Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology

ISSN: 0022-3131 (Print) 1881-1248 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnst20

Determination of Dead Times in the Recently

Introduced Hybrid G-M Counter Dead Time Model

Sang Hoon Lee, Robin P. Gardner & Moosung Jae

To cite this article: Sang Hoon Lee, Robin P. Gardner & Moosung Jae (2004) Determination of
Dead Times in the Recently Introduced Hybrid G-M Counter Dead Time Model, Journal of Nuclear
Science and Technology, 41:sup4, 156-159, DOI: 10.1080/00223131.2004.10875643

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2004.10875643

Published online: 27 Aug 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2434

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tnst20
Journal of NUCLEAR. SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY, Supplement 4, p. 156-159 (March 20(4)

Determination of Dead Times in the Recently Introduced Hybrid

G-M Counter Dead Time Model

Sang Hoon LEE 1,', Robin P. GARDNER2 and Moosung JAB 1

llnnovative Technology Center for Radiation Safety (iTRS), Hanyang University
17 Haengdang, Sungdong, Seoul 133-791, Korea
2Center for Engineering Applications ofRadioisotopes (CEAR), Dept. ofNuclear Engineering
North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7909, Raleigh, NC 27605-7909, USA

To extend the usable range of the G-M counters the hybrid G-M counter dead time model adopting paralyzable and
non-paralyzable dead times (Tp and 'iNP ) at the same time has been introduced and the relationship between true and
observed counting rates (n and m) is more accurately expressed in the hybrid model. Other than the decaying source
method, which requires a research reactor, the usual way of detennining G-M counter dead time is the split source
method. To find two dead times of the hybrid model a modified split source method was suggested. The major
modification to the original method includes adoption of two split sources and iterative scheme due to transcendental
nature of the hybrid model. The modified split source method was tested using Monte Carlo G-M counter simulator,
GMSIM, based on ideal hybrid dead time model. Possibility of using interval distribution between observed events and
non- Poisson variance characteristics of G-M counters in finding the dead times was also presented.
KEY WORDS: G-M counter dead time, paralyzable model, non-paralyzable model, hybrid model, Monte Carlo

I. Introduction In the paralyzable modeI 9- 12), or Type II model as given

The G-M counter is widely used in monitoring radiation
fields since it is inexpensive and versatile in detecting
radiations. It only suffers from the disadvantages that it is
not capable of spectrometry and high counting rates. The
first disadvantage comes from the basic detection
mechanism of the G-M counter which cannot be modified.
However, it is possible that the accurate useful counting
rate range of G-M counter systems can be extended if the
high counting rate behavior due to dead time effects can be
accurately described (Lee and Gardner, 2000, 1)).
Relatively long dead time of the G-M counter sets major
drawbacks on the use of the counter at very high radiation
counting rates. The deviation between true and observed
counting rates are usually explained in limited ways with
the paralyzable or the non-paralyzable model 2).
In the non-paralyzable model, or Type I model as given
in Feller (1948, 3)) and Evans (1955, 4)), the dead time is
non-extended and radiation events occurring during the
detector dead times are not counted. The important
relationship between true and observed counting rates is
given by:
n
m=---
l+n'fNP
(1)
where m is the observed counting rate in counts/s, n is the
true counting rate in counts/s, and 'i p. is the non-
paralyzable counter dead time in sec H:
The detailed
characteristics of the model has been investigated in the
references 6), 7) and 8).
•Corresponding Author, Tel: +82-2-2290-1792, Fax: +82-2-2296-
8154, E-mail: slee@itrs.hanyang.ac.kr
in Feller and Evans, when a radiation event occurs during
the detector dead time, the event is not counted but the
dead time is extended. The relationship between true and
observed counting rates is given by:
(2)
where 'ip . is the paralyzable counter dead time in s.
The paralyzable and non-paralyzable models have been
successful in a limited fashion and it has been suggested
that the true dead time characteristics of the G-M counter
falls somewhere between them.
There have been a few tries to extend the useful
counting rate range of the G-M counter further by
introducing refined dead time correction models. Gardner
and Liu (1997, 13)) proposed a modified dead time for the
paralyzable model that is expressed as a function of true
counting rate. It is
(3)
where a and b are fitting parameters. Albert and Nelson
(1953, 14)) introduced a probability p and assumed that an
extension of the dead time takes place with this probability.
These trials contributed in extending the useful range of
the G-M detector, but their application to very high
counting rates is still limited.
II. New Hybrid Dead Time Model
To extend the useful range of the G-M detector a new
hybrid G-M counter dead time model (Lee and Gardner,
2000, 1)) with two dead times has been introduced recently.
The new combined hybrid model is

