NATIONAL LABORATORY

operated by
ION CARBIDE CORPORATlON

for the
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMlSSI 0N

CENTRAL RESEARCH LIBRARY

DOCUMENT COLLECTION
r , f Ldc

NEUTRON AND GAMMA-RAY ALBEDOS

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

P r i n t e d i n USA. P r i c e $3.00 . A v a i l a b l e from the Clearinghouse for Federol

S c i e n t i f i c and T e c h n i c a l Information, N o t i o n a l Bureau o f Standards,
U.S. Deportment o f Commerce, Springfield, V i r g i n i a 22151

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.

DOD DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

This document h a s been approved f o r

p u b l i c r e l e a s e and sale; i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n
i s unlimited.

c
.
ORN L- RSI C- 21
(DASA- 1892-2)

Contract No. W-7405-eng-26

N E U T R O N PHYSICS DIVISION

by
Wade E. Selph

This document i s a reprint

. Weapons
of Chapter 4 of
Radiation Shielding Handbook
prepared for
DEFENSE ATOMIC SUPPORT AGENCY
Washington, D.C. 20301

Handbook Editors
Lorraine S. Abbott, H. Clyde Claiborne, and Charles E. Clifford

FEBRUARY 1 968

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Oak Ridge, Tennessee
operated by
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
for the
U. 5. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
1 3 4456 0023532 7 I
- -. . . ~ = , . . . .j. , - , . . ., -. , ,.. , .
 Preface
At t h e request of t h e Defense Atomic Support
Agency, Oak Ridge National Laboratory h a s under-
taken t h e preparation of a handbook to aid engi-
neers charged with t h e responsibility of designing
s h i e l d s to protect military equipment and personnel
in t h e vicinity of a nuclear weapons burst. T h i s
document constitutes t h e second chapter of t h e
Handbook i s s u e d t h u s far, the first one being
Chapter 5, entitled “Methods for Calculating Ef-
f e c t s of Ducts, A c c e s s Ways, and Holes i n
Shields.” T h e s e two chapters, together with an
. * introductory first chapter, will eventually b e com-
bined with a chapter defining t h e radiation s o u r c e s
insofar a s is p o s s i b l e and practicable (Chapter 2)
Y
and a chapter outlining methods for calculating
t h e attenuation of weapons radiation through vari-
o u s media (Chapter 3) to form Volume I of the
Handbook. Volume I1 will c o n s i s t of two or more
additional chapters presenting engineering design
methods that a r e based on t h e more sophisticated
techniques described in Volume I. T h e intent is
that t h e shield designer will u s e Volume I a s a
textbook and ready reference and Volume I1 a s a
guide for handling most of t h e problems with which
h e will be confronted.
In order to prepare t h i s Handbook, i t h a s been
necessary for Oak Ridge National Laboratory to
obtain the a s s i s t a n c e of several consultants and
subcontractors. For t h i s chapter on albedos, for
example, Wade E. Selph of Radiation Research
Associates, Inc., performed t h e initial literature
s e a r c h and prepared the draft with which t h e
editors worked. Other chapters will similarly
represent a cooperative effort of ORNL and other
organizations.
...
111
A s is always t h e case for handbooks, the authors
and editors a r e relying heavily on suggestions,
reviews, and criticisms of others as an aid i n
t h e development of t h e various chapters. T h e
l i s t of individuals who have contributed i n t h i s
manner h a s already grown very large, and i t would
b e almost impossible to acknowledge each person
here. W e do, however, wish to e x p r e s s appreci-
ation to Lt. Cols. Charles D. Daniel and William
A. Alfonte, who as p a s t DASA Shielding Project
Officers handled the early administration of t h e
contract and a s s i s t e d i n establishing the scope
of t h e Handbook. T h e work they began is currently
being ably performed by Captain R. W. Enz. W e
also wish to acknowledge t h e a s s i s t a n c e of R. E.
Maerker of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, who,
by virtue of having worked on neutron albedos i n
recent years, h a s been able to serve a s an on-the-
spot authority to help resolve problem areas as
they arose i n t h i s chapter, particularly i n Sections
4 . 1 and 4.2.
Finally, we wish t o thank Mrs. Virginia M.
Hamrick, who by carefully reading each draft of
t h i s chapter, including galley and page proofs, h a s
both improved t h e rhetoric and helped eliminate
some of the usual errors that are inevitably found
in formal publications.
May 1967
T h e Radiation Shielding Information Center grate-
fully acknowledges the interest and efforts of Lt.
Col. G. C. Reinhardt and Capt. R. W. Enz of t h e
Radiation P h y s i c s Branch of the Defense Atomic
Support Agency for making i t p o s s i b l e for t h i s
work t o b e reprinted and widely distributed.
December 1967
.
 Contents

4.0. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ ,1

4.1. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................ 2

4.1.1. General Considerations .. ..................................................... 2
4. 1.2. Differential Dose Albedos ................................................................................................ 3
4. 1.3. Total Dose Albedos .................................................................................. 4
4.1.4. Other Albedos .................................................................................................................... 4
4.1.5. Application ........................................................................................................................ 4

4.2. NEUTRON ALBEDOS........................................ ............. 5

4.2.1. Fast-Neutron Albedos ...................................................................................................... 5
4.2.2. Albedos for Neutrons of Intermediate Energy .............. ......... 14
4.2.3. Thermal-Neutron Albedos ................................................................................................ 15
Neutrons Incident a t Thermal Energy ............................................ 15
Neutrons Incident at Nonthermal Energies .................................................................... 21

4.3. GAMMA-RAY ALBEDOS................................................................................................................ 23

4.4. SECONDARY GAMMA-RAY ALBEDOS ...................................................................................... 37

4.4.1. Capture Gamma-Ray Albedos ................................................. 37
4.4.2. Activation Gamma-Ray Albedos ...................................................................................... 45
4.4.3. Inelastic-Scattering Gamma-Ray Albedos ................................................................. 45

V
.

