Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 264, No.

1 (2005) 193–197

Validation testing of the Genie 2000 Cascade Summing Correction

W. Russ,* R.Venkataraman, F. Bronson
Canberra Industries, 800 Research Parkway, Meriden, CT 06450, USA
(Received April 6, 2004)

To validate the accuracy and precision of the Cascade Summing Correction method, over 800 archived measurements of calibrated sources (filter
paper, 20 cm3 liquid scintillation vial, 400 ml beaker and Marinelli beaker) containing cascading (88Y and 60Co) and non-cascading isotopes from
133 different ISOCS/LabSOCS characterized high purity germanium detectors have been analyzed. Comparing the corrected results for the
cascading isotope activities to the known activities shows the method is effective and accurate. Evaluation of the accuracy as a function of the
amount of correction reveals a small systematic error for which a variable precision adjustment is recommended. Requirements to filter true
coincidence X-rays by are verified.

Introduction from a HPGe detector will reduce potential cascade

When a nuclide decays in cascade, producing more
than one gamma-ray from a decay, and if two or more of
these gamma-rays interact with the detector, and if they
cannot be discerned separately given the resolving time
of the measurement system, this is called cascade
summing. The measured energy deposited by a
cascading photon may be artificially increased by the
amount of energy deposited by the cascading partner(s),
up to the sum of all full energies. The effects of this
phenomenon are summing out, where full energy peak
counts are lost by being shifted above the photopeak,
and summing in, where peak counts are gained in
photopeaks that occur at the sum of the full energies of
the cascading photons. The probability of summing out
depends only on the total efficiency for measuring any
amount of energy from cascading photons. The
probability of summing in depends only on the peak
efficiency for measuring peak energies from cascading
photons. Therefore, the magnitude of cascade summing
correction factor is solely a function of measurement
efficiency (detector size, sample size, and sample
location). It is not a function of activity (this is called
random summing). Some of the more commonly
encountered cascading nuclides include 60Co, 152Eu,
133Ba, 88Y, and 139Ce, but there are about 75 other
nuclides that might require correction for cascade
summing. Note that these are common calibration
nuclides used for establishing the “correct” efficiency of
the detector; if cascade summing is not corrected during
the calibration process, the efficiency will not be correct.
Higher measurement efficiencies, from larger
detectors and closer sources, result in greater cascade
summing effects. A 60Co or 88Y source at the endcap of
a large HPGe detector can result in cascade summing
out losses of approximately 20–30%. Significant
cascade summing can be avoided by reducing
efficiency. In general, keeping a source more than 10 cm
summing effects to less than 2%. However, the count
time would have to be increased by more than an order
of magnitude to achieve the same precision or detection
limits, which is normally not desirable. Therefore, a
general methodology for correcting for cascade
summing effects has been developed to enable more
accurate measurements of such cascading nuclides.
Canberra Industries’ Genie 2000 spectroscopy software
provides such a Cascade Summing Correction (CSC)
analysis algorithm.1,2 To accurately compensate for true
coincidence summing losses, the total detection
efficiency of each of the cascading gamma-rays must be
determined. The CSC algorithm does this by use of a
point-source peak-to-total efficiency (P/T) calibration.
Combining results from the P/T calibration with
calculated peak efficiencies at various points within the
sample yields the total efficiency for the sample. The
CSC algorithm uses this data to calculate a correction
factor (COI) for each peak of cascading nuclides that is
then applied to correct the final activity results. The
angular correlation of gamma-rays from cascading
nuclides is not accounted for with the CSC algorithm.
However, the contribution of such anisotropy to the true
coincidence correction method is less than the
uncertainty of the correction in general. 7
Initial verification and validation analysis of the CSC
algorithm (using 8 detectors with source-based P/T
calibrations) estimated that the cascade correction factor
introduces a systematic uncertainty of ±5% (1 ) in the
resulting corrected activities when using an
ISOCS/LabSOCS characterization3 applicable to the
specific detector used in the measurement. Further
investigation of the accuracy and precision of the CSC
algorithm has been made possible by the continuing
production of HPGe detector characterization
files for use by ISOCS/LabSOCS customers to do
mathematical (sourceless) efficiency calibrations.

