AD-A158 462 THE EFFECT OF THE CHOICE OR RESPONSE MRTRIX ON UNFOLDED 1/i

BONNER SPHERE SPECTRR(U) NRRL RESERRCH LRB HRSHINGTON

DC K A LOMRY ET RL. 31 DEC 84 NRL-MR-5493
UNCLRSSIFIED F/G 29/6 NL

Elmm/I////Il
IEElllllllllEI
IiIElillElllE
 JI&5

11111,.
- . IS

11111
1.8
~l

JJ..L4. 11.6

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

NATIONAL OF STANDARDS-
BUREAU I963-A
 NRL Menrdum Report 5493

The Effect of the Choice of Response Matrix

on Unfolded Bonner Sphere Spectra
. A. LOWRY AND T. L. JOHNSON 0
Health Pftosics Staff

04
Q
(0

I December 31, 1984

Q

-J

NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

Washington, D.C.
0

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

8S" 02 05 01
,~. .. ...............
".... *%' " .. ... ... ..
 SECURITY CLASSIFICATI'N OF TMuiSFkGE

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

la REPORI SWS.'" (--ASS LICATION lb RESTRICTIVE
MARKINGS
UNCLASSIFIED
2a SECURTY C.A',, ATI AkT,iORiTY 3 D)STRIBU TION /AVAltABILITY OF REPORT

2b DECLASSE(A(,OIN XJO04GRAOIt SCHEDULE Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

4 PERFORMING, ()RC_,A%'AT!ON REPORT NUMBER(S) 5 MONiTOP.NG ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

NRL Memorandum Report 54193

fi PF lo4V~ Nb ORG
AEOF MNZArOTN 6b OFFICE SYMBOL 'a %AME OF MONTrOR.NG ORlGANIZATION
j(if' applicable)
Naval Research Laborators I 6070
6( ADDRE SS City. State anid 11P Code) lb ADDRESS (City. State, and ZIP Code) 21

Washington. DC 20375-5000 PRCRMNIISRMN FE.9

O iN
'A (it apphcable) q

8( ADOLRE,', 3Cty State tnd ZIP Code) 10 SOURCE OP FUNDING NUMBERS

PROGRAM PROJECT ITASK ~ WORK UNIT
ELEMENT NO No NO. ACCESSION NO.
Arlington. VA 22217 637NDN691-239
1I I IIT, E (include Security Classfication)
S 651S18I DN280-077

The Effect of the Choice of Response Matrix on Unfolded Bonner Sphere Spectra
12 PERSONAL AIT,-ORIS)
Lowry. K. A., and Johnson, TI. L.
13a TYPE Ol, lE PORT I3b~ TIME COVERED 1DAE OF REPORT (Vear Month Day) SPGCOuNT
Interim FROM _ __TO___ 1984 December 31 51
-16 SUPP FIA
VFAR' .O'AT,k'

1? 1 )SAI CO)FS 18 SUBIECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
FIELD IIROP SUFRUP Nurn
NurnBonner spheres, Unfolding*
Spectrometry, Multispheres,
* 19 ABSTRA(T (Continue oni feverse it necessary and identify by bNocknumber)

The effect of the choice of the response matrix on neutron spectra unfolded from Bonner sphere data
was studied. In particular, the variation of integral parameters calculated from the unfolded spectra was
* determined for six matrices, It was determined that, depending on the choice of matrix, the calculated
neutron fluence varies by approximately 15c', the average neutron energy by 40%, the dose by 30%, the
dose equivalent by up to a factor of 4, and the quality factor by 35%. For personnel monitoring devices,
the calculated response varied by up to a factor of .1 for the Navy albedo badge, a factor of 7 for a cadmium-
covered albedo badge, a factor of 6 for a CR-39 dosimeter, and more than two orders of magnitude for NTA
type emulsion film. Two of the response matrices gave results in good agreement with other calculated and
experimental data. .. ~ i, .. ~ ~

20 DISTRI01i ()N AVAILABII ''Y OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITYeCLASSIFICATION

LNC ASSII ED INL V- ED C1 SAME AS RPT Q OTIC USERS UNCLASSIFIED
22a NAME OF RESI'ONSIB[E INDIVIDUIAL 22b rELEPHONE (Intluide Area Code) 22c OFFICE SYMBOL
T. L. Johnson (202)767-2232 Code 6070
DO FORM 1473, B4 MAR 83 APR editiorn may be used until exhausted
All other edlions are obsolete

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Of THIS PAGE

 CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION................................................1

THE RESPONSE MATRICES USED FOR THIS STUDY..................3

THE NEUTRON SPECTRA........................................ 5

METHOD OF SPECTRUM UNFOLDING..............................6

THE CONVERSION FACTORS ..................................... 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION......................................7

CONCLUSIONS.................................................16

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................... 16

REFERENCES................................................. 17

*Too - --

cap,
 THE EFFECT OF THE CHOICE OF RESPONSE MATRIX
ON UNFOLDED BONNER SPHERE SPECTRA

nWTRODUCTION
In 1960, Bramblett et al [1] suggested that neutron spectra could be
determined by using a thermal neutron detector in the center of several
moderating spheres of various sizes. They used a small, cylindrical, 4 m
high x 4 mm dia., europium-activated lithium iodide scintillation crystal as
the thermal neutron detector in the centers of polyethylene spheres having
diameters of 2, 3, 5, 8, and 12 inches. Thermal neutrons arriving at the
center of the moderator interact in the scintillator, primarily by the
6
Li(n,Q) 3H reaction, producing a 4.79 MeV a particle which is stopped in the
crystal. The scintillator is coupled to a photomultiplier and the output is
processed to give a measure of the thermal neutron fluence at the center of
the moderator. Such spheres are usually called "Bonner spheres" after the
senior author of the original paper.

Bonner spheres can serve as a spectrometer because the combined effect of

moderation and absorption of the incident neutron spectrum causes the number
of thermal neutrons arriving at the centers of the spheres to vary with
energy in different ways for the different size moderators. The response of
a set of spheres may be written

E
max
=
A. =CF (E) 0(E) dE j 1,2,,,oM (I) i".

where

A is the counting rate of the jth detector,

a (E) is the response function of the jth detector as a function
_ of energy
Manucript approved October 23, 1984.
1-

... ~ .: . .K.~& :.....~... oo

 .S

O(E) is the neutron fluence as a function of energy, and

M is the total number of detectors.

Equation (1) is known formally as a Fredholm integral equation of the

first kind. Such equations can only be solved if oj(E) is an analytical
function, which is not the case for Bonner spheres. In practice, Eq. (1) is
replaced by a set of linear equations by dividing the energy region into -, -

several regions having constant detector responses and fluences. Equation (1)
becomes

N
A. = ajkD(k) j = 1,2,...M (2)
k=l

where
S
ajk is the response of the jth detector to neutrons in the kth
energy interval, and
N is the total number of energy intervals.

The set of detector responses, ajk, called the response matrix, has not
been measured with sufficient accuracy because of difficulties in obtaining
and characterizing suitable neutron calibration fields. Hence, calculated
response matrices are usually employed. Several such matrices have been
published, with three appearing in the past few years.

The purpose of our study was to determine how the choice of response
matrix affects the neutron spectrum obtained from Bonner sphere data. In
particular, we were interested in how the choice of matrix affects integral P
parameters which are calculated from the unfolded spectrum. These parameters
include dose, dose equivalent, total fluence, quality factor, average energy,
and the response of personnel monitoring devices and radiation survey
instruments. They are calculated using the equation

N
P = Ck (k) (3)
k=l

. . . * . 9 * . . .
 where

P is the parameter of interest,

0(k) is the neutron fluence in the kth energy interval, and
Ck is the conversion factor per neutron in the kth energy interval.

THE RESPONSE MATRICES USED FOR THIS STUDY

When Bramblett et al [1] published the original work on the Bonner sphere
spectrometer, they reported the experimentally determined response of the
detectors for neutrons having energies between 0.05 and 15.1 MeV. Measure-
ments were also made for thermal neutrons, and the response of the various
size moderators was estimated for neutrons having energies between 0.025 eV
and 50 keY, since no neutron sources were then available having energies in
this region. Using this data, Burrus [2] reported a response matrix having
5^1 energy bins from thermal to 200 MeV. This matrix is usually referred to
as M60 [3].

Using an adjoint transport technique, Hansen and Sandmeier [4] calculated

the response of the original set of Bonner spheres. These calculated responses,
plus those for moderators having diameters of 10, 16, 18, and 20 inches, were
reported by McGuire [5]. A 52 energy-bin version of these calculations was
reported by O'Brien et al [6]. This 52 bin version is usually referred to as
M65 [3].

In 1973, Sanna [7] calculated a 31 group set of responses extending from

thermal energies to 400 MeV using the adjoint method of Hansen and Sandmeier.
6
He adjusted the Li(n,) cross section to ensure that the collision probabil-
ities for the cylindrical LiI detector would be retained in each group when
it was represented as a spherical detector. In addition to making calculations
for a 4 mm x 4 mm detector, Sanna made calculations for 8 mm x 8 mm and 12.7 mm x
12.7 mm detectors in spheres having diameters of 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 18
inches. He also investigated the effect of different polyethylene densities
and made calculations for water moderators and for gold foil detectors. For

the purposes of this comparison, we call the response matrix for the 4 mm x
4 mm LiI detector in polyethylene spheres, SAN4.

3
 Recently, three new response matrices have been caculcated. Using a
Monte Carlo method, response matrices were calculated at the Bhabha Atomic
6
Research Center, Bombay, India [8]. For these studies, a 0.245 cm radius LiI
6 3
scintillator, 100% Li enrichment, and a density of 4.061 gm/cm , was taken as
being equivalent to a 4 mm x 4 mm cylindrical scintillator. In addition, the
3
effect of replacing #he LiI scintillator by a BF detector was studied. We
will refer to the matrix for the 4 mm x 4 mm detector as BARC.

Based on experimental data and calculations available in the literature,

Zamborowski [9] showed that a good fit to this data could be obtained by as-
suming that the response of Bonner spheres of various sizes was given by the
energy response function

) F[S2E) (lnrj - M(E))

F(E) [SE)(4)
3 S (E) rj V21

where

a (E) is the response of the jth sphere, having a radius in cr. of r,

as a function of energy, and
F, M, and S are parameters, independent of sphere size, which are
adjusted to give the best fit to the calculated and experimental
data.

Values of F, M, and S were tabulated for 157 energies between 0.4 eV and
15 MeV for a 4 mm x 4 mm Lil detector. The response matrix obtained from these
tabulated values and Eq. (4) is referred to as LOGNM.

The most recently available matrix is one calculated at the University

of Texas at Austin by Iertel and Davidson 110,11]. Using newly evaluated
cross sections for lithium, carbon, and hydrogen, the method of Hansen and
Sandmeir was used to calculate the response of 4 mm x 4 mm and 12.7 mm x
12.7 mm LiI detectors and for moderators having diameters of 2, 3, 5, 8, 10
12, and 18 inches. Calculations were made for 171 energies between thermal
and 17.3 MeV . Calculations were also made for the bare detectors and the

. . . . .
.r.' .. '._ . . .-.. ............... ,. ...........
 detectors in 2-, 3-, and 5-inch diameter spheres covered with 0.76 cm
cadmium. We call the matrix for the 4 mm x 4 mm detector UTA4.

As a convenience for unfolding, all the response matrices were re-binned

to the SANNA energy intervals. For M60 and M65 this was done by making a
spline fit to the data in reference [3]. The neutrons were assumed to be at
the log center of the SANNA energy intervals. For the LOGNM data, the re-
sponses were calculated for each of the 157 energies and this data was reduced
to the SANNA grid using log interpolation. Log interpolation was also done
for the UTA4 data. In reducing the LOGNM and UTA4 data, we assumed that the
original energies were at the centers of log energy intervals. Intervals that
fell completely within a SANNA interval were converted, weighted by the ratio P
of their log width, to the SANNA interval log width. Intervals which crossed
a SANNA interval end-point were divided using a log scale before conversion to
the two SANNA intervals. No numerical data was available for the BARC matrix.
Two requests to the authors for such data were unanswered, thus the data for P
the BARC matrix was taken from the graphs in reference [8]. The re-binned
data for all six matrices are given in Tables la-If. For all the matrices,
the data from UTA4 is used to calculate the effect of covering the spheres
with cadmium. _

THE NEUTRON SPECTRA

The neutron spectra and the associated Bonner sphere data used to test
the response matrices were all generated at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) L
during the course of establishing the response of the Navy albedo neutron
personnel monitoring badge to different neutron spectra. Twenty sets of data
were chosen, covering the widest range of neutron energies that we could con-
veniently generate using Cf-252 and AmBe neutron sources moderated by Lucite,
polyethylene, steel, and cadmium in various configurations. This data was
taken using a set of Bonner spheres obtained from Ludlum Measurements, Inc.,
Sweetwater, Texas. The detector was a cylindrical 4 mm x 4 mm LiI crystal.
The measured density of the polyethelene was 0.96 g/cm 3 . Total counts for
each detector were greater than 104 giving statistical errors on the order of
+1%. A description of the various sources is given in Table 2, while the

counts for the 2-, 3-, 5-, 8-, 10-, and 12-inch detectors, expressed as the
percent of the total counts, are listed in Table 3. The spectra have been

P..

_. .... ...... .................... ................ -,.,

,---'_~~~~~~~.. '."....",-...... .. .. ,............-,...'. . .- .......-.-..... -0. "- .. . .'.
numbered in order of decreasing average neutron energy. Spectra 1, 4, 10, and
12 have errors considerably greater than +1% because they were separated into
source and room-return components. This separation was done using the method
of Eisenhauer et al [12]. Even though the data for these spectra have larger
errors because of this process, the separation allows us to compare the experi-
mental data to relatively well known calculated data, especially for Cf-252.

Because of the large size of the moderating configurations, it is not

possible to separate the direct and room-return components of these spectra.
The effective radius of the experimental room is included as an aid in esti-
mating the room-return component. The room having an effective radius of 3.4
meters measures 7.5 x 4.5 x 3.4 meters. The room having an effective radius
of 5.0 meters measures 12.2 x 6.1 x 4.6 meters.

METHOD OF SPECTRUM UNFOLDING

The neutron spectra were unfolded from the Bonner sphere data using the

YOGI neutron unfolding code developed at NRL by Johnson and Gorbics 113).
Since data for the bare detector were not available for all matrices, we used
only the data for the 2-, 3-, 5-, 8-, 10-, and 12-inch detectors. Only the
first 25 energy intervals were used for the spectrum unfolding since data were

only available to approximately 15 MeV for some of the matrices. Also, from
the sources used, Cf-252 and AmBe, significant numbers of neutrons above this . -

energy were not expected. From physical considerations, it was anticipated

that the general shape of the spectra could be described by a three-component
spectrum made up of a high-energy Maxwellian peak, an intermediate energy
component described by I/Ex (E = neutron energy), and a thermal component.
Therefore, we first fit the data using the MAXIET algorithm [14] followed by
the iterative perturbation method of YOGI. We did not smooth the spectra to
the initial MAXIET spectrum. However, to prevent wild oscillations in the
spectra due to errors in the data or response matrices, we stopped the unfold-
ing after 25 iterations, using an 8% perturbation. Further unfolding produced
no significant improvement in the fit to the data.

THE CONVERSION FACTORS

The conversion factors used to determine integral parameters from the

unfolded spectra are listed in Table 4. The response of the Navy albedo badge

6
was determined by making the best fit to the experimental data from 80 spectra
generated for that purpose. The response of a completely cadmium covered
albedo badge, often called a "Hankins" dosimeter, was approximated from the
calculation of Allsmiller and Barish [15]. The response of the Cr-39 detector
was taken from Benton el at [16] and the response of the NTA film from Oshino
[17]. The response of the AN/PDR-70 was supplied by Gordon Riel of the Naval
Surface Weapons Center. The conversion from neutron fluence to dose was taken
from the tabulation of Sanna [18], while the conversion to dose equivalent was
supplied by Charles Eisenhauer of the National Bureau of Standards. This con-
version was made using log-log interpolation [19] of the data in ICRP 21 [20].

These conversion factors may not necessarily be the most appropriate

ones available, but should be adequate for our comparison of the effect of
choice of response matrix.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

General Fit to the Detector Data

One measure of the appropriateness of a response matrix is how well

the Bonner sphere data can be fit. If there are inconsistencies in the re-
sponse matrix, it is possible to have data which cannot be fit to a reasonable
degree of accuracy with any spectrum. If our assumption that these spectra
x
can be fit using a Maxwellian, a 1/E , and a thermal component is correct,
then the fit obtained with the various matrices using only these componenets
is an indication of their consistency. The root mean square of the fit to

the data (% average error) is listed in Table 5 for each spectrum unfolded
using each matrix and the MAXIET algorithm. Note that a good fit is obtained,
especially with UTA4, SAN4, and LOGNM. There appear to be inconsistencies in
M60, M65, and, especially, BARC. After 25 iterations using YOGI, there is
considerable improvement to the fit data, the average average error being
reduced to less than 0.7% for SAN4 and UTA4. This data is shown in Table 6.
In order to illustrate the general characteristics of the fits obtained with
each matrix, we have listed the percentage difference between the calculated
response of each detector and measured response in Tables 7a-7f. A plus sign
indicates that the measured response is lower than the calculated response;
but, when considering the matrices, a positive difference indicates that the

................................... .7.. . . . . . . . . . .
 calculated response of the matrix is too high. From these tables we can draw
the following conclusions:

a. For M60, the responses of the 8" and 12" detectors are too low,
or the 10" response is too high.
b. For M65, the responses of the 3" and 10" detectors are too high.
c. For SAN4, the responses of the 2", 5", and 12" detectors are
slightly low.
d. For LOGNM, the responscs of the 3", 8", and 10" detectors are
slightly low, or the other three are too high.
C. For BARC, the responses of the 2", 5", and 10" are too low.
Note, particularly, the large discrepancy between the 8", 10",
and 12" detectors.
f. For UTA4, the responses of the 2", 5", and 12" detectors are
.Jliqhtly low.

These conclusions suggest that better fits to the data, giving more
reasonably shaped spectra, could be obtained if the responses of selected
detectors were raised or lowered based on the data in Tables 7a-7f. We did
not attempt to do this for this particular study, however.

Agreement with Calculated Spectra

Spectra 4 and 12 were chosen for comparison with the calculations

of Grundl and Eisenhauer [21] and Eisenhauer et al [12]. In Table 8 we list
the calculated counts for each matrix obtained using the calculated Cf-252
spectrum with the magnitude of the spectrum adjusted to minimize the percent
difference between the calculated counts and the experimental counts. Note
the remarkable agreement, especially for SAN4 and UTA4. The differences indi-
cate that M60, M65, 1,fGNM, and UTA4 will give spectra having lower energies
than the calculated spectra. There is no discernable trend in the BARC data.
In order to compare the experimental spectra with the calculated spectrum,
spectra were unfolded using each matrix with the calculated spectrum as a
starting spectrum for YOGI. The unfolded spectra were smoothed to the calcu-
lated spectrum uSing a moderate amount of smoothing in YOGI. The unfolded and
calculated spectra are shown in Fig. 1. As expected from the data, the SAN4
* matrix gives the best. fit. It might be argued that the source encapsulation

would broaden the spectrum somewhat, in which case, the UTA4 matrix gives the

.......................................................

...... ... .. .- .-- ". - . . .. .

best fit. The others show a considerable deficiency of high energy neutrons.

The No. 12 spectrum is similarly compared with the calculated room-

return spectrum of Eisenhauer [12]. A thermal component was calculated using
the equation [22]

nv= 1.25 Q/S (5)

where

3
nv is the thermal neutron fluence rate per cm

Q is the Cf-252 emission rate in neutrons per second, and

S is the surface of the calibration room in cm 3 .

This component was then combined with the Eisenhauer calculation in order to
make a comparison with the experimental data. Note in Table 9 that the cal-
culated counts from this spectrum also indicate that the unfolded spectra will
have lower energies when using the M60, M65, LOGNM, and UTA4 response
matrices. Again, SAN4 and UTA4 give good agreement with the data, far better
than the error of about +10% estimated for this data.

Using each matrix, spectra were unfolded with the calculated

spectrum as a starting spectrum, and smoothed to the starting spectrum. Fits
were terminated when the average error dropped below +1%, or after 50
iterations. The spectra obtained with SAN4 and UTA4 are shown in Fig. 2a.
The fit terminated after 1 iteration for SAN4 and after 3 iterations for UTA4.
As expected, UTA4 gives a slightly softer spectrum. The spectrum obtained
with M60, M65, and LOGNM are shown in Fig. 2b. Note the oscillations in the
M60 and M65 spectra. These are caused by errors in the response matrices or
in the detector data. LOGNM gives a reasonable fit to the data; :1% error
was reached after 20 iterations. However, the spectrum is considerably lower
in energy than the calculation. The data for the BARC matrix is shown in
Fig. 2c. BARC, M60, and M65 did not fit the data within +1% after 50 iter-
ations. The error was approximately +2% for each matrix. Using no smoothing,
further unfolding produced oscillations of 107 in the spectra without
significant improvement in the fit to the data.

.:i[

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 500 -- NBS CALCULATION
x SANNA
o M60
200 11 LOGNM
+ M650
A BARC
>-100 v UTA0

* z50
*-

z
D 200

* 00
*U 10 Z
0 /
z -.

+ /

2 +

0.01 0.02 0.05 0.2

0.1 0.5 1 2 5 10 15
ENERGY (MeV)
Fig. 1 Cf-252 neutron spectra obtained using each of the
the response matrices in the YOGI unfolding code. -

The spectra were unfolded using the NBS calculation

as the starting spectrum for YOGI.

10
 I -

2.0
|" U.
-CALCULATION
ogSANNA
CD| ne

an UTA-- repos marcsihecluae

0.0 1JJ I i---;i_.

-8.0 -7.0 -6.0 -5.0 -4.0o 30 -. -1.0 0.0 1.0
LOG (ENERGY. MeV) ,. .
Fig. 2a Cf-252 room-return spectrum obtained using the SAN4 t
and UTA4 response matrices. The calculated
spectrum was used as the starting spectrum for YOGI
and the unfolded spectra were smoothed to the
calculated spectrum.

- t ~ * * - % ,.,US
 2.0- -CALCULATION
D M600

0 650 t

zA
LU
~1.0a

0 0 0
-0J
0
0 (Jo
0 0
0 0
9 0
0.0
-8.0 -7.0 -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0
LOG (ENERGY, MeV)
Fig. 2b Cf-252 room-return spectra obtained using the M60,
M65, and LOGNM response matrices. The calculated -

spectrum was used as the starting spectrum for YOGI

and the unfolded spectra were smoothed to the
calculated spectrum.

12
 2.0

- CALCULATION
BARC [] 00 n
0
w0
00
z
:31.0 0 0
U.

0 o 0 00 00
0p

0.0 -

-8.0 -7.0 -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0
LOG (ENERGY, MeV)
Fig. 2c Cf-252 room-return spectra obtained using the BARC
response matrix. The calculated spectrum was used
as the starting spectrum for YOGI and the unfolded
spectrum was smoothed to the calculated spectrum.

as
spctrm
te strtig
fo YOI an th unflde

13
 Variation of Integral Parameters

Integral parameters were calculated for each spectrum unfolded with

each matrix using Eq. (3) and the conversion factors listed in Table 4. These
data are presented in Tables lOa-lOj. For each parameter, the average value
obtained with all the matrices is given along with the ratio of the response
obtained with each matrix relative to the average response.

The fluence data is shown in Table i0a. This data has been
normalized using spectrum No. 4, the Cf-252 source with the room-return com-
ponent removed. This simulates how a Bonner sphere system might typically be
calibrated. Generally, the fluence does not vary more than +15% with choice
of matrix. The exception is that M60 tends to significantly overestimate the
fluence for spectra having energies less than the bare Cf-252.

The data for average energy is given in Table 10b. There is

reasonable agreement for average energies above approximately 1 MeV. SAN4 and
UTA4 give exceptionally good agreement with the average energies usually given
for Cf-252 (spectrum 4) and AmBe (spectrum 1) of approximately 2.2 and 4.5 MeV.
Below this energy, there are significant variations with SAN4 and UTA4 giving -

40-70% over-response and LOGNM, and especially BARC, giving a large under-

response. The difference between the average energy obtained with SAN4 and
BARC is more than a factor of 10 at the lowest energies. Spectra 13 through
20 were all generated with Cf-252 or AmBe in the center of a 60 cm dia. steel --

sphere,. Ing and Cross [23,24] have calculated the spectrum for fission
neutrons in the center of such a sphere. The calculated spectrum gives the
same detector counts, within +2%, as a Maxwellian energy distribution having
a temperature of 0.30 MeV. Hence, we would expect the Maxwellian component of
spectrum No. 13 to have a temperature of approximately 0.3 MeV. The best fit
to the data for SAN4, M60, M65, LOGNM, BARC, and UTA4 for spectrum No. 13 are
0.29, 0.21, 0.27, 0.14, 0.15, and 0.28 MeV, respectively. Adding Lucite tends
to shift the Maxwellian temperature upward [241 and this trend is observed.

We obtain a temperature of approximately 0.45 MeV for spectra 19 and 20 with

SAN4 and UTA4, with corresponding lower values for the other matrices.

Considering the variation in average energy, it was expected that

there would be considerable variations in dose, dose equivalent, and quality

14

. . . . . . . . . . ...... . ... .. *...-......... . . .

 factor with a strong correlation between the four parameters. This is borne
out in Tables 10c, 10d, and i0e where the responses are given respectively for
the dose, dose equivalent, and quality factor. There are differences up to a
factor of 2 for dose, a factor of 4 for dose equivalent, and a factor of 2 for
quality factor, with SAN4 giving the highest values and BARC the lowest.

The calculated response per Rem of 4 personnel dosimeters and a

neutron Remmeter are given in Tables lOf-10j. For these calculations, the
response of all devices was normalized to the response obtained from the cal-
culated Cf-252 spectrum [21]. The responses of two albedo dosimeters aregiven
in Tables 10f and 10g. The response of the Navy TLD badge, which consists of
6 7
a LiF- LiF thermoluminescence dosimeter pair behind a 0.38 mm cadmium filter,
is given in Table 10f. We see significant variations for the lower energy
spectra, with BARC giving significantly higher readings than the average, and
SAN4 and UTA4 giving significantly lower readings. Since the conversion
factors for this table were obtained using experimental data and the SAN4
matrix, the actual response of this badge to these spectra can be obtained by
multiplying the data in column 2 by the data in column 3. The error on this
response is approximately 10%. Thus, the average calculated response for
these spectra varies by about a factor of 37, while the measured variation is
about a factor of 20. This indicates that these response matrices generally
give spectra that are too low in energy, especially for spectra having low
average energies. The data for a completely cadmium covered albedo dosimeter
is given in Table 10g. This data is very similar to that in Table 10F, however,
there is more variation of the response of this dosimeter with neutron energy
than with the Navy albedo badge.

The response per Rem of 2 personnel dosimeters which have lower - *

energy cut-offs is given in Tables 10h and 10i. In Table 10h we list the re-
sponse of a Cr-39 detector which has a lower energy cut-off of approximately
150 keV. There are variations of more than a factor of 6, depending on the
j
choice of matrix. The average response of this dosimeter varies by about a
factor of 3.3 over this energy range of spectra, with BARC showing the greatest
variation, approximately a factor of 9, and M65 the least, a factor of approxi-
mately 2. Our experimental data [25] gives a factor of 3, in good agreement
*i with SAN4 and UTA4. The response per Rem of NTA type film is given in Table . -

15
 10i. Since NTA film has a lower energy cut-off of approximately 0.5 MeV, we
might expect wide variations depending on where the matrix tends to put the
energy peak of the lower energy spectra. This is indeed the case; for the
lowest energy spectra, there is more than 3 orders of magnitude difference
* .. between BARC and the other matrices.

Finally, in Table 10j, we list the response of the AN/PDR-70, an

Anderson-Braum type Remmeter. The predicted response of this instrument is
within 20% independent of the choice of matrix.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of the response matrix used to unfold neutron spectra from
Bonner sphere data has a significant effect on the spectra obtained and on the
integral parameters calculated from the spectra. Our study indicates that only
SAN4 and UTA4 consistently give reasonably shaped spectra that fit the sphere
data within experimental error, and agree well with other calculated and ex-
perimental data. This study indicates the need for further calculations and
experimental verification of the Bonner sphere response matrix in order to
optimize the information derived from this type of neutron spectrometer.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank A. E. Nash of the Health Physics Staff for providing
data for the neutron spectra used in this study. We are indebted to Dr.
Gordon Riel of the Naval Surface Weapons Center for providing conversion
factors for the AN/PDR-70 Remmeter. We thank Dr. Charles Eisenhauer of the
" National Bureau of Standards for providing the calculated Cf-252 spectrum in
the Sanna energy grid, and for providing dose equivalent conversion factors
-* for this grid. We especially thank Dr. Nolan Hertel of the University of
Texas at Austin for providing computer tapes of his response matrix prior to
publication. Finally, we thank Dr. J. Lamberieux, Centre d'Etudes Nucleaires
de Cadarache for bringing to our attention the work of H. L. Zaborowski [9].

This work was performed while one of the authors, Kimberly A. Lowry, was

a participant in the Research Apprentice Program for high school students.

This program is sponsored by the University of the District of Columbia and

16

* -.. m fl-.
the District of Columbia Government, in cooperation with the Naval Research
Laboratory. We extend our appreciation to everyone involved in this program,
and especially to Kim's advisor, Dr. Marilyn Krupsaw.

REFERENCES

1. R.L. Bramblett, R.I. Ewing, and T.W. Bonner, "A New Type of Neutron
Spectrometer," Nucl. Inst. Method. 9, 1-12 (1960).

2. W.R. Burrus, "Bonner Spheres and Threshold Detectors for Neutron

Spectroscopy", ORNL-3360, 296 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1962).

3. D. Nachtigall and G. Burger, "Dose Equivalent Determinations in Neutron

Fields by Means of Moderator Techniques," in Topics in Radiation
Dosimetry: Supplement 1, 385-459, (Edited by F.H. Attix, W. C. Roesch,
and E. Tochlin), New York: Academic Press (1972).

4. G.E. Hansen and H.A. Sandmeier, "Neutron Penetration Factors Obtained by

Using Adjoint Transport Calculations", Nucl. Sci. and Engr. 22, 315-320
(1965).

5. S.A. McGuire, "A Dose Monitoring Instrument for Neutrons from Thermal to
100 MeV", LA-3435, Los Alamos National Laboratories (1965).

6. K. O'Brien, R. Sanna and J. McLaughlin, "Inference of Accelerator Stray

Neutron Spectra from Various Measurements," in First Symposium on
Accelerator Radiation Dosimetry and Experience, UASEC CONF 651109, 286
(1965).

7. R.S. Sanna, "Thirty-One Group Response Matrices for the Multisphere

Neutron Spectrometer Over the Energy Range Thermal to 400 MeV," USAEC
Report No. HASL-267, March 1973.

8. M.P. Dhairyawan, P.S. Nagarajan, and G. Venkataraman, "Response Functions

of Spherically Moderated Neutron Detectors," Nucl. Inst. Meth. 169, 115-
120 (1980).

9. H.L.Zaborowski, "Dosimetrie et Spectrometrie Neutroniques Avec les

Spheres de Bonner Establissement d'une Matrice Log-Normale de Reference,"
CEA-N-2241, Commisariat d l'Energie Atomique - France (1981).

10. J.W. Davidson and N.E. Hertel, "Bonner Ball Detector Responses for
Neutrons From Thermal Energies to 17.3 MeV," Health Physics 45(l), 192
(July 1983).

11. N.E. Hertel and J.W. Davidson, "The Response of Bonner Spheres to
Neutrons from Thermal Energies to 17.3 MeV," submitted to Nucl. Inst.
Meth., 1984.

12. C.M. Eisenhauer, R.B. Schwartz, and T. Johnson, "Measurement of

Neutrons Reflected from the Surfaces of a Calibration Room," Health Phys.
42(4) 489-495 (1982).

17
13. T.L. Johnson and S.G. Gorbics, "An Iterative Perturbation Method for
Unfolding Neutron Spectra from Bonner Sphere Data," Health Phys. 41(6),
859 (1981).

14. T.L. Johnson, "A Directed Search Algorithm for Finding Physically
Reasonable Neutron Spectra from Bonner Sphere Data," Health Phys. 47(1),
182 (1984).

15. R.G. Alsmiller Jr. and J. Barish, "The Calculated Response of 6 LiF
Albedo Dosimeters to Neutrons with Energies < 400 MeV," Health Phys. 26,
13-28 (1974).

16. E.V. Benton, R.A. Oswald, A.L. Frank and R.V. Wheeler, "Proton-Recoil
Neutron Dosimeter for Personnel Monitoring," Health Phys. 40, 801-809
(1981).

17. M. Oshino, "Response of NTA Personnel Monitoring Film Worn on Human

Phantom," Health Phys. 24, 71-80 (1973).

18. R.S. Sanna, "Modifications of an Iterative Code for Unfolding Neutron

Spectra from Multisphere Data," Health and Safety Laboratory Energy
Research and Development Administration, New York, HASL-311 (1976).
19. C. Eisenhauer and R. Schwartz, "Difficulties in Calculating Spectrum-
Averaged Values of Neutron Dose Equivalent," Health Phys. 41, 774-777
(1981).

20. ICRP Publicatica 21, "Data for Protection Against Ionizing Radiation from
External Sources," International Commission on Radiological Protection,
(1973).

21. J.A. Grundl and C.M. Eisenhauer, "Fission Spectrum Neutrons for Cross
Section Validation and Neutron Flux Transfer," Proc. Conf. Nuclear Cross
Sections and Technology, Washington, D.C., NBS Special Publication 425,
250 (March 3-7, 1975).

22. H.W. Patterson and R.W. Wallace, "A Method of Calibrating Slow-Neutron
Detectors, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory Report UCRL-8358, (July 1958).

23. H. Ing and W.G. Cross, "Spectra and Dosimetry of Neutrons from Various
Sources Shielded by Iron," Nuclear Sci. and Engr. 58, 420-430 (1975).

24. H. Ing and S. Marka, "Compendium of Neutron Spectra in Criticality

Accident Dosimetry," International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,
STI/DOC/10,180 (1978).

25. A.E. Nash and T.L. Johnson, unpublished NRL data.

18-'.
 0oC;C>oDo o o o o oooo lQoooo oooo0o o......o
4++ + + ++ ... . . . . .t.t.t.-. .... . I

I o

I m . .o .o . . . . .0 . . . . . . . . . . o o
I I l L. l L

.. . . o . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .

I I I " c N w M " C
I I

I .mw w a,-i co a, o -wC

0 c Q - lo Q 0 -w o o

o ~ oo oo +oooooo ooo

I ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
I + I .

I I
oclaooo o oooC)oo
ooooooooooooooo
oDImM oo )oo o oC)oo o o o o..
..- oo.. o......
)oo oooooooQ
I . .+ . -T. -v
Nwa . . . . ....... IQ0c 0rI~~ a a .c .-..
-,- 4 + +
r-v-I- + - -0-0o0++ +

It Li .iW.. . . . ... .
.L .. +JW ......i ..
. . JI .. .. .. iJ~
.... . . .. ..
iW.. . . . ... .. UiJ
.. ..

I ocI I c oM .oT1'
'< I mm - tok r oca c

LU I

.(/) .i. . . .... .O. . . . .... ....... i .. I. +

0 I9
I m I il% o r-
w w w ww.j w Ww g w w w .u...
Dw"c c -; T,
C/() I I w

I I ++lINNl l etflfl-.-.-,.+NflN.-,-IC'OO
o oQ oo o oC Do o o )o o o o Q

I4. Ii 0 rWr J r- oc wIrr-q.M (N %D " co o o

. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . + +
ioooooooooooooooooooooooooooi
.. .-.... . ...-.. . . . . - .. .- ,.- ...... '. . .

I f + +O .I ~ -( I 0 0

Ic I 00a0 --
I
I
~ ~ ~~~
~~ ~ 0
* ~ 0.00
* ~ t
0

I0t ~ ,
0 w000

-
0
~ ~
-
- o m c.
. . .00
. I l I
.0 .
IND
0
I r-I I
00.
I 1
0 00.
4 o 0
o
0o

I o o o o
L.LLLJlJifiLJ.,ii o .JLL.JJJL

~~
., . ,
< L . . . 0 0 o.0 . 0
:> o0 . o c!.
0
o00
I~
I~ 1 fl
I- 0 0
+ + + ~ l+ , + - +,~1 +*4+ +4+
.o~~ . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . - . ., . . . ., . . .

I~~CC 0 0.-I.0 I c c c oI

r C0I I 004OW00 r r t a'O 000

ID0 O I

I II 0I T- L~I OI L C~S 0C 0 0 0C01900

 I I coI ++ wt + t+ twt w* 4 4 *j ti + 4 *

I 0 CDC 00
a) D C) 00C 000C 00 C 0 0 0 00

I4- N 1 ~a,0 r0a4c0a C-- 000 C0 C 40 0 0 C;