.
 4.0 Introduction
It is pointed out in Chapter 5 and elsewhere in
t h i s Handbook that an air-filled opening through a
shield can increase the total amount of radiation
penetrating the shield. T h i s is not only because
air affords l i t t l e attenuation but a l s o b e c a u s e neu-
trons and gamma rays c a n s c a t t e r s u c c e s s i v e l y
from the walls of such openings and thus penetrate
much deeper into the shield than would be possible
i f they traveled through shielding material alone.
T h e problem of wall-scattered radiation is partic-
ularly acute i n weapons radiation shields, which
nearly always contain large d u c t s or passageways.
Consequently, a number of s t u d i e s have recently
been carried out to determine the fraction of nu-
clear radiation incident on a material surface that
is reflected back out of the material. T h i s fraction
is called the material albedo.
When applied to nuclear radiation, the definition
of the term “albedo” is much broader than the
traditional definition. For example, nuclear radi-
ation albedos include radiation that is scattered
at depths as great a s or greater than a relaxation
length, rather than from j u s t t h e surface of the
medium, s i n c e particles scattering at t h e s e depths
have been shown to contribute significantly to t h e
total radiation emerging from t h e surface. Also,
some nuclear radiation albedos refer to mixed radi-
ations, that i s , to emergent particles of one type
that result from t h e interaction of incident particles
of another type. Such albedos might be more
properly referred to as effective albedos, with the
emergent radiation identified as a particular type
of secondary radiation. For example, effective
capture gamma-ray albedos are albedos specifying
the gamma-ray d o s e emerging from a medium that
is due to incident neutrons being captured within
the medium. T h i s type of albedo is especially
important s i n c e for some duct configurations the
capture gamma-ray d o s e s c a n exceed t h e scattered
neutron doses.
Theoretically, calculations of nuclear radiation
albedos should be straightforward, s i n c e a large
body of information is available on interaction
probabilities, t h e angular distribution of scattered
radiation, and the emergent energy versus scatter-
ing angle for a variety of incident energies and
materials. But even though the single-event prob-
abilities are well known, solution of t h e macro-
s c o p i c multicollision albedo problem is quite com-
plex. Consequently, the value of t h e single-event
probabilities lies primarily in their usefulness i n
predicting trends. F o r example, if the ratio of t h e
scattering c r o s s section to the absorption c r o s s
section is high, as i t is in the case of neutrons
diffusing in concrete, the resulting albedo will
tend to b e high. If, however, the scattering is
predominantly i n the forward direction, as in t h e
case of high-energy gamma rays, then there i s a
greater probability for a low albedo.
T h e material most frequently used in albedo in-
vestigations is concrete, s i n c e the prevalent inter-
e s t is i n concrete as a structural material for
shelters. Other materials have been studied, such
as water, iron, lead, borated polyethylene, alumi-
num, and various s o i l s , but the data available for
e a c h are meager. T h e investigations themselves
have largely consisted of calculations, primarily
Monte Carlo machine calculations; however, in
many c a s e s there h a s been sufficient experi-
mental confirmation to establish the validity of
t h e calculated data. In nearly all cases t h e calcu-
lated data have been fitted to empirical expres-
sions.
Because t h e shield designer is interested in
t h e dose resulting from the reflected radiation,
t h e incident and emergent particle fluxes and cur-
rents are often expressed in dose units. As a
’ result of the differences in the energy dependence
of the flux-to-dose response functions for neutrons
and gamma rays, neutron dose albedos are more
1
 2
strongly related t o t h e number of particles reflected,
while gamma-ray d o s e albedos are more strongly
related to t h e total energy reflected.
T h e summarization in t h i s chapter of the albedo
d a t a that have been obtained to d a t e emphasizes
t h e gaps that s t i l l exist. It will be apparent, for
example; that while calculated neutron albedos
for concrete are available for essentially all en-
ergy regions of interest, t h o s e for the intermediate-
energy region lack experimental confirmation.
Experimental confirmation of gamma-ray albedo
calculations is even more limited, s i n c e all the
experiments have been performed with the low
gamma-ray energies that can b e obtained from iso-
tope sources. In the case of secondary gamma-ray
albedos, there h a s been almost no experimental
4.1 Definitions
4.1.1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Traditionally, albedo r e f e r s to t h e ratio of t h e
radiation current reflected from a surface to t h e
current incident on that surface. Consider, for
example, a monodirectional source of radiation of
energy E , incident on a surface at polar angle 0,
(see Fig. 4.1). T h e reflected current of energy E
per unit energy per unit solid angle at polar angle
8 and azimuthal angle 4 is given by
.we,+) = .w,,e,) a(Eo,eOmw) (4.1)
where J(E,,O,) is the incident current and a ( E o ,
8 , , E , 8 , ~ ) is t h e albedo.
When applied to nuclear radiation, albedo is not
always expressed as t h e ratio of t h e reflected cur-
rent per incident current, but instead may b e given
as the ratio of reflected current per unit incident
flux, of reflected dose per unit incident current,
of reflected d o s e per incident dose, etc. Unlike
the reflection of light which c a n b e considered to
be a surface phenomenon, neutrons and gamma rays
con f i rm a t ion. On the other hand, as the list of
references at the end of the chapter will reveal,
t h e subject of nuclear radiation reflection h a s
received a great deal of attention s i n c e 1960, and
t h e fact that so much d a t a h a s been amassed in
t h e s e few years underscores t h e importance shield
designers attach t o albedos. Unfortunately, so
many s t u d i e s being carried out simultaneously h a s
resulted in a diversity of nomenclature and defini-
tions which h a s complicated comparisons between
what should be similar data. In an attempt to
alleviate t h i s problem, all albedo d a t a quoted in
t h i s chapter have been c l a s s i f i e d according to t h e
definitions given in Section 4.1, which, i f generally
accepted, should a i d in t h e understanding of future
studies.
ORNL-DWG 67-2063
RECELVER
Fig. 4.1. Geometry for Calculating Neutron and
Gamma-Ray Reflection from a Surface.
a r e much more penetrating and their 'albedos take
into account radiation that is scattered back out
of the medium from several mean free paths below
the surface. T h e b a s i c assumption is made that
the particles emerge from t h e medium a t t h e same
points on t h e surface a t which they were incident,
which simplifies t h e u s e of predetermined albedos
 3
.
in various calculations, such as the duct transmis-
sion problems discussed in Chapter 5.
Neutron and gamma-ray albedos a r e available in
several forms. T h e form used in Eq. 4.1 is doubly
differential; that is, it is differential with respect
to both the reflected energy E and t h e reflected
direction (as determined by 8 and +). A singly
differential albedo results when a doubly differential
albedo is integrated over either energy or direc-
tion. Dose albedos obtained experimentally as a
function of exit directions are also examples of
singly differential albedos s i n c e d o s e is an integral
quantity with respect to energy. T h e term “total
albedo” always implies that integration h a s been
performed over both energy and direction. In t h i s
Handbook, differential albedos a r e denoted by the
symbol a, a s in Eq. 4.1, and total albedos by t h e
symbol A.
Three different types of differential and total
albedos have been used by various investigators
in reporting their results on materia1 reflectivity.
T h e f i r s t type, denoted here by the subscript 1,
is an albedo which represents an incident flux of
particles and an emergent current. T h e second
and third types, denoted by subscripts 2 and 3 ,
are albedos for which t h e incident and emergent
particles are considered to b e the s a m e - current
for t h e type 2 albedo and flux for the type 3 albedo.
F l u x e s and currents are related functionally by
the cosine of the entrance or exit angles. For
example, i f @ (E,8,+) is the reflected differential
flux per unit energy per steradian, then the reflected
current per unit energy per steradian, J(E,O,+), is
equal to @(E,8,+) c o s 0.
If the albedo being considered represents some
weighting of the particle flux such as dose or en-
ergy flux, then the subscripted Ietter D or E will
precede t h e numerical subscript. In the albedo
definitions given below, t h e term “dose” or “dose
rate” is used in the generic s e n s e . T h e albedo
definitions are not affected by the various types
or names of d o s e s that are used. T h e choice of
the d o s e definition and the flux-to-dose conver-
sion ratio govern whether t h e d o s e s are exposure
dose, absorbed dose, kerma, d o s e equivalent,
single-collision dose, or multicollision dose (see
Chapter 1). Standard functional notation is used
in conjunction with t h e albedo symbols to designate
the independent variables for the particular albedo
being considered.
4.1.2. DIFFERENTIAL DOSE ALBEDOS
T h e definitions of the three types of differential
albedos for which the particle flux h a s been weighted
by a d o s e response function are as follows:
uDl(Eo,~o,8,+), Differential Current Out (in Dose
Units) per Incident F l u x (in Dose Units). - If the
dose due to particles of energy E , incident at
angle 8, is D o , then the particle current (in d o s e
units) per steradian reflected in t h e direction O,+
is given by D o u D l . T h e reflected particle current
i n d o s e units (or dose current) h a s no physical
meaning but is merely a mathematical convenience.
It is expressed mathematically by
we,+>= s K ( E ) J(E,O,+) dE I (4.2)
where J(E,8,$) = @(E,8,+) cos 8 and K ( E ) is the
flux-to-dose conversion factor for particles of en-
ergy E . T h e current measuring plane in t h e s e
definitions is the material interface plane.
uD2(E0,8,,8,+),Differential Current Out (in Dose
Units) per Incident Current (in Dose Units). - If
the d o s e due to particles of energy E , incident at
angle 8, is D o (flux in d o s e units), then t h e par-
ticle current (in d o s e units) per steradian reflected
in the direction e,$ is given by D o cos 8, uD2,
where D o c o s 8, is t h e incident particle current in
d o s e units. T h i s type differs from the traditional
current albedo only in that t h e current is weighted
by a d o s e response function.
uD3(Eo,Oo,8,+), Differential F l u x Out (in Dose
Units) per Incident F l u x (in Dose Units). - If the
dose due to particles of energy E , incident a t
angle 0, is D o , then the d o s e per steradian due to
particles reflected in the direction 8,d is D,u,,.
If the incident particle current per unit surface
area is . / ( E , ) , then D o = K ( E o ) ] ( E o ) sec 0,. If
t h e reflected particle current per unit surface area
is J(E,8,+), then the reflected differential d o s e
is
where D(O,+) is t h e dose per steradian due to
particles reflected in t h e direction e,+.
T h e three types of albedos defined above are
related by