* E-mail: wruss@canberra.com

0236–5731/USD 20.00 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

© 2005 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest Springer, Dordrecht
 W. RUSS et al.: VALIDATION TESTING OF THE GENIE 2000 CASCADE SUMMING CORRECTION
This “characterization” production process and
subsequent Verification process uses calibrated sources
measured in various geometries. This gives us a rich
resource containing a large number of detectors of
various types and sizes, with both cascade and non-
cascade nuclides.
Experimental
This study used archived measurement data from
133 HPGe detectors, including over 800 separate
spectra, with approximately 3200 separate peaks with
cascade summing. Seventy-four of the detectors were
standard coaxial detectors, and fifty-nine of them were
low energy detectors without an appreciable dead layer
that allows very low energy photons to be detected. For
most of this study, only the coaxial detectors were used
to avoid the additional complications of X-ray induced
true coincidence summing. Each of these detectors has
been fully ISOCS/LabSOCS characterized to allow
accurate calculation of peak efficiencies using a large
suite of geometry templates that can be tailored to
specific measurement geometries. To validate and verify
the ISOCS/LabSOCS efficiency calibrations, a series of
calibrated volumetric sources were measured in a variety
of geometries.4 These source geometries include a near
and far filter paper (active diameter 48 mm), near and
far 20 cm3 liquid scintillation vial (25 mm × 51 mm),
near and far 400 ml cylindrical beaker (76 mm ×
76 mm), and a 2.8l Marinelli beaker. Near geometries
mean the source is 2–3 mm from the end cap and far
geometries mean the source is 10 cm from the endcap.
Each source contains the following nuclides: 241Am
(59 keV), 109Cd (88 keV), 57Co (122 keV), 139Ce
(166 keV), 113Sn (392 keV), 137Cs (662 keV), 54Mn
(835 keV), 65Zn (1115 keV), 60Co (1173, 1332 keV),
and 88Y (898, 1836 keV). For the purposes of this study,
the nuclides of interest include 60Co and 88Y as the two
cascading nuclides and also 54Mn and 65Zn as non-
cascading nuclides with close energies for reference.
Each of these sources was modeled with an ISOCS
geometry template to enable determination of peak
efficiencies at the energies of interest.
These measurements were for other purposes,
consequently source-based P/T calibrations were not
performed, and the detectors were no longer available.
Therefore, Monte-Carlo methods (MCNP) were used to
create the P/T calibrations.5 Using the validated MCNP
model for each detector, a monoenergetic point source
was modeled at 5 cm above the endcap in air, simulating
the normal customer measurements. The resulting
spectral tally was analyzed to determine the P/T ratio for
each energy of interest. It has previously been shown
that it is sufficiently accurate to use the MCNP P/T
calibration to enable the use of the CSC algorithm.6
194
These P/T values were then converted into the P/T
calibration file for use by Genie 2000 in the CSC
algorithm.
Each spectral file was analyzed with the appropriate
energy, efficiency and P/T calibration. Peaks were
initially determined using the standard Sum/Non-Linear
LSQ fitting algorithm and then verified and refined
using Genie 2000’s Interactive Peak Fitting utility. After
applying the efficiency calibration to the peak search
results, Nuclide Identification with Interference
Correction analysis was performed. This analysis step
included the application of the CSC algorithm using the
resident P/T calibration and an ISOCS geometry
template to specify the measurement geometry. Because
of the huge volume of analyses to be performed and to
avoid human errors, this full spectral analysis was
automated. Automation included incorporating all of the
steps into an Analysis Sequence File (ASF) and running
this ASF using Genie 2000 Visual Basic programming
components that subsequently extracted pertinent results
from the spectral and efficiency files into a common
spreadsheet for sorting and analysis. Results include
count rate, count rate uncertainty, efficiency, efficiency
uncertainty, and the CSC coincidence correction factor
(COI) for each peak. In addition, the decay corrected
certificate activity in gammas per second and
uncertainty were calculated and assigned to each peak to
serve as the correct activity.
The accuracy and precision of the CSC algorithm is
assessed by analyzing the average and standard
deviation of the ratio of measured to certificate activities
for the various geometries and nuclides. The
measured/certificate activity ratio is defined as:
Measured/Certificate activity ratio =
Measured counts per second
= (1)
Efficiency COI Certificate gammas per second
The non-cascading nuclides (56Mn and 65Zn) occur
at a similar energy region (835 and 1115 keV,
respectively) as those of the cascading nuclides (898,
1173, 1332, and 1836), and show expected agreement
with the certificate activity, confirming the accuracy of
the peak efficiency calibration.
Results and discussion
The effect of the cascade summing correction is most
evident when applied to high efficiency geometries. Of
the available geometries, the higher efficiency
geometries include the near filter paper, near 20 cm3
vial, near 400 ml beaker, and the 2.8-liter Marinelli
beaker. The measured/certificate activity ratios for these
geometries were calculated and are shown in Fig. 1.
 W. RUSS et al.: VALIDATION TESTING OF THE GENIE 2000 CASCADE SUMMING CORRECTION

