Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding and quantifying the systematic effects of clutter within a radiation detection scene

  • Published:
Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Because of low signal-to-noise ratios, the main difficultly in real-world detection scenarios is distinguishing between benign sources and potentially-threatening radioactive materials. The variability in observed signal during a radiation detection search operation can be contributed to the stochastic nature of the underlying physics and the systematic errors inherent to the detection systems employed. This variability is compounded for dynamic detection scenarios, where objects, referred to as clutter, traverse through the primary detection scene, introducing potential suppressions in the observed signal due to the attenuation of background radiation. This study examines the impact that clutter, namely automobiles such as small utility vehicles, sedans, and trucks, produces on the observed signal in a 2 in. × 4 in. × 16 in. NaI(Tl) detector. The clutter is identified and tracked in the detection scene using a time-synced video camera and a 2-D light distance and ranging contextual sensors. Two experiments were performed on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory reservation: one using a distributed source within the scene to understand the systematics of detecting and analyzing the clutter, and the second experiment mimicking an urban environment with large buildings positioned on either side of a roadway. The experiments exhibited unique results in the amount of signal suppression and variability of the cluttered signal, both demonstrating an observable suppression from the clutter-free background. These results reveal a new potential category of signal noise intrinsic to real-world detection scenarios that should be considered when establishing detection thresholds based on expected values.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lei E (2017) Robust detection of radiation threat. In: IEEE nuclear science symposium and medical imaging conference

  2. Anderson KK, Jarman KD, Mann ML, Pfund DM, Runkle RC (2008) Discriminating nuclear threats from benign sources in gamma-ray spectra using a spectral comparison ratio method. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 276(3):713–718

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Runkle RC, Tardiff MF, Anderson KK, Carlson DK, Smith LE (2006) Analysis of spectroscopic radiation portal monitor data using principal components analysis. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 53(3):1418–1423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chandy KM, Bunn JJ, Liu AH (2010) Models and algorithms for radiation detection. Department of Computer Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ghelman M et al (2009) Improving the detecting performances of radiation portal monitors using matched filter algorithm and generalized likelihood ratio test. In: IEEE nuclear science symposium conference record, pp 918–919

  6. Du Q, Wei W, May D, Younan NH (2010) Noise-adjusted principal component analysis for buried radioactive target detection and classification. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 57(6):3760–3767

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Archer DE, Johnson JO, Miller TM, Nicholson AD, Patton BW, Peplow DE (2015) Systematic assessment of neutron and gamma backgrounds relevant to operational modeling and detection technology implementation. Report no. ORNL/TM-2014/687, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN

  8. Pfund DM, Jarman KD, Milbrath BD, Kiff SD, Sidor DE (2010) Low count anomaly detection at large standoff distances. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 57(1):309–316

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Runkle RC, Smith LE, Peurrung AJ (2009) The photon haystack and emerging radiation detection technology. J Appl Phys 106(4):7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sandness GA, Schweppe JE, Hensley WK, Borgardt JD, Mitchell AL (2009) Accurate modeling of the terrestrial gamma-ray background for homeland security applications. In: IEEE nuclear science symposium conference record, pp 126–133

  11. Hutcheson AL, Phlips BF, Wulf EA, Mitchell LJ, Johnson WN, Leas BE (2013) Maritime detection of radiological/nuclear threats with hybrid imaging system. In: IEEE international conference on technologies for homeland security, pp. 360–363

  12. Minty BRS (1997) Fundamentals of airborne gamma-ray spectrometry. J Aust Geol Geophys 17(2):39–50

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dickson BL, Scott KM (1997) Interpretation of aerial gamma-ray surveys—adding the geochemical factors. AGSO J Aust Geol Geophys 17(2):187–200

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. US Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Evaluation of EPA’s guidelines for technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials: report to congress. Report No. EPA 402-R-00-01

  15. Haquin G (2008) Natural radioactivity and radon in building materials. In: 12th congress international radiation protection association. Buenos Aires, Argentina, pp 1–13

  16. Aucott TJ, Bandstra MS, Negut V, Chivers DH, Cooper RJ, Vetter K (2013) Routine surveys for gamma-ray background characterization. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 60(2):1147–1150

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Aguayo E, Kouzes R, Orrell J, Ankney A, Troy M, Berguson T Cosmic ray interactions in shielding materials. Report No. PNNL-20693, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352

  18. Grieder PKF (2001) Cosmic rays at earth. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (2015) Portable radiation portal monitors market survey report. Report No. MSR-0315-508, Department of Homeland Security

  20. Bandstra MS et al (2016) RadMAP: the radiological multi-sensor analysis platform. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect A Accel Spectrom Detect Assoc Equip 840:59–68

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Aucott T (2014) Gamma-ray background variability in mobile detectors. University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  22. Quiter BJ, Ramakrishnan L, Bandstra MS (2015) GRDC: a collaborative framework for radiological background and contextual data analysis. Report No. LBNL-1003947, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

  23. Mitchell LJ et al (2009) Mobile imaging and spectroscopic threat identification (MISTI): system overview. In: IEEE nuclear science symposium conference

  24. Ubiquiti Networks Ubiquiti networks. https://www.ubnt.com/. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.

  25. Scanse LLC. Sweep 2-D LiDAR. http://scanse.io/. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.

  26. Blase RC, Llera K, Luspay-Kuti A, Libardoni M (2014) The importance of detector acquisition rate in comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC × GC). Sep Sci Technol 49(6):847–853

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Zuberi S (2003) Digital signal processing of scintillator pulses in nuclear physics techniques. Senior thesis, University of Rochester

  28. Currie AL (1968) Limits for qualitative detection and quantitative determination. Anal Chem 40:586–593

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by the Enabling Capabilities for Nonproliferation and Arms Control Program Area of the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development, National Nuclear Security Administration.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tennessee, 1412 Circle Drive, Knoxville, TN, 37916, USA

    Ian R. Stewart

  2. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1 Bethel Valley Road, Building 3500, MS-6010, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831-6010, USA

    Andrew D. Nicholson, Daniel E. Archer, Michael J. Willis, Mathew W. Swinney, Irakli Garishvili & William R. Ray

Authors
  1. Ian R. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew D. Nicholson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel E. Archer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael J. Willis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mathew W. Swinney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Irakli Garishvili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. William R. Ray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian R. Stewart.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stewart, I.R., Nicholson, A.D., Archer, D.E. et al. Understanding and quantifying the systematic effects of clutter within a radiation detection scene. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 318, 727–737 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-018-6159-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-018-6159-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation