Skip Navigation


Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access originally published online on May 12, 2006
Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2006 118(2):144-154; doi:10.1093/rpd/ncl013
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
118/2/144    most recent
ncl013v1
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Siebert, B. R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Zankl, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Siebert, B. R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Zankl, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Pitfalls and modelling inconsistencies in computational radiation dosimetry: lessons learnt from the QUADOS intercomparison. Part I: Neutrons and uncertainties

B. R. L. Siebert1, R. J. Tanner2,*, J.-L. Chartier3, S. Agosteo4, B. Großwendt1, G. Gualdrini5, S. Ménard3, I. Kodeli6, G. P. Leuthold7, R. A. Price8, H. Tagziria9, M. Terrissol10 and M. Zankl7

1 PTB, Postfach 3345, D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
2 Radiation Protection Division, HPA, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0RG, UK
3 IRSN, BP 17 F-92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses, Cedex, France
4 Dipartimento Ingegneria Nucleare, Politecnico di Milano, v. Ponzio 34/3 I-20133 Milano, Italy
5 ENEA ION-IRP, Via dei Colli 16, I-40136 Bologna, Italy
6 IAEA representative at OECD/NEA Data Bank, 12 bd. des Iles, F-92130 Issy-les-Moulinaux, France
7 GSF, Ingolstadter Landstrasse 1, D85764 Neuherberg, Germany
8 City University, Department of Radiography, Charterhouse Square, London, UK
9 Joint Research Centre, Ispra site, Via E. Fermi 1, I-21020 Ispra (VA), Italy
10 CPAT, University Paul Sabatier, 118 route de Narbonne, F-31062, Toulouse, Cedex 4, France

* Corresponding author: Rick.Tanner{at}NRPB.ORG

The QUADOS EU cost shared action conducted an intercomparison on the usage of numerical methods in radiation protection and dosimetry. The eight problems proposed were intended to test the usage of Monte Carlo and deterministic methods by assessing the accuracy with which the codes are applied and also the methods used to evaluate uncertainty in the answer gained through these methods. The overall objective was to spread good practice through the community and give users information on how to assess the uncertainties associated with their calculated results.


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
J. C. McDonald
Time for More Dosimetry Comparisons?
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, October 2, 2008; (2008) ncn250v1.
[Full Text] [PDF]


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.