Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 480 (2002) 651–657

Calculation of relative full-energy peak efficiencies

of well-type detectors
Mahmoud I. Abbas*, Younis S. Selim
Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

Received 3 October 2000; received in revised form 26 February 2001; accepted 16 April 2001

Abstract

A mathematical expression to calculate the full-energy peak efficiency of HPGe well-type detectors has been derived
in an integral form. The attenuation of photons by the source itself (self-absorption), the source container and the
detector end cap materials is also included. The calculated values of the efficiency are found to be in good agreement
with the published experimental data. r 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mathematical expressions; Well-type detector; Relative full-energy peak efficiency

1. Introduction several authors [2–6] using the Monte Carlo

In the field of gamma-ray spectroscopy with
hyper pure germanium detectors, applied to
measurements of activity when the sample to be
measured is small and has low radioactivity, the
well-type HPGe detectors are widely used. To
determine the sample activity, the full-energy peak
efficiency is needed. The full-energy peak efficiency
of cylindrical and coaxial gamma detectors for
different source geometries has been extensively
studied by Moens et al. [1]. They also calculated
relative efficiencies and employed them in con-
junction with a measurement in a reference
geometry. This approach will be used in the
present work.
To summarize, calculations of the well-type Ge
(HPGe) detector efficiencies have been reported by
*Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mabbas@physicist.net (M.I. Abbas).
0168-9002/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 8 - 9 0 0 2 ( 0 1 ) 0 1 2 2 5 - 6
method. Blaauw [7] has reported a computer
program to obtain absolute full-energy peak and
total efficiency curves of efficient Ge (HPGe)
detectors by solving a system of equations using
the non-linear least-squares method. Recently,
Blaauw [8] has fitted two experimental spectra
for obtaining full-energy peak efficiency and peak
to total ratio. In addition, Sima [9] has used an
exact analytical relation for the mean detector
thickness, combined with approximate formulae
describing the interactions in the source and in the
materials interposed between the source and the
detector for the computations of the total effi-
ciency of well-type Ge detectors. Wang et al. [10]
have presented accurate experimental measure-
ments for the relative full-energy peak efficiency of
a well-type HPGe detector using a set of cylindrical
sources with different volumes. In addition, they
used a computer program for the calculations of the
effective-solid-angle and the relative full-energy
652 M.I. Abbas, Y.S. Selim / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 480 (2002) 651–657

peak efficiencies (relative to reference geometry),

but they did not report the absolute full-energy
peak efficiencies. Also, they needed to adjust the
detector geometrical parameters to achieve agree-
ment with their calculated relative efficiencies. The
authors of the above-mentioned work have used the
geometrical efficiency eg ð¼ O=4p; O is the solid
angle) adding to it the attenuation factor fatt and
the efficiency factor feff to obtain the full-energy
peak efficiency ep : Nevertheless, they have not
considered any changes in the limits of the
azimuthal angle ðfÞ; but have always carried out
the integration over it from 0 to 2p: While this angle
ðfÞ depends totally on the value of the polar angle,
ðyÞ it, in fact, has more than one limit to
accommodate the changes in that angle (both of
them will be discussed in detail in Section 2.1). This
discrepancy which was not included in their
mathematical treatments contributes a lot to the
lack of accuracy in their theoretical calculations.
In this paper, following our previous works on
cylindrical NaI(Tl), coaxial HPGe and parallele-
piped detectors [11–15], mathematical expressions
to calculate the relative full-energy peak efficiency Fig. 1. The schematic diagram of the well-type detector for a
non-axial point source.
of well-type HPGe detectors using non-axial point
and cylindrical sources are introduced in an
integral form. The values of the polar angle ðyÞ; the azimuthal ðfÞ angles define the direction of
the azimuthal angle ðfÞ and the photon path length incidence of a gamma-ray photon. The full-energy
(d) through the detector active medium are peak efficiency of an emitted gamma photon of
determined with high precision. This paper is energy Eg from an off axis radiating point source,
organized as follows. In Section 2, the mathema- is derived as [1, 16–21]
tical expressions of the efficiency is presented in two Z Z
1
different cases, taking into account the attenuation e¼ fatt ð1  emd Þsin y df dy ð1Þ
of the photon by the source itself (in case of a 4p y f
cylindrical source), the source container and the where m is the photopeak coefficient [22,23] (which
detector end cap materials. A comparison between represents the only part contributing to the
the calculated relative efficiency using the formulae photopeak, i.e. photoelectric coefficient + the
derived in this work with published experimental fractions of the incoherent and pair production
data illustrating the validity of the present math- coefficients leading to the photopeak) of the well-
ematical formulae is presented in Section 3. type detector active medium at the corresponding
Finally, Section 4 outlines the conclusions. energy and d is the photon path length through the
detector active medium. Finally, the attenuation of
2. Mathematical viewpoint photons by the source itself (self-absorption) or by
any materials between the source and the detector
2.1. The case of a non-axial point source active volume is indicated by [1]
P
The location of the point source P is defined by  mj dj