Fig. 1. Cascade summing correction results for non-cascading nuclides 54Mn (835 keV) and 65Zn (1115 keV) and cascading nuclides 60Co (1173,
1332 keV) and 88Y (898, 1836 keV) for the following sources near the detector endcap: filter paper (a), 20 cm3 liquid scintillation vial (b), 400 ml
beaker (c), and 2.8 liter Marinelli beaker (d)

Fig. 2. Cascade summing correction results for all cascading nuclides ( 60Co and 88Y) in all geometries as a function of the CSC Correction Factor
(COI), obtained by averaging each COI quadrant. Trend line added to guide the eye

195
 W. RUSS et al.: VALIDATION TESTING OF THE GENIE 2000 CASCADE SUMMING CORRECTION
Uncorrected and corrected results are shown separately
for all of the peaks for 54Mn, 65Zn, 60Co and 88Y. All of
the error bars in this figure represent the measured
standard deviation of the data. However, the propagated
uncertainties were calculated and tracked well with the
empirical data, generally matching within ±1%. Figure 1
shows that the CSC algorithm is accurate, with all
corrected line activities for all geometries resulting in
activities within one standard deviation of the average
non-cascading line activity ratios.
It is hypothesized that any accuracy bias or precision
degradation caused by the CSC algorithm would become
more evident as the amount of correction increases. To
investigate this, the trend of performance as a function
of the CSC coincidence correction factor (COI) was
analyzed, with the data presented in Fig. 2. This data is
the combined results of all 60Co and 88Y
measured/certificate activity ratios, along with the
standard deviation of the data. To evaluate the trend
with COI, the results were divided into distinct regions
where COI ranged from 0.80 to 0.85, 0.85 to 0.90, 0.90
to 0.95 and 0.95 to 1.00. In each region, the average COI
was calculated for both the uncorrected and the
corrected data.
When comparing uncorrected and corrected results
for Fig. 2, there was no significant increase in the
uncertainty at larger COI values. This implies that the
uncertainty of the CSC algorithm is small, compared to
the propagated uncertainty of the other factors.
However, there does seem to be a distinct trend in the
data that suggests a slight bias in the magnitude of the
COI value that would cause a systematic under-
correction. The magnitude of the bias suggests a linear
increase from 0% with no correction (COI = 1.00) up to
about 5% under-correction at COI = 0.80. An assumption
made with the current CSC algorithm is that the P/T
calibration is an intrinsic function of the detector and is
invariant with sample size and shape. This is probably
not totally true, and is suggested as a cause for this small
bias, and an area of future investigation. Given that the
direction of this systematic bias might be manifested in
either direction for a particular detector and geometry, it
would be prudent to simply increase the uncertainty in
all final corrected results in a manner that would account
for the systematic error. This was the conclusion of the
original CSC algorithm validation and verification, with
a recommendation that a 5% linear increase in
uncertainty be added to all activity uncertainties that are
corrected by any amount. However, this more extensive
study suggests that the additional linear increase in
uncertainty should lessen with less correction applied.
Based on the data in Fig. 2, an appropriate uncertainty
assignment would be:
% Corrected uncertainty =
= % Uncorrected uncertainty + 25(1 COI ) (2)
196
Equation (2) is a linear approximation of a fit to the
data in Fig. 2. This would not unnecessarily penalize
minor corrections while still accounting for the highest
severity bi-directional bias. This recommendation has
been drawn from results involving a wide range of
detector and source geometries but only higher energy
gamma-rays. Extrapolating to lower energies should be
valid because the likely source of the systematic bias,
the assumption of an intrinsic P/T calibration, is at least
as sound at lower energies. Previous work has also
validated the precision limit at lower energies.3
The preceding discussion was for standard coaxial
detectors, with a typical front dead layer of 0.3 mm Ge.
A greater bias for 88Y was observed when analyzing
results from detectors without a significant dead layer at
the front of the detector and without any additional
absorbing material, as shown in Fig. 3. Such low energy
detectors without absorber can also detect the 15 keV X-
rays that are in true coincidence with the 88Y gamma-
rays. This X-ray true coincidence summing is not
corrected by the current CSC algorithm. This error can
simply be avoided by adding sufficient absorber material
between the source and detector to adequately attenuate
the X-rays. This extra absorber material is required only
when using a low energy HPGe detector (e.g., LEGe,
BEGe, XtRa, and REGe) when trying to correct for a
cascading nuclide that decays by electron capture or
internal conversion. The data in Fig. 3 was collected
using 3 mm acrylic attenuators. The total amount of
material needed to reduce the 15 keV X-rays from 88Y
by at least 90% would be approximately 2 cm of plastic,
2 mm of aluminum, 0.05 mm of iron or 0.04 mm of
copper. A standard aluminum endcap without a thin
window has a thickness of about 1.6 mm. The typical
dead layer for standard coaxial detectors (~0.3 mm Ge)
attenuates 15 keV X-rays by over 99.9%. While the
15 keV X-rays from 88Y are easily eliminated with
nominal attenuation, it may not always be reasonable to
fully attenuate higher energy X-rays. However, even
nominal attenuation can reduce the impact of
uncorrected X-rays to a reasonable level. As an example,
an ISOCS-characterized 75% coaxial detector with
nominal attenuation from a 0.53 mm dead layer and
1.6 mm aluminum endcap was modeled in MCNP with a
152Eu point source sitting on the endcap. The total
coincidence losses to the 1408 keV gamma-ray, caused
by the 121 keV gamma-rays and the X-rays of 39–
46 keV range, were found to be about 36.4% based on
analytical and MCNP calculations. The coincidence
losses caused by just the 121 keV gamma-rays were
found to be about 34%, based again on analytical and
MCNP calculations. Therefore, the effect of not
including the X-ray contributions is an under-correction
of nuclide activity by less than 4% for this severe case.
 W. RUSS et al.: VALIDATION TESTING OF THE GENIE 2000 CASCADE SUMMING CORRECTION

