Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
operated by
ION CARBIDE CORPORATlON
for the
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMlSSI 0N
bY
Wade E. SelDh
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
CENTRAL RESEARCH LIBRARY
DOCUMENT COLLECTION
LIBRARV LOAN COPV
DO NOT TRANSFER TO ANOTHER PERSON
I f you w i s h s o m e o n e e l s e t o s e e t h i s
document, send I n name w i t h document
a n d the l i b r a r y w i l l a r r a n g e a l o a n .
b
LEGAL NOTICE
T h i s report was prepared a s o n account of Government sponsored work. Neither the United Stotes,
nor the Commission, nor any person o c t i n g o n behalf of the Commission:
A. Makes any worranty or representation, expressed or imp1 ied, w i t h respect t o the occurocy,
completeness, or usefulness of the information contained i n t h i s report, or that t h e use of
ony information, apparatus, method, or process d i s c l o s e d i n t h i s report may not infringe
p r i v a t e l y owned rights; or
8. Assumes any l i a b i l i t i e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the use of, or for damages r e s u l t i n g from the use o f
any information, apparatus, method, or process d i s c l o s e d i n t h i s report.
A s used i n the above, "person o c t i n g o n behalf of the Commission'' i n c l u d e s any employee or
contractor of t h e Commission, or employee of such contractor, t o the e x t e n t that such employee
or controctor of the Commission, or employee of such contractor prepares, disseminotes, or
provides a c c e s s to, any informotion pursuant t o h i s employment or contract w i t h the Commission,
r
or h i s employment w i t h such contractor.
c
.
ORN L- RSI C- 21
(DASA- 1892-2)
N E U T R O N PHYSICS DIVISION
by
Wade E. Selph
Handbook Editors
Lorraine S. Abbott, H. Clyde Claiborne, and Charles E. Clifford
FEBRUARY 1 968
At t h e request of t h e Defense Atomic Support A s is always t h e case for handbooks, the authors
Agency, Oak Ridge National Laboratory h a s under- and editors a r e relying heavily on suggestions,
taken t h e preparation of a handbook to aid engi- reviews, and criticisms of others as an aid i n
neers charged with t h e responsibility of designing t h e development of t h e various chapters. T h e
s h i e l d s to protect military equipment and personnel l i s t of individuals who have contributed i n t h i s
in t h e vicinity of a nuclear weapons burst. T h i s manner h a s already grown very large, and i t would
document constitutes t h e second chapter of t h e b e almost impossible to acknowledge each person
Handbook i s s u e d t h u s far, the first one being here. W e do, however, wish to e x p r e s s appreci-
Chapter 5, entitled “Methods for Calculating Ef- ation to Lt. Cols. Charles D. Daniel and William
f e c t s of Ducts, A c c e s s Ways, and Holes i n A. Alfonte, who as p a s t DASA Shielding Project
Shields.” T h e s e two chapters, together with an Officers handled the early administration of t h e
. * introductory first chapter, will eventually b e com- contract and a s s i s t e d i n establishing the scope
bined with a chapter defining t h e radiation s o u r c e s of t h e Handbook. T h e work they began is currently
insofar a s is p o s s i b l e and practicable (Chapter 2) being ably performed by Captain R. W. Enz. W e
Y
and a chapter outlining methods for calculating also wish to acknowledge t h e a s s i s t a n c e of R. E.
t h e attenuation of weapons radiation through vari- Maerker of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, who,
o u s media (Chapter 3) to form Volume I of the by virtue of having worked on neutron albedos i n
Handbook. Volume I1 will c o n s i s t of two or more recent years, h a s been able to serve a s an on-the-
additional chapters presenting engineering design spot authority to help resolve problem areas as
methods that a r e based on t h e more sophisticated they arose i n t h i s chapter, particularly i n Sections
techniques described in Volume I. T h e intent is 4 . 1 and 4.2.
that t h e shield designer will u s e Volume I a s a Finally, we wish t o thank Mrs. Virginia M.
textbook and ready reference and Volume I1 a s a Hamrick, who by carefully reading each draft of
guide for handling most of t h e problems with which t h i s chapter, including galley and page proofs, h a s
h e will be confronted. both improved t h e rhetoric and helped eliminate
In order to prepare t h i s Handbook, i t h a s been some of the usual errors that are inevitably found
necessary for Oak Ridge National Laboratory to in formal publications.
obtain the a s s i s t a n c e of several consultants and May 1967
subcontractors. For t h i s chapter on albedos, for
example, Wade E. Selph of Radiation Research T h e Radiation Shielding Information Center grate-
Associates, Inc., performed t h e initial literature fully acknowledges the interest and efforts of Lt.
s e a r c h and prepared the draft with which t h e Col. G. C. Reinhardt and Capt. R. W. Enz of t h e
editors worked. Other chapters will similarly Radiation P h y s i c s Branch of the Defense Atomic
represent a cooperative effort of ORNL and other Support Agency for making i t p o s s i b l e for t h i s
organizations. work t o b e reprinted and widely distributed.
December 1967
...
111
.
Contents
V
.
.
4.0 Introduction
1
2
strongly related t o t h e number of particles reflected, con f i rm a t ion. On the other hand, as the list of
while gamma-ray d o s e albedos are more strongly references at the end of the chapter will reveal,
related to t h e total energy reflected. t h e subject of nuclear radiation reflection h a s
T h e summarization in t h i s chapter of the albedo received a great deal of attention s i n c e 1960, and
d a t a that have been obtained to d a t e emphasizes t h e fact that so much d a t a h a s been amassed in
t h e gaps that s t i l l exist. It will be apparent, for t h e s e few years underscores t h e importance shield
example; that while calculated neutron albedos designers attach t o albedos. Unfortunately, so
for concrete are available for essentially all en- many s t u d i e s being carried out simultaneously h a s
ergy regions of interest, t h o s e for the intermediate- resulted in a diversity of nomenclature and defini-
energy region lack experimental confirmation. tions which h a s complicated comparisons between
Experimental confirmation of gamma-ray albedo what should be similar data. In an attempt to
calculations is even more limited, s i n c e all the alleviate t h i s problem, all albedo d a t a quoted in
experiments have been performed with the low t h i s chapter have been c l a s s i f i e d according to t h e
gamma-ray energies that can b e obtained from iso- definitions given in Section 4.1, which, i f generally
tope sources. In the case of secondary gamma-ray accepted, should a i d in t h e understanding of future
albedos, there h a s been almost no experimental studies.
4.1 Definitions
ORNL-DWG 67-2063
4.1.1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
RECELVER
ORNL-DWG 67-4074
SOURCE
/=
,
directly related; i.e., A , = c o s 8 , A , ,.
will b e due to the radiation that travels directly
4.1.4. OTHER ALBEDOS from t h e source plus t h e radiation which s c a t t e r s
Particle flux or current and energy flux or cur- to P from t h e air, t h e ground, or the concrete.
rent albedos, which refer either to particle or (The scattered component will include radiation
energy flow, have also been used. In keeping that h a s been multiply scattered from some c o m -
with the previous nomenclature, t h e s e are bination of t h e s e three media; however, in m o s t cases
of interest, multiple-medium scattering may b e
A , or a, = particle current out per unit particle
neglected with little l o s s in accuracy.) The
flux in,
ground- and concrete-scattered components may
A , or a, = particle current out per unit particle b e evaluated by performing a numerical integration
current in, of the product of t h e incident intensity and t h e
A 3 or a3 = particle flux out per unit particle material albedo over t h e exposed surface area.
flux in.
For the case in which energy flow is considered,
F o r example, i f a type 1 albedo for concrete is
used, the d o s e a t t h e detector due to scattering
.
t h e s e particle flow quantities a r e weighted by t h e from t h e concrete pad will b e given by
energy and
A , , or a,, = energy current out per unit energy
flux in, etc.
All the parameters involved in t h e s e albedo
definitions are the same a s in the d o s e albedo where D o is the incident d o s e at a n incremental
definitions except that neither the incident nor a r e a dS, r is the distance between P and t h e point
t h e reflected flux (or current) is converted to d o s e of reflection from the pad, and the integration is
units. over the concrete area viewed by t h e detector.