I i C - - -0 -'0--.4I
((Ir a: r- "I
a'44ta'0IININ4C0 I
I I .1

I~ It I

I D- a,~ Ml ~ rI,4 n- nM~ a, .' N C N .- ,.-.r-.qaaco

c Im

~~~I I1 4 I I II.I I .-- . I--.I .t II t .~

1 0 r-., 0 N C 0 i~ C (N 4 C r
N ''- 00 0C

I IDf C qWil
00(
I) i0 CD .. 4' 4~ 00aa.
0 -OLO; " .0

I I O O C OC OO O CO Oa> C COO

I I I 0(D 0 0 C 4
>0 0 (( C-i
4 a Ti.V C .. i'0 iC C

I . . . .I .I.. . . . . . . . . . .

IL Il 0u00C0+0C C00 C00 000 --- 1N N

I I I *++*W*++tt0+0+w+**T **+II M4 II a, +
0 1 I I C-4 W
N m' Co .r L r UM z '-T C-:>M, I . II 4C.I
:, 4COD
.. 4 NC C 'N O O W-00a'O O C OI

= IN (D CN Cii ICD 0 0I I 0 (D iC
C) N t fl0 CD

I +*
w * * * *
j~ ~~~ 0I CC)a r-
* *t-t-++"I
0'~o4Q-4-
. . 40M r %D a'C
I
f
11w1w1
0a lM
w4+
0 C)
I

I ID

400~~~~~~ 000 0400

0 0 00 0 0
CD' 0 0 00

I * W* * Ia, * I t ~ t * * IWa I

~
I .IN NNN NN
- NIN'C- - 1 - - - -i- Nr N.-.L( O 0 I

I I II * * + I

I (NI
It
I I~
0~ )~
M 01r.L11-cr
t *
41'C-
a'01
t+
~wU~L
+tt'

..CO
I
I
IN~
04a'a
-iL' '. -(.-l
M4a'I
. - -iai - ai IUUW..JL-+-JIA1d.Lt..&W
-4-r0r-0000
0 0 0 I

I N ~ r l . W ~ M fr l C 0 -C r0 C I 0 V , 00 I

I I D

I I **t 1" V * .+ 1 c * I, I: I I: I * V Iz

I I. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

t- 10 NNN- .... l40 ~ r V I-I r ~ C 0 11 C

14N~

I I- I - - - - O.~~~~CCC C C C C C C C C O
I OOO C C Cc C C CC C C C C O C C
I~~
I I I I ' 14
I~1, IMI~lCCr--- C C C ~ C C C C . C C C
40IflCI .- i.J0Co.I
CCC CCC CC C CC CC CC CC
I .--I CC-r
r-0~a'4 CCS .C C CCC CICC CIC CCr

I ... if- C~'r'.I~ C IC C CC CC IC2C0C

 (D
00(D 0D C) CD CD
00 C (]0000 C00 C

OD m wC 1 1 1 N hC W111- D 1 0%
1 1C) %

WW
-wm" W W UUUUUUUUUU~g4LJUUUU W C o L WL
ID In %D

I .. .
g1. ~ 1- OD X ( 1 01I
r-il C~( Nr Cr (N 0 r-C 'W' ~
cI (n w -w~a, --t 1gfr r-~
w.- 4, -w ICa- w -I

-
GoI D -w r~l-I.-WD L-I mN w w v g rr Nm.-a, I- -
I mi 1-w (D c) mID m mo w %D I

-i C~0 -C - - -N Cgl0
- - 1.
aL.C.~ .f .C .f .C m m I '

w I l . .

C/ iI--r - ---
(NNNNN((((NNN 4 4 - - --- M-i
g-- (C4

1 7 00000
1 00000 I II L IO I
0I 00 O I 000

m mC01 0- m 'C o wN - 0 ID 'T w r mC N- en m1 - m0 D 1-' CI 1%

-N' o1N

IU I D - 1-
"I c) o 1-i mAIll %v
N 'C 1 -,
c3 wL-I o N( mN1 -w N li- vN((

w 1, 1 L ,1 l Iw ,IwwI ,L

UJ I .I

ID0c
- - - - ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( cC l CD0 C) -,g
c) gn.-D .C) 1w

4- - - - -MW- - - - - - - - w I- w c) 43h Vl
w m C C4 m w m m m 1-m oo 1- > " 1o m- "

~~ :e
(. CI i W -( N ( N"Nm(N ( N ( N ( Nw N NwNmNo m cNN-w M0 1
w-4
o~-C ~ ~ ~ I- - o - m oi -
C 1*.
- -
ol.ggl - - -(o(NNeefe
r 1
(NCI
It .. I-N (N - - ~N0 mC1) -- mAA.-
g-N-ii1f 1. I

I m II cr C 1 ID

I i om o I o

Iil
- I zi
I >-I I I I I I I i I I II I i I +i
I
L WWI L L LJW L L L L L L U L W0 L L UjW i

It
y w(
i 'N.iiCiII
( 0 N ~ N 0
,-z100
. , N
g
g
'
~~
L~ 1
g
'
L
CO
N C

ii 0~
I N~ ( 21 (N1111.i~f~~'
 I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
100 00 00 00 wr0 0
- cy '~~frrll'n~ffcl~nler.
I~0,
00 00
N J00
00
O
C.
0
0

IN 14l ll - l - -I -uI --
-11 l t .

C> It ) 0 I,cC C c

I zr - - - - t-. -~ -- OW
- - -. -( -0 C 0IC Q 0 I

I nI Q

I I
1 1 1 1 I Ii
I II I II I I I +-.- + + t I
I = I LUULJ U) tw 4.iLJI.
ul w UJJ'11
w.1iI.4.

I ~ ~ ~ ~ W ac OWT
- -N - I-or-.0-Ln-0-N.-rcQlC
u 0 JO 00

10 Q

I wi t IIUSILLJ w aI (71 J 0 L...XYLL1Jd. Q CL... .LLI.2LL

c 14L.I.J

I CD

c I I C)( C)I C ~ O C)N.CJNLNJCJLLJI.

0C 0

I I I ininU)WWINWW. o:? rN- 0 o r- .IO C Q1 c 0 C

I mn ~ CII --- W rl - W-fl 0. 0r.~ N0QCQ 0 0

I02 CI Q

CD W~-r.~ Q Q~~nn wc 4-.-o o o

Qc~...-,-.,cL

I ~
I I I
I 1 -Q.Q1
I .. aI r r c l c c J- I- q o o o

I CI

I l l 1 10 11 0 1111C11
0 00 011 -1,~-I~
0 1 0Q00Q01111
0 Q 00

I C . 1

o Iii I ~ + 1NII4I CJ)0001

r I WIon I i ~ O a ~ I i .?-c4 c ~ N ) ~ 0 0
> .l-0CJNN 4~tI? . ' .. 0 0 0
__ : -~ c ~ r'.6 o~ c. r ~ ro o 0 0 0
I ~~~ 1 -111
,1 -111
,1 .I- 1 1 -. *7
OD h ~ at~~ c~r- >- rr-n.l I Cn V O o ~
I I04lWO, ~ fl 2 2W I ~ l?''~.W fO 0 ~ 0 0 0
 I I I.I.C.D.
I D.'D.
c . . . . . . .
200D0(D0C,04D04D0CD0 .. .D . .(D. ++ ''D.
++0..
0D

I I
I ~~~ 0
c)
0.
C, (D .
~1 D D0
0 00
c;0
00 CD
0 00
CD00
'D0D0(D0(D
I
CD00 0

OD(7 C mI -I -l -ii -I-D CD

*$---(D-D
I mom
I 4It t *- 4 ,+ .- +e+++ + 4

* It 00 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .O ~J0 O
..... 0 0 0 L .. .I

I . I. .. + + + + .

I I0000000000000000000

II ~ ~ Co ne ~ ~ I .- 1
Or.1S-I' c C! .- .O-O
,-r~X. r-I.. -. WtlC! oooO I

m 1-, --. w,-, - - - - - - -, - -- 0 '0 0 .s .'.-

0 l 00 "I
00 wI1u 00 00 00 00 00 , 00 w 00 0 -_

.. - .. . , .(.. ... - . .. . 1 . . . . ,Z ..
.,. .. 1 0,. ,. .. . .. . ,. . . . .. . . .. 0 ., .,
0- I .1 "1, I'll0I0000 .. I
co I II -Ioo
I 00m ooooen
000D00 oa'-.ooooooooe.-,oo--ooooo
)D0m0 mP0'D0 mw0(D00 000
, '0 000 000
I Ol0.Itrllf+lF
I C++-4Q--I++INO,-4000

It I -O - -1-
I J- I
- -1-1-1-1
O J O U 0 'D1U11)0C00 C>

I I H .. I .l t .- (1.c1
.t0,IL.
.. -. fl CN l J ' 0 0

I I c c 1 :C
I I IN N-..11- , 1 1 .4A - - - ' I O O O
I I100000(A 00 m00
000D00000A0' 00C0( I
C4+.+. (A . (',+(A - N+-+- -+(A -.
I I I CD 'DL~
rh10.04-I11 Ccr- L r -~P D 0 0 0
I i III
O W N I> O 0 0 . 4 -I I I I I . . .

I0 00a0r-0W00 000 00 000 000 000 D ,

0000

WW WUI Ul L) al W11i UlW I J W111111

Ul- 1-WtW4W4-W*I
I I (D ) 4m
(DWuW(OCOc
m a, w 0
" CD
OOD Dly D 1 (D ( , m (D D' (D DC
D 0 D( 3 (D ' I

1w
IIO D c) 1- 0 '1D0
0 4 *.1 4 *l0( D D ' (D 0I

Li(D U) Io CDi 1c
- C-- -)i (D.-'Doo
o

U) 00 0 c:
c00 0000c 1 C LU
114 00 LU 01 1 0 0 00 "i0 0 0
I DC- CD D (D1.IOW4.lr
W1 0 Woo (DI CD k- c u 0 OOO I

IO C I

I Il 11 U 1 1 11 111 11 111111Ul 11 + - 4 4

I (D10 10 -It 11 - - C,.- Io0 0oo

al'CIIf4NNN~ - - - t l l 4 0 0 0 I

I 23
 CA (7 -w0 000 00 000W00 m000m C)
000 MN

I I C D1 cWa

I 00000> 00 D00000) 0000 0 00000c

I6 "w k
I 1 C I0al

I~ a, In 0
I I in000.c.0 :4
(D W-4e- .. r-4cnn 0,

I
I
I
~ ~
00
lllON
0 ~
7
0 ~
0
lcIC10NC.4.4C
0 I 10
0 0 1 0 0
I
0
--
0
,. ..--
0000
, C .(.IN'C
I

I, 11111 c-: 11 11 11 CD11

1 0I 0I1

It ILi 4JLIUIIIIDILJi.LICU..JU .2.-.0i .UU114i1 411J1

I Ie I o a: . c f l l ' 4 C I

C11I1o1111 IL 1 1I 1 1 w, II 111

I .1IMC
c
IL I- k

I" I- - -

I o00 D o 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 4)

I I I wI I I III I4
I kI " , , 1 1

I.o I w
10000-0m0m00w0m0c0 CA00 m0r0 a,00
II 1111111111114 741o 1114.
.1.1. I

W4
404 . . .
a.W.I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . A

IQ.
I 1-
- - - 1- 11 1-0 4 0 1 0 i n I,-

'A CA
w:r
0 ~~
II 1 ~ 1 4 ~ 1 4441
4 ~ I11 I ~ ~
1 1 ~1 ~ I 1 l,

w~ a:-. a00

J U) 24
 I I U) C Cu) 0 E) F- F: (
S.
5. N4
r- C .S C (4 CS-
a I0 CCj C'u0O D)O Cl o to 0
I I4.) .. 4) *414*
I I ) (v- q))JC
.0 .0
a X
x X4-
x- X- X 4-)

0 W 0 0
D k (D0 o 0( I 0 0 c0(
CU LO V) 4' (C (a 4 4-) f

-4'-4 (24a
-4 0 0o C) C 0 .4-'E 0 4-E 0 E ) FzU+- F+'
C) +' 04 .-U.4 W 4
S-.- '-0 '-4
u w
(D -'- C)C (C :3 C)3
toCC Lo. )
;j)(C
.0 -4 to (D 0 04 IDC toC) Lo 0))
4-H. 4 F M, 4-'
4J' 4-'C M- 4-'r 4-'C
0- V N '.4 C
\ U4)4-) a ) w- U) U- )
CCJ V S4 VC -- -4 C)
'L. C) *d
V) 4)
0)
C-
Q)
>0
4- NQ
C1
C)
C)
-)
C C
C)::I.-
C) (0 0 M-
4 ~VM--4) 2 *'
C) -)
V ) mOC w.)
w 0" 0) C - ) 04-
QC 4-U) Q 41 4-)
() -)~n 04
C) 0. . U )(0 41 r.
U ( V SV EC SC
coC U) U) C.v CC) a)-C4
C) C"
0 Iu V- 0- 0 0 0
H (0 (C a ) (0 0 C
(n 4-) C 4-' l C) C) 4-' C)) 4-) C) >1 b--i OC OC 0'i
4-)
0 C)) C) 4-) F= 4'
Q 4-4
(A 4) 4- V) +)() U)

LIz
C> I
I
o 14 ~F) 0
C)
0
C)
W
C)
. 0
C)
0
Q)
C)-' .-
Q)
4 -'
. C,0C
4-0 .
.
4-- + 0
- I I W .0 5 C C C 4 C
U) C0
O C C C C C 0 C D C
I I 0 (C
o 01 0 0 .4 .) .'Al (1 )
i~ r0
0r.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wC (C Q W CQC (D C (D CD
0 1J I j E
U) $~4 *. *.4 ::1 *,4 C) *d -4 *HA.-4 *.4*-0 4.- 0- *4-4 *..-I 4-4.-0
I () 40 + ) 4 1 ) - 0 .)() 0 L 0 0 0
I C) I ) C) 4C) I C) I C) +C) )4- C)u )' C4) C+
.J I I C' C C. C C- 4 C. C. C J C4 C C. 3 C C.
0A C)) C) C) C) Q)
C) (v C) C) 4-) 4- U) 4) 4' 4
1 0 C3o 40 0 0 40 -1 V - -4
0 V. 0 00. 0
r. 0 0 003 0 0 0 0 0 0 )
CL i) I - 0) C) CW Z CD 0) Q) C 4' 0) 4- W)
04. 1.0 Q

w' m) z' z' z' C') U) C' CA')n )

Cww' CA) L/3 C') C'

C1) I 0

V-) I 1z C I
uj I w I

C C) P"
I O)

I DC'w
0- 1 0 u I Q) D ) N N C N () N W u N l j j Q 0 N j j

00
- n I) ) C C\j C 'Jc Ci C)~
I C I) C C Cj C CC C N
Cj C C)i N N CC
O I - 0Do I E E E 1 I1 41 E S I I 4I I I I C) I I I
U- Icn)
W ')
< < 4-. 4 414 < < 4-4-4A AI 4- 4 'I < 4-4 4, 41

LI)
I- l 1
f0.

I 25
 A

TABLE 3
THE DETECTOR COUNTS, EXPRESSED AS THE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL COUNTS,