4.1.3. TOTAL DOSE ALBEDOS
Total d o s e albedos a r e obtained by integrating
differential d o s e albedos over the solid angle
represented by the exit hemisphere. T h u s t h e
three types of total d o s e albedos corresponding to
t h e differential albedos described above a r e defined
by
A, p 0 , e 0 )= J a, , ( E o t e o 9 e l + )d~
where dQ = s i n 8 de d+ a n d the l i m i t s of integra-
tion a r e from 8 = 0 to 7 ~ / 2and from +
= 0 to 2 7 ~ .
Differential d a t a must b e available when d a t a
for A D 3 are being compared with t h e other two
types of total albedos, whereas A , , and A , , a r e
,
directly related; i.e., A , = c o s 8 , A , ,.
4.1.4. OTHER ALBEDOS
Particle flux or current and energy flux or cur-
rent albedos, which refer either to particle or
energy flow, have also been used. In keeping
with the previous nomenclature, t h e s e are
A , or a, = particle current out per unit particle
flux in,
A , or a, = particle current out per unit particle
current in,
A 3 or a3 = particle flux out per unit particle
flux in.
For the case in which energy flow is considered,
t h e s e particle flow quantities a r e weighted by t h e
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
definitions except that neither the incident nor
t h e reflected flux (or current) is converted to d o s e
units.
4
4.1.5. APPLICATION
Basic d a t a on radiation reflection find many
applications i n the a n a l y s i s of. protective struc-
tures, t h e reflected radiation i n some cases being
t h e primary consideration. An example of how
s u c h d a t a c a n b e used is as follows.
Consider a detector positioned at a n entranceway
with a surrounding concrete pad exposed t o an
(4.5)
elevated monoenergetic point s o u r c e of radiation
as shown i n Fig. 4.2. T h e total response at P
ORNL-DWG 67-4074
SOURCE
/=
Fig. 4.2. Geometry for Calculating Radiation Scattered
into a Structure.
will b e due to the radiation that travels directly
from t h e source plus t h e radiation which s c a t t e r s
to P from t h e air, t h e ground, or the concrete.
(The scattered component will include radiation
that h a s been multiply scattered from some c o m -
bination of t h e s e three media; however, in m o s t cases
of interest, multiple-medium scattering may b e
neglected with little l o s s in accuracy.) The
ground- and concrete-scattered components may
b e evaluated by performing a numerical integration
of the product of t h e incident intensity and t h e
material albedo over t h e exposed surface area.
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
.
from t h e concrete pad will b e given by
where D o is the incident d o s e at a n incremental
a r e a dS, r is the distance between P and t h e point
of reflection from the pad, and the integration is
over the concrete area viewed by t h e detector.
 5
If a type 2 or type 3 albedo is used, Eq. 4.8
becomes
and
=s
D, cos e
D aD ,(Eo,eo7e,+) ds (4.10)
r2
respectively.
T h e dose at a point on the concrete-air interface
may b e obtained by using
4.2 Neutron Albedos
T h e fundamental mechanisms which result in
neutrons being scattered backwards in a material
are elastic and inelastic scattering, the two proc-
esses being distinguished by the condition of the
target nucleus following its collision with the
neutron. In an elastic scattering t h e total kinetic
energy of the incident particle and the target
nucleus is unchanged, and the nucleus is left in
the same internal state as before the collision.
In an inelastic scattering the total kinetic energy
is decreased, and the nucleus is left in an excited
state. In either case an intermediate s t e p may b e
the formation of a very short-lived compound nu-
cleus, from which the original neutron, or its
replacement, is immediately ejected.
As a result of many s u c c e s s i v e scatterings,
neutrons c a n follow tortuous paths which are dif-
ficult to calculate. Nevertheless calculations of
neutron albedos have been successfully performed
I
with experimental confirmation in a number of
cases. T h e investigations have fallen into three
major categories, distinguished by the energies of
the reflected neutrons: f a s t neutrons, intermediate-
energy neutrons, and thermal neutrons. The studies
of thermal-neutron albedos have been further cat-
.
D = D o [1 + AD3(Eo,80)l = D o
-.-
If the radiation spectrum at the detector is
desired, a more complex form of the albedo (such
as a flux or current albedo or a dose albedo that
is differential in exit energy) is used, and the
integration becomes more complex. For example,
it is necessary t o integrate over the incident en-
ergy spectrum and to accumulate the reflected
contributions into energy groups which form the
reflected spectrum.
egorized as relating to albedos that result from
incident thermal neutrons and those that result
from neutrons incident at energies higher than
thermal energy. Since neutrons that are incident
a t thermal energy scatter in a much more orderly
process than do higher energy neutrons, this cat-
egory h a s yielded to the direct analytical approach
much more readily than the other categories. In
general, expressions for other types of albedos
have been obtained by fits to results from machine
calculations, the majority being Monte Carlo type
of calculations.
From the following discussion it will b e apparent
that almost all the neutron albedo investigations
have been for s o m e form of concrete, although a
few have also included other materials.
4.2.1. FAST-NEUTRON ALBEDOS
T h e major contributions t o the data on fast-
neutron albedos have resulted from studies made
by Maerker and Muckenthaler' and by Allen, Fut-
terer, and Wright. Both groups performed detailed
Monte Carlo calculations to determine the reflec-
 6
c!

tion from materials that is due to f a s t neutrons of
various energies incident on the materials at
various angles. T h e results of Maerker and Muck-
enthaler are more detailed than those of Allen
et al. in that the reflection data are differential
with respect both t o the reflected direction (see
Fig. 4.1) and to the reflected energy. T h e Allen
et al. data are differential with respect to the
direction only.
T h e Maerker and Muckenthaler calculations were
performed as part of a calculational and experi-
mental program that covered a wide range of neu-
tron energies (see Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3) and
included an investigation of secondary gamma-ray
albedos (see Section 4.4). In the experimental
phase, which was performed a t the ORNL Tower
Shielding Facility, a g-in.-thick concrete s l a b w a s
used which was reinforced with steel bars at
a depth of 1’/2in. from either side. For the fast-
neutron calculations (but not for the intermediate-
and thermal-neutron calculations discussed later)
the s t e e l was not considered and the concrete
composition was assumed to b e a typical concrete
of the composition shown in Table 4.1.*
T h e calculations were performed for s i x incident
energy bands covering the energy range between
0.2 and 8 MeV. In a particular problem the neu-
trons incident on the concrete were sampled uni-
formly from e a c h incident-energy band, and a sta-
t i s t i c a l estimation technique was used to obtain
estimates of the current emerging from the surface
a t various angles from a normal to the surface.
T h e emergent angles were determined by the inter-
section points of a grid formed by nine space-
fixed polar angles and s i x azimuthal angles. T h e
results, obtained for distinct values of 0,. 8, and
4, were grouped into energy bands A E , and A E .
There were ten reflected energy bands, which,
like t h e incident energy bands, covered the range
between 0.2 and 8 MeV. (Note: Albedos that in-
clude neutrons reflected at energies less than
0.2 MeV were determined separately and are dis-
c u s s e d in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3.)
T h e differential albedo aDz ( E o , O o , E , ~ , cal- ~)
culated by Maerker and Muckenthaler is in units of
reflected current (in single-collision d o s e units)
per MeV per steradian per incident current (in --.
single-collision d o s e units) of a “gun-barrel”
beam source. T h i s albedo differs from the ao2
d i s c u s s e d in Section 4.1 only i n that, as w a s
pointed out previously, it is differential with
respect to the reflected energy as well as the
reflected direction (that i s , it is a doubly dif-
ferential albedo). T h e s t a t i s t i c a l uncertainty
associated with the Maerker-Muckenthaler d a t a
is about 10% for the doubly differential albedos
and about 3% for singly differential albedos.
Typical results from t h e s e calculations are
shown in Figs. 4.3 through 4.6. Figure 4.3 shows
the variation of the total albedo (integrated over
both t h e reflected energy and the reflected angle)
as a function of the incident angle and incident
energy band. Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show the de-
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