156

nexp(-n'fp )
m=
where 'fp and 'fNP represent the paralyzable and non-
paralyzable dead times and it should be recognized that
similar models combining two dead times has already been
derived mathematically by Mueller 5). When, in a G-M tube,
an electron-ion pair is produced by an ionizing radiation,
the electron is accelerated toward the anode and Townsend
avalanches are created enveloping the entire anode wire.
While electrons are gathered in the anode quickly, ions
tend to stay longer around the anode due to their low
mobility. The ion space charge blocks the electric field
needed in developing avalanches and essentially terminates
the G-M discharge for a time. As the positive ions drift
toward the cathode, the space charge becomes more dilute
and the electric field recovers gradually its original value. If
the second radiation event occurrs during the recovery of
the electric field, a partially developed pulse will be
generated and it mayor may not be registered by the
counting system depending on the discriminator level of
the system. When this recovery process is monitored on an
oscilloscope, the typical dead time behavior of a G-M
detector can be sketched as shown in Fig. 1.
Non-paralyzable Paralyzable
Dead Time Dead Time
1p
Time
Initial Possible
Full Second
Discharge Events
Fig. 1 Illustration of the dead time behavior of a G-M
counter on an oscilloscope
The non-paralyzable dead time in this model is defined
to represent the physical dead time of a G-M tube during
which development of the next radiation detection event is
completely suppressed. The paralyzable dead time is the
time duration between the end of the non-paralyzable dead
time and a resolving point at which a pulse larger than the
discriminator level can be developed. If a radiation event
occurs inside the G-M tube during the paralyzable dead
time, a smaller pulse is generated and the detector dead
time is extended. But the pulse will not be counted because
it will be below the discriminator level.
The dead times in the hybrid model can be easily
detelTIlined through least squares fitting for the case of the
SUPPLEMENT 4, MARCH 2004
157
decaying source method. However, the decaying source
method of dead time determination requires a research
(4) reactor available nearby for irradiation, which is rarely the
case for radiation researchers. The other usual way of
determining G-M counter dead time is the split source
method. The usual split source method can be used in
finding one dead time, either paralyzable or non-
paralyzable. To find two dead times of the hybrid model a
modified split source method is suggested. The major
modification to the original method includes adoption of
two sets of split sources and iterative scheme due to
transcendental nature of the hybrid model. The validity of
the dead time determination procedure according to the
new split source method is analyzed numerically and
cautions in following the new split source method are
presented. Possibility of using non- Poisson variance
characteristics of G-M counters in finding their dead times
is also discussed.
HI. Monte Carlo G-M Simulator: GMSIM
To numerically simulate the dead time behavior of a G-
M counter, the Monte Carlo G-M counter simulator,
GMSIM, has been developed. As shown in the Table 1,
GMSIM requires detector dead time characteristics and
measurement parameters as input data and produces
observed counts or counting rate as output. Inside the
GMSIM code an interval (At;) between two radiation
events are randomly sampled from the well-know interval
distribution (p.d.f.), which is
f(M) = n exp( -nM) (5)
and its c.d.f., which is
F(M) = 1- exp( -nM) (6)
Then the sampled interval is compared with the dead
times, paralyzable and non-paralyzable, to determine if the
radiation event is observed or not and also to detelTIline if
the dead time is newly extended or not.
To check the validity of the code it has been applied for
three ideal G-M counters, one with a dead time TNP = 300
f!sec (non-paralyzable model), the second with dead times
T NP =250 f!sec and Tp = 50 f!sec (hybrid model), and the
last with Tp = 300 f!sec (paralyzable model), and the
calculated counting rates were compared with the theories
given in equations (1), (2) and (4). According to the
comparison results shown in Figure 2 it is clear that
GMSIM can accurately simulate three ideal model counters
as far as dead time effects are concerned.
158

e nputand output 0 fGMSIM code

T a bill
GMSIMinput GMSIM output (10)