error is caused by consistent differences between the

conditions for the P/T calibration and the actual
measurement and could trend in either direction. Further
study of the data is warranted to verify the source of this
systematic error. It is recommended that this bi-
directional systematic error be accounted for by adding a
linear correction to the resulting activity uncertainty.
Rather than unduly penalizing small corrections by
adding a constant, enveloping increment to all
uncertainties, the added uncertainty should be
proportional to the degree of correction. Because low
energy, cascading X-rays are not corrected by the
current CSC algorithm, measuring such sources with a
low energy detector currently requires a minimum
amount of absorbing material to physically attenuate
their effects.

Fig. 3. Cascaded summing correction results separately for 60Co and

88Y for low-energy detectors in all geometries as a function
of the CSC Correction Factor (COI), obtained by averaging
each COI quadrant. Trend lines added to guide the eye
Conclusions
Using an extensive archive of ISOCS/LabSOCS
characterized detector measurements, it has been shown
that the Cascade Summing Correction algorithm is an
effective and accurate method of compensating for
cascade summing errors in cascading nuclide activities.
Errors caused by cascade summing ranging over 20%
are typically reduced to 5% or less after correction.
Using the CSC algorithm results in an insignificant
change in the measurement precision but does cause a
discernable bias that is proportional to the amount of
correction. It is hypothesized that the small systematic
References
1. V. P. KOLOTOV, V. V. ATRASHKEVICH, S. J. GELSEMA,
J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., 210 (1996) 183.
2. V. P. KOLOTOV, M. J. KOSKELO, J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., 233
(1998) 95.
3. F. L. BRONSON, B. M. YOUNG, Mathematical Calibrations of Ge
Detectors and the Instruments that Use them, Proc. 5 th Annual
NDA/NDE Waste Characterization Conference, Salt Lake City,
UT, Jan 11, 1997.
4. R. VENKATARAMAN, F. BRONSON, V. ATRASHKEVICH,
B. M. YOUNG, M. FIELD, Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res., A442
(1999) 450.
5. J. F. BRIESMEISTER (Ed.), MCNP – A General Monte Carlo N-
Particle Transport Code, Version 4a, Los Alamos National
Laboratory Report LA-12625-M, November, 1993.
6. M. J. KOSKELO, R. VENKATARAMAN, V. P. KOLOTOV,
J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., 248 (2001) 333.
7. F. DE CORTE, Ph.D. Thesis, Ghent University, The Netherlands,
1987.

197