T a b l e 4.1. Concrete Compositions Used \

in Monte Carlo Calculations

Composition (in units 0.2

.
of l o z 1 atoms/cm3)
0.1
E leme nt Maerker and Allen et a l .
Muckenthaler 0
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 . 0

9.43 13.75 cos 8,

H
0 47.6 45.87
Si 11.85 20.15 Fig. 4.3. T o t a l Single-Collision Dose Albedo as a

Ca 7.8 Function of cos 80 and A \ E ~for F a s t Neutrons (>0.2

MeV) Reflected ‘from Concrete. (From Moerker and
Density (g/cm3) 2.35 2.26
Muckenthaler, ref. 1.)

.
.
 . ..

.
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

. Fig. 4.4. Differential Single-Collision

per Steradian as a Function of cos 8 and
Dose Albedo
4 for 1.5- to
3-MeV Neutrons Incident on Concrete at 8, = 60 deg.
(From Maerker and Muckenthaler, ref. 1.)

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

Fig. 4.6. Ratio of Total Single-Collision Dose Albedo

for F a s t Neutrons (>0.2 MeV) Singly Scattered from
Concrete to T o t a l Albedo for Singly Plus Multiply Scat-
tered Neutrons as a Function of cos 8, and AE,. (From
Maerker and Muckentholer, ref. 1 .)
a /
/

Maerker and Muckenthaler derived a n expression

to fit their angular differential d o s e albedo data
which reproduces their Monte .Carlo results within
10%. T h e expression involves two t e r m s : t h e first
accounts only for singly scattered neutrons and the
to 08 0.6 04 0.2 0 second includes all multiply scattered neutrons,
cos e it being assumed that the configuration is effec-
tively a semi-infinite body of concrete. T h e ex-
Fig. 4.5. Differential Single-Collision Dose Albedo pression is as follows:
per Steradian as a Function of cos 8 and 4 for 6- t o
8-MeV Neutrons Incident on Concrete at 8, = 85 deg.
(From Maerker and Muckenthaler, ref. 1.)

K
where cos 8, = s i n 8, s i n 8 c o s $I - c o s 8, c o s 8;
P m and P , are Legendre polynomials of orders m
and k;
I
I were 0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 2.0, 3.5, 5.0, and 1 4
x a i j ( A E o ) cosi 8,;
j=O
and t h e c o n s t a n t s Gm, B,, K , , and a *. I. are given i n
T a b l e 4.2.
Maerker and Muckenthaler also performed cal-
culations i n which their differential albedos were
used to predict reflected fast-neutron d o s e s due t o
a collimated beam of reactor neutrons incident at
various angles on a 6-ft-square, 9-in.-thick con-
c r e t e s l a b , and they compared t h e results with
t h e reflected d o s e s measured in a n experiment
performed a t the ORNL Tower Shielding Facility
(TSF). T h e values of t h e incident angles 8,
covered i n t h e calculations and the experiment
were 0, 45, 60, and 75 deg. T h e calculations were
weighted by a n incident spectrum previously meas-
ured at t h e TSF, and t h e incident d o s e rate used
was the d o s e rate determined by integrating t h e
measured d o s e rates over t h e effective c r o s s -
sectional area of t h e incident beam.
T h e reflected d o s e r a t e s were predicted with
t h e equation
where p is the fraction of D o lying within A E o , r
is the distance from t h e surface to t h e detector,
and c T , a i r ( A E )is the average macroscopic c r o s s
8
section i n t h e energy group A E based on the
assumption of a flat flux distribution within t h e
energy interval A E . T h e root mean square devia-
tion between the predicted and measured values
is 3.1%, and t h e largest s i n g l e deviation is 9%.
T h i s close agreement indicates that, in s p i t e of
t h e differences in the compositions of t h e concrete
assumed for t h e calculations and that used i n t h e
experiment, t h e albedo is relatively i n s e n s i t i v e to
t h e changes in t h e concrete composition within
these limits.
T h e Monte Carlo calculations performed by Allen
et a l . 3 determined t h e fraction of neutrons from
monoenergetic sources that w a s transmitted through
and reflected from infinite s l a b s of various mate-
rials, including concrete. T h e source energies
(4.13) MeV, and the angles of incidence were 0 , 3 0 , 45, and
7 0 d e g from the normal to the slab. T h e low-
energy cutoff was 1 0 eV. Transmitted and reflected
neutrons were accumulated in energy and angle
intervals, the reflected d a t a yielding the multi-
collision d o s e albedos aD3(E ,,8,,8) and A, 3 ( E o ,
eo). Energy spectra of t h e reflected flux were a l s o
determined for each incident energy-angle com-
bination.
In addition t o concrete, the materials covered
in the calculations were water, iron, 8% borated
polyethylene, and three Nevada T e s t Site (NTS)
soils differing only i n moisture content. T h e
d e n s i t i e s and elemental content of the materials
are given in T a b l e s 4.1 and 4.3. In all c a s e s the
s l a b s were assumed to b e sufficiently thick to
yield albedo d a t a approximating t h o s e for a s e m i -
infinite geometry.
Typical results from t h e calculations of Allen
et al. are presented in F i g s . 4.7 through 4.11.
Figures 4.7 through 4.9 are plots of t h e total d o s e
albedos for t h e various materials as a function of
t h e hydrogen content for incident source energies
of 0.1, 2.0, and 14.0 MeV, respectively. Figure
4.10 shows t h e energy spectra of t h e neutrons
reflected from a concrete s l a b due t o a 3.0-MeV
source incident a t t h e various angles, and Fig.
4.11 gives t h e angular distributions of reflected
neutrons due t o a 1.0-MeV source.
French and Wells4 analyzed the differential d a t a
of Allen et al. and obtained a fit that is a function
of t h e incident and reflected polar angles only.
T h e dependence of the reflected azimuthal angle
$I w a s found to b e weak and for the most part ir-
regular; thus the d o s e reflection d a t a were averaged
\
 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