FOR THE VARIOUS NEUTRON SPECTRA

DETECTOR RESPONSE (% of total)

SPECTRUM
NUMBER 2" 3" 5" 8" 10" 12"

1 1.04 5.26 18.70 28.01 25.70 21.29

2 4.25 9.07 20.76 25.66 22.26 18.00
3 9.10 13.43 21.64 22.78 18.61 14.44
4 1.37 7.20 24.20 29.13 22.52 15.58
5 4.89 12.39 26.19 25.15 18.76 12.61
6 5.23 11.59 25.83 25.59 18.93 12.71
7 15.39 19.34 23.79 18.88 13.55 9.05
8 15.94 23.00 26.09 17.03 10.80 7.12
9 11.91 17.65 25.62 20.87 14.53 9.42
10 16.21 22.09 26.97 17.13 10.87 6.73
11 6.04 14.82 30.26 24.45 15.49 8.94
12 15.91 24.21 28.80 16.64 9.30 5.15
13 8.89 20.22 34.29 20.73 10.76 5.10
14 18.66 27.14 28.87 14.22 7.54 3.57
15 11.45 23.13 33.61 18.28 9.27 4.27
16 14.39 25.38 32.05 16.29 8.27 3.62
17 17.53 26.85 30.99 14.40 6.92 3.31
18 17.15 26.94 30.64 14.80 7.25 3.22
19 22.05 28.93 28.22 12.31 5.85 2.65
20 18.61 28.28 30.17 13.47 6.49 2.98 , -

..............................

26
..............................................................

............ ........... ...........................................................

 I z m p Cmm1w 7 )c 7 D0 p( ' 71 Da 1()()0 Dc 1 0G IP0

I
* (AI)'1C2- IO0
0> L O_1
7 -v4L
N " mt
) Y)C O >C
-- I
~ -L
CD0 l tr )
Wm - r-
,I Dr4IDL
U (
m 11 m C4
J-
C%~C0
rON-1
I
I
I1 -4- M ~ - 4- 0000C~
3ClC 0 O(Dr-u C'~) - (PC3- I

1 3C 30C a
3(D( D( C C3 C)C

n I MC lI Dammmw-- 4C )wwm( - N- Nr

ix IMc> I

C) I 1 I
0, W
CPJN-IO \NO-ClL - : )M i OC 10 Dl -
w =3 I aCM m -tLOL.(Dr-r-0OGo( 00 w 0 1( nt (Uo -C IHr

rLU mj Wt1 4 W , W
I -. I C) C) C)i 11 0I (D 1 0 CDC DaC II 3C )C ii
-IJC I
DCJ
LA oz an 0) Ln -1-4 Il
LU 0 0 C )0 LO M Cm 04-1-
I-oLU * Z 4

I
fJ DC CD 3C)3 )C a DCI C)0 D C3( CVf - 10 0

Co IM

m I I LO~ 3 u M ( 4r )C 4C)_r "C)L 7 OC)0 Ma lL IY

Cl -m I

wI Or DNr-CJO n0L (D0- t-~l j -i I

o q I D z m CD0 = r mC - o( *
1-L 13 1 0 Y nt l nt Dmr j I

Li0 JC i 1 U Z 4

1 0 I

W I r N D . NDt O z :O
W Oz ClN OQM a)0
w mw wli m wm 11 wi wmw w mm
wI mi
0411 y - OC -( t 0 L AM r 3L 4-Tv -C lC I
I -- 1 m m 11m r N w L 1z ' ICjL ~ oL l
WV) I O mIO QL IC G 01O C 4 - Cf

~LUJ ~fl ~ C'J -127

.0 . . . .
 Table 5
The Average Error (%) on the Fit to the Detector Data
for each Spectrum and Matrix Using Only the
MAXIET Algorithm to Determine the Spectrum

MATRIX
SPECTRUM
NUMBER SAN4 M60 M65 LOCNM BARC UTA4

1 0.60 2.10 1.03 0.68 7.19 0.65

2 0.63 5.28 3.03 0.50 6.23 0.73
3 1.35 1.55 2.04 2.55 5.45 1.04
4 1.97 1.85 3.61 1.58 11.93 0.33
5 0.57 1.74 2.53 0.78 7.61 0.46
6 1.28 2.65 3.85 1.01 7.43 1.02
7 0.52 2.63 2.79 0.70 5.75 0.60
8 1.31 2.82 3.64 1.47 3.48 1.09
9 0.96 3.27 3.64 0.49 6.04 1.86
10 2.13 3.11 4.21 1.35 4.84 1.81
11 1.30 4.27 5.50 5.44 8.10 0.72
12 1.23 3.80 4.92 1.39 4.08 1.46
13 0.90 3.83 7.92 1.82 8.25 0.98
14 1.18 3.01 4.05 1.57 4.35 0.99
15 1.03 3.91 7.33 1.56 6.65 0.95
16 1.47 3.09 5.95 2.29 5.33 0.97
17 2.24 5.55 7.43 0.89 3.38 2.00
18 0.71 3.61 5.75 2.01 2.99 0.55
19 1.18 4.18 5.45 0.93 1.20 1.07
20 1.09 4.77 6.29 0.57 2.50 1.03

AVERAGE 1.18 3.35 4.55 1.48 5.64 1.02

S.D. 0.49 1.13 1.88 1.11 2.46 0.46

28

-------------------------------------------------------------.-
 S

Table 6
The Average Error (%) on the Fit to the Detector Data
for Each Spectrum and Matrix Using MAXIET
and YOGI to Determine the Spectrum
-
MATRIX
SPECTRUM
NUMBER SAN4 M60 M65 LOGNM BARC UTA4

1 0.49 1.63 0.65 0.63 6.14 0.62

2 0.62 0.84 1.33 0.39 5.77 0.60
3 0.47 1.36 1.21 0.57 4.69 0.49
4 0.65 1.68 2.96 1.17 9.15 0.33
5 0.42 1.24 1.78 0.47 6.37 0.32
6 0.51 1.41 2.71 0.37 6.4b 0.65
7 0.31 1.43 1.71 0.30 4.31 0.26
8 0.83 2.25 2.00 1.09 1.58 0.96
9 0.40 1.66 2.29 0.26 4.63 0.55
10 1.23 2.00 2.62 0.20 3.08 1.02
11 0.36 2.16 3.75 1.10 6.61 0.42
12 0.64 2.86 2.59 0.74 1.74 0.63
13 0.50 3.35 4.46 1.45 6.45 0.69
14 1.09 2.07 1.97 1.43 i.18 0.84
15 0.64 3.24 3.61 1.34 3.81 0.68,
16 1.24 2.66 2.60 2.14 2.90 0.89
17 1.25 4.60 3.39 0.72 0.88 1.38
18 0.53 3.28 3.00 1.74 1.40 0.44
19 0.78 3.56 2.83 0.88 0.44 0.64
20 0.51 3.83 2.91 0.47 0.56 0.65

AVERAGE 0.67 2.36 2.52 0.87 3.91 0.65

S.D. 0.30 1.02 0.93 0.54 2.53 0.27

29

.... . . . . .**
 !

Table 7a
The Percent Deviation of the Calculated
Detector Data from the Experimental
Detector Data for the M60 Response Matrix

DETECTORS

SPECTRUM
NUMBER 2" 3" 5" 8" 10" 12"

1 0.70 -1.97 2.58 -2.13 0.65 0.25

2 -0.00 -0.21 0.62 -1.38 1.34 -0.35
3 -0.19 -0.17 0.52 -1.81 2.59 -0.88
4 0.65 -1.26 1.30 -2.37 2.62 -0.86
5 -0.02 -0.01 0.27 -1.65 2.37 -0.92 5
6 -0.10 0.15 0.17 -1.83 2.73 -1.06
7 -0.14 0.00 0.53 -2.07 2.62 -0.89
8 0.28 -0.42 1.28 -3.56 3.79 -1.21
9 0.03 -0.06 0.66 -2.50 2.97 -1.02
10 -0.27 0.68 -0.09 -2.59 3.84 -1.45
11 -0.03 0.03 0.68 -3.15 3.97 -1.37
12 0.29 0.04 1.37 -4.56 4.86 -1.68
13 -0.46 1.09 -0.22 -3.58 6.60 -3.11
14 -0.02 0.32 0.45 -3.21 3.72 -1.13
15 -0.08 0.95 -0.52 -3.78 6.38 -2.65
16 0.05 0.85 -0.72 -2.70 5.24 -2.52
17 0.37 2.33 -2.29 -3.81 8.84 -4.82
18 0.14 0.79 -0.67 -3.62 6.51 -2.84
19 0.45 1.05 -1.03 -3.99 6.95 -3.06
20 0.35 1.53 -1.63 -3.54 7.50 -3.78

AVERAGE 0.10 0.28 0.16 -2.89 4.30 -1.77

S.D. 0.30 0.95 1.12 0.91 2.21 1.27

30

.7:1
 Table 7b.
The Percent Deviation of the Calculated Detector
Data from the Experimental Detector Data
for the M65 Response Matrix

DETELCTORS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECTRUM
NUMBER 2" 3" 3" 8" 10" 12"

1 0.09 -0.08 -0.27 -0.63 1.36 -0.4b

2 -0.48 0.97 -1.02 -1.21 2.53 -0.75
3 -0.53 0.85 -0.66 -1.36 2.28 -0.53
4 0.27 0.53 -1.56 -3.64 5.92 -1.25
5 -0.41 1.02 -0.41 -2.68 3.18 -0.61
6 -1.07 2.35 -1.73 -3.16 4.84 -1.01
7 -0.77 1.27 -0.22 -2.61 2.87 -0.45
8 -0.14 0.09 1.13 -3.49 3.17 -0.65
9 -0.86 1.73 -0.29 -3.48 3.86 -0.80
10 -1.63 2.9b -1.49 -2.73 4.31 -1.23
11 -1.14 3.00 -1.09 -5.35 6.49 -1.49
12 -0.68 1.56 0.85 -4.77 3.69 -0.45
13 -1.62 4.91 -1.13 -6.49 6.72 -1.81
14 -0.55 1.83 0.68 -3.65 2.34 -0.54
15 -1.17 3.21 -0.67 -5.19 5.99 -1.78
16 -0.69 1.78 0.16 -4.26 4.21 -0.98
17 -1.39 3.42 -1.40 -4.36 5.66 -1.60
18 -1.06 2.24 0.16 -5.02 4.68 -0.75
19 -1.24 2.69 -0.35 -4.39 4.39 -0.87
20 -0.80 2.88 -0.38 -4.20 4.56 -1.80

AVERA ;. -0.79 1.96 -0.48 -3.63 4.15 -0.99

S.D. 0.52 1.25 0.81 1.48 1.50 0.48

31

::::. . .....
.. ..-.- ....... ..-.--............... -7..
..
.:
 Table 7c
The Percent Deviation of the Calculated
Detector Data from the Experimental Data
Data for the SAN4 Response Matrix

DETECTORS
SPECTRUM
NUMBER 2" 3" 5" 8" 10" 12"

1 0.22 -0.63 0.84 -0.53 -0.05 0.16

2 -0.09 0.37 -0.63 0.39 0.88 -0.90
3 -0.15 0.28 -0.32 -0.05 0.86 -0.62
4 -0.53 1.00 0.22 -0.95 -0.25 0.53
5 -0.01 0.14 -0.39 0.73 -0.59 0.13
6 -0.18 0.46 -0.80 0.80 -0.03 -0.24
7 -0.16 0.30 -0.40 0.52 -0.22 -0.03
8 0.22 -0.49 0.75 -1.30 1.23 -0.39
9 -0.18 0.39 -0.61 0.53 0.16 -0.29
10 -0.71 1.53 -1.86 1.08 0.91 -0.91
11 -0.19 0.48 -0.53 0.44 -0.03 -0.17
12 -0.20 0.42 -0.41 -0.35 1.22 -0.67
13 -0.15 0.52 -0.84 0.66 0.09 -0.27
14 -0.04 0.40 -0.80 1.77 -1.75 0.46
15 -0.17 0.55 -0.91 1.08 -0.38 -0.15
16 -0.07 0.20 -0.25 1.39 -2.40 1.17
17 -0.60 1.67 -1.78 0.07 1.55 -0.86
18 -0.08 0.24 -0.37 0.76 -0.90 0.36
19 -0.36 0.99 -1.25 0.76 0.36 -0.48
20 -0.15 0.60 -0.85 0.62 -0.01 -0.21

AVERAGE -0.17 0.47 -0.56 0.42 0.03 -0.17

S.D. 0.23 0.55 0.67 0.76 0.98 0.53

32
 Table 7d.
The Percent Deviation of the Calculated Detector Data from
the Experimental Detector Data for the LOGNM Response Matrix.
-----------------------------------------------
DETECTORS
------------------------------------------------------------
SPECTRUM
NUMBER 2" 3" 5" 8" 10" 12"

1 0.04 -0.43 0.92 -1.03 -0.05 0.56

2 -0.07 0.17 -0.21 -0.15 0.75 -0.49
3 0.15 -0.37 0.69 -1.03 0.49 0.08
4 0.20 -0.94 1.97 -1.44 -0.68 0.93
5 0.05 -0.27 0.43 0.02 -0.83 0.61
6 0.09 -0.27 0.48 -0.24 -0.49 0.45
7 0.10 -0.22 0.33 -0.13 -0.46 0.39
8 0.34 -0.63 1.13 -1.83 1.36 -0.34
9 0.14 -0.25 0.37 -0.30 -0.19 0.24
10 -0.11 0.27 -0.33 0.14 0.14 -0.10
11 0.31 -0.79 1.67 -1.26 -0.99 1.09
12 0.17 -0.43 0.92 -1.33 0.70 -0.01
13 0.15 -0.58 1.90 -2.00 -1.20 1.80
14 0.36 -0.86 1.25 0.30 -2.65 1.66
15 0.35 -1.03 1.92 -1.05 -1.61 1.47
16 0.32 -0.91 1.99 -0.78 -3.56 3.07
17 -0.11 0.39 -0.52 -0.26 1.38 -0.87
18 0.06 -0.46 1.54 -1.74 -2.14 2.83
19 0.10 -0.50 1.06 -1.03 -0.83 1.23
20 0.09 -0.35 0.64 -0.38 -0.56 0.57

AVERAGE 0.14 -0.42 0.91 -0.78 -0.57 0.76

S.D. 0.15 0.39 0.78 0.69 1.27 1.03

------ --------------------------------------------------------------

33
 Tabl e 7e.
The Percent Deviation of the Calculated
Detector Data from the Experimental Detector Data