5
-.-
=s
desired, a more complex form of the albedo (such
as a flux or current albedo or a dose albedo that
D, cos e
D aD ,(Eo,eo7e,+) ds (4.10) is differential in exit energy) is used, and the
integration becomes more complex. For example,
r2
it is necessary t o integrate over the incident en-
respectively. ergy spectrum and to accumulate the reflected
T h e dose at a point on the concrete-air interface contributions into energy groups which form the
may b e obtained by using reflected spectrum.
T h e fundamental mechanisms which result in egorized as relating to albedos that result from
neutrons being scattered backwards in a material incident thermal neutrons and those that result
are elastic and inelastic scattering, the two proc- from neutrons incident at energies higher than
esses being distinguished by the condition of the thermal energy. Since neutrons that are incident
target nucleus following its collision with the a t thermal energy scatter in a much more orderly
neutron. In an elastic scattering t h e total kinetic process than do higher energy neutrons, this cat-
energy of the incident particle and the target egory h a s yielded to the direct analytical approach
nucleus is unchanged, and the nucleus is left in much more readily than the other categories. In
the same internal state as before the collision. general, expressions for other types of albedos
In an inelastic scattering the total kinetic energy have been obtained by fits to results from machine
is decreased, and the nucleus is left in an excited calculations, the majority being Monte Carlo type
state. In either case an intermediate s t e p may b e of calculations.
the formation of a very short-lived compound nu- From the following discussion it will b e apparent
cleus, from which the original neutron, or its that almost all the neutron albedo investigations
replacement, is immediately ejected. have been for s o m e form of concrete, although a
As a result of many s u c c e s s i v e scatterings, few have also included other materials.
neutrons c a n follow tortuous paths which are dif-
ficult to calculate. Nevertheless calculations of
neutron albedos have been successfully performed 4.2.1. FAST-NEUTRON ALBEDOS
I
with experimental confirmation in a number of
cases. T h e investigations have fallen into three T h e major contributions t o the data on fast-
major categories, distinguished by the energies of neutron albedos have resulted from studies made
the reflected neutrons: f a s t neutrons, intermediate- by Maerker and Muckenthaler' and by Allen, Fut-
energy neutrons, and thermal neutrons. The studies terer, and Wright. Both groups performed detailed
of thermal-neutron albedos have been further cat- Monte Carlo calculations to determine the reflec-
.
6
c!
tion from materials that is due to f a s t neutrons of T h e emergent angles were determined by the inter-
various energies incident on the materials at section points of a grid formed by nine space-
various angles. T h e results of Maerker and Muck- fixed polar angles and s i x azimuthal angles. T h e
enthaler are more detailed than those of Allen results, obtained for distinct values of 0,. 8, and
et al. in that the reflection data are differential 4, were grouped into energy bands A E , and A E .
with respect both t o the reflected direction (see There were ten reflected energy bands, which,
Fig. 4.1) and to the reflected energy. T h e Allen like t h e incident energy bands, covered the range
et al. data are differential with respect to the between 0.2 and 8 MeV. (Note: Albedos that in-
direction only. clude neutrons reflected at energies less than
T h e Maerker and Muckenthaler calculations were 0.2 MeV were determined separately and are dis-
performed as part of a calculational and experi- c u s s e d in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3.)
mental program that covered a wide range of neu- T h e differential albedo aDz ( E o , O o , E , ~ , cal- ~)
tron energies (see Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3) and culated by Maerker and Muckenthaler is in units of
included an investigation of secondary gamma-ray reflected current (in single-collision d o s e units)
albedos (see Section 4.4). In the experimental per MeV per steradian per incident current (in --.
phase, which was performed a t the ORNL Tower single-collision d o s e units) of a “gun-barrel”
Shielding Facility, a g-in.-thick concrete s l a b w a s beam source. T h i s albedo differs from the ao2
used which was reinforced with steel bars at d i s c u s s e d in Section 4.1 only i n that, as w a s
a depth of 1’/2in. from either side. For the fast- pointed out previously, it is differential with
neutron calculations (but not for the intermediate- respect to the reflected energy as well as the
and thermal-neutron calculations discussed later) reflected direction (that i s , it is a doubly dif-
the s t e e l was not considered and the concrete ferential albedo). T h e s t a t i s t i c a l uncertainty
composition was assumed to b e a typical concrete associated with the Maerker-Muckenthaler d a t a
of the composition shown in Table 4.1.* is about 10% for the doubly differential albedos
T h e calculations were performed for s i x incident and about 3% for singly differential albedos.
energy bands covering the energy range between Typical results from t h e s e calculations are
0.2 and 8 MeV. In a particular problem the neu- shown in Figs. 4.3 through 4.6. Figure 4.3 shows
trons incident on the concrete were sampled uni- the variation of the total albedo (integrated over
formly from e a c h incident-energy band, and a sta- both t h e reflected energy and the reflected angle)
t i s t i c a l estimation technique was used to obtain as a function of the incident angle and incident
estimates of the current emerging from the surface energy band. Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show the de-
a t various angles from a normal to the surface.
l
0.7
*An analysis of the concrete that was used in the
experiment is shown in Table 4.5 in Section 4.2.2. 0.6
0.5
.
.
. ..
.
pendente of the differential d o s e albedo on the angle is strongest for high-energy neutrons . a t
reflection angles 8 and 4, Fig. 4.5 clearly il- grazing angles of incidence and emergence, be-
lustrating that t h e assumption of no dependence coming very weak for low-energy neutrons or for
on the reflected azimuthal angle 4 c a n lead t o values of 4 greater than 45 deg. T h i s trend is
considerable error in t h e differential albedo for consistent with what would b e expected s i n c e
some conditions. T h e dependence on t h e azimuthal the f i r s t scatterings of high-energy neutrons are
in t h e forward direction and s i n c e neutrons that
have scattered more than once tend t o have “for-
ORNL-DWG 64-6630R2
(x40.2)
gotten” their initial direction and thus emerge
9
from t h e material in a rather random manner. Figure
4.6 shows how the ratio of the total d o s e albedo
8
for singly scattered neutrons to t h e total d o s e
- 7 albedo for singly plus multiply scattered neutrons
CD
8 6
i n c r e a s e s with increasing values of t h e polar angle
coo
of incidence.
5
-h6
4
ORNL-DWG 64-9854R2
3
0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
cos e
4.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.t 0
cos eo
ORNL-DWG 64-6629R2
\
9
Table 4.2. Constants for the Expressiona F i t t i n g the Maerker-Muckenthaler Differential Dose
b
Albedo Data for F a s t Neutrons Incident on Concrete
0 0 0 0 1.779-2 1.084-2
0 0 0 0 8.517-3 6.801 -3
a21
1.68 0.95 1.14 0.30 5.97 0
a22
0 0 0 0 -4.39 0
aEquation 4.12.
bTable taken from: R. E. Maerker and F. J. Muckenthaler, N u c l . S c i . E n g . 22, 455-462 (1965).
'6.585 x lo-', etc.
\
10
.
Table 4.3. Compositions of Soil, Iron, and Polyethylene Used in Monte Carlo Calculations by Allen et ol.*
IOB 0.658
'B 2.67
H 8.553 9.80 16.87 76.8
C 39.2
0 22.68 23.30 27.00
AI 2.014 1.830 1.976
Si 9.533 8.680 8.963
Fe 84.9
~~
*Table taken from: F. J. Allen, A. Futterer, and W. Wright, Dependence of Neutron Albedos upon Hydrogen Con-
tent of a Shield, Ballistics Research Laboratories Report BRL-1224 (October 1963).
ORNL-DWG 67-2064
1.4
ORNL-DWG 67-2065
4.2 1.2
4 .O 1.0
AD3 'D3
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2
0
0 40 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.2
0 I
t "
0
A
A
Bo= 45 deg
B,=?O
"
I
40
deg
I
20 30
I
40 50
I I I
60
I
70
ATOMIC PERCENT HYDROGEN ATOMIC PERCENT HYDROGEN
Fig. 4.7. Total Multicollision Dose Albedo for 0.1-MeV Fig. 4.8. Total Multicollisiofi Dose Albedo for 2.0-MeV
Neutrons Incident on Various Materials. (From Allen Neutrons Incident an Various Materials. (From Allen
e t al., ref. 3.) e t af., ref. 3.)