Value of Constant for AE, of

Constant 0.2 - 0.75 0.75 - 1.5 1.5 -3 3-4 4-6 6-8

MeV MeV MeV MeV MeV MeV

GO 6.5 85 -2 ' 7.045-2 7.211-2 7.024-2 6.856-2 5.899-2

Gl 5.048 -2 4.3 93 -2 5.845 -2 7.452-2 8.2 94-2 6.03 9-2

G2 3.710-2 7.088-2 5.968-2 1.ooo-1 9.517-2 7.524-2

G3 1.544-2 1.898-2 2.72 9-2 5.591 -2 7.761-2 8,140-2

G4 7.8373 2.4083 1.190-2 2.646-2 4.292-2 6.622-2

-3.5893 1.0003 -6.908-4 1.824-2 3.056-2

0 4.6373 -8.087-4 5.5993 1.595-2
0 6.4903 -1.4593 5.288-3 1.277-2

0 0 -1.809-3 1.046-2 9.3803

6.27-2 9.00-2 8.80-2 9.05-2 8.744-2 6.374-2

1.50-2 8.53 1.30-2 2.15-2 2.817-2 1.382-2

5.33 9.73 6.03 2.3 0-2 2.344-2 1.178-2

0 0 0 0 1.779-2 1.084-2
0 0 0 0 8.517-3 6.801 -3

Kl 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.06

a00 0.36 0.51 0.56 0.60 0.43 0.35

aO1 1.29 0.32 0.18 0.15 2.02 0.95

a02 0 1.00 1.32 0.48 -0.38 0

a 10 0.06 -0.04 -0.14 -0.61 0.05 0.10

all -3.06 -2.46 -2.76 -1.08 -9.13 -2.28

a12 0 0 0 0 5.93 1.11

a 20 -0.20 0.05 0.05 0.32 0.04 0

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.*

Composition (in units of atoms/cm3)

Nevada T e s t Site Soil
50% 1 ow0 Iron 8% Borated
Element Dry
Saturated Saturated Polye thy lene

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
~~

Density 1.15 1.12 1.25 7.88 0.97

*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

0.8 0.8 ( 5 0 'A SAT U RAT E D 1

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

Fig. 4.9. T o t a l M u l t i c o l l i s i o n D o s e Albedo for 14.0-

MeV Neutrons Incident on Various Materials. (From
0
A l l e n e t a l . , ref. 3.) 0.2 04 06 08
cos e

Fig. 4.11. Angular Distributions o f F a s t Neutrons

R e f l e c t e d from Concrete. (From A l l e n et af., ref. 2.)
.
mated by ~ 0 s ~ yielding
' ~ e,,
an expression of t h e
form*
l-
o
aD 1 = k(~,) e, COS 8 , (4.15)

where k ( E o ) is a normalizing constant which in-

cludes the effect of incident energy and reflecting
material. Values of k ( E , ) are shown in T a b l e 4.4
for concrete, t h e three NTS soils, and iron for
eight monoenergetic sources and a fission source.
Equation 4.15 is assumed to be valid for all mate-
rials of low to moderate hydrogen content (C,/C, <
0.5). (The water data of Allen et af. show a less
Fig. 4.10. Energy Spectrum o f F a s t Neutrons R e f l e c t e d pronounced dependence on 8, and are not cor-
from Concrete (F = Arbitrary Number). (From A l l e n related by the expression.) P l o t s of a D I ( E o )are
e t af., ref. 2.) shown in Fig. 4.12 for fast neutrons normally
incident on and normally reflected from concrete,
soil, and iron.

over 6..T h e dependence on the reflected polar

angle w a s found t o fit a c o s 8 function, and the *The original data of Allen et a l . were converted by
dependence on the incident angle w a s approxi- French and W e l l s to a type 1 albedo ( s e e Section 4.1).
 12

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*.

k ( E o ) for Incident Energies of

Materia 1
0.1 MeV 0.25 MeV 0.5 MeV 1.0 MeV 2.0 MeV 3.0 MeV 5.0 MeV 14.0 Me,V Fission

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,

0.40 ORNL-DWG 67-2070

06
OD4
0.00 05

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

Fig. 4.13. Dependence o f Fast-Neutron Total Multi-

Fig. 4.12. Differential Multicollisian Dose Albedo for collision Dose Albedo upon Hydrogen Content of
F a s t Neutrons Incident an Various Materials. , (From Reflecting Material ( F i s s i o n Neutrons, E,, > 0.2 MeV).
French and Wells, ref. 4.) (From French and Well, ref, 4.)

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

where F(E,) is the energy-dependent parameter. ’D 3

0.3
Song obtained values of t h i s parameter from a
least-squares analysis of t h e Monte Carlo d a t a
that gave the b e s t fit t o the equation. T h e values 0.2 0 CALCULATED
were then empirically correlated as a function of
energy by
Od
F(E,) = E, exp(0.9719 - 2.895
0
+ 0.3417E0) . (4.17) 0 2 4 6 8 2
THICKNESS (in )

Another investigation of fast-neutron albedos

was performed by Henry, Mooney, and Proves:,' F i g . 4.14. T o t a l Single-Co!!ision Dose Albedos for
Fission Neutrons Normally Incident on Steel Slabs:
who studied the reflection of fast neutrons normally
Comparison with Experiment. (From Henry, Mooney, and
incident on various t h i c k n e s s e s of steel and 6%
Provost, ref. 7.)
borated polyethyethlene. Their work included both
Monte Carlo calculations, with t h e General Dy-
9
namics SPARC code, and experiments utilizing a
well-collimated reactor beam. In the experiments
- total d o s e albedos ( A D 3 ) were evaluated from
data obtained by traversing t h e beam area with a
dosimeter at a position in front of t h e s l a b both
with and without t h e s l a b present. As shown in
Figs. 4.14 through 4.16, t h e experimental and
calculated results are in good agreement.
T h e Henry e t al. d a t a are of particular interest ‘D3

in that they show the dependence of the albedo

on material thickness. In addition, Fig. 4.16
shows the reduction of the s t e e l albedo caused
by facing t h e steel s l a b with various thicknesses
of polyethylene. In Fig. 4.14 it appears that t h e
albedo for steel is approaching a value of nearly
- 0.6, which is lower than t h e value of 0.84 obtained
when t h e d a t a of Allen et al. a r e put in the A D , THICKNESS (in.)

form. T h e u s e of a finite detector in the experi-

ments t o traverse t h e interface approximates the F i g . 4.15. Toto1 Single-Collision D o s e Albedos for
s l a b detector assumed in t h e Allen e t al. calcula- Fission Neutrons Normally Incident on 6% Borated
tions except for t h e low-energy cutoff, which was Polyethylene: Comparison with Experiment. (From
0.2 MeV in t h e experiment and calculations per- Henry, Mooney, and Provost, ref. 7.)
. formed by Henry e t al. and was 1 0 e V i n the cal-
culations by Allen e t al. When the contribution
below 0.2 MeV is subtracted from the Allen e t af. From the d a t a and discussions presented on fast-
data for representative energy groups, good agree- neutron albedos, i t is apparent that t h e Monte Carlo
ment with t h e results of Henry e t al. is obtained. calculations of Maerker and Muckenthaler not

.

