Description |
|
Authors:
R.A. Price (1), G. Gualdrini (2), S. Agosteo( 3), S. Ménard (4), , J-L. Chartier (5), B. Großwendt (6), I. Kodeli (7), G.P. Leuthold (8), B.R.L. Siebert(6), H. Tagziria (9), R.J. Tanner (10), M. Terrissol (11), M. Zankl (8)
Full affiliations:
(1) City University, Department of Radiography, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6PA
(2) ENEA ION-IRP, Via dei Colli 16, I-40136 Bologna, Italy
(3) Dipartimento Ingegneria Nucleare, Politecnico di Milano, v. Ponzio 34/3 I-20133 Milano, Italy
(4)IRSN, BP 17 F-92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses, Cedex, France
(5) Consultant - IRSN, BP 17, F-92262, Fontenay-aux-Roses, Cedex, France
(6) PTB, Postfach 3345, D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany
(7) IAEA representative, CD/NEA Data Bank, 12 bd. des Iles, F-92130 Issy-les-Moulinaux, France
(8) GSF, Ingolstadter Landstrasse 1, D85764 Neuherberg, Germany
(9) Joint Research Centre, Ispra site, Via E. Fermi 1, I-21020 Ispra (VA), Italy
(10) NRPB, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0RG, U.K.
(11) CPAT, University Paul Sabatier, 118 route de Narbonne, F-31062 Toulouse Cedex 4, France
Abstract:
An EU concerted action (1994) investigated the training and quality assurance associated with the irregular use of computational dosimetry codes. Two training courses were run (Bologna 1996, London 1998) on the use of MCNP in computational dosimetry (FW3). An extension (FW IV funding) -acronym QUADOS (Quality Assurance in DOSimetry) wrote a Compendium of Computer Codes and developed and analysed a European Questionnaire on how users benchmarked their code generated solutions. The results of the questionnaire were a motivating force for the development of the QUADOS intercomparison study (2003) which asked code users to solve one or more predefined problems and to report back their analysis and methods. This culmination of this was a detailed handbook of results and findings (that can be used in individual laboratories as a QA guide) and a symposium (Bologna 2003) where participants and problem authors discussed the overall findings and conclusions of the study. We here present the conclusions drawn from each of these events and present an overall picture of the perceived training needs, successes and shortfalls in the application of radiation transport codes in safety critical fields.
|