11
ORNL-DWG 67-2066
ORNL-DWG 67-2066 0.240
I I I I
0.5
0.200
1
11r
I
SOIL (SATURATED)
0.4
r S O l L (50% SATURATED)
AD 3 0.460
0.3
a2
0.2 0.420
0.1
0.080
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
ATOMIC PERCENT HYDROGEN
0.040
Table 4.4. Values of the Constant k ( E 0 ) for the Expression F i t t i n g the A l l e n et a/. Differential Dose
Albedo Data far F a s t Neutrons Incident on Various Materials*.
Concrete 0.0948 0.1027 0.1062 0.1323 0.1164 0.1030 0.0834 0.0552 0.1110
Dry NTS s o i l 0.0967 0.0895 0.1002 0.1272 0.1103 0.0979 0.0784 0.0535 0.1050
50% saturated 0.0868 0.0957 0.0952 0.1209 0.1074 0.0926 0.0746 0.0533 0.1015
NTS s o i l
100% saturated 0.0778 0.0818 0.0839 0.1054 0.0891 0.0791 0.0644 0.0463 0.0868
NTS s o i l
Iron 0.1750 0.1752 0.1801 0.1182 0.1477 0.1508 0.1158 0.0802 0.1366
*Table taken from: R. L. French and M. B. Wells, A n Angular Dependent Albedo for Fast-Neutron Reflection C a l -
culations, Radiation R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t e s Report RRA-M31 (November 1963).
French and Wells found that, except for incident the ratio of the macroscopic hydrogen c r o s s sec-
energies near cross-section peaks of the elements tion of the material to its macroscopic total c r o s s
in the material, the total dose albedo data of Allen section. There is a l s o an excellent correlation
et al. could be correlated by a linear function of whzn t h e total albedo is averaged over the fission
neutron spectrum, as is shown in Fig. 4.13 for
normally incident and normally reflected fission
0.4E
neutrons. T h i s correlation should b e useful in
extrapolating to other materials for which calcula-
0.46 tions have not been performed.
Song' used the Monte Carlo data of Allen et al.
0.44 t o obtain values of an energy-dependent parameter
'which. would
. give the b e s t fit to a semiempirical
0.4 2
formula h e had derived for the fast-neutron dif-
ferential d o s e albedo for concrete. T h e formula,
04
0.06
4or 0 3
0.04
02
0.02 04
0
0 04 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
0
0 2 4 6 8 40 12 14 =H/=T
Eo(MeV 1
1' .
.
13
ORNL-DWG 6 7 - 2 4 6 2
derived in a manner analogous to that used by 0.6
Chilton and Huddleston6 for gamma rays, is given
by
0.5
0.4
.
14
0.5
azimuthal dependence is not expected to b e great.
T h e analytical fits will generally provide less
0.4 information on the distribution of the scattered
radiation, but they will allow the reflected dose
t o be computed with fewer operations. Also, the
0.3 u s e of fit equations greatly reduces the bulk of
data needed for the calculations.
AD3
If a spectrum of fast neutrons is incident on the
0.2
material being considered, a more uncertain but
expedient calculation may be made by using the
0.4 \I\,& 0 fission spectrum albedo of Allen et al. shown in
0 MEASURED 0 Fig. 4.13 with an assumed c o s 2 l 30, cos 8 angular
0 CALCULATED
dependence.
-0 ! 2 3
POLYETHYLENE THICKNESS (in.)
Toble 4.6. Constants for the Expressionsa F i t t i n g the Coleman et a/. Differential and Toto1
Albedo Doto for Intermediote-Energy Neutrons Incident on Reinforced Concreteb
Constant 55.1-200 15.2-55.1 4-2-15.2 1.15-4.2 0.32-1.15 87-320 24-87 6-6-24 1.8-6.6 0.5-1.8
keV keV ke V keV keV eV eV eV eV eV
€1 0.190 0.190 0.216 0.210 0.208 0.210 0.205 0.202 0.172 0.105
€2
-0.020 -0.025 -0.047 -0.046 -0.042 -0.061 -0.068 -0.075 -0.059 -0.036
Pl 0.020 0.025 -0.004 -0.005 -0.005 -0.003 -0.003 -0.002 0.021 0.115
0.300 0.295 0.307 0.310 0.305 0.296 0.283 0.270 0.218 0.125
P2
Y1 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.125 0.13 0.13 0.105 0.080
y2 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.865 0.845 0.82 0.65 0.48
a 0.20 0.225 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.40 0.255
b 0.56 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.77 -0.072
C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.765
0.880 0.865 0.875 0.875 0.860 0.845 0.830 0.815 0.817 0.792
8, ,
62 -0.208 -0.177 -0.200 -0.232 -0.205 -0.210 -0.228 -0.230 -0.244 -0.232
0.05
JL
+
-Zs/Zr=0.5
SEMIEMPIRICAL FORMULA
A NUMERICAL INTEGRATION
0 VARIATIONAL METHOD (EXPONENTIAL TRIAL
FUNCTION
3
L
A2 = ln(1 + V) - v (4.26)
where p = C , / C T , a s defined previously, and (1 + V ) 1 4 1 - v 2 )
18
Table 4.7. Values of Coefficients and Functions for Mockel's Semiempirical Formula (Eq. 4.25)*
for normally incident thermal neutrons and the Equations 4.26 and 4.27 are derived from the
expression more general expression
-4
A2 = [ln(l + v) - vI2 (4.27)
v 2 In(1 - v 2 )
-
2v = I n
P
(k).
+v
(4.28)
(4.30)
0
Values obtained with these relatively simple for-
mulas are compared in Table 4.8 with the results
in which p is the cosine of the incident angle and
of exact solutions by Chandrasekhar. ' B G ) is the general expression for the angular
distribution of the incident flux. The s u c c e s s of
Eqs. 4.26 and 4.27 for the c a s e s of normal and
Table 4.8. Comparison of Thermal-Neutron isotropic incidence suggests that Eq. 4.29 could
Albedos Obtained with Pornraning Formulas and with be applied to other angular distributions with
Exact Solutions of Chandrasekhar equal success.
Wells determined total and differential thermal-
A (Normal A (Isotropic neutron albedos for portland concrete by analyz- '
's''T
Incidence) xs/xT Incidence) ing Monte Carlo results obtained in a calculation
Pomraning Exact Pomraning Exact that was originally performed to establish the
distribution of capture gamma-ray sources in
0 0 0 0 0 0 concrete and air due to thermal neutrons incident
0.25 0.046 0.045 0.10 0.020 0.022 on the concrete. '
Expressions which he derived
0.35 0.071 0.070 0.20 0.043 0.046 to fit the Monte Carlo results are
0.45. 0.100 0.098 0.30 0.071 0.074
0.55 0.136 0.135 0.40 0.104 0.107 Al = 0.66 COS^'^ e, (4.31)
0.65 0.183 0.180 0.50 0.144 0.147
0.75 0.246 0.248 0.60 0.192 0.195
and
0.85 0.342 0.340 0.70 0.254 0.257
0.95 0.538 0.536 0.80 0.340 0.342 = 0.21 8, COS e, (4.32)
0.98 0.672 0.673 0.90 0.477 0.478
0.99 0.753 0.753 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 '
which when converted to type 2 albedos are given
1.0 1.0
by
19
Si 9.889 10.00
0
Ca 8.736 7.40 4.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0
Fe 0.31 cos e
*M. B. Wells, Reflection of Thermal Neutrons Fig. 4.19. Comparison of Differential Thermal-Neutron
and Neutron-Capture Gamma R a y s from Concrete,
Albedos for Concrete Obtained with Monte Carlo ond Sn
Radiation Research Associates Report RRA-M44
(June 1966). Methods. (From Moerker ond Muckenthaler, ref. 19.)
\
.
20
.
shows that the Monte Carlo method, which is more 14 I I I I I I I I
readily adaptable to geometric perturbations s u c h 90 = 75 deg
0 MEASUREMENT -
as the steel-reinforcing bars and a l s o to the inclu- 12
-MONTE CARLO, H7O ANISOTROPIC SCATTER
sion of arbitrary anisotropic scattering functions,
d o e s give good results for t h i s type of calculation.