the quantities ðr; hÞ; see Fig. 1. The polar ðyÞ and fatt ¼ e j
ð2Þ
 M.I. Abbas, Y.S. Selim / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 480 (2002) 651–657 653

where mj is the attenuation coefficient of the jth p K  h0

absorber for a gamma-ray photon with energy Eg y7
4 ¼ þ tan1 ð8dÞ
2 Ro 7r
[24] and dj is the path length of the gamma photon
through the jth absorber (this parameter will be p K  h0
described in detail in Section 2.3). y7
5 ¼ þ tan1 : ð8eÞ
2 Ri 7r
In the foregoing Eq. (1), the integration limits
changed in steps, in accordance with the values of For a certain value of y; the azimuthal angle f
d; y and f: For each photon emitted from the takes the values
isotropic radiating point source, there are two
main cases to be considered; The 1st one having (i) f ¼ 2p for 0pypy1 ð9aÞ
two sub-cases and the 2nd one having three sub-
cases to find the photon path length d through the
well-type detector active medium. The incident (ii) f ¼ p for
photon may enter the well-type detector
(i) bottom1 and emerge from
(1) bottom2 (1) y7 7
3 pypy5 and y7 7
3 oy2

L (2) y7 7
2 pypy5 and y7 7
3 > y2 ð9bÞ
d1 ¼ ð3Þ
cos y
and
(2) side2
Y h0 (iii) f ¼ 2fmax for
d2 ¼  ð4aÞ
sin y cos y
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Y ¼ r cos f þ R2o  r2 sin2 f ð4bÞ (1) y1 pypy7
3 and y7 7
3 oy2

(2) y1 pypy7
2 and y7 7
3 > y2 ð9cÞ
h0 ¼ h þ h0 ð4cÞ
r2  R2o þ ðh0 þ LÞ2 tan2 y
(ii) side7
1 and emerge from fmax ¼ cos1 : ð10Þ
(1) bottom2 2rðh0 þ LÞtan y
h0 þ L Ri 7r Taking these situations into consideration, the
d37 ¼  ð5Þ final expression of the efficiency of a well-type
cos y sin y
detector for a non-axial point source is given as
(2) side2
follows.
Ro  Ri
d4 ¼ ð6Þ
sin y 2.1.1. The non-axial point source lies in zone-I
(3) top 7
(y7 7
3 oy2 )
Ri 7r K  h0
d57 ¼   : ð7Þ
sin y cos y 1 X5
e¼ ½B1 þ B2 þ ðBþ 
i þ Bi Þ ð11Þ
The polar angle ðyÞ takes the steps 4p i¼3
Ri  r
y1 ¼ tan1 ð8aÞ where
h0 þ L Z y1
Ro 7r B1 ¼ 2p f1 dy ð12aÞ
y7
2 ¼ tan
1
ð8bÞ 0
h0 þ L
Z yþ
Ri 7r 3

y7
3 ¼ tan1 0 ð8cÞ B2 ¼ 2 fmax f1 dy ð12bÞ
h y1
654 M.I. Abbas, Y.S. Selim / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 480 (2002) 651–657

Z y7
2
B7
3 ¼p f37 dy ð12cÞ
y7
3

Z y7
4
B7
4 ¼ p f4 dy ð12dÞ
y7
2

Z y7
5
B7
5 ¼ p f57 dy: ð12eÞ
y7
4

2.1.2. The non-axial point source lies in zone-II

ðyþ þ  
3 > y2 and y3 oy2 Þ

1 X5
e¼ Mi ð13Þ
4p i¼1

where
M1 ¼ B1 ð14aÞ
Z yþ
2
M2 ¼ 2 fmax f1 dy ð14bÞ
y1

Z yþ Z p
3
M3 ¼ f2 df dy þ B
3 ð14cÞ Fig. 2. The schematic diagram of the well-type detector for a
yþ
2
0 cylindrical source.