0.5
0.4
0.3
AD3
0.2
0.4 \I\,&
0 MEASURED
0 CALCULATED
-0 ! 2
POLYETHYLENE THICKNESS (in.)
Fig. 4.16. T o t a l Single-Collision D o s e Albedos far
F i s s i o n Neutrons Normally Incident on Laminoted Slab
of Steel and 6% Borated Polyethylene: Comparison w i t h
Experiment. (From Henry, Mooney, and Provost, ref. 7.)
only provide more detail than the other calculations
but also exhibit excellent agreement with experi-
ments. T h e s e data are recommended for obtaining
the b e s t accuracy in calculations of neutron scat-
tering from concrete, especially for grazing angles
of incidence and emergence of high-energy neu-
trons, where the dependence on azimuthal angle
was found to b e important.
For materials such as water, soil, iron, and
polyethylene t h e Monte Carlo data of Allen e t al.
are recommended. They c a n a l s o be applied in
calculations for concrete for those c a s e s in which
the azimuthal dependence is not important.
T h e highest accuracy will b e obtained when the
Monte Carlo data are used directly in the calcula-
tions, but the number of operations involved will
virtually dictate the u s e of computing machines.
For computer applications the albedo data may
b e stored in the form originally calculated and an
interpolation subroutine used, or they may b e cal-
culated by a subroutine for the specific cases
needed by using a fit expression. For a program
t o b e widely applied to neutron reflection calcula-
tions, the former procedure is recommended.
If the requirements on accuracy are not too
stringent, the analytical fits to the data may b e
14
azimuthal dependence is not expected to b e great.
T h e analytical fits will generally provide less
information on the distribution of the scattered
radiation, but they will allow the reflected dose
t o be computed with fewer operations. Also, the
u s e of fit equations greatly reduces the bulk of
data needed for the calculations.
If a spectrum of fast neutrons is incident on the
material being considered, a more uncertain but
expedient calculation may be made by using the
0 fission spectrum albedo of Allen et al. shown in
0 Fig. 4.13 with an assumed c o s 2 l 30, cos 8 angular
dependence.
3
4.2.2. ALBEDOS FOR NEUTRONS
OF INTERMEDIATE ENERGY
T h e only albedos that have been obtained for
neutrons whose incident and reflected energies
both are i n the intermediate-energy range are those
calculated by Coleman, Maerker, Muckenthaler, and
Stevens for a steel-reinforced concrete. Using
a Monte Carlo technique similar to the one used for
the fast-neutron albedos, they determined the
distribution in energy and angle of neutrons re-
flected from the concrete for five incident direc-
tions and ten incident energy groups in the energy
range 0.5 eV to 200 keV. T h e reflected distributions
are given in t e r m s of a doubly differential albedo
for each of 54 different emergent directions for
each energy group lying between and including
the incident group and the lowest group (0.5 t o
1.8 eV).
Reinforced concrete was used i n t h e s e calcula-
tions because they were a part of the calculational
and experimental program mentioned in Section
4.2.1. T h e experiment employed a g-in.-thick
concrete s l a b which had steel-reinforcing bars at
a depth of 1'/*in. from either s i d e ; therefore all
the calculations, except t h e fast-neutron calcula-
tions, were performed for a mock s t e e l configura-
tion in which each depth interval containing steel-
reinforcing rods was taken as a homogenized region
of concrete and s t e e l that was 1 in. thick. T h e
result was a five-region s l a b which had ordinary
concrete and reinforced concrete layers of t h e
compositions shown in T a b l e 4.5. It w a s found
that the effect of the iron on t h e neutron albedos
was negligible.
 15
.
T a b l e 4.5. Compositions of Ordinary and Reinforced energy group. In determining the expression for
Concretes Used i n TSF Albedo Experiments the differential albedo, i t was assumed that all
and Corresponding Monte Corlo C a l c u l a t i o n s * exit neutrons had a 1/E energy distribution within
(6.0 wt% H 2 0 ; p = 2.30 g/cm3) e a c h energy group. T h e expression for the total
albedo was obtained by integrating Eq. 4.18 over
Composition (atoms/cm3) all exit angles.
Element Additional calculations by Coleman et al.
Ordinary Concrete Reinforced Concrete
yielded differential albedos for reflected thermal
neutrons due to incident intermediate-energy neu-
Hydrogen 8.50 x 10” 8.22 x loz1
trons and a l s o effective differential albedos for
Carbon 2.02 x 1022 1.95 x l o 2 ’ “reflected” secondary gamma rays produced in
Oxygen 3.55 x 1022 3.43 x 1022 the concrete as a result of the slowing down and
absorption of t h e incident intermediate-energy neu-
Calcium 1.11 x 1022 1.08 x 10”
trons. T h e results of t h e s e calculations a r e dis-
Silicon 1.70 x loz1 1.64 x l o z 1 c u s s e d in Sections 4.2.3 and 4.4.1, respectively.
Magnesium 1.86 x 10” 1.80 x 10”
Iron 1.93 x 10’’ 2.96 x 10”
4.2.3. TH ERMAL-N EUT RON AL B E DO S
Aluminum 5.56 x 10’’ 5.38 x lozo
Potassium 4.03 x 10’’ 3.95 x 1019 As mentioned previously, thermal-neutron albedos
can b e considered as belonging to two categories:
Sodium 1.63 1019 1.58 1019
t h e “purely thermal” albedo, for which both t h e
incident and the reflected neutrons are a t thermal
*Table taken from: R. E. Maerker and F. J. Mucken-
energy, and t h e albedo for emergent thermal neu-
thaler, NucI. S c i . Eng. 26, 339-346 (1966).
trons that result from the moderation of neutrons
that are incident at energies higher than thermal.
T h e s e two categories are treated separately in
A complete tabulation of t h e ,doubly differential the discussion below.
Neutrons Incident at Thermal Energy. - Various
albedos calculated by Coleman et al. is too ex-
tensive to be included here. T h e results, however, approximations to t h e purely thermal albedo have
were numerically integrated over all exit energies been derived analytically, with isotropic scattering
and capture being the only interactions allowed.
to produce singly differential albedos and over a l l
In some c a s e s only the total albedo is derived,
exit energies and angles to produce total albedos.
and i t is expressed as a function of the incident
T h e integrated results were fitted by t h e following
angle, assuming that the reflected neutrons will
expressions to within 15% for differential albedos
emerge with isotropic or cosine distributions. In
and to within 3% for total albedos:
other cases differential albedos that are functions
of both the incident angle and the exit angle are
@ [ E l + E2CLo + d P 1+ P*CLo)I obtained.
a2(AE0,8,,8,+) =
CL + Y1 -t YZPO In a l l the analytical treatments of purely thermal
scattering t h e exit current is independent of t h e
i x 11+ (1 - p)(1 - p o ) [a(2cos2 4 - 1) azimuthal angle by virtue of t h e isotropic-scattering
assumption. Monte Carlo calculations made with
the isotropic-scattering assumption have shown
+ ‘Os 4 + ‘OS3 +I1 7 (4*18) reasonable agreement with the other forms of
analysis; however, Monte Carlo calculations i n
and which anisotropic scattering was assumed for any
,
hydrogen contained in a material have shown that
A 2 ( A E o ? ~=o )8, + 8 2 p o , (4*19) the albedo exhibits a n azimuthal dependence,
although to a lesser extent than w a s shown for
where p = cos 8 and p o = c o s Bo, and the fit con- fast neutrons. R e s u l t s from Monte Carlo calcula-
s t a n t s are given in T a b l e 4.6 for each incident tions using both types of scattering assumptions
 16

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

Values of Constants for AE, of

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

aEauations 4.18 and 4.19.

bTable taken from: W. A. Coleman, R. E. Maerker, F. J. Muckenthaler, and P. N. Stevens, Nucl. S c i . E n g . 27,
411-422 (1967).