An investigation of t h e parameters limiting t h e
calculations showed that a minimum of 5 0 scatter-
ings should b e used to terminate neutron histories
and that a thickness of 7 mean free paths (-4 in.)
reflects in e x c e s s of 95% as many neutrons a s an
infinitely thick slab.
As was mentioned in earlier sections of t h i s
chapter, the concrete s l a b used in the experimental
phase of t h i s program contained steel-reinforcing 0 20 40 60 00 (00 (20 140 160 180
bars a t a 1v2-in. depth from either side. In t h e + (deg)
calculations t h e slab was assumed to b e divided
into five homogeneous regions, the two outside Fig. 4.21. Differential Albedos of Thermal Neutrons
regions and the middle region having a C,/C, Incident a t 75 deg on Steel-Reinforced Concrete: Com-
value of 0.987 and the two 1-in.-thick reinforced parison of Single-Velocity Monte Carlo Calculations and \
regions having a value of 0.978. T h e assumed ORNL TSF Experiments. (From Moerker and Muckentholer,
compositions for t h e s e two types of concretes ref. 19.)
are shown in Table 4.5.
Typical results from the calculations are shown
in Figs. 4.20 and 4.21, both of which illustrate
that the b e s t fit to the experimental d a t a is ob-
From an analysis of their d a t a Maerker and
tained when the scattering in water is assumed
Muckenthaler arrived at a fitting function for t h e
to b e anisotropic. Figure 4.21 also shows that
differential albedo of t h e form
even for thermal neutrons there is some dependence I
0 MEASUREMENT x [l + (1 - p J ( l - p)(-O.lO
-MONTE CARLO, H20 ANISOTROPIC SCATTER
2.4
__ ___ M O N T E CARLO, H 2 0 ISOTROPIC SCATTER
-
Monodirec tional
source
8, = 0 deg 0.67 0.66 0.698 0.645 0.745 0.691
*cs/c,= 0.9849 except for Maerker-Muckenthaler results, which are based on the five-redon concrete s l a b
discussed in the text.
Neutrons Incident at Nonthermal Energies. - of neutrons from t h e ORNL Tower Shielding Reac-
T h e only estimates available for albedos of "re- tor 11, which was the source used in verifying the
flected" thermal neutrons* resulting from incident calculations, it was estimated that a consistent
neutrons of higher energy are those from the Monte error of 20% in the extrapolated results would lead
Carlo calculations of Coleman et aZ.8 for 0.5-eV t o an error of only about 8%in the predicted values
to 200-keV neutrons incident on the same steel- of the differential thermal-neutron albedos.
reinforced concrete described previously (see Figure 4.22 shows the comparison of the experi-
especially Section 4.2.2). Expressions which mental values of a,(AE,,O,+) averaged over the
reproduce the Monte Carlo values to within *15% incident reactor spectrum with the calculated
for the differential albedos and to within *lo% values. It can b e s e e n from the measurements that
for the total albedos are given in T a b l e 4.11. T h e
ORNL-DWG 67-2073fi
reflected angular distributions (differential al-
bedos) for the s i x highest energy groups have a
s h a p e that is independent of p,, (the cosine of the
incident polar angle) and identical to the s h a p e
derived by Fermig for the emergent angular distribu-
tion from a plane surface in the simplified case of
thermal neutrons diffusing i n a noncapturing and
isotropically scattering semi-infinite medium.
Some contribution is also made to the emergent
thermal-neutron current from the moderation of
incident neutrons with energies greater than 200
keV. Coleman et al. accounted for t h e s e higher
0
energy neutrons by extrapolating the results of
Table 4.11 to obtain expressions for energies up
to 9.57 MeV (see T a b l e 4.12). For the spectrum Fig. 4.22. D i f f e r e n t i a l Thermal-Neutron Albedos Due
to >0.5-eV Neutrons incident on Steel-Reinforced
Concrete: Comparison o f Monte Carlo C a l c u l a t i o n s and
*These neutrons are actually emergent neutrons
ORNL TSF Experiments. (From Coleman et af., ref. 8.)
..
produced by the slowing-down process.
-
.)
22
.
the azimuthal variation of the reflected thermal culated azimuthally independent values. When
neutrons is not significant, probably lying within this was done t h e agreement w a s quite good. Of
the experimental error (-5%) except near grazing t h e 34 common points at which t h e comparisons
reflection. T h u s the differential albedo measure- could b e made, the two largest differences a r e
ments averaged over the azimuthal angle for a 23 and 36%. For the remaining comparisons there
given p o and p could b e compared with the cal- w a s a root mean square deviation of only 4.5%.
C L , ( A E ~ . ~[thermal
~ , ~ ) neutrons .-. Ap(AEO'pO)
(thermal neutrons/source
AEO steradian- ' (source neutron)- 1' neutron)
aTable taken from: W. A. Coleman, R. E. Maerker, F. J. Muckenthaler, and P. N. Stevens, Nucl. Sci.
Eng. 27, 411-422 (1967).
bpo = cos e,; I-L = cos e.
AEO
a , ( A ~ , , p , , p )[thermal neutrons
steradian- ' (source neutron)- '1
A z(AEo'Po)
(thermal neutrons/source
neutron)
.
2.64-9.57 MeV p(1 + 1 . 7 3 ~(0.0024
) + 0.0040p0) 0.016 + 0.027p0 -.
0.750-2.64 MeV p(1 + 1.73p)(0.0028 + 0.0044p0) 0.019 + 0.030p0
200-750 keV p(1 + 1.73p)(0.0036 + 0.0049p0) 0.024 + 0. 033p0
23
4
T h e primary interaction which contributes t o trons, most of them have been for concrete. F o r
the backscattering or material albedo of gamma those cases for which both experimental and cal-
rays is Compton scattering from electrons. In t h i s culated data a r e available, there is good agree-
interaction the photon rebounds with a n energy ment; however, experiments have been limited t o
which is directly dependent on the scattering an- low gamma-ray energies which can be obtained
gle and the incident energy, and is given by the from isotope sources, and definitive Monte Carlo
Klein-Nishina formula. T h e higher the incident calculations have been performed for only a few
energy the more strongly will t h e forward direc- materials.
tion be favored. T h u s the gamma-ray albedo h a s One of the earliest Monte Carlo calculations
a n inverse relationship with the incident photon w a s performed by Berger and Doggett,24 who ob-
energy. Due to the sfrongly peaked forward scat- tained the total d o s e albedo A, for monoenergetic
tering, the gamma-ray albedo also has a strong s o u r c e s incident on iron, tin, lead, and water.
dependence on the azimuthal angle 4. That is, From t h e s e calculations was obtained a quanti-
the scattering angle Os (see Fig. 4.1) a t 4 = 0 tative measure of t h e dependence of the albedo on
deg is smaller than the scattering angle a t q5 = the thickness of t h e scattering material. This
1 8 0 deg, and hence the albedo d e c r e a s e s with dependence is illustrated for iron and water in
increasing 4. T h e magnitude of the difference Table 4.13.
increases with increasing values of the incident Berger and R a s o 2 5 , 2 6 carried out a n extensive
polar angle O, so that a t grazing incidence t h e s e r i e s of Monte Carlo calculations t o determine
difference lies between forward scattering (q5 = the total energy albedo for monoenergetic gamma
0 deg) and backscattering (4 = 180 deg). rays incident on a variety of materials, and in
Another interaction which contributes t o the “re- some c a s e s obtained energy and angular distri-
flected energy” for incident gamma rays of high
energy is pair production. T h e positron created ORNL-DWG 67-2074
in t h i s reaction is annihilated by combination
with a n atomic electron, releasing energy in t h e
form of two new gamma rays. T h i s reaction is
possible only if the energy of the incoming gamma
ray is greater than 1.022 MeV, and i t is predomi-
nant only a t energies above about 5 MeV. T h e
photons that a r e created e a c h have a n energy of
0.511 MeV, which is greater than the maximum
energy possible for gamma rays scattered back-
ward ( O s = 1 8 0 deg) by Compton scattering.