for the BARC Response Matrix.

DETECTORS

SPECTRUM
NUMBER 2" 3" 5" 8" 10" 12"

1 1.35 -0.10 -3.81 10.45 - 9.63 2.87

2 -0.10 2.60 -4.91 8.65 - 8.95 3.67
3 -1.00 3.55 -3.50 5.74 - 7.74 3.61
4 8.00 -9.32 -5.89 13.43 - 9.92 6.19
5 0.57 2.71 -4.17 7.79 -11.24 5.59
6 -0.45 3.90 -4.88 8.09 -10.79 5.41
7 -1.37 3.10 -0.62 3.16 - 8.28 4.59
8 -0.74 1.76 -0.53 0.56 - 2.76 1.79
9 -1.31 3.97 -1.97 2.82 - 8.32 5.47
10 -1.62 3.79 -1.57 1.36 - 4.98 3.31
11 -0.08 4.49 -6.22 8.02 -10.40 5.52
12 -1.13 2.46 -0.57 0.15 - 2.66 1.83
13 -0.53 7.05 -4.94 3.74 -10.78 6.74
14 -0.93 1.64 -0.19 -0.05 - 1.75 1.31
15 -1.20 5.93 -3.10 0.62 - 5.31 3.49
16 -1.68 4.16 -0.15 0.17 - 4.84 2.60
17 -0.19 1.13 -1.75 0.38 0.41 0.04
18 -1.04 2.05 -0.14 -0.40 - 1.98 1.56 -*
19 -0.41 0.79 -0.27 -0.04 - 0.40 0.32
20 0.31 -0.11 -0.99 0.22 0.85 -0.26

AVERAGE -0.18 2.28 -2.51 3.74 - 5.97 3.28

S.D. 2.07 3.29 2.12 4.25 4.11 2.12

34

p" . "". " " " .... ' .- -. o.-. - " ." ' . "."," , -" ,' . . = . . " ''" . - . . - , "" ' '% '" ,
 Table 7f.
from The
the Percent Deviation
Experimental of the
Detector DataCalculated Detector
for the UTA4 DataMatrix.
Response

DETECTORS

SPECTRUM
NUMBER 2 " 3 " 5 1" 8 10" 12"

1 0.11 -0.57 1.06 -0.81 -0.14 0.36

2 -0.11 0.40 -0.57 0.22 0.93 -0.85
3 -0.13 0.21 -0.19 -0.28 0.97 -0.57
4 0.05 -0.27 0.55 -0.49 0.10 0.06
5 -0.06 0.16 -0.39 0.58 -0.31 0.03
6 -0.29 0.66 -1.05 0.75 0.41 -0.47
7 -0.18 0.30 -0.37 0.37 -0.01 -0.12
8 0.29 -0.55 0.85 -1.51 1.40 -0.45
9 -0.35 0.65 -0.76 0.49 0.47 -0.47
10 -0.70 1.49 -1.55 0.54 0.76 -0.51
11 -0.14 0.44 -0.61 0.22 0.50 -0.39
12 -0.15 0.30 -0.12 -0.69 1.21 -0.55
13 -0.30 0.79 -0.93 0.31 0.85 -0.71
14 -0.20 0.54 -0.79 1.29 -1.22 0.39
15 -0.29 0.83 -1.14 0.68 0.33 -0.39
16 0.04 0.05 -0.37 1.40 -1.55 0.45
17 -0.44 1.71 -1.78 -0.10 1.90 -1.24
18 -0.21 0.52 -0.66 0.61 -0.13 -0.13
19 -0.28 0.93 -0.94 0.22 0.59 -0.51
20 -0.28 0.94 -1.02 0.35 0.44 -0.43

AVERAGE -0.13 0.48 -0.54 0.21 0.38 -0.33

S.D. 0.21 0.58 0.72 0.70 0.82 0.43

35

- . .-.- - - . . . ...
.. . . . . "-''*',,-
." " .- "" " o. .-..
o-" .... . . %' . %",,,"
. . . .. ".. ~' . ' %,. o.,, . -,". "" ," . "-, -.... ," o" ," -" .. .....
" .
" -,- . -- . *, . .
,"-.' . ," . .' .
. ,':'- . ..
-',, . .. .'.,',' .
 I I r- n o -i o

;r H A 0O~ q r-~ r-o N I

I H I C4 M ' CN - -

S- I
LO~- ..
4'4L HoIL -1 OH a%
NOn <h
L N vAL HN r-
I 0') 4N Ln LA -D4-4 O~ 0 moD ~ N I
U L I I ; *
I HmM -40
C4 1A n CN m ~ r-4'DA

u S-. I LA I
(D4-U 1 I L
o m
Z I C-.

0 II Z I 3N C-- LAL .- H m (N Ni L-A N N I

(n'. 1 CO v m C-4 'D IDC;

0) .to 4 H C4Ir - - 1

U) I N 1I4

C) 4-'
u
1 CI
4~
HCD
-0
0) O
CN '
N
-
~ (N
LAA
LN
OH
HNH
L

W a) I L

4O I 01 I 04l

4-3 In m0 00 14
- c I I- - ~.-

* - I I I N m OLD NLD LAO D N6

 ;TaI n o , D(
4 1 LnL (n r- rj -a' oom m a
-V(1 m

I 'm
v
'A I 1
mm
14
C-
mo r-'
C'4 1N .- 4'I
o4
a; ~L 4 m

C I I I I
I O II
C,'J I I

I
1\ j r I - -4 c)o o% v- 0O In0
4-)4- 1 -q - C14Wr-I mN mm-4 or-4 1 ~ ~
aJ)= , 04* I
ua1 :a _AO (n
LA n O W
r- 4-H I (N_ H.V)_-- _IH

L JL u C, I Z 1- C

(D . I dpI1 01 m k (NO'
C m-i r-i m m W( N 0 I
4- V) 1 1 -1 r-I CH 1 I Ni H'' rH (NH
4- I a0 I I I-
*- c 1 71

c a) aul q Ln ;
(D Iar Z a I ~Im o LA,- m(N i- O
:)I 1
'a............................
LE-l II 01 X a m:enN rjco rNLA %o - riA Lnm
co
(U. 0 I a i a- N I N - r- a
CL I 1 a I
H I
F:4
4-)C 0 1 1 rI - 0 - %C- r-, -
D- 1a a LA
%D l a1 m~i. 0r m LA LAD
C( - I UJ %01 WO om (W mm -~r-m-
4-) of I 01 WI............................ (m W a
I I oa m oL a OW
a) r- -0 1~ 1-i N 4 N. -- a inj
m (N4 I
I u I I I II

c~ II ~ ~ F -

f L) S- I Ia

Wa I I ~- I dr(N -1 ma O'T mL LnA

4- W I I I HI (N CC) HI
c c I U) I

I II

0 1I
Ln I Z I
Wo I0
1H 00 L
a) aI ~ . . . ~
c I C-) 1 LA m 0' L
o s w01- 1N (N
n Hy
OD
(.E-4I
(Cs~

-Cc I 37

I Z.2
 Table 10a.
The Average Neutron Fluence Obtained Using All the Matrices
and the Ratio of the Fluence Obtained with each
Matrix to the Average Fluence

1 l.i Vl.5,b3 1Loo U.911) 1.UI4 1 . U&/

4 1.5,4u I .CIlj 1. 1 u u.5- U.J u.9j4 v.97 1
4 1.2,4'V 1Uu 1.ju%) 1. 1,U Iju 1..jU l.u 1. UJU
b 1.j7u 1 . jub .4~~ 18 U 7 .. 0I, ' U.Yi 57o1
i.u54 I . u'4 I . .i2 Vj. Sl5 U .:s!) ut,
U.b/

9 1.4 1. V44 1. 191 U.S1 U

u.t k;. 91 U. 541
it) 1 tdl l.LJ6U I . w45 U. SL: J.50 U.Utj'I U.9:i4

1.:j) j
Ii I . U1.4 1. 1.J V. L,6 1 .u17 0 O. J. 95 0

lt1 1.667 I. 0 2
1. U
IlI U..S,4 U.is1. U , u.ij J.YaI

19~ I.bb/ 1. V~o .. iIU U

L.'bt/ L.9J1 . 8.YU U.937/

38
 Table lOb.
The Average Average-Energy Obtained Using All
the Matrices and the Ratio of the Average-Energy Obtained
with Each Matrix to the Average Average-Energy

SiLECThd?1 AtV Z k -,- --- - -- -

IOU irii b it li 4 C,Lvi t A.uu ,. A - 1J.4

I1 4. 3 -,.ol O.L.JOJ.Jo u. I.) I.V71

j~a J.iv
u 01. jj114 u. . ~u p 1u I

4 1.14 1..-J4 u. o I. uo U. 6, u.- I. 1Ub

.a_) u 1. ,0u L:) l.,u V. 0IZ U.Obj .I

/ :.)1 1.0 u4U u,. 51 . 1.uo)

I...'4
6 1.u0O I.u d4 1. 1,4 u.S u. 1S-' I. u 14 1. 7a
uJ.. JJ 1. 111 u. s 1 1j I. L,o u. .) %J t.)~ 1.ul
16J U. Iu luj I.I 1. 1.3 1 . ucu u . tsJ - . t, Le 1.14_5
11 u. uio I1.,'.-)I U. b J. SJ4 V . b1, u. o 1. 1 j7
1/ V...ilu I. l14U u. J05 -
I..:I u . lJ4 .04
b 4 1. lbo ....
IJ U.Z44 I. 13 .3 9 V. S44j I J.u= l 1. ,31
lb u. 1/0 I .41 u . o1
4. I. u.dj .410 1. .%J
ub. 11o l./tJ( u. Vj. ji u . dj u.b:u1 4..ijO
10 . I,: 4. Itl u. 7,sb 1..;,: u 17juo d. 1. , J6
115 . l<. u ~ luo u. : 1.b zb1 ,0. bi
5: J. .. ,- 1..u1 ,_
19 J.l e t I. 0:.) j u A., I. ul:i .5uo u. 1,4b 1 .J30
4:d V. Jjy 1 10 id. 5LU 1. . .jo: u. 1..i j -

39 ";]-;

.. . . .. . ? .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... .. ... .... ...-.-.-- ,

 CIA -

Table 10c.
The Average Dose Obtained Using All the Matrices,
and the Ratio of Dose Obtained with each
Matrix to the Average Dose

.31L ~T t7W. AVtA~ --- ------

0 .441 I.uou ,jjJI I.Li U.*q u.440 b 1.U34

4 5.4j5 l .%ib U. 9d 1LulI ' v 1 .%J4 u U. i09
3 4.4 JI 1. Jb+ u . 4d ' .5t . U j -1~ 1. 1 1. uu
4 4...zJ! I.1I14 u. )au u
i. 55I U. O4 1. U4d 1.04J2
5 i.,:jr. I. I U u. It.5 b~ U. 915 V. -! 1. uih
/ J .O5J-*4~ 1. L.14 4J U. 9jo (J 9 1. )11
*d 2. 4!)b 1.It)I 1. u - b lu u.buu U.'5b' I. u%)
9 Z. olu I . Iju. 1. ,.iz u . "41i . a U.15U 1.O2V
1.ia
.b I.uid U. 5) .Juo L.b/5 1. 1)45

12l .1Pt i. Iu 1 .11

u J s4 ~9 U. ld.i 1. )diJ
14 1.44Z 1 1. ~ 1.144 0. S4,u o u.o. 76oj 1.(,4..

19 .1oj1 V. U.&o4 U. /z 1. uj

i u 4-)jtj I 1.151 U.COU V.IJ I .&57

40
--7-S " -
i CT eu I-- V itG
"- --. - .- - - -- -- --- --

Table 10d.
The Average Dose Equivalent Obtained Using All the Matrices -Li-
and the Ratio of the Dose Equivalent Obtained with
Each Matrix to the Average Dose Equivalent

.1 U j
1Ut) V. t~d .su .t 1 . ) 10 1. U0
4 4.4jjI 1 .. J)h ,.5 UJ.p1 U 1- 1. uj 7 U. Jl0i

4 tu
3 J. 1J 1.143 Ij.i4 V. 1- U. 0t 1. J714 1. OJ9

13 14 J 1.4.5/ U. Ob u U. 'J'-b u O u.a l.u7 .1

14 1.Uedu u .9 4U .Si u .0 Vo u 1.d7 1.U9
43 4. v,:
U. 014
1.4 U .93; U. ThbI U. 951 si. 75. 1.1Ulu
T b IL . 9 ..
15 U.I 3.1)b
Jj
J.14 u. i~4
1.1 . 'bl Slbo
U.. 50 U.9
V. :0 Q 10,
I .olo-
. UJ'4 1.231
1. 0VU
141

16 Di %J.0
L-0 1v 1.011
.I24 U1v t049A
/ j . 51%
U. I U.Th
U %.9OCS 1 UL 11..
!) I/Uj
j .-
11 J.,.s
U. U7i I1.ii1
.gu
t.. )U19DzU.'~
I U. b74u
j}bl U.
J. 0011
b,- U u. jsb 1 1.z~u
U.91S .
I.U
18 . I., . bI U. , I U ."15 ) . jb u. #79, 1. e IVa.a,

I"2 1b

U u..)b
10.3 i./J

1.Iu
u. jbW

U. Ooj
u. Io1
b

j. I o
V)
U.' I,

J.8U,u
.
Q. 4J,

U.45 1
.3 j

1. o

-.,.1

L'
 Table 10e.
The Average Quality Factor Obtained Using All the Matrices and
the Ratio of the Qaulity Factor Obtained with Each
Matrix to the Average Quality Factor

1 V.dbb
. 9b # I.Uzb . 5 1u
I.ulu ..Ui 4j.!i11
7'. 0lit . :jqj 1. Jj J. 'Jbp I J~,*v %;. c U. ,.099
1111I .I..u 1.u11 v.1d 1.UJ U.U.35 1. db
4 .,#Id u. l- l.Uu2 J. bj 1.)Jj I. U:-. 0. 91b
0 it5 U. IL tJ U. it5 J .,. 9v4

o b. U11 1.U'd j.9 d.b J. ou l. U. U.Vud 1.04%)

10 .t)lu .J.O V.9k1 j.-bJ 1.oji. I. U.40 1. J.1 J

11 . J4:.)
1.,II 59
,U. #b .jo44 J. UJz 1. 0 lu 1. 0Iu
12 V.bJ 1.)~1'V .l 0 5 U.ug05j 1. V-1 "
,.10 1o. tjou
13 1 ..
1.1.5 u.1 0, . Cilo I.UI L. 9bU 1.u/l
15 6~ .-. 4'.j U.:l
-j0 J. Ck,;1 U. JoJ U.dbl1 . I, +
I J. .b411 V.t U . 9".) U. /.)- 1. 12U
19 ,..-; V.. J I .t j U u.I / 1. 104
1 J. l.) j~ .Jl
C.
:d U. 0:)q U. l, 1 1.4,21
19 .. l 0. I. J : U. b ut) U. ' ,, . o *1 U . b }II . -4 4
"2
u 4 . :A.-)u
31 i. V o . SJ - k. J U U. t.)3
-4-,d

42

** * ~ ~ ~ . ,~ . C .. 2 t. * - . . . . . .

