Report finished

Crest award

Is it possible for robots to solely detect radioactive and chemically contaminated areas without the need for human

presence?

Molly Davies, Ellis Whitelaw, Beth Price, Alysha Bodman, Ella O’Doherty, Chloe Kemp.

1 Molly Davies, Ellis Whitelaw, Beth Price, Alysha Bodman, Ella O’Doherty, Chloe Kemp.

Title page

Crest award

Abstract and Brief: Methods, Organisation, Results

Main Presenter: Molly Davies, [email protected]

Authors: B Price, E O’Doherty, E Fishlock-Whitelaw, M Davies, C Kemp & A Bodman

This paper will discuss the research done and conclusions reached by the team on how to reduce risk of radiation contamination on radiation detection and how human senses can be aided by technology to minimise damage to environmental settings and personal health. We will explain the design of our proposed device and answer the question posed in the title, ‘Is it possible for robots so solely detect radioactive and chemically contaminated areas without the need for human presence?’, and explain results achieved. This abstract will explain the layout of the following article, discuss methods of organisation and give an overview of how the results were gathered.

The report will explain the positive and negative aspects of the device and how the individual elements can be used to the advantage of the user(s). This will be followed by an examination of the way in which the device works, with some discussion on the way these elements are relevant to the task title. We will then propose the methodology that will be used to test the device within the environment it has been designed for, with discussion on the hypothesized results of testing. The hypothesis will follow, with reference to the testing in the previous section.

The methods used to test the model, as yet have not been carried, out. Tests must be carried out based on assumptions and hypothesis created with contextual knowledge from preliminary research. These assumptions have been discussed later in the paper (page 8). Research was equally divided between the five members of the team, with each member producing an individual design as a proposal to be the final device submitted. The research from these devices then was combined to decide on a final design which was then used as the basis for the second phase of research. After the secondary research was completed, the paper was split into sections with each member of the team being allocated a section to draft. The paper was then assembled and edited by the Team Leader. (M Davies. 2014.)

Results: The results expected to arise from testing have been discussed in the hypothesis that a robot will not be able to detect radioactivity without a human. This hypothesis was drawn from extensive research on various methodology of radiation detection including developing new designs of radiation detection devices with accompanying papers. (E Fishlock – Whitelaw. 2014. [CAPT Judith Bader.2014.]) (M Davies. 2014.) (B Price. 2014.) (A Bodman. 2014.) (E O’Doherty. 2014.) (C Kemp. 2014.)


Abstract and brief

Crest award

In this project we aim to discover whether it is possible for robots to detect radioactive and chemically contaminated substances without the need of human presence. We understand that within this process, there are unidentified radioactive and chemically contaminated substances left by Russian submarines in drums that need to be identified in order to find an easy way to eventually decommission them. Similarly, in a case in Fukishima, there was a large radioactive explosion where it was virtually impossible for any person, robotically enhanced or not, to get close enough to the contaminated area which was made up of (comparable to the drums in our project) pressure vessels containing nuclear power, without being affected. In order to save the area in which the contamination happened and its inhabitants, scientists risked their lives to decommission this area. Luckily the case on our hands is not quite so large however both humans and robots could be at risk from radiation and chemical damage. As a precaution, we will have to use protection against these (highlighted later in the report). Using many similar methods of detection to the ones we have studied in our project, the area in Fukishima was successfully decommissioned.

Before we reached our concluded solution of using the car and the Geiger-Müller tube, we had other ideas such as an enhanced man, to prove an answer to our concluding title, however there were many difficulties such as the living cells within becoming cancerous, the inability to cover a person in thick sheets of lead was difficult and damaging to a human leading to our final idea. Another idea which was simple and could be effective was using a hazmat suit for a human to detect with the flexibility of a person differing to the flexibility of a robot. The problem with this was that in order to be in a largely contaminated area, it would only be possible for a human to be present for a very short space of time. We evaluated our idea and the other potential solutions and considering these possible difficulties, we came up with the use of a remote controlled car, which includes both the work of a human and a robotic system. The most accurate idea was the use of a car to detect the substances in the drums due to its flexibility to reach places a person could not. This idea was also the most effective due to a robots ability to not become cancerous as a human cell would, when affected by radiation, despite metal being altered by chemicals, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27311292) whereas a human could not totally be protected depending on the concentration of harmful radiation/chemicals.