Leimdorfer investigated the relative contri-
butions by positron annihilation and Compton s c a t -
tering t o the total gamma-ray albedo for concrete
in a calculation which considered single s c a t -
terings only. T h e r e s u l t s for normally incident
gamma rays are shown in F i g . 4.23, i n which the
fraction of the albedo due to annihilation is plotted
a s a function of the incident gamma-ray energy. 0 2 4 6 8
Also plotted is the same fraction from a calcu- SOURCE ENERGY (MeV)
lation by Wells23 in which multiple scatterings
were considered. Fig. 4.23. Ratio of Pair Production Annihilation
Most of the s t u d i e s of gamma-ray albedos have Albedo to T o t a l Albedo for Gomma Rays Normally In-
been carried out either by Monte Carlo a n a l y s i s cident on Concrete. (From Leimdorfer, ref. 22, and
or by experiments, and, as was the case for neu- Wells, ref. 23.)
h
.
2xto-'
, , ORjL-OWG 67-20:
T
Fraction of Reflected
EO 60 Photons Reflected to-'
Material
(MeV) (deg) Within Depth of
0.5 mfp 1.0 mfp 2 . 0 mfp
AE2
to2
butions. An interesting result of their work is
the analysis of the variation in the total albedo
with the atomic number of the scattering material.
Plots of the albedo for normally incident gamma 5
rays are shown i n Fig. 4.24. These data may be
fitted by relatively smooth curves; however, data 0 Eo=0.2 MeV
a t intermediate 2 values would greatly increase
confidence in the fits, particularly for the 2.0-
MeV cases.
2
Rase" performed additional calculations for con-
crete for source energies of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 1 0
MeV and polar angles of incidence of cos 6 , = CONCRETE ( Z e f f e c + i v e (3.4)
=
0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.0. The emergent
rCi3
/-
gamma rays were divided into 8 polar and 12 azi- 30 50 70 3
muthal angular increments, and differential dose Z, ATOMIC NUMBER
albedos aD , ( E , , ~ , , ~ , ~were
) obtained for all exit
angle combinations. Total albedos A , 2(E0,00) Fig. 4.24. T o t a l Energy Albedo for Normally Incident
were obtained for each incident energy and angle. Monoenergetic Gamma Rays a s a Function of the Atomic
Values of the differential and total dose albedos Number of the Material. (From Berger and Roso, refs.
for normal incidence are shown in Figs. 4.25 and 25 and 26.)
4.26 respectively.
Figures 4.25 and 4.26 also show Monte Carlo
results obtained by Wells, 2 3 who calculated dif- shown in Fig. 4.26. The divergence of agreement
.
ferential and total dose albedos for gamma-ray with increasing energy could be attributed to the
reflection from concrete by analysis of prior Monte different manner in which pair production was
Carlo data2* on gamma-ray scattering in air and treated in the two calculations.
concrete. The results of Raso and Wells are es- As is apparent from Fig. 4.25, the incident
sentially in good agreement on the total albedo energies used in the Wells calculations were 0.6,
for energies of 2 MeV and below, although there 1, 2, 4, and 7 MeV. The incident polar angles
are some differences in the differential albedos were 0, 30, 45, 60, and 75 deg. The emergent
a t these energies. At energies above 2 MeV there angles varied with the individual problems and no
is a substantial disagreement between Raso and regularly spaced grid was used, but by extrapo-
Wells on the magnitude of the total albedo, as lation and interpolation, smooth curve fits were
25
ORNL-DWG 67-207
4XiO2
(4.39)
2
where K(8,) is the Klein-Nishina differential en-
ergy scattering coefficient for the scattering angle
Os, and C and C‘ are adjustable parameters de-
pendent on the initial energy. Values of K(8,)
8 are given in ref. 9. The most accurate values of
6 C and C ’ were obtained by Chilton, Davisson, and
Beach” from an analysis of earlier Monte Carlo
4 calculations performed by Davisson and Beach. 3 0
F i t parameters were obtained by normalization to
the total calculated albedo rather than to the dif-
a0+ ferential data. The resulting values .of C and C’
2
=
are given in Table 4.14 for water, concrete, iron,
and lead.
Chilton3 a l s o devised a fit to type 2 differential
io3 albedo data obtained by Berger and Morris3’ in
8 Monte Carlo calculations for a semi-infinite con-
6 crete s l a b and gamma rays from 6oCo (1.25 MeV)
4
ORNL-DWG 67-2075
4x46’
e RASO
-WELLS
2
i0-‘
Fig. 4.25. D i f f e r e n t i a l D o s e Albedos for Gamma R a y s \
0
N o r m a l l y Incident on Concrete. (From Wells, ref. 23, 0
\
and Roso, ref. 27.) A
O2 6
\
C
4
cos e, cos e.
Chilton and Huddleston6 developed a s e m i e m - Fig. 4.26. Total D o s e Albedos for Gamma Rays Nor-
pirical formula for the differential dose albedo mally Incident on Concrete. (From Wells, ref. 23, and
for concrete of the form R a s o , ref. 27.)
.A
26
M2
-0.606 -0.629
M3 -0.641 -0.605
+ M,(I - cos e), + M,(I - cm e,)2(i - cos ejn M4
0.645 0.539
M5
-0.1 57 -0.168
+ M,(I - cos e,) (1 - cos e)(1 - cos +) ,
*Table taken from: A. B. Chilton, T r a n s . Am. Nucl.
(4.41) SOC.9, 369 (1966).
27
agreement with the Clifford data. For the single Table.4.16. Values of the Constant b Fitting
case shown (Fig. 4.36), t h e weighted values of the Expression of Haggmork e t a t . (Eq. 4.42)
R a s o and the Wells calculations are very s i m i l a r . for Gamma-Ray Differential Dose Albedos
Both Fig. 4.37 and Fig. 4.39 point up the strong for AI, Fe, and Concrete*
dependence on q5 for obliquely incident radiation.
Haggmark et aZ.34 found th'at their data on dif- Material Source cos 0, b
40-2
-- ORNL-DWG 67-2077
29
%C
2
ORNL-OWG 67-2078
4X,d2
IO-^
8
6 2
4
t 0-2
8
2
6
4
IO-^
0 20 40 60 80
8 (deg)
%C
2
Fig. 4.27. Differential Dose Albedos for Gamma Rays
Incident on Concrete a t 30 deg (4 = 0 deg). (From
Wells, ref. 23.)
8
ORNL-DWG 67-2079
40-’
8
ORNL-DWG 67-2080
I I I I 4x40-2
2 -\
7.0 2
40-~
’ 0 20 40 60 80 .1
9 (deg) rCY2
8
‘b
Fig. 4.29. Differentiol Dose Albedos for Gommo Rays
6
Incident on Concrete a t 45 deg (4 = 0 deg). (From
Wells, ref. 23.) 4
aL7t
4o -~
8
.-.
r-
31
ORNL-DWG 67-2082
2 x
8
6
403
8
6
Fig. 4.32. D i f f e r e n t i a l D o s e Albedos for Gamma 'Rays
a04
1ci2
8
rCi3
0 20 40 60 80
9 (deg)
ORNL-DWG 6 7 - 2 0 8 3
aD,
8
6
IO-^
0 20 40 60 80
B (deg) ORNL- DWG 67- 2 0 8 4
8
Fig. 4.33. Differential Dose Albedos for Gamma Rays
Incident on Concrete a t 75 deg (4 = 0 deg). (From 6
.Wells, ref. 23.)
4
‘D 1
33
1
R
,ASO (WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF 1.0- AND 0.5-
0.016
0.016
0.014
0.012
a 0.010
DI
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002 1o 1 - 1
CLIFFORD
B (deg)
0.040
0.009
0.006
0.007
0.006
aD 4
0.005
0.004
0.003
D WALDMAN
0.002
0.001
-
n
0 40 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
8 (deg)
O R N L - D W G 67-2085
4 x to-2
to-2
8
‘Dl 6
T
0 CLIFFORD (MEASUREMENTS)
4 = 480 0- - 4 =on
00 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80
8 (deg)
o.ot0
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
aDI
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.001
0 40 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
8 (deg)
Fig. 4.38.
Comparison Between Calculated and Meas-
ured Differential Dose Albedos for 6oCo Gamma Rays
(1.25 MeV) Incident on Concrete at 3 0 deg (4 = 0
deg). (From Wells, ref. 23.)
35
ORNL-DWG 67-2093
0.40
I I
- HAGGMARK ef a/.