~~~
..
- :~~~ ~".".'..
~~~... .. . "...
... . . .. -. '. ' . " ' " . ', - . ".. - ' .'. . '. . . . .-. . ' .- . . . . . ..... .-. ' - .. . . - ' -
 i

Table lOf. 1
The Average Navy TLD Badge Response Obtained Using
All the Matrices and the Ratio of the Response
Obtained Using Each Matrix to the Average Response

i-~~~~~ C j'I . ,

.1 U4
U . 00j ,. 9u.2A4

,.. JQ %.' -,a I.,,,

1 i. .V4 t,. Ji u.
o . IJ,
I 5. .o . . . u ,.675J u. .)1
. U. 5 1.

* 1.111 o.OdJ 1.,.i5 U.5zc1 i.U',o u. 34o i,.a4 p

14 . 1lod V o,11 1. . .1 1.u1.) Q1. 11-4-. - -.
1/ .J.O4So U.0i0 A t. U,.,f,
it.u .. l.!Ju0 u. !01
1 l.151
.ov / oV u(3/.l. 0
0.5 .io , V.
1.
j L,0 I i~j
1.0"o U.
1. i94.0
4l . 097
04
14 J u/ uu,,.
5 o) I.. o1
j.l- i u1 .sI
I.u
I.., I. uuJ.jJ
. U.0J touoj .. 70uu4 .'

14 1 o.5o
')ol 1.-,),* I~ t uzb 1. o u. O7VV[-

18 ,-.41J u. t i. lua 1. U.4 u . 0 Jj i. 1/ U. t, I u

11 ,4..)
. .4 u. 5u) i.Z,,zo ,J. 5bt iJ.uV%0 1 5 v %. b J, .
:6u J. 5o 0. 4 6 1 l. lIu . So u . V , 1. 114 V -. 60 .J IL .

43

.. . . .......
.
 . .

Table lOg.
The Average "Hankins" TLD Badge Response Obtained Using All
the Matrices and the Ratio of the Response Obtained
Using Each Matrix to the Average Response

5 kc4 RUNI h i LtIL !At3 - L At A /A LA Ak1L

1 '.INu 1.e1i
u.dO' i.u/ A.j/ Ao
.,1 iJ.
2 1.uLY u~dtu l.Jol I.@J i I. dIl u. 1U

4 ... 4+ 1..14U .1.51 u. 1, o.d4u 1. lib u. o70

4 1.1lo6 U . o 1.lI O I . eL b I.lV5 V. luu U. v ?J

5 ,. Ij, V.5:) l. Jo4 I. Ilu U. o". U. dj 5 u.9Id

b e.V 16# U. 0aj 1.5d.j 1. 113 J.771 .01V 0. dj:
7 u. t,/4 u .zi 1.1o7 u. 609 ti. odu 1.74 1, .751
I1. ui d l l 1.1lid 1. 1 u .o ..ho I
1j u. /4j
j
C)bO 5 1. 0u,4 I. lou 17
6 .11. 1.2oi l.uul

10 11. .= J. oz l
ljI i.J kLji u.ud!> 1.5ou u.bJi

12 .t.,
':)d 4j/4
V. . 1.1 .. J l.u-" u.7u4
:
13 1 1.0o u u.bu9 1. ija l.jal .b i I 1 .u u.I
1,4 j-. uu u .!,td o
4.%l 1 . 7 7 1 4,u , u. 7 u t

. J,.bI
:u-, . J V. J-' 2.
j4 V.b I I l.o, , U. l.' "
lb I6._)I u. o .
1.Ib. l.2; i U.61i .. j ou
.o,.'
J1 J -'z;
4b 1.+ V. 11, c . I ' l u..o ..

.44

'1

..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Table 1Oh.

The Average CR-39 Badge Response Obtained Using All the

Matrices and the Ratio of the Response Obtained
Using Each Matrix to the Average Response

mL. .; Pta-i
Uit ,ii ,.,i -!% aZbt uV L a
.PEC iiUA AV LJA A
NdXD L J.AL%, Aa
'or ae t u
UuI',a can%. UIA4
1 .I , 1.o4.4 J. i. ,. .j l.Olu U.94 1 1 . ,tj,7
.111
I / 1. .30 U. 9 . . u.L"Iu 1.Uo, 1. uzc
I ! l.
I~a lI/ U. U 5 to44
1.u~ .UUl 1. (11 1. 010
4 k,. 5uo 1 .J 5 V ,( 1.ljU U. 6ij U. dt .
5 U. Ij 1.J.so V. 956 1. 14i .tua t.. n4 I.UjU
tb J.014, 1. 11 U. Gb 1. Lou LT,
8a J. '- 1. .}j,
I U. JV A. I.u4 5 U.j4U 1. u.1zo/ 1. 9o, 1.U44
b 0. U.
.' - u. U 1.,lkt u. JVl l.0,uu 1. UU
9J J.6l41 1. ,U/14 U . 1. I-4,1 U.djj U.995 L. JJ
%U U. dkj U. uu V,.PU I. l'7V U. dj:s 1. OUU 1I.uU,
U1
. U0b-)1 1. U , 1 . U 61iJ I. s U . 0 0 4, i . g9.0
u ,'o
1U t.blu u.,1U J. 0i) d I. J-14 u.7J4 U. .,o 1.011
a U.483 I . j J*,, v. o-d U. jj U . J95 1 . ub1 1.074---
14 0. 49U 1. %Oj U.i'lz1 1.3. -# bJ. u.bJ9 U. 9to
15 u. 446 1.1 u.04U U. 4J U. 45 1. Uj 1.11d
lb U .,4 /. 1 . 14,,,P u. 5.4,aP . j j . 1.11 .. '-
11 U.,, 1.,Jou J.4 1 1.5JVu .oJ b II
u. 1.0 4
1. J.j, 1.juU U.bb5 1.104 J. dud U. /V, 1.1 .j
1 P.U .J , ].,)dJo u.1/14 l . mez %d. U s ,. Z o l. kUj ..
2 V. JuO 1. ,.,. . J. O .... I..... . .u
U. J50 1. ,-U i

- ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~
--------- ~ ~ ~ ~ -

45 - "i
 .-

Table 10i.
The Average NTA Film Badge Response Obtained Using All the
Matrices and the Ratio of the Response Obtained
Using Each Matrix to the Average Response

hU I t Ei{ S AS 4 tU dt hue BdAR , U 1i

1 I. I. U 5L .),4 Z I. UJ4 u. P P., JuL 1.uji

A Iz1.
J
t 1.UJ4 ..141 J.9 jj 6 Pjo 1. 4b 1.017 I
1.dJ 1 1. 0,'- ' . 1,IU 1. UZ'I ij.I t) J.uil 1. kI
b.d45 l.uo v. 1u4 I. il. bI .80 j 1. Vb:P
5 v . 4 ,5 1.. U v. 5j4 . lut 0 . 6 jI 1 .'.u l.v4t
b J. oil I . jU U..J I 1. CI,, u. do v. 04 1. U'
/ j. :1 %J 1.Ju V. JJ5 1.t u j.j 0jja 1. Ui, 1.j 3
4
d U. ~Jt U. J50 v.to 1.154 Ob.) 1. luo U. 9 d4
9U .6 1 0 I. j4 j U. I: I. lul u.dj iia
.014 1. uu
lu U. 10,4 ,V. 504 Uj.': 0 I I. 1tk.! V. 0I,o . V.1 1. Ulu
.. l.jjo/ I.ijujb I. 40U, V.611 U.JJ4 1. UJ,,
1-' u .. J
j , it) V. ,oi 1. 4 t,#, U.00l u. l/ 0 U. 9 01
1 u.Ji l.zju .u. i. zb j It
V.u u. 1 4j 1. 1II
14 %. 4io 1 . t:)/ Vj. jt, 1. 4 o, '. 5 !1 4)0 .:) 1.Q24
I) 1.44 l. .51j U. 4.4
U . I . -4 1J i.1u./ l I I4V U.jjI U.
V. ()t1o
J1 1 1. l-
J'.j/.4 1 . .z 1.u O i. 5,.L ,.cJ
z uV.c , l.) J4 i
Id U. l . J,.. I . V,,1 j . . 0 . 4.*j i.jujJ I .
1J U Iw I . JuP

2u ~~~~~~
~ ~ oCt ~ . j j% 1. . . .4

I.. . .]-

46
 Table lOj.
The Average AN/PDR-70 Remeter Response Obtained Using All the
Matrices and the Ratio of the Response Obtained
Using Each Matrix to the Average Response

N--U I,--E-----,it_
- --- N_4ha_______kI_- _ _ IA

1 u./19 U. Z,6 i. J6 .j.a i.U21 1. 14 u. 934

le U. t~j4j V,. 9d4 V. .,j-.
Ili 1.ucju I.Q.'4 1.(hui
J o
U.bi V..90 I 1I. uwJ u. 5 , 1. u u u. dosI I. oU4
41 .U.)l 7 U.' 17 1 . u%)1 i~g !,l).J-o 1. U.1I u. 9bj

b 1. u .,o6 .j.977 u. 1-I

I..1l 1.uj9 0.991
I . *95.l U.91 i .I,, 4u .uo 9.1 1. ud
kiU 0. )u .. 9'.11J9 1 . .Jt) I uou %j.917 1.0.41
9 I. V!. d. . . I| v.
J 0, .OUI i.UJ46 J. :09U
lh 1 u-' V. J'sj
i V*4 J j b- l. ul, 1.Jo7 U. 1s91
11 1 .Ob51 1. u Il u .9:jl l. uju u. OU. .00 5 .09
12 1. jo I . 'J j.9 i .. S, ij.9 : 1. Oa, 1. oul
1.o o U: IJ15 1 . u1 i. (Lto U. Y OI-
. 97 1 U. 9d9
I4 I. 11to V. ,i. I. 1 u.i. i 1.ub.) u.9d9
15 1. 1-,, 05d I.uzi I. .j u. to . 1.J1o U. 973

11 1 1.104 u.94 J. : 1. u. I u. 1,* 14 ut u. 911" "

16 1.1lu1 J.i j I u . 971 1. t;, U.90b 1.l-,o U. . .

2j l.-I5 U. 144. -j. 'i J4 1 . t,.I . 95to 1. lo.0 ,. ,

47

47 .............-..
 ii

FILMED

II

3-85

DT
,3-8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .