Deterministic Design I: Conceptual Formulation

  • Yakov Ben-Haim
Part of the Mathematics and Its Applications book series (MAIA, volume 20)


In this Chapter we shall develop a powerful analytical aid for the design of assay systems which are intended to measure materials which are randomly distributed in space. We learned in Chapter 1 that the design procedure must be based on a quantitative measure of performance which guides the designer to the best from among alternative realizable designs. This performance-measure must evaluate the accuracy of the assay system in the face of two main challenges. First of all, the measure must assess how well the assay system confronts the challenge of spatial uncertainty: the spatial randomness of the assayed material. Second, the measure of performance must evaluate the degree to which the assay system is sensitive to the statistical uncertainty arising from randomness of the radiation-measurement process. Not only must the measure encompass these diverse and complex aspects of an arbitrary assay system, it must also be practicable. That is, it must be computationally feasible to evaluate the performance measure for a wide range of alternative proposed designs.


Source Material Statistical Uncertainty Vector Response Fissile Material Coincidence Measurement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    The relative mass resolution is by no means the only concept which may be used to define a measure of performance. In much design work of nuclear assay systems the degree of “flatness” of the response function has been used as a measure of performance. An additional useful and widely employed design concept is the resolving power. See:Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    A. Notea and Y. Segal, A General Approach to the Design of Radiation Gauges, Nucl. Tech., 14: 73 – 80 (1974).Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Y. Segal, A. Notea and E. Segal, A Systematic Evaluation of Nondestructive Testing Methods, in Research Techniques in Nondestructive Testing, Vol. Ill, R. S. Sharpe, ed., Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    N. Shenhav, Y. Segal and A. Notea, Application of Neutron Count Moment Analysis Method to Passive Assay, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 80: 61 – 73 (1982).Google Scholar
  5. [2]
    The concept of the response function does not require that the detector be localized at a single point. It is meaningful for well‐ type counters which entirely surround the sample and for calori‐ metric measurements. For an interesting exploitation of the sensitivity of a Nal well‐type counter to the spatial distribution within the well of a gamma source seeGoogle Scholar
  6. 1.
    F. Cejnar, L. Wilhelmova and I. Kovar, Determination of Radionuclide Two‐phase Distribution by Well‐Type Nal(Tl) Detectors, Int. J. Appl. Rad. Isotopes, 32: 1 – 4 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. For a discussion of calorimetric measurements seeGoogle Scholar
  8. 2.
    J. D. Nutter, F. A. O’Hara and W. W. Rodenburg, The Use of Calorimetry in Nuclear Materials Management, Inst. NucL Mat. Mgt.r 11‐th annual conf., May 1970, Gatlinburg, Tenn., pp. 101– 121.Google Scholar
  9. [3]
    See G. Knoll, Radiation Detection and Measurement, John Wiley, 1979, for a discussion of mean free paths.Google Scholar
  10. [4]
    The probability of shadowing can readily be evaluated analytically in certain circumstances. For a discussion of free paths in a Poisson ensemble of disks or spheres see:Google Scholar
  11. W. Feller,An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications,Vol. II, John Wiley, 1971.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [5]
    Many examples may be found inGoogle Scholar
  13. T. Gozani, Active Nondestructive Assay of Nuclear Materials, U.S. Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., NUREG/CR‐0602, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. 1.
    A. N. Kolmogorov and S. V. Fomin, Introductory Real Analysis, Dover, 1970.Google Scholar
  15. 2.
    P. Kelly and M. L. Weiss, Geometry and Convexity, Wiley Interscience, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. 3.
    S. R. Lay, Convex Sets and Their Applications, John Wiley, 1982.Google Scholar
  17. [8]
    Y. Ben‐Haim and N. Shenhav, The Measurement of Spatially Random Phenomena, S.I.A.M. J. Appl. Math., 44: 1150 – 63 (1984).MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Y. Ben‐Haim and N. Shenhav, The Design of Nondestructive Assay Systems, Int. J. Appl. Rad. Isotopes, 34: 1291 ‐ 1299 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [12]
    N. E. Holden and M. S. Zucker, Plutonium Nuclide Nuclear Data Standards of Safeguards Interest, 6‐th Ann. Symp. Safeguards and Nuclear Mat. Mgt., ESARDA, Venice, May 1984.Google Scholar
  20. [13] 1.
    T. Gozani and D. G. Costello, Isotopic Source Assay System for Nuclear Materials, Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc., 13: 746 – 7 (1970).Google Scholar
  21. 2.
    T. Gozani and D. G. Costello, On the Reduction of Gamma Self‐Shielding Using the Fission Multiplicity Detector, Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc14:809–10 (1971).Google Scholar
  22. 3.
    . M. S. Zucker and E. Karpf, Absolute Calibration of Spontaneous Fission Neutron Sources, 6‐th Ann. Symp. Safeguards and Nuclear Mat. Mgt., ESARDA, Venice, May 1984.Google Scholar
  23. [14]
    See ref. [5] andGoogle Scholar
  24. T. Gozani, Fission Multiplicity Detectors, Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc., 24: 127 – 8 (1976).Google Scholar