CLIFFORD
0.08 9 = 5 deg ~
0 9 = 2 0 deg
A e = 3 4 deg
0.06 \ A 9 = 4 0 deg ~
9 = 6 0 deg
'03
0 9=80 deg
0.04 aD,=4.260e-3'362gS t 0.0433 -
0 0
0.02 I
e
0
0.5 4.0 4.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
BS (radians)
OJO
I
HAGGMARK ef a/.
CHILTON-HUDDLESTON
ORNL-DWG 67-2092
0.08
8 deg
45 deg
0.08 0.0433po 22 deg -
0.06
3 2 deg
aD3 4 5 deg
*. 0.06 0 60deg -
0.04
A 7 2 deg
I
A '
o\A
*' 0.02
01 I I I I I
0.5 4.0 4.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
B,(rodians)
i
ORNL-DWG 67-2465
SOURCE DETECTOR
-0
ORNL-DWG 67-2091
COhCRETE
0.40
-
-z- 20 0.07
I
- 45
0
$10
E 0.06
m
J
a
-6 5 >-
$ 0.05
W
0 z
W
14
0.04
12
0
0 too 200 300 400 500
to R(crn)
6W
LL
0
C 0.02 c
Secondary gamma rays, that is, gamma rays 4.4.1. CAPTURE GAMMA-RAY ALBEDOS
produced by t h e interactions of neutrons with
nuclei, c a n appreciably i n c r e a s e t h e number of In determining capture gamma-ray albedos, t h e
gamma rays “reflected” from a material surface. capture gamma-ray s o u r c e d e n s i t y within a medium
T h e most important neutron interaction involved is must be known. T h e d e n s i t y a t a point is given
absorption (radiative capture). In t h e absorption
p r o c e s s t h e incident neutron combines with t h e
target n u c l e u s to form a compound n u c l e u s which Sy(E’) = E F c i ( E ) Y i ( E ’ ) N i @ ( E ) dE , (4.43)
h a s a n e x c i t a t i o n energy e q u a l t o t h e binding I
ORNL-DWG 67-2095
t h e capture gamma-ray albedo for t h e T S F concrete
is greater than that for portland concrete by about
50%. In calculating the capture gamma-ray d o s e
rate along t h e a x i s of a concrete-lined cylindrical
hole, Wells found that t h e results obtained with t h e
T S F albedo were higher by a factor of 1.4 t o 1.5
than t h o s e obtained with t h e albedo for portland
concrete. T h i s demonstrates how variations in
local aggregates used in s i t e construction c a n
c a u s e variations in t h e capture gamma-ray albedo
due to changes in both capture density and gamma-
ray yield per capture.
'
Maerker and Muckenthaler' a l s o obtained cap-
ture gamma-ray d o s e albedos from Monte Carlo
calculations for thermal neutrons incident on
concrete. In their case the concrete w a s assumed
t o b e a five-region s l a b which contained s t e e l in
two regions (described in Section 4.2.2). T h e dif-
ferential albedo d a t a were fit t o t h e expression 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I .O
cos e
.-.
'&.
c
39
:1
T a b l e 4.17. C u r v e - F i t t e d Expressions for Capture Gamma-Ray D i f f e r e n t i a l and T o t a l Albedos A r i s i n g from
the Slowing Down and Capture of Incident Epicadmium Neutronsa
a
DZ(n.Y)
(ho' Po I tob
h 0 [(rads hr-' steradian-l )/(incident unit neutron current)]
unit neutron current)J
55.1 - 200 keV p (0.43 + 2.17p - 1.67~') (0.39 + 0 . 5 1 ~ ~(1.10) ) 10-7(1.40 +1.83~~)
15.2 - 55.1 keV p (0.39 + 1 . 7 8 ~- 1 . 3 9 ~ ' ) (0.50 + 0 . 6 8 ~ ~(1.11)
) 10-7(1.52 +2.07~~)
4.2 - 15.2 keV p (0.70 + 2.53p - 2.07p') (0.37 + 0.46p0) (1.12 - O.O1po) 10-7(1.74 +2.15~~)
1.15 - 4.2 keV p (0.68 + 2 . 5 9 ~- 2 . 0 8 ~ ' ) (0.40 + 0 . 5 4 ~ ~(1.12
) - O.O1po) 10P7(1.93 +2.57~~)
0.32 - 1.15 keV p (0.66 + 3.18p- 2.60p') (0.46 + 0.54p0) (1.14 - 0 . 0 2 ~ ~ ) 10-7(2.43 + 2.79p0)
87 - 320 keV fL (0.89 + 3.52p - 3.09~') (0.41 + 0 . 5 9 ~ ~(1.18
) - 0.06~~) 10-7(2.56 + 3.42p0)
24 - 87 e V p (1.14 + 3 . 9 8 ~- 3.77~') (0.38 + 0 . 6 2 ~ ~(1.30
) - 0.15,~~) 10-7(2.95 +4.20~~)
6.6 - 24 e V p (1.40 + 2 . 7 3 ~- 2 . 5 0 ~ ' ) (0.45 + 0 . 6 5 , ~ ~(1.11
) - 0.04po) 10-7(3.08 +4 . 1 8 ~ ~ )
1.8 - 6.6 e V b.34 + 0 . 7 8 ~+~p (0.15 + 2 . 3 0 , ~ ~-) p2(0.60+ 2.11p0)1 10-7(3.89 +4.14p0)
X (1.09 - 0 . 0 3 ~ ~ )
7
aTable taken from: W. A. Coleman, R. E. Maerker, F. J. Muckenthaler, and P. N. Stevens, N u c l . Sci. E n g . 27, 411-
422 (1967).
/.
bpo = c o s eo; p = c o s e.
~ ( e )c
= e. (4.48)
'
Values of C and n are shown in Table 4.18 for t h e Fig. 4.46a. Geometry for C a l c u l a t i n g Capture Gamma-
materials used in the analysis. Figure 4.46b is a Ray Dose at a Paint 3 f t Above M a t e r i a l Surface.
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0 (deg)
I-
41
4
incident neutron. L e a k a g e from both s l a b f a c e s distribution and which h a v e b e e n normalized s u c h
w a s c a l c u l a t e d for gamma-ray s o u r c e distributions that t h e integral of t h e polynomial over t h e s l a b
represented by t h e function depth y i e l d s t h e t o t a l number of captures. Similar
weighting functions may b e developed for t h e d o s e
N.(x) = Tk, (4.51) transmission d a t a . Small c h a n g e s in material
I
composition may b e accounted for in terms of their
where F r e f e r s t o t h e depth within a s l a b e x p r e s s e d influence on t h e thermal-neutron flux profile and
a s t h e fraction of t h e t o t a l s l a b t h i c k n e s s T (i.e., capture spectrum if they d o not greatly influence
X = x / T ) , and N I. ( F ) dY r e p r e s e n t s t h e estimated t h e gamma-ray attenuation properties.
number of gamma r a y s of energy E. originating a t Some of t h e d a t a on reflected d o s e for t h e case
J
depth x t o x +. d x centimeters from t h e reflecting of c o n c r e t e of t h e composition shown in T a b l e 4.19
surface. T h e fractional d o s e leaking from t h e s l a b a r e presented‘in F i g s . 4.47 through 4.51. T h e
per s o u r c e photon w a s c a l c u l a t e d for k = 0, 1, 2, 3, “fraction r e f l e c t e d ” in t h e s e c u r v e s refers t o t h e
and 4 for s l a b t h i c k n e s s e s of 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and ratio of reflected d o s e n e a r t h e s l a b face to t h e
20 in. for monoenergetic photon e n e r g i e s between d o s e which would b e found a t t h e same point in t h e
1.0 and 11.0 MeV. a b s e n c e of t h e gamma-ray attenuating material
While t h e r e s u l t s obtained from t h i s t y p e of cal- (that i s , t h e s o u r c e dose). For’the a s s u m e d infinite-
culation a r e not n,y a l b e d o d a t a per se, they may s l a b condition, v a l u e s of t h e s o u r c e d o s e a r e inde-
b e used to obtain e f f e c t i v e a l b e d o d a t a for a n pendent of t h e s o u r c e depth distribution. F i g u r e
incident neutron current or flux provided t h a t t h e 4.52 g i v e s t h e s o u r c e d o s e as a function of s o u r c e
distribution of gamma-ray s o u r c e s within t h e s l a b energy.
i s known and t h a t t h i s distribution c a n b e reason- It is emphasized that t h e d a t a c a l c u l a t e d by
ably approximated by t h e polynomial e x p r e s s i o n Budka e t al. w i l l not b e appreciably influenced by
expected variations in c o n c r e t e composition if
Nj(X) = Aoj + a I j F ... + a .F4.
41
(4.52) t h i c k n e s s e s a r e s c a l e d in a c c o r d a n c e with t h e
density. T h e weighting c o n s t a n t s u s e d i n applica-
T h e c o e f f i c i e n t s ak related t o t h e weighting func- tion of t h e d a t a will, however, be very s e n s i t i v e
t i o n s for t h e individual r e s u l t s for t h e Fk distribu- to composition.
t i o n s and must b e determined s u c h that t h e total A complete l i s t i n g of t h e energy and angular
number (or d o s e ) leaving t h e reflecting s u r f a c e w i l l distribution of t h e transmitted and reflected gamma
b e given by rays may b e obtained from ref. 48 for c o n c r e t e a n d
from ref. 49 for t h e NTS soil.
M . K
2
j=1 k=O
z ‘jk a z j
tR = (4.53) Table 4.19. Composition of Concrete ( p = 2.3 g/cm 3 )
Here aij
represents a correction d u e t o t h e error
Compound
Compos it ion
introduced by u s i n g a polynomial fit of t h e form of (wt %)
Eq. 4.52 and is given by
64
a* Nj
=-- akj , (4.54) 10
kj Ni k + 1 2
1
where f l j is t h e e s t i m a t e d number of photons origi-
nating in t h e s l a b , a s opposed t o N . , which is t h e 3
a c t u a l number. T h e term r . in Eq. 4.53 is t h e d a t a 3
Ik
c a l c u l a t e d b y Budka e t al.: t h e reflected current
9
of capture gamma r a y s of i n i t i a l energy E . having
I
a s o u r c e d e p t h distribution F k . T h e weight.ing 1
functions a r e t h e polynomial coefficients which 7
give a n equation approximating t h e c a p t u r e depth
42
ORNL-DWG 67-2098
0.55
0.50
-n
0.45
1
_I
0
V
z
3
+ 0.40
0
n
W
+
W
5 0.35
-
m
V
+
0
W
z
0 0.25
+
V
0.50
a
n
LL
W
0.20
00 -a 0.45
W
G
0.15 1
0.40
L
z
3
0 +
0 2 4 6 a 10 12
0.35
E/ (MeV) W
CC
W
+
t-
Fig. 4.47. Fraction of Capture Gamma-Ray Dose 2 0.30
Reflected from Concrete Slab as a Function of the -
v,
n
Source Energy [ N j ( X ) =- 11. (From Budka and Dolce, W
ref. 49.)
+ 0.25
V
W
1
LL
W
[r
0.20
z
0
+
0
a
E 0.15
W
v)
0
n
0.40
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 0 10
E, ( MeV)
ORNL-DWG 67-2101
0.50
0.45
fi 0.40
E
_I
J
0
0
5 0.35
t
n
0.30
W
+
+
a
0
-n 0.25
Lo
W
6W
ORNL-DWG 67-2100
;
u
0.20
0.50
z
0
5 Lz
0.15
,0.45 LL
W
Lo
-
n 0.40
8 0.io
W
D
_I
_I 0.05
0
2 0.35
3
t
0
n 0 2 4 6 8 10 I2
K 0.30
5 (MeV)
W
+
t
-u 0.25
Lo Fig. 4.50. Fraction of Capture Gamma-Ray Dose
n
W Reflected from Concrete Slab os a Function of the
+
u
Source Energy = E21.
[Nj(?) (From Budka and Dolce,
W
1 0.20
lL ref. 49.)
W
u
z
P
0.45
a
LL
ll.
W
g 0.10
n
0.05
C
2 4 6 8 40 (2
El (MeV)
.’
DOSE FRACTION R E F L E C T E D ( S C A T T E R E D -I- UNCOLLIDED)
P 0 P P
8 2 R : 0 0 P UI
0 VI 0 UI 0 VI 0
VI
e0 UI
R0
0
0
I
aJ
A
N
&
P
'e
1
!
45
References
‘R. E. Maerker and F. J. Muckenthaler, “Calcu- Reflected Subcadmium Component with Experi-
lation and Measurement of the Fast-Neutron Dif- ment,” Nucl. Sci. Eng. 27, 411 (1967).
ferential Dose Albedo for Concrete,” Nucl. Sci. 9E. F e r m i , On the Motion of Neutrons in Hydrog-
Eng. 22, 455 (1965). enous Substances, NP-2385 [translated from Ric.
2F. J. Allen, A. Futterer, and W. Wright, Neutron Sci. V11(2), 13 (1936)I.
Reflection and Flux Versus Depth for Nevada T e st “0. Halpern, R. Lueneburg, and 0. Clark, “On
Site Soil, Ballistic Research Laboratories Report Multiple Scattering of Neutrons. I. Theory of the
BRL-1190 (January 1963); ... for Concrete, Bal- Albedo of a Plane Boundary,” Phys. Rev. 53, 173
listic Research Laboratories Report BRL-1189 (1938).
(January 1963); ... for Iron, Ballistic Research “S. Glasstone and M. C. Edlund, The Elements
Laboratories Report BRL-1199 (March 1963); of Nuclear Reactor Theory, Van Nostrand, New
Neutron Reflection and Flux Versus Depth for York, 1952.
Water, with an Appendix, Comparison of Results 2S. Chandrasekhar, Radiative Transfer, Claren-
of National Bureau of Standards, Ballistic Re- don Press, Oxford, 1950.
search Laboratories Report BRL-1204 (June 1963); 13L. V. Spencer, J. A. Diaz, and E. Moses,
Neutron Reflection and Flux Versus Depth for Neutron Penetration in Cylindrical Ducts, National
Aluminum with an Appendix: Neutron Dose Trans- Bureau of Standards Report NBS-8542 (Sept. 1,
mission Versus Thickness, Ballistic Research 1964).
Laboratories Report BRL-1238 (February 1964); 4A. Mockel, “Reflection,,and Transmission by a
and Angular Distributions and Energy Spectra of Strongly Absorbing Slab,” Nucl. Sci. Eng. 22, 339
Neutrons Transmitted Through Polyethylene, Bal- (1965).
listic Research Laboratories Report BRL-1148 ”R. Bellman, R. Kalaba, and M. Prestrud, i-
(classif ied) (September 196 1). lnvariant Imbedding and Radiative Transfer in
3F. J. Allen, A. Futterer, and W. Wright, De- Slabs of Definite Thickness, American Elsevier
pendence of Neutron Albedos upon Hydrogen Con- Publishing Co., New York, 1963.
tent of a Shield, Ballistic Research Laboratories
Report BRL-1224 (October 1963).
’ 6 G . C. Pomraning, “The Albedo Problem,”
Nucl. Sci. Eng. 21, 265 (1965).
4R. L. French and M. B. Wells, An Angular De-
1 7 M . B. Wells, Reflection of Thermal Neutrons
pendent Albedo for Fast-Neutron Reflection Cal-
culations, Radiation Research Associates Report and NeutronGapture Gamma Rays from Concrete,
RRA-M31 (November 1963). Radiation Research Associates Report I?RA-M44
(June 1964).
’Y. T. Song, F a s t Neutron Streaming Through
8M. B. Wells, Gamma Dose Rates Resulting from
Two-Legged Concrete Ducts, U.S. Naval Civil
Neutron Capture in Air and Concrete, Convair/Fort
Engineering Laboratory Report NCEL-TR-354
Worth Report, NARF-59-31T (September 1959).
(Feb. 2, 1965).
6A. B. ‘Chilton and C. M. Huddleston, A Semi- ”R. E. Maerker and F. J. Muckenthaler, “Meas-
empirical Formula for Differential Dose Albedo for urements and Single-Velocity Calculations of Dif-
Gamma Rays on Concrete, U.S. Naval Civil Engi- ferential Angular Thermal-Neutron Albedos for
neering Laboratory Report, NCEL-TR-228 (Nov. Concrete,” Nucl. Sci. Eng. 26, 339 (1966).