Z yþ
4
M4 ¼ p f4 dy þ B ð14dÞ Z y7
4 4
yþ
3 W47 ¼p f 4 df dy ð16dÞ
y7
3
M5 ¼ Bþ 
5 þ B5 : ð14eÞ
W57 ¼ B7
5 ð16eÞ
with
2.1.3. The non-axial point source lies in zone-III
ðy7 7
3 > y2 Þ fi ¼ fatt ð1  emdi Þsin y; i ¼ 1; 2 and 4 ð17aÞ
7
X
5 fi7 ¼ fatt ð1  emdi Þsin y; i ¼ 3 and 5: ð17bÞ
1
e¼ ½W1 þ W2 þ ðWiþ þ Wi Þ ð15Þ
4p i¼3
2.2. The case of a cylindrical source
where
W1 ¼ B1 ð16aÞ The derived analytical expression of the effi-
ciency of a well-type detector arising from a
W2 ¼ M2 ð16bÞ coaxial cylindrical source, with radius S and
height H (see Fig. 2), is given by
Z y7 Z p Z Hþh0 Z S
3 2
W37 ¼ f2 df dy ð16cÞ c
e ¼ e r dr dh ð18Þ
y7
2
0 HS 2 h0 0
 M.I. Abbas, Y.S. Selim / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 480 (2002) 651–657 655

Table 1
The photon path lengths through the source-detector systema

dj y

dS dSC dDC
h tB 0 0
F y3 ryry3þ
cos y cos y
YðSÞ YðS þ tW Þ  YðSÞ 0 0
F y37 ryry57
sin y siny 
tW ð1 þ r2 =2S2 sin2 fÞ
E
sin y
tDC 00 00
F F y3 ryry3þ
cos y
YðR þ tDC Þ  YðRÞ 00 00
y37 ryry57
sin y 
tDC ð1 þ r2 =2S2 sin2 fÞ
E
sin y
a
YðxÞ ¼ YðRo Þ; see Eq. (4b), tB : the source container bottom thickness, tW : the source container wall thickness, tDC : the detector
0 0 00 00
end cap thickness, y37 ¼ tan1 ½ðS7rÞ=h; y57 ¼ p=2 þ tan1 ½ðH  hÞ=ðS7rÞ; y37 ¼ tan1 ½ðR7rÞ=h; y57 ¼ p=2 þ tan1
½ðK  hÞ=ðR7rÞ:

where e is the full-energy peak efficiency of an off- Table 2

axis radiating point source and has been identified Parameters of the sources used by Wang et al. [10]
before in Section 2.1. Parameter (cm) Source volume (ml)

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

2.3. Determination of the absorption of photons
Radius (S) 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
For the given (point and cylindrical) sources and Height (H) 0.414 0.828 1.242 1.656
Wall thickness (tW) 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
photon energy, the photon attenuation by the
Bottom thickness (tB) 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
source itself (cylindrical source only), the source
container (cylindrical source only) and the detector
end cap materials is a function of the photon path
length (dS ; dSC and dDC ; respectively) through integration increases by increasing its interval
these materials. The values of these three path number n; the integrations converge very well at
lengths dS ; dSC and dDC depend mainly on the n ¼ 20: A listing of the program is available with
value of the polar angle ðyÞ: Table 1 shows that the author. Tables 4–6 show the comparison
there are two different values for each path length between the calculated (using the present formu-
corresponding to a certain range for the polar lae) and the measured [10] efficiency values which
angle ðyÞ: were performed by choosing the calculated and
measured efficiencies with 1.0 ml cylindrical source
as the reference one. In addition, the percentage
3. Validation of the present method deviation ðRC  Rm Þ=RC % between calculated
(RC ) and measured (Rm ) efficiency ratios is also
In this study, a set of cylindrical sources with included, where
volumes 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 ml (see Table 2), were ectheo
used by Wang et al. [10] with a well-type HPGe RC ¼ ð19aÞ
ectheo ð1:0 mlÞ
detector (see Table 3) to measure the efficiency of
the experimental values. The numerical evaluation
ecexpt
of the integrals is performed using the simple Rm ¼ c ð19bÞ
trapezoid rule. Although the accuracy of the eexpt ð1:0 mlÞ
656 M.I. Abbas, Y.S. Selim / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 480 (2002) 651–657

Table 3 Table 6
Parameters of the well-type HPGe detector used by Wang et al. Comparison between calculated RC and measured Rm efficiency
[10] ratios for the 2.0 ml source

Crystal radius (cm) 2.65 Eg (keV) Present work Ref. [10] ðRC  Rm Þ=RC (%)
Crystal length (cm) 5.50 (RC) (Rm)
Radius of the crystal well (cm) 1.05
Length of the crystal well (cm) 3.60 22.1 0.9793 0.978 0.13
End cap in the well: material A1 36.4 0.9819 0.980 0.19
End cap in the well: thickness (cm) 0.05 59.5 0.9650 0.963 0.21
End cap radius in the well (cm) 0.80 88.03 0.9444 0.943 0.15
Distance crystal well-bottom of end cap (cm) 0.40 122.1 0.9395 0.939 0.05
Dead layer thickness inside the well 0.00 320.1 0.9299 0.927 0.31
661.6 0.9196 0.918 0.18
834.8 0.9230 0.922 0.11
Table 4 1115.5 0.9218 0.920 0.19
Comparison between calculated RC and measured Rm efficiency 1534.7 0.9036 0.903 0.07
ratios for the 0.5 ml source