Figure 1: Original design

Remote controlled by humans

Geiger Müller tube located on top

Remote control car coated in centre metres of lead

Introduction

Crest award

We tailored our original design accordingly to the project description effectively however it was not quite detailed at this point. Our original prototype (figure 1) would be successful in detecting the presence of radiation but less successful when identifying chemical substances. We evaluated our idea and the other potential solutions and decided that as a starting progression, we would take this idea forward in order to develop the proposal as it successfully incorporates a solution to the problem description.

We then took our idea and developed the possible solutions, described and evaluated more fully later on in the report to successfully give us our final product. For example, we discovered that the use of the Geiger-Müller tube lead to only the detection of gamma radiation which at first was not useful for alpha or beta radiation but knowing the presence or lack of the hardest type of radiation made it easier for us to protect against the easier forms to decommission. Another difficulty using the car as a form of transport meant that the car could not get taller in order to detect the higher areas of the drum, we then needed to develop this idea in order for it to achieve this specification so we came up the idea of using a propeller to make it fly taken from a helicopter by rewiring the helicopters remote control with the remote control for the car. Once we achieved this, we ended up with a remote controlled car of a height 15cm and width 30cm. The car consists of a Geiger-Müller tube attached to the roof and a camera sending a live stream of the drums using a heat detector (due to radiation increasing heat) to the humans in the lab who are controlling the car with a remote control. The car is lead coated to protect against the radiation as radiation also affects metallic substances. The contraption also consists of a Scinitigraphy to further identify the types of radiation using small amounts of radioactive substance. The bottom of the car will be made of either aluminium or titanium as they are both light, strong and will increase the battery life. The mass of the product without the propeller would be 3.5206cm^3. (Detailed diagram figure 9)

In theory we believe that we can make this appliance work, however the use of the propeller would cause difficulty. Using the Geiger Müller tube we are bound to receive results on the radiation and the use of the simplicity of a remote control and car means that we successfully avoid the contact of human and radiation, one of our aims. We further will achieve our aim by keeping the costs down and detecting forms of radiation. Unsuccessfully, using our idea means that it will be difficult to detect chemically toxic substances however when detecting, using a robotic system means no human would be affected by it. Furthermore, the use of the propeller is difficult as we would need to measure the exact mass that it would need to be to support the weight of the car, this is quite important as it means that we could get a more accurate result of the radiation in the drums by being able to see everything that the drums contain.


Introduction

Crest award

We were given a written brief from EdF Energy which can be found at the end of our report. We were told that we should use existing technology and science to solve whether a robot can detect radiation and chemical contamination without the need of a human. Therefore, we as a team are going to apply our understanding of science and technology to form a reliable proposal that we believe will be able to detect radiation and chemical contamination. We realised that when we had a group discussion we had some gaps in our knowledge regarding what substances are used for shielding against harmful radiation and also what the different types of radiation are and how they can be detected. Therefore we have asked the client (EdF Energy) specific questions to use as research as well as searching the internet to gain a solid understanding of radiation and chemical contamination. As a team we decided that a solution should include lots of research to back up the scientific points in it, should be realistic and feasible and also be able to detect all types of radiation as well as tell the user what type of radiation it has sensed. Furthermore, we decided that a solution should not cause any harm to the user and not introduce forbidden materials into the reactor. We also think the solution should be able to detect the radiation and chemical contamination within 2 hours, cost less than £200 and cause less harm than once in 100 years of operation. We came up with a question which fitted the brief given and also allowed us to investigate what can detect radiation and chemical contamination and therefore form a solution to give to our client. This question is “is it possible for robots to solely detect radioactive and chemically contaminated areas without the need for human presence?”


