d’entre eux suffisait pour accomplir la
plupart des tâches d’identification radiologique ou nucléaire (RN) des FAC. Le rendement de
ces deux RIID disponibles sur le marché a surpassé considérablement celui du meilleur
actuellement en service dans les FAC, avec des résultats de 77 % et 78 %, contre 56 %. Tant
que le RIID dont on a fait l’acquisition est au moins aussi performants que ces deux-là, les FAC
devraient en être satisfaites.
14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could be helpful
in cataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation,
trade name, military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords should be selected from a published thesaurus,
e.g., Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are
Unclassified, the classification of each should be indicated as with the title.)
radiation; radiation detection; radioisotope; radioisotope identification; sodium iodide; scintillator