are presented below, following t h e discussion of 1-k

various analytical approaches. A =- (4.21)
fl’
One of t h e first investigations of thermal-neutron
reflection - w a s performed by Fermi,g who showed where k = 2.91, 2.31, and 2.48 for normal, isotropic,
that for large v a l u e s of N (N = CT-/Ca, t h e ratio and c o s i n e angular distributions of incidence,
of the total c r o s s section to the absorption c r o s s respectively.
section) the total albedo for thermal neutrons Glasstone and Edlund” derived a formula by
incident on an infinitely thick, isotropically scat- u s e of diffusion theory which is given by
tering medium bounded by a plane is given ap-
proximately by 1 - 2KD
A =- (4.22)
1+2KD’
0 - 1
A 2 ( e o >= (4.20)
0i-0 c o s e , ’ where K is t h e reciprocal of t h e thermal-neutron
diffusion length and D is the .diffusion coefficient.
Chandrasekhar treated radiation backscattering
where A 2 ( 0 , ) is the number of thermal neutrons
by a method which may i n general b e applied to
reflected per incident thermal neutron and eo
is t h e
any type of radiation that s c a t t e r s isotropically
angle of incidence.
with a relatively constant c r o s s section, a condi-
A later, rigorous calculation w a s carried out by tion which is approximately m e t by thermal-neutron
Halpern, Lueneburg, and Clark, who obtained scattering. T h e resulting backscattering angular
the formula distribution is i n the form
 17
- .'

where p is the probability of nonabsorption in a

s i n g l e interaction 0, = z s / z T ,the ratio of the
FUNCTION)
scattering cross section t o the total c r o s s sec- A
APPROXIMATION OF CHANDRASEKHAR'S
FUNCTIONS
tion) and H is a universal function tabulatedI2 A VARIATIONAL METHOD (CONSTANT TRIAL
for various values of p and c o s 8,. T h e total FUNCTION)
I I I
albedo as a function of 8 , and p is obtained by 0

integrating Eq. 4.23 over the exit angle 8. T h i s

integration' yields
Fig. 4.17. T o t a l Albedos Obtained by Various Methods
A,(O,,p) = 1- d G HCp, cos e,) . (4.24) for Thermal Neutrons lsotropically Incident on a Strongly
Absorbing Medium ( z s / z T= 0.1). (From Mockel,

Mockel' studied alternate approaches for deter- ref. 14.)

mining the total thermal-neutron albedo for strongly

absorbing media a s a function of s l a b thickness.
His motive was to develop a method that would b e 0.1:
ORNL-DWG 67-2072

more readily adaptable to computer usage than

t h e formulas of Chandrasekhar and others or the
invariant embedding approach of Bellman, Kalaba,
' and Prestrud' and still provide good results with
0.4c +
less computing t i m e than is required for integra- P
tion of the Boltzmann equation. T h e variational
method with a constant trial function was found
to give poor results except for thin s l a b s . In the
search for better methods, three solutions were
A2

0.05
JL
+
-Zs/Zr=0.5
SEMIEMPIRICAL FORMULA
A NUMERICAL INTEGRATION
0 VARIATIONAL METHOD (EXPONENTIAL TRIAL
FUNCTION

tried, which were based on an approximation to

the moments of the Chandrasekhar function, a
PP A
APPROXIMATION OF CHANORASEKHAR'S
FUNCTIONS
VARIATIONAL METHOD (CONSTANT TRIAL
FUNCTION)

variational solution with an exponential trial 0

3 t.0 4.5 2.0
function, and a diffusion-like semiempirical formula. THICKNESS. (mpf)
Figures 4.17 and 4.18 compare t h e results from
the three methods for isotropic incidence and two ' F i g . 4.18. T o t a l Albedos Obtained by Various Methods
values of C , / C T . Also shown are results ob- for Thermal Neutrons lsotropically Incident on a Strongly
tained by using a constant trial function and by Absorbing Medium (Cs/c, = . 0.5). (From Mockel,
numerical integration of the Boltzmann equation. ref. 14.)
T h e semiempirical formula provides a fit within
2% in t h e case of an isotropically incident current
(plane isotropic source) and within 1%for a cur-
rent either normally incident -or incident with a values of the coefficients and functions are given
cosine distribution (isotropically incident flux). in Table 4.7 for three conditions of neutron in-
It h a s the form cidence.
Pomraning '
proposed a variational solution
with an exponential trial function which yields
for the total albedo the expression

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)*

Source a P A f (P) (P)

~ ~~ ~

Normal incidence 1.37 (1 - p)0*44 1.37 (1 - p)0.44 0.2775 (1 - p)@.388 0.067~~.~*

Isotropic current 1.37 (1 - p)0'44 1.33 (1 - p)0.3675 0.640 (1 - pp.5 0
Cosine current 1.37 (1 - p)0.44 1.37 (1 - p)0.44 0.3882 (1 - p p 4 1 0.05~
. 3~

*From: A. Mockel, Nucf. Sci. E n g . 22, 339 (1965).

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 )

for isotropically incident thermal neutrons. Here where

v is a positive quantity satisfying the transcen-
dental equation

-
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

A, = 0.66 8, (4.33) A s part of the calculational and experimental

program to investigate neutron albedos over a wide
and range of energies,* Maerker and Muckenthaler l 9
a, = 0.21 COS-^/^ eo COS e . (4.34)
performed single-velocity Monte Carlo calculations
for a 9-in.-thick steel-reinforced concrete slab.
Two different scattering laws were employed for
A type 3 total albedo is obtained-by integrating t h e water contained in t h e concrete: (1) isotropic
the differential albedo over the exit hemisphere scattering in t h e laboratory system and (2) aniso-
as follows: tropic scattering using a P, approximation based
on experiments by Greenspan and B a k s y s Z 0 at
A3(port.) = al sec 8 d Q 0.0358 eV. Scattering from all other constituents
i n t h e concrete was assumed to b e isotropic in
the laboratory system.
Preliminary to the calculations for the steel-
reinforced concrete, the feasibility of using the
Monte Carlo method for such calculations was
= 1.32 eo . (4.35) investigated by comparing Monte Carlo results
obtained for ordinary concrete with t h o s e obtained
with a D T F one-energy group S,, calculation. A
, Expression 4.35 is to b e compared with an expres-
sion obtained by Wells for a particular concrete
c,/C, value of 0.987 was used, which is typical
of the ordinary concrete composition given in
employed in structures built at t h e ORNL Tower
T a b l e 4.5. T h e results for normal incidence and
Shielding Facility:
isotropic scattering are shown in Fig. 4.19. T h e
A3(TSF) = 1.3 cos 8, . (4.36) excellent agreement between the two calculations

In both of the above calculations the thermal neu-

trons were assumed to s c a t t e r isotropically with *See Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 for discussions of those
phases of the program in which incident fast neutrons
no energy loss, and histories were terminated after and intermediate-energy neutrons were used. All the
experiments in this program were performed at the
a fixed number of interactions. Statistical estimates ORNL Tower Shielding Facility.
were made for each interaction point. T h e concrete
compositions used in t h e s e calculations are given
in T a b l e 4.9.
ORNL-DWG 65-11003Rj
(x40-’1
2.1
Table 4.9. Assumed Concrete Compositions
Used in Monte Carlo Calculation by Wells*
4.8 MONTE CARLO, 200 SCATTER

Element Portland Concrete TSF Concrete t.5

( l o z 1 atomsfim3) (10’’ atoms/cm3)
4.2
2
H 2.868 15.6
0.9
0 43.260 39.6
C 6.507 5.42 0.6
Mg 0.40
A1 1.32 0.3

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

of the albedo on the azimuthal angle.