Understanding the problem

Crest award

Using our research and knowledge we firstly decided to identify equipment that can be used for detection of radiation. We used a table to figure out whether each from of detection matches up to our aims, and from then drew our conclusion. From the table (figure 9) we can see that the most appropriate from of detection is the Geiger-Müller tube due to its low cost and instantaneous result to detect, compared to the photographic film which takes a long time to develop its findings. Despite the result, overall nothing invented at the moment could do the job, however we are sticking to the Geiger-Müller tube due to its appropriate size and the ability to read and evaluate our outcomes very easily. Although our test to find the appropriate method was centred on the 3 most important things, there were many other positive and negatives of the researched possible solutions. For example, the gold leaf electroscope (shown in figure 2) is a very good insulator, meaning that an electroscope will

stay that way so any charge cannot escape. Furthermore it is useful when showing charge of radioactive substances as the gold leaf sticks out when charged. Although there are positives, the gold leaf electroscope does not identify the form of radiation and takes a long time for the detection to take place, proved by the table. Similarly to the gold leaf electroscope, the bubble chamber (Figure 3) or the cloud chamber solution (Figure 4), despite its cheap cost, also takes a long time to detect; however it is relatively easy to see the radioactivity due to tiny bubbles/ vapour (cloud) in the liquid tracking the results of collisions in particle accelerators. Photographic film (Figure 5) takes a long time to detect due to the time taken to develop the results on top of the time taken to detect the radioactivity. Despite its relatively low price, it (similarly to the gold

leaf electroscope) does not help determine which radiation is present for example gamma,

beta or alpha although it is not harmful and has never damaged anyone despite a paper cut or two. Moreover, the spark counter (Figure 6) is very expensive and despite performing a quick and easy detection is very costly and difficult to get a hold of. To work, the spark counter uses the ionising effect of radioactivity by applying a high voltage between the gauze and the wire and adjusted until it’s just below the acquired voltage


Figure 2: The gold leaf electroscope

Figure 4: The cloud chamber

Figure 3: The bubble chamber

Investigate possible solutionsInvestigate possible solutions

Figure 4: The cloud chamber

Figure 3: The bubble chamber

Figure 2: The gold leaf electroscope

Crest award

to produce sparks. When a radioactive source is brought near, the air between the gauze and the wire is ionised, and sparks jump where particles pass. This solution despite working

well with alpha particles is unsuccessful with gamma and delta particles making it increasingly difficult to then adapt our results to find out how to decommission the drums in the future. So overall, the most effective result is using the Geiger- Müller tube (Figure 7) which measures the amount of radioactivity present, made by attaching a Geiger Müller tube and a form of counter. This reads the number of particles detected per minute (CPM). Similarly to the spark counter it uses ionising effect of radioactivity; best at detecting alpha particles however can also detect beta and gamma better than the spark counter.


Figure 7: The Geiger- Müller tube

Figure 5: Photographic film

Figure 6: The spark counterFigure 7: The Geiger- Müller tube

Figure 6: The spark counter

Figure 5: Photographic film

A table used to cancel out the less helpful solutions from the most helpful ones.

Possible Solutions Under £200? Detection of radiation complete in 2 hours?

Cause harm once in 100 years of operation?

Gold leaf electroscope

The spark counter

The cloud chamber

The bubble chamber

Photographic film

Geiger-Müller tube

Investigate possible solutions

Crest award

As a group, we decided to go with the idea of a moving robot that can enter the places at risk of radioactivity or chemical contamination and also fly. We all decided that a robot that moves along the ground as well as having the ability to fly was very helpful, despite the use of lead in the robot's design to protect and shield from the radiation being very heavy. In order to overcome this we would need to use exact dimensions and power to allow the car to fly. It also has a higher chance of failing, falling to the ground and breaking so that is something to consider when making the prototype. The helicopter-style device that we originally thought we could use to make it fly would create a huge downdraft, therefore disturbing radioactive alpha particles and possibly disturbing chemical waste kept inside the warehouse so we allowed the product to be able to move on the floor as well, by both flying to reach different heights and driving, the car would have flexibility like a human. To control the robot, we decided that a remote control device should be used. The robot should also have a camera on the front of it so that the human controlling it from outside of the warehouse can see the ground inside where the car would be. The remote control to power the propellers would need to be wired into the same circuit board as the remote control powering the car to make it easier for a human controlling the robot to manage. The mass of the car without the propeller is 3.5206^3 with a length of 30cm and a height of 15 cm, covered in 3 cms of lead to protect against radiation and coated in aluminum on the bottom to improve battery life, so therefore a propeller would need to be powered enough to support the mass of the car.

In our original design for the robot, we thought that we would just use a Geiger-Muller counter to detect the radiation. However, we decided to combine a few of our ideas and use a scintigraphy camera in addition. Scintigraphy cameras can detect where the radiation is coming from: meaning that the workers can see whereabouts is unsafe in the affected area. However, the Scintigraphy cameras cannot detect if they themselves are absorbing radiation- so to see where the robot is coming in to contact with radiation, we decided to use a Geiger-Muller counter. This allows the workers to see not only where they are at risk of radiation poisoning, but also where the radiation is the least strong and therefore the safest.

Our design makes it so that people are not blindly entering a warehouse where they have no idea of the strength or spread of the radiation. A computer program can be set up in order to get a 3D image of the room from the Scintigraphy cameras and Geiger-Muller counter and this will allow humans to enter the warehouse knowing that although there is more than likely some strength of radiation present, the radiation that reaches them is not harmful to their body. Despite all of this, our design is not self-sufficient: it requires a human to control it through a remote control at all times, and will require a human to fix it should any faults occur.


Develop the proposal

Crest award

To ensure that none of the electrical components fall out or off inside of the reactor or warehouse, we think that the robot should be coated in lead. This would not only stop anything from becoming detached, but also shield the robot from at least some of the radiation that it would come into contact with. We also had to consider a multitude of different things that could go wrong. If faults do occur, we decided that we needed to find a way to get the robot out of the radioactive area safely and easily, and without a human having to go inside. We thought that a backup motor and battery would be useful; but after considering everything that could go wrong, (for example, water in the room getting into all of the electronic parts) we concluded that we needed a manual way to get the robot out. For this, we decided that we would attach a strong rope to the robot, so that we could drag it out if anything were to happen to it. So that the human controlling the robot's exposure to the robot's radiation (possibly caused by being in radioactive environments) is minimized, we also decided to install a Geiger-Muller counter onto the remote control so that the radiation (if present) can be detected. This allows the human to notice the radiation and minimize the time that they are exposed to it. We also thought that we would need a backup battery in case the robot is needed to go in to a large area and survey all of it, and so the battery would not run out half way through the process. Also, with a camera on the front and easy controls, it would be difficult for the person controlling the robot to allow it to come into contact with something very dangerous (e.g. the nuclear reactor itself). To operate the robot, our team concluded that the person would need some training beforehand so that it is ensured that they know how to control the robot and how to deal with any faults or issues that could arise.

An issue to address is the cost of the robot. There are 3 things that are needed to make the robot work: the robot itself, a human to run it and a computer program to collect the results. The robot will be the most expensive out of the three - lead is quite expensive, but the batteries, motor etc. are not particularly costly when compared to other possible solutions to this problem. Scintigraphy cameras and Geiger-Muller tubes can also be constructed at a relatively low cost, overall it would come to less than £200 which we aimed to achieve as the budget.

On the following page is a diagram (figure 9) suggesting how the robot should look.



Crest award


Rope attatced to a hook beneath the car

Remote Control used to operate the car with a built in Geiger-Muller tube

Normal Camera to view surroundings

Lead-Coated Remote Controlled robotic car

Scintigraphy (Gamma) Camera

Geiger-Muller tube

Aluminium or titanium on bottom as it is lightweight and maintains battery life for longer

Propellers on the boot and bottom of car to allow it to fly

Figure 9: Developed model


Crest award

Using our proposed solution to come to a valid conclusion, I can first state that robots cannot solely decommission radioactive chemically or chemically contaminated areas on their own, but I can say that they can do it without the presence of a human. The use of the Geiger-Müller tube is effective and quick at detecting and producing valuable results, showing that we have a strong possible solution that sticks to our 3 main objectives for our solution to be. Using the car further proves that we have a strong valid solution as it allows the car to collect reliable and useful results, enhanced by the use of a helicopter propeller to allow it to reach to same heights as a human. So far, the description of our prototype instigates that no human needs any involvement, however robots do not have receptive thoughts of their own and must be programmed by a human to perform and carry out the tasks that need to be completed for detection to then be developed further for the decommissioning of the area. That is where the remote control and camera are useful as they allow the human to control the robot without being present to toxic substances that could damage and make human cells cancerous. So yes, robots can detect without the need for presence of human beings but cannot without the programming of a human.

Within our group we came to the decision that we would allocate a group leader, in which we chose Molly. A group leaders responsibilities would include making sure the group is organised and up to date in what work has to be completed by when. They would also be in control of organising group meeting throughout the week, in which we arranged to meet every Wednesday and Friday break times, as well as feeding back to the group at usual Tuesday meeting. Our group was made up of people with different personalities such as people with creativity and ideas that would mould the project, strong leaders, people who were good at starting projects such as this one and people who are logical thinkers which was great for when our ideas got too large. We also thought it was a good idea to split the work up by everyone looking at a different ways in which radiation can be detected; everyone designed their own machine/robot that would be suitable, and fed back to the group at a meeting and then came to a joint decision of which one to develop further. We then decided that some of us would take on many smaller tasks and others one or two slightly larger ones. We thought this was fair and would split the work up nice and evenly within the group.


Conclusion and evaluation

Crest award

Despite this being the first project we have ever done, and especially ever done together, we worked well as a team and produced a scientific report that we are all proud of. It was often hard communicating due to only seeing each other at school and as we were very busy at lunch times it was often hard to commit to the meetings which we had every Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays. We also found it difficult to begin the project as the report and the booklet given to us was very vague however when we sat down together and read the whole booklet from back to front, everything came a lot clearer and although we were not sure it was the right thing to do or not, we went on a whim and followed the idea through to the end. If we were to do the project again, I think we would make sure that everybody turned up to the meetings and divided work up more evenly. But overall, we were really happy with our work as a team and next time we do a project like this one, will take into consideration things that didn’t work so well this time.


Conclusion and evaluation

Crest award


Figure 10- p1

la

Crest award


The Lines in grey and green show our expectations of how far we would get. The red lines show the reality of how long it took us. We aimed to stick to the Gantt diagram but we were truthful about it and originally underestimated how long it would take us.

Figure 10-p2Appendices

Crest award

Type of Data URL Used ForPicture http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/einsteinguide/activities/cloud.html Cloud Chamber research

Information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber Cloud Chamber research

Information http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk/camphy/cloudchamber/cloudchamber1_1.htm Cloud Chamber research

InformationCAPT Judith Bader. (2014). Radiation Detection Devices . Available: http://www.remm.nlm.gov/civilian.htm.

Last accessed 9th September 2014 . Abstract

Information

BBC © 2014. (2014). Detecting Radiation . Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa_pre_2011/radiation/radioactiverev5.shtml. Last

accessed 9th September 2014 . Research

Information

.Health Physics Society. (1956). What Types of Radiation are there?.Available:

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/radiationtypes.html. Last accessed 9th September 2014 . Research

Information. .

Wikipedia . (2014). Approximation Error . Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximation_error. Last accessed 9th September 2014 . Research.

Informationhttp://www.sandia.gov/mstc/services/documents/Sandia_SEE_Guideline_FINAL.pdf. Last accessed 9th

September 2014 . Research

Information http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_aqa_pre_2011/radiation/ Research

Information http://www.physicsclassroom.com/ Research

Solution images http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age14-16/Nuclear%20physics/text/Cloud_chamber/index.html Research


Bibliography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/einsteinguide/activities/cloud.html

Crest award


Brief

Crest award


Crest award

© Copyright October 2014

E Fishlock-Whitelaw, M Davies, E O’DOherty, B Price, A Bodman, C Kemp

No part of this article in part or in full may be republished or used without reference to the original article or with written permission from all authors.


Documents

Report finished