Eg (keV) Present work Ref. [10] ðRC  Rm Þ=RC (%)

(RC) (Rm) mathematical formulae for the computation of the
22.1 1.0017 1.000 0.17 well-type detector relative efficiencies. The present
36.4 1.0045 1.003 0.15 values of the calculated relative efficiencies are
59.5 1.0213 1.020 0.13 much better than that of Wang et al. [10] and, in
88.03 1.0212 1.020 0.115 particular, our values are obtained without any
122.1 1.0249 1.024 0.09
adjustment of the detector geometrical parameters.
320.1 1.0493 1.042 0.70
661.6 1.0402 1.035 0.5
834.8 1.0471 1.044 0.3
1115.5 1.0372 1.036 0.12
4. Conclusions
1534.7 1.0313 1.030 0.13

Mathematical expressions to calculate the rela-

tive full-energy peak efficiency of a well-type
Table 5 HPGe detector have been derived in the case of
Comparison between calculated RC and measured Rm efficiency
non-axial and cylindrical sources. In addition, the
ratios for the 1.5 ml source
attenuation of photons by the source itself (self-
Eg (keV) Present work Ref. [10] ðRC  Rm Þ=RC (%) absorption), the source container and the detector
(RC) (Rm)
end cap materials is also presented in simple and
22.1 0.9990 0.997 0.2 straightforward mathematical expressions. The
36.4 0.9950 0.992 0.3 agreement between the values computed in this
59.5 0.9931 0.990 0.31 work and the published experimental data [10] is
88.03 0.9859 0.984 0.14
122.1 0.9711 0.970 0.11 excellent, the highest percentage deviation being
320.1 0.9643 0.960 0.45 less than 1.0%. In addition, it is much better than
661.6 0.9630 0.960 0.31 that of Wang et al. [10], since no adjustment of the
834.8 0.9658 0.964 0.19 geometrical parameters of the used HPGe detector
1115.5 0.9679 0.967 0.09
was applied.
1534.7 0.9620 0.961 0.1

References
where ectheo and ecexpt are the calculated (using
Eq. (18)) and the measured [10] full-energy peak [1] L. Moens, J. De Donder, Lin Xi-lei, F. De Corte, A. De
efficiencies, respectively. The results presented in Wispelaere, A. Simonits, J. Hoste, Nucl. Instr. and Meth.
Tables 4–6 confirm the validity of the present 187 (1981) 451.
 M.I. Abbas, Y.S. Selim / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 480 (2002) 651–657 657

[2] M. Decombaz, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A 312 (1992) 152. [14] M.I. Abbas, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 54 (2001) 761.
[3] O. Sima, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 47 (1996) 919. [15] M.I. Abbas, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 60 (2001) 3.
[4] S. Kamboj, B. Kahn, Health Phys. 70 (1996) 512. [16] T. Nakamura, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 86 (1970) 163.
[5] O. Sima, D. Arnold, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 47 (1996) 889. [17] M. Irfan, R.D.G. Prasad, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 88 (1970)
[6] J.M. Laborie, G.L. Petit, D. Abt, M. Girard, Appl. 165.
Radiat. Isot. 53 (2000) 57. [18] F. Hajnal, C. Klusek, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 122 (1974)
[7] M. Blaauw, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A 332 (1993) 493. 559.
[8] M. Blaauw, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A 419 (1998) 146. [19] E. Waibel, B. Grosswendt, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 131
[9] O. Sima, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A 450 (2000) 98. (1975) 133.
[10] T.K. Wang, I.M. Hou, C.L. Tseng, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. [20] S.N. Kaplanis, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 29 (1978) 543.
A 425 (1999) 504. [21] R. Rieppo, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 179 (1981) 155.
[11] Y.S. Selim, M.I. Abbas, M.A. Fawzy, Radiat. Phys. Chem. [22] A. Ahmed, M. Sc. Thesis, Alexandria University, Egypt,
53 (1998) 589. 2000.
[12] M.I. Abbas, M.M. Basiouni, Am. Inst. Phys. CP450 (1999) [23] Y.S. Selim, A. Ahmed, A. El-Khatib, A. Fawzy, Egypt. J.
268. Phys., in press.
[13] Y.S. Selim, M.I. Abbas, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 58 (2000) 15. [24] J.H. Hubbell, S.M. Seltzer, NISTIR 5632 (1995).