- Measurement time [sec] - Observed Counts

[counts]
- True Counting Rate (11)
[counts/sec] - Observed Counting
Rate [counts/sec]
- Non-paralyzable Dead
Time [sec]

- Paralyzable Dead Time (12)

[sec]

From these set of system equations, answers to the six

o 0
o 0
<> <>
1O''''7-~~~~-'-:-~~~~-'-:-~~~~'-'--:-~-'-'--~~
101 102 103
True Counting Rate (counts/sec)
Fig. 2 Observed counting rates as a function of true
counting rates for a G-M counter with 300 Ilsec dead time
IV. Two Split Sources Method
Two split sources method is suggested for dead times
determination of the hybrid model. Since hybrid model
involves one more parameter, it is essential to have one
more split source than usual split source method. Let a and
b denote each set of split sources and 12 mean the
combined sum source and 1 or 2 indicate individual split
source. Since true counting rates should conserve, the
following six formulae hold true for six measurements of
split and combined sum sources.
m = (nal +na2)exp(-[nal +na2 ]Tp )
a12 l+(nal +na2 )TNP
unknowns, which are two dead times (Tp and TNP) and
GMSIM: Nonparalyzable
four split true counts (n al , n a2 , nbl andnb2 ), can be found.
GMSIM: Hybrid Due to the transcendental nature of the equations numerical
GMSIM: Paralyzable
Theory: Three Models
iterative scheme should be used. In this paper, successive
under-relaxation technique has been used for improved
stability of the process.
To test the dead time determination procedure, GMSIM
simulator was used instead of real G-M counters. For a
given ideal G-M counters and assumed source intensities,
observed counting rates are calculated with the help of
GMSIM. Then from the six measurement data (output of
GMSIM) dead times that satisfies the equations (7) through
(12) were calculated by iterative methods. The calculated
dead times were compared with the original ideal G-M
counter characteristics. The procedure was tested
numerically using GMSIM and the test results showed
105
good agreements with the original dead times as shown in
the table 2. The results implies that two split sources
method can be used in finding two dead times of G-M
counters for hybrid dead time model.
Table 2 Dead times calculated for an ideal G-M counter
Unit
[rnicrosec] True Calculated S.D.
Non-
paralyzable 250.0 243.3 7.8
Dead Time
Paralyzable
Dead Time 50.0 52.2 2.9
V. Interval Distribution Method
Inspired by the research work Denecke and De Jonge 15),
dead times determination method using interval
(7) distribution between observed counts is suggested. For a
Poisson random events the theory tells that the interval
between two adjacent events is exponentially distributed as
given in equations (5) and (6). Due to the dead time effects
(8) ofthe counter the ideal interval distribution is distorted and
the distortion is well described in figure 3 with GMSIM
for the cases of paralyzable and non-paralyzable models
with dead time of 300 Ilsec, and for the true counting rate
(9) of 2.0e+03 counts/so For the hybrid model interval
distribution can be used in finding two dead times since, as