  25. [15]
    I. S. Panasyuk, On Measurements of Disintegration Rates of Radioactive Sources by Coincidence Methods, Nucl. Inst. Meth., 31: 314 – 6 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [16]
    T. Gozani, Reduction of Geometry and Matrix Effects by Fast Coincidence Non‐Destructive Assay, Proc. Inst. Nucl. Mat. Mgt., 12: 195 – 206 (1983).Google Scholar
  27. [17]
    The material in this section is discussed from various points of view in ref. [8] and inGoogle Scholar
  28. N. Shenhav and Y. Ben‐Haim, A General Method for the Design of Nondestructive Assay Systems, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 88: 173 – 83 (1984).Google Scholar
  29. 1.
    L. D. Y. Ong et. al., A Look at SNM Measurement Errors Based on Safeguards Inventory Verification Duplicate Samples, Inst. Nucl. Mat. Mgt. 11‐th annual conf., May 1970, Gatlin‐ burg, Tenn., pp. 177–89.Google Scholar
  30. 2.
    J. Lieblein, Generalized Propagation of Error Using a New Approach, ibid, pp. 190–211.Google Scholar
  31. 3.
    T. E. Sampson and R. Gunnink, Propagation of Errors in the Measurement of Plutonium Isotope Composition by Gamma‐Ray Spectroscopy, J. Inst. Nuclear Mat. Mgt., 12: 39 – 48 (1983).Google Scholar
  32. [20]
    For thorough discussion of the fundamentals of the Poisson process seeGoogle Scholar
  33. 1.
    W. F. Feller, An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, Vol. I, John Wiley, 1968.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 2.
    A. Papoulis, Probability Random Variables and Stochastic Processes, McGraw‐Hill, 1965.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. For a discussion of how the Poisson process arises in electronic systems seeGoogle Scholar
  36. 3.
    S. O. Rice, Mathematical Analysis of Random Noise, in Noise and Stochastic Processes,ed. by N. Wax, Dover Pub., 1954.Google Scholar
  37. For a discussion of how Poisson processes arise in neutronic systems seeGoogle Scholar
  38. 4.
    M. M. R. Williams, Random Processes in Nuclear Reactors, Pergamon Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  39. [21] 1.
    J. W. Kormuth, J. F. Gettings, D. B. James, Nondestructive Assay of Plutonium Fuel Plates, Inst. Nucl. Mat. Mgt. 11‐th annual conf., May 1970, Gatlinburg, Tenn., pp. 266–79.Google Scholar
  40. 2.
    T. W. Packer, R. Howsley and E. W. Lees, Measurement of the Enrichment of Uranium Deposits in Centrifuge Pipework, 6‐ th Ann. Symp. Safeguards and Nuclear Mat. Mgt., ESARDA, Venice, May 1984.Google Scholar
  41. 3.
    T. Dragnev, Spectrometric Gamma Absorption Measurements, ibid. Google Scholar
  42. 4.
    N. Hayano, et. al., Evaluation of Leached Hull Monitoring System as the Tokai Reprocessing Plant, ibid. Google Scholar
  43. [22]
    For a good discussion of several passive neutron techniques seeGoogle Scholar
  44. 1.
    J. L. Parker et. al., Passive Assay ‐ Innovations and Applications, Inst. Nucl. Mat. Mgt., 12‐th ann. conf., June 1971, Palm Beach, Fla, pp. 514–47.Google Scholar
  45. 2.
    M. Despres et al, Analysis Code for Plutonium Isotopic‐ Composition Measurements, Int. J. Appl. Rad. Isotopes., 34: 525 – 31 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 3.
    L. Bondar et al, Determination of Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fabrication Plant Wastes by Passive Neutron Assay, 6‐th Ann. Symp. Safeguards and Nuclear Mat. Mgt., ESARDA, Venice, May 1984.Google Scholar
  47. For an example of a passive neutron technique which discusses the effect of spatial distribution of the assayed material in the sample, seeGoogle Scholar
  48. 4.
    A. Notea, Y. Segal, A. Bar‐Ilan, A. Knoll and N. Shenhav, Interpretational Models of Passive Gamma and Neutron Assay Systems, in Monitoring of Pu‐Contaminated Waste, EUR 6629 EN Sept. 1979, pp 363 – 81.Google Scholar
  49. 5.
    A. Knoll, A. Notea, Y. Segal, Probabilistic Interpretation of Nuclear Waste by Passive Gamma Technique, Nucl. Tech., 56: 351 – 60 (1982).Google Scholar
  50. 6.
    M. S. Zucker and E. V. Weinstock, Passive Measurements of Waste in 55 Gallon Drums and Conventional Scrap in 2 Liter Bot‐ties, Inst. Nucl Mat. Mgt., 11‐th annual eonf., May 1970, Gatlin-burg, Tenn., pp. 281–315.Google Scholar
  51. [23] 1.
    R. A. Harlan et. al., Neutron Interrogation of Low‐Specific‐ Activity Wastes with a Reactor, Inst. Nucl. Mat. Mgt., 12‐th annual conf., June 1971, Palm Beach, Fla., pp. 373–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 2.
    M. M. Thorpe, et. al., Active Assay of Fissionable Materials, Inst. Nucl. Mat. Mgt., 12‐th annual conf., June 1971, Palm Beach, Fla., pp. 631–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 3.
    R. A. Harlan et al, Operational Assay for Fissile Material in Crated Nuclear Energy Wastes, 6‐th Ann. Symp. Safeguards and Nuclear Mat. Mgt., ESARDA, Venice, May 1984.Google Scholar
  54. 4.
    P. Dell’Oro et. al., Field Experience on Non‐Destructive Assay of Low‐Enrichment Uranium by Means of Photoneutron Interrogation, ibid. Google Scholar
  55. [24]
    For an example see the reference in note [17].Google Scholar
  56. [25]
    For an interesting design which exploits rotation of the sample and collimation of the detector seeGoogle Scholar
  57. H. O. Menlove et. al., Neutron Interrogation Techniques for Fissionable Material Assay, Inst. Nucl. Mat. Mgt. 11‐th Annual Conf., May 1970, Gatlinburg, Tenn., pp.316‐47.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yakov Ben-Haim
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear EngineeringTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyIsrael

Personalised recommendations