• Journal of the Korean Society for Nondestructive Testing
• /
• v.19 no.6
• /
• pp.433-438
• /
• 1999

Magneto-acoustic emission (MAE) energy and hardness were measured in the reactor pressure vessel steel (SA508 Steel) for the various neutron fluence, irradiated dose up to $10^{18}n/cm^2$. The hardness was nearly a constant up to $10^{16}n/cm^2$, but it was rapidly increased with an increase of the neutron irradiation above $10^{17}n/cm^2$. It may be considered that the increase of hardness is due to the hindrance of dislocation motion induced defect clusters by irradiation. On the other hand. the MAE energy was slowly decreased as the neutron irradiation increased up to $10^{16}n/cm^2$ and it was rapidly decreased with an increase of the neutron irradiation above $10^{17}n/cm^2$. The decrease of the MAE energy may be considered as an increase of the defect clusters which is very sensitive to the $90^{\circ}$ domain wall motion. Furthermore, the change of MAE energy and hardness had nearly a linear relationship. but the change of MAE energy was more significant than the change of the hardness. Therefore, MAE may be considered as a very useful technique for the nondestructive evaluation of irradiation damage.

• Analytical Science and Technology
• /
• v.19 no.5
• /
• pp.400-406
• /
• 2006

Hydrogen analysis by elastic recoil detection has been performed utilizing polyimide film as a reference sample of known hydrogen content assuming the soundness of ion beam current integration. However beam current integration at higher incidence angle is not reliable. Scattering yield per unit fluence by current integration which is normalized per unit path length decreases as the sample tilt angle is getting higher. Moreover because beam current integration at high tilt angle is incomplete, hydrogen evaluation is very risky by direct comparison of sequentially collected recoil spectra between reference and target sample. In this study, primary ion beam dose is determined by backscattering spectrum that is collected simultaneously with recoil spectrum instead of ion beam current integration in order to reduce uncertainty arising in the process of current integration and to enhance the reliability of quantitative analysis. Three test samples are selected $-7.6{\mu}m$ polyimide film, hydrogen implanted silicondioxide and Au deposited carbon wafer- and analyzed by two methods and compared.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.267-276
• /
• 1998

Any detector inserted into a phantom should have such a geometry that it caused as small as possible perturbation of the electron fluence. Plane parallel chambers meet this requirement better than other chambers of configurations. IAEA protocol recommends the use of plane parallel chambers for this reason. However, the cylindrical chambers are widely used for convenient. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the absorbed dose due to the differences of four different dosimetry protocols such as IAEA protocol using cylindrical chamber, TG 21 protocol using cylindrical chamber, Markus protocol using plane parallel chamber, and TG 39 report for the calibration of plane parallel chamber in electron beams. Depth-ionization measurements for the electron beams of nominal energy 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 MeV from Siemens accelerator with a 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size were made using a radiation field analyser with 0.125 cc ion chamber. Dosimetric measurements by IAEA and TG 21 protocol were made with a farmer type ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. Dosimetric measurements by Markus protocol were made with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. The cavity-gas calibration factor for the plane parallel chamber was obtained with the use of 18 MeV electron beam as guided by TG 39 report. Dosimetric measurements by TG 39 were performed with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. For all the energies and protocols, measurements were made along the central axis of the distance of 100 cm (SSD = 100 cm) with 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size at the depth of d$_{max}$ for each electron beam, respectively. In the case of 18 MeV, the discrepancy of 0.9 % between IAEA and TG 21 was found and the two protocols were agreed within 0.7 % for other energies. In the case of 18 MeV and 6 MeV, the discrepancies of $\pm$ 0.8 % between Markus and TG 39 was found, respectively and the two protocols were agreed within 0.5 % for other energies. Since the discrepancy of 1.6 % between cylindrical and plane parallel chamber was found for 18 MeV, it is suggested to get the calibration factor using other method as guided. by TG 39.9.