Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by El Messaoudi, M.
Right arrow Articles by Cherkaoui, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by El Messaoudi, M.
Right arrow Articles by Cherkaoui, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Radiation Protection Dosimetry 108:247-253 (2004)
Radiation Protection Dosimetry Vol. 108 No. 3 © Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved

Performance of three different unfolding procedures connected to bonner sphere data

M. El Messaoudi*, A. Chouak, M. Lferde and R. Cherkaoui

Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire, Département de Physique, Faculté des Sciences, Avenue Ibn Battouta B.P 1014, Rabat, Morocco

* Corresponding author: melmessaoudi{at}yahoo.com

This paper presents the results obtained in a comparison of three neutron spectrum unfolding procedures based on the SAND, MINCHI and UNFANA computer programs. The calculations were performed with data obtained previously from measurements using the PTB Bonner sphere spectrometer and taken from the literature; the neutron dosimetry was done with the Leake rem-meter. The evaluation of some spectrum hardness quantifiers is also reported. The codes give comparable neutron spectrum results. Relative to ambient dose equivalent derived from the Bonner sphere system, as a function of the unfolding code used, the Leake calculated readings were typically 1.16 to 1.91 and 1.58 to 2.69 times larger for the environment of a transport cask with spent fuel elements (Clab) and inside the containment building of a pressurised water reactor (Ring-G), respectively, depending on the calibration fields.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.