16, 1962); also, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 17, 419 (1963). 20H. Greenspan and I. G. Baksys, Addenda to
7R. L. Henry, L. G. Mooney, and R. J. Provost, Newsletters No. 3 and 4, Argonne National Lab-
Study of Radiation Penetration and Reflection from oratory Newsletter No. 9 (TID-18481) (March 1963).
Shield Materials, General Dynamics/Fort Worth 21C. M. Davisson and R. D. Evans, “Gamma-Ray
Report FZK-183 (August 1964). Absorption Coefficients,” Revs. Mod. Phys. 24,
8W. A. Coleman, R. E. Maerker, F. J. Mucken- 79-(1-952).
thaler, and P. N. Stevens, “Calculation of Doubly 2M. Leimdorfer, The Backscattering of Gamma
Differential Current Albedos for Epicadmium Neu- Radiation from Plane Concrete Walls, Aktiebolaget
trons Incident pn Concrete and Comparison of the Atomenergi Report AE-92 (December 1962).
. ,
47
23M. B. Wells, Differential Dose Albedos for 37B. L. Jones e t al., Air and Ground Scaftering
Calculation of Gamma-Ray Reflection from Con- of Cobalt-60 Gamma Radiation, Consolidated
crete, Radiation Research Associates Report Vultee Aircraft Corporation Report CVAC-170
RRA-T46 (December 1964). (Mar. 30, 1955).
2 4 J . M. Berger and J . Doggett, “Reflection and 38A. B. Chilton, Backscattering of Gamma Rays
Transmission of Gamma Radiation by Barriers: from a Point Source Near a Concrete Plane Sur-
Semianalytic Monte Carlo Calculations, ” J. Res. face, University of Illinois Engineering Experi-
Natl. Bur. Std. 56, 89 (1956). mental Station Bulletin 471 (1964).
”M. J. Berger and D. J. Raso, “Monte Carlo 39W. R. Hendee and J. L. Ellis, “Scattering of
Calculations of Gamma-Ray Backscattering,” Gamma Radiation from Semi-Infinite Slabs,” Health
Radiation Res. 12, 20 (1960). Phys. 12, 673 (1966).
26M. J. Berger and D. J. Raso, Backscattering 40D. G. Andrews and J. J. Steyn, “Experimental
of Gamma Rays, National Bureau of Standards Differential Number, Energy and Dose Albedos for
Report NBS-5982 (July 25, 1958). Semi-Infinite Media, for Normally-Incident Gamma
”D. J. Raso, “Monte Carlo Calculations on the Radiation,” Trans. Am. Nucl, SOC. 8, 655 (1965).
Reflection and Transmission of Scattered Gamma ‘C. Eisenhauer, “An Image Source Technique
Rays,” Nucl. Sci. Eng. 17, 411 (1963). for Calculating Reflection of Gamma Rays or
“M. B. Wells, Air and Concrete Scattering of Neutrons,” Health Phys. 11, 1145 (1965).
Gamma Rays, Convair/Fort Worth Report MR-N- 42M. Leimdorfer, Backscattering of Gamma Radi-
229 (NARF-59-11T) (March 1959). ation from Spherical Concrete Walls, Aktiebolaget
“A. B. Chilton, C. M. Davisson, and L. A. Atomenergi Report AE-93 (January 1963).
Beach, “Parameters for C-H Albedo Formula for 43M. B. Wells and K. W. Tompkins, unpublished
Gamma Rays Reflected from Water, Concrete, Iron, data.
-7 and Lead,” Trans. Am. Nucl. SOC. 8, 656 (1965). 44D. M. Peterson, Shield Penetration Programs
30C. M. Davisson and L. A. Beach, “A Monte C-17 and L-63, General Dynamics/Fort Worth
2 Carlo Study of Back-Scattered Gamma Radiation, ” Report NARF-61-39T (Dec. 29, 1961).
Trans. Am. Nucl. SOC.5, 391 (1962). 45R. L. French, M. B. Wells, and N. M. Schaeffer,
31A. B. Chilton, “A Modified Exposure Albedo Penetration of Neutron and Gamma Radiation
Formula for Gamma Rays Reflected from Concrete,” Through the Openings of Underground Structures,
Trans. Am. Nucl. SOC.9 , 369 (1966). Radiation Research Associates Report RRA-T41
32M. J. Berger and E. E. Morris, Dose Albedo (Nov. 30, 1964).
and Transmission Coefficients for Cobalt40 and 6M. B. Wells, Radiation Resistant Combat
Cesium-137 Gamma Rays Incident on Concrete Vehicle Investigation - F i n a l Report, Volume Ill:
Slabs, National Bureau of Standards Report NBS- Monte Carlo Multilayer Slab Geometry Shielding
9071 (July 5, 1966). Code C-18, General Dynamics/Fort Worth Report
33C. E. Clifford, Differential Dose Albedo Meas- FZK-134-3 (Secret).
urements for 0.66 MeV y’s Incident on Concrete, 4 7 A . J. Budka, Gratis - A Monte Carlo Computer
Iron and Lead, Defense Research Chemical Lab- Program for Calculating Transmission Information
oratories, Ottawa, Report DRCL-412 (August for Secondary Gamma Radiation, Ballistics Re-
1963). search Laboratories Report BRL-1223 (October
34L. G. Haggmark e t al., “Differential Dose- 1963).
Rate Measurements of Backscattered Gamma Rays 48A. J. Budka and T. Dolce, Secondary Gamma
from Concrete, Aluminum and Steel,” Nucl. Sci. Ray Transmission Through Plane Slabs of Con-
Eng. 23, 138 (1965). crete, Ballistic Research Laboratories Report
35M.J . Barrett and J. Waldman, Experimental BRL-1307 (September 1965).
Gamma-Ray Backscattering by Various Materials, 49A. J. Budka, W. Brand, and T. Dolce, Second-
Technical Operations Research Report TO-B 64-68 ary Gamma Ray Transmission Through Nevada Test
(July 1964). Site Soil, Ballistic Research Laboratories Report
36E. T . Clarke and J. F. Batter, “Gamma-Ray BRL-1329 (July 1966).
Scattering by Concrete Surfaces,” Nucl. Sci. Eng. ’ON. Tralli e t al., F a s t Neutron Cross Sections
17, 125 (1963). for Titanium, Potassium, Magnesium, Nitrogen,
48
Aluminum, Silicon, Sodium, Oxygen, and Manganese Sections for Neutron Interactions with Oxygen and
- Final Report, United Nuclear Corporation Report Deuterium - F i n a l Report, United Nuclear Corpora-
UNC-5002 (NDL-TR-30) (January 1962); A. D. tion Report UNC-5038 (NDL-TR-40) (Aug. 31,1962).
Krumbein, Neutron Cross Sections for Beryllium, 'H. Goldstein, "Sources of Neutrons and Gamma
United Nuclear Corporation Report UNC-5014, Vol. Rays," Chapter 8 in Shielding, Part B, Vol. I11 of
B (NDL-TR-36, Vol. B) (May 1962); and M. H. Reactor Handbook, edited by E. P. Blizard and
Kalos, H. Goldstein, and J. Ray, Revised Cross L- s- Abbott, Interscience, New York, 1962.
49
0 RN L- R SI C-2 1
(DASA-1892-2)
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
1073. Copt. R. W. Enz, Radiation Physics Branch, DASA, Washington, D.C. 20301
1074. P. B. Hemmig, Division of Reactor Development and Technology, U.S. Atomic Energy
Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.
1075-1 076. J. W. Keller, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
1077. Lt. Col. G. C. Reinhardt, Radiation Physics Branch, DASA, Washington, D.C.
1078. A. Reetz, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 20546
1079. Robert Roussin, 1213 West Clark, Urbana, Illinois
-
1oao 1089. W. Selph, Radiation Research Associates, Fort Worth, Texas
1090. I. F. Zartman, Division of Reactor Development, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington, D.C.
1091-1105. Division of Technical Informotion Extension (DTIE)
1106. Laboratory and University Division, AEC, OR0
1 107- 1439. Given Distribution a s shown in TID-4500 under Reactor Technology Category (100 copies -
CFSTI)