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


shown in figure 3, the first local maximum indicates
( 7p + TNP ) and the first local minimun indicates
(7p +7NP )+ 7 p .
2200
Nonparalyzable Deadtime Counter
2000
Paralyzable Deadtime Counter
1BOO
Hybrid Oeadtime Counter
1600
~
;e
CHaO
R
~ 1200
~
"a 1000
!
~
BOO
~p+'t"p
i5
600
.....
400
200
a 3) Feller, W. (1948), On probability problems in the theory
a 0.5
Time Interval (sec)
Fig. 3 Interval distribution for three types ofG-M counters
with 300 Ilsec dead time, calculated with GMSIM
VI. Conclusions and Discussions
Cautions should be taken in following the procedure
adopting two split sources method. First of all, the
measured data points should include measurements
influenced by dead time losses. Dead time losses of20% or
more are suggested. Also background counts, which is not
considered here, should be kept very low. Otherwise more
complicated system equations should be derived and used
for the cases of high background counts. From the
experience of this work it is clear the case with high
background will result in very complicated equations and
as a result the iterative scheme would suffer from lack of
stability. Also cautions should be used in assuring all the
geometries are kept intact and assuring, for true counting
rates, the sum intensity of split sources should equal to the
combined source.
Contrary to the two split sources method, more
confidence is placed on interval distribution method. With
the help of modem electronic device, like multi channel
time scaler with 4096 channels, one can easily measure the
interval distribution with a few Ilsec channel widths, which
will eventually provide dead time information as shown in
figure 3. One important advantage of using interval
distribution is that it provides key information on the
characteristic of dead time effects, whether the counter
follows paralyzable or non-paralyzable or hybrid model.
The next step for this research will involve application
of two suggested methods to real G-M counters and
comparing the results with more reliable decaying source
method. In this paper only the relation between the
observed and true counting rates is derived and compared
with measurements. Because of the dead time effects it is
known that the counting statistics of the observed events
deviate from Poisson random statistics. Variance model
SUPPLEMENT 4, MARCH 2004
159
derivation for the hybrid model is needed to complete the
statistics. Once the variance model is available, it is
possible that dead times could be estimated by simply
repeating measurements at various counting rates and using
the variance model.
Acknowledgement
This project has been carried out under the financial
support from Innovative Technology Center for Radiation
Safety (iTRS) and Center for Engineering Applications of
Radioisotopes (CEAR).
References
1) Lee, S. H. and Gardner, R. P. (2000), A new G-M
"
counter dead time model, Appl. Radiat. Iso!., vol. 53, pp .
'.
731-737.
2) Knoll, G. (1989), Radiation Detection and
Measurement, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
1.5
X 10-3 of counters, in R. Courant Anniversary Volume, Studies
and Essays, Interscience, New York.
4) Evans, R.D. (1955), The Atomic Nucleus, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
5) Mueller, J.W. (1973), Dead-time problems, Nuclear
Instruments and Methods, vol. 112, pp. 47-57.
6) Gnedenko, B.V. (1941), On the theory of Geiger-
Mueller counters (in Russian), Zurnal eksperimentaljnoi i
teoreticeskoifiziki, vol. 11, pp. 101-106.
7) Kurbatov, J.D. and Mann, B.H. (1945), Correction ofG-
M counter data, Phys. Rev., vol. 68, pp. 40-43.
8) Mann, H.B. (1946), A note on the correction of Geiger-
Mueller counter data, Quarterly Appl. Math., vol. 4, pp.
307-309.
9) Levert, C. and Scheen, W.L. (1943), Probability
fluctuation of discharges in a Geiger-Mueller counter
produced by cosmic radiation, Physica, vol. 10, pp.225-
238.
10) Kosten, L. (1943), On the frequency distribution ofthe
number of discharges counted by a Geiger-Mueller
counter in a constant interval, Physica, vol. 10, pp. 749-
756.
11) Libert, J. (1975), Nuclear Instruments and Methods
vol. 121, pp. 589-590. '
12) Libert, J. (1978), Statistique de comptage avec
distribution uniforme de temps mort, Nuclear Instruments
and Methods, vol. 151, pp. 555-561.
13) Gardner, R.P. and Liu, L. (1997), On extending the
accurate and useful counting rate range ofGM counter
detector systems, Appl. Radiat. Isot., vol. 48, pp. 1605-
1615.
14) Albert, G.E. and Nelson, L. (1953), Contributions to
the statistical theory of counter data, Ann. Math. Stat., vol.
24, pp. 9-22.
15) Denecke, B. and De J onge S. (1998), An Analyzer for
Pulse-interval Times to Study High Order Effects in the
Processing of Nuclear Detector Signals, Appl. Radiat.
Isot., vol. 49, pp. 1099-11 05.