[ RadSafe ] Re: Linac Shield calculation/NCRP 151 and others..

Thu Jul 9 02:24:11 CDT 2009

Mark,
I suggest you take a look at the presence of neutrons (I know, popular
belief is not to worry below 10 MeV, but from experience I can guarantee
they are present far below that energy level) and if the shielding is
designed to deal with them. If not... NCRP151 has a section on n-shielding
with a very cost effective solution: fire retardant plywood!
Also make sure, they electronics of the ionization chamber setup are immune
to interference from the accelerator frequency pulses. 

Regards,

Aad van der Kooij (dep. RPO TU Delft)

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Dale Boyce
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2009 03:39
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Linac Shield calculation/NCRP 151 and others..

Mark,

I believe the 2.35 density is for portland cement and the appropriat 
admixture of sand. Most shielding walls also contain aggregate (rocks) or in

some rare cases iron ore to increase the density. You might want to check 
out what the most commonly used aggregate type is in your area.

It is also likely that there was some air entrained in the concrete when it 
was poured. They use large submersible vibators in construction to get the 
big bubbles out, but once they reach a certain size i.e. small they won't 
come to the surface.

Another factor to consider is that there should be rebar in the concrete. It

surprises me that you are getting lower readings than the calculations.

If it is a big issue one might consider taking a core sample from a safe 
place in the shielding, and measure the density.

I agree with Joe that a Monte Carlo run would probably be a good thing to 
do.

Another question is beam divergence. How is that treated in NCRP?

Dale
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Ramsay" <mark.ramsay at ionactive.co.uk>
To: <JPreisig at aol.com>
Cc: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 8:25 AM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: Linac Shield calculation/NCRP 151 and others..

Thanks Joseph

I did consider this and looked at attenuation factors and explicitly
build-up.

However, I believe the NCRP 151 (and other references) use TVT and TVTe
(equilibrium), where TVTe accounts for spectral  changes in the inner
part of the shield (and it is used in a similar way to buildup). So I
think this has been considered but is not the cause of the issue. The
literature also quotes that primary barrier TVT's etc are
'conservatively safe'.

Since writing the initial query I did go back and look at density. A
density of 2.2 g/cm3 (instead of the required 2.35) would produce the
effect I have seen. Therefore I have asked to look at the density data
again to see what error margin they work to (the difference in density
might not look much to them but its effect on TVT / TVTe is enough to
double the dose rate).

I am also aware that the 'dose equivalent' calculated in NCRP 151 is not
the same as effective dose equivalent (the quantity measured by the ion
chamber) - so I am not expecting something that is numerically the same,
but was expecting something closer than I got. One hunch I have is
simply that most people build bunkers with enough factor of safety such
that changes of a factor of 2 (in IDR) are just not noticeable (or are
ignored). i.e. if the IDR had been say 1 micro Sv/h then doubling this
to 2 micro Sv/h would still have been in the normal variability of the
ion chamber close to background levels.

Thanks

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of JPreisig at aol.com
Sent: 06 July 2009 14:54
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Linac Shield calculation/NCRP 151 and others..

Hi Radsafers and Mark Ramsay,

     Perhaps, for the case of gammas/photons interacting with a concrete

shield
wall, one might need to include Buildup factors in the hand calculation.
For information on Buildup factors, please refer to Cember, the original

Rad Health
Handbook <USA>, Schleien's version of the Rad Health Handbook, etc.
A factor of 2 might sound right for such a Buildup factor.

     Please do this calculation yourself if possible.

     Best wishes...        Regards,    Joseph R. <Joe> Preisig, Ph.D.

<BR><BR>**************<BR>Looking for love this summer? Find it now on
AOL Personals.</HTML>
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:

http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ 

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/