0.0875~
a2 =- (1 + 1 . 2 8 ~ ) ( 1+ 1 . 6 2 ~ 0- 0.42~:)
F + Po

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
-

+ 0.43 cos $ + 0.20 cos' I)$ , (4.37)

where p = cos 8 and p o = cos 6,. A much simpler

fit was derived for the total thermal-neutron albedo
(integrated over all exit angles):

A, = 0.86 - 0.19 COS e, . (4.38)

R e s u l t s obtained for concrete using the various

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 equations for thermal-neutron albedos are compared
cos B in T a b l e 4.10. Comparisons a r e made between
the total current albedo for various conditions of
Fig. 4.20. Differential Albedos for Thermal Neutrons incidence. For all cases except 8, = 75 deg,
Normally Incident on Steel-Reinforced Concrete: Com- there would appear to b e +lo% agreement between
parison o f Single-Velocity Monte Corlo Calculations and all t h e values. T h e formula due to Wells should
ORNL TSF Experiments. (From Moerkerond Muckentholer, b e limited to angles of 8, < -60 deg due t o i t s
ref. 19.) tendency to overpredict a t grazing incidence.
 21

Table 4.10. Comparison of Various Values o f t h e T o t a l Albedo for Thermal-Neutron

Reflection from Portland Concrete*

Values of A , Obtained by Using the Formula's of

~~ ~ ~~

Source Maerker and Glasstone

Muckenthaler Wells Pomraning Halpern and Edlund Fermi Chandrasekhar

Is0tropic 0.78 0.792 0.8 0.719 0.74 0.79

distribution

Cosine 0.734 0.698

distribution

Monodirec tional
source
8, = 0 deg 0.67 0.66 0.698 0.645 0.745 0.691

8, = 45 deg 0.72 0.74 0.78 0.730

8, = 75 deg 0.855 0.996 0.82 0.82

~~

*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
neutrons is not significant, probably lying within
the experimental error (-5%) except near grazing
reflection. T h u s the differential albedo measure-
ments averaged over the azimuthal angle for a
given p o and p could b e compared with the cal-
.
culated azimuthally independent values. When
this was done t h e agreement w a s quite good. Of
t h e 34 common points at which t h e comparisons
could b e made, the two largest differences a r e
23 and 36%. For the remaining comparisons there
w a s a root mean square deviation of only 4.5%.

Table 4.1 1. Expressions for Differential and Total Thermal-Neutron

Albedos Due to Incident 0.5-eV to 200-keV

C L , ( A E ~ . ~[thermal
~ , ~ ) neutrons .-. Ap(AEO'pO)
(thermal neutrons/source
AEO steradian- ' (source neutron)- 1' neutron)

55.1-200 keV p(1 + 1.73p)(0.0043 + 0.0058p0) 0.029 + 0.039p0

15.2-55.1 keV p(1 + 1.73p)(0.0052 + 0.0059p0) 0.035 + 0.040po
4.2-15.2 keV p(1 + 1 . 7 3 ~ (0.0062
) + 0.0071p0) 0.042 +0.048~~
1.15-4.2 keV p(1 + 1.73p)(0.0077 + 0.0073p0) 0.052 + 0.049po
0.32-1.15 keV p(1 + 1.73p)(0.0090 + 0.0099po) 0.061 +0.067~~
87-320 eV p(1 + 1.73p)(0.011 + 0.012po) 0.074 + O.O81p0
24-87 eV p[(0.0185 + 0.0150po) + p(0.0177 + 0.0235p0)] 0.095 + 0.096p0
6.6-24 eV p[(0.0332 + 0.0085p0) + p(O.0220 + 0.0268p0)] 0.150 + 0. 084p0

1.8-6.6 eV p[(0.0595 + p(0.0290 + 0.0305p0)] 0.248 + 0 . 0 6 4 ~ ~

0.5-1.8 eV p[(0.124 - 0.035p0) + p(0.020 + 0.053p0)] 0.43 1 + 0. OOlp,

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.

Table 4.12. Expressions far Differential and Total Thermal-Neutron

Albedos Due to Incident 200-keV to 9.57-MeV Neutronsapb

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

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,; = cos e.
i

23
4

4.3 Gamma-Ray Albedos

. .
I . .

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
 .

Table 4.13. Dependence of Gamma-Ray T o t a l Dose

Albedo ( A D 3 )on Material Thickness*
24

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

H20 0.66 0 0.65 0.88 0.99 5

0.66 60 0.61 0.96 1.0

Fe 1.0 0 0.79 0.93 1.0

1.0 60 0.89 0.98 1.o

*Table taken from: J. M. Berger and J. Doggett, J . R e s . 2

N a t l . Bur. Std. 56, 89 (1956).

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)
were obtained for each incident energy and angle.
Values of the differential and total dose albedos
for normal incidence are shown in Figs. 4.25 and
4.26 respectively.
Figures 4.25 and 4.26 also show Monte Carlo
results obtained by Wells, 2 3 who calculated dif-
ferential and total dose albedos for gamma-ray
reflection from concrete by analysis of prior Monte
Carlo data2* on gamma-ray scattering in air and
concrete. The results of Raso and Wells are es-
sentially in good agreement on the total albedo
for energies of 2 MeV and below, although there
are some differences in the differential albedos
a t these energies. At energies above 2 MeV there
is a substantial disagreement between Raso and
Wells on the magnitude of the total albedo, as
Fig. 4.24. T o t a l Energy Albedo for Normally Incident
Monoenergetic Gamma Rays a s a Function of the Atomic
Number of the Material. (From Berger and Roso, refs.
25 and 26.)
shown in Fig. 4.26. The divergence of agreement
.
with increasing energy could be attributed to the
different manner in which pair production was
treated in the two calculations.
As is apparent from Fig. 4.25, the incident
energies used in the Wells calculations were 0.6,
1, 2, 4, and 7 MeV. The incident polar angles
were 0, 30, 45, 60, and 75 deg. The emergent
angles varied with the individual problems and no
regularly spaced grid was used, but by extrapo-
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

obtained for u D l v s 8 for azimuthal angles of 0

and 180 deg. The results for 8, = 3 0 deg are 2
given in F i g s . 4.27 and 4.28, for 8, = 45 deg in
Figs. 4.29 and 4.30, for 8, = 60 deg in Figs.
4.31 and 4.32, and for 8, = 75 deg in Figs. 4.33
and 4.34. Extrapolation t o other values of 4 may io20
be effected by using Eq. 4.42 and the trigono- 2 4 6 8 40 42
metric identity c o s eS
= s i n 8, s i n 8 cos 4 -
Eo (MeV)

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

Table 4.14. Values of Parameters and values of t h e c o n s t a n t s for t h e two initial

for Chilton-Huddleston Gamma-Ray Differential energies a r e given in T a b l e 4.15. T h e fit to t h e
Albedo Formula (Eq. 4.39)* Monte Carlo d a t a is good t o t h e order of 2 t o 6%.
In most of t h e experimental s t u d i e s of gamma-
EO ray albedos t h e sources u s e d were 6oCo and
Material C C'
(MeV) 137Cs. Examples a r e t h e d a t a obtained for con-
crete by Clifford, 3 3 Haggmark et al., 3 4 and Barrett
Water 0.2 -0.0187 f 0.0027 0.1327 f 0.0054 and W a l d ~ n a n . ~ 'Comparisons of typical data from
0.662 0.0309 f 0.0047 0.0253 f 0.0034 t h e s e investigations with results from some of
1.00 0.0470 f 0.0053 0.0151 f 0.0025 the calculations d i s c u s s e d previously a r e shown
2.50 0.0995'f0.0068 0.0058 f 0.0010 in F i g s . 4.35 through 4.39. For t h e s e figures a l l
6.13 0.1861 f 0.0107 *
0.0035 0.0005 the values were converted to type 1 albedos, and,
Concrete 0.2 *
0.0023 0.0033 0.0737 f 0.0065 where necessary, the analytical d a t a were inter-
polated t o match the experimental energies.
0.662 0.0347 f 0.0050 0.0197 k 0.0035
1.00 *
0.0503 0.0056 0.0118 k 0.0025 Except for small a n g l e s of reflection, the experi-
2.50 *
0.0999 0.0078 *
0.0051 0.0011 mental and calculated values shown in Figs. 4.35
through 4.39 are all i n good agreement. In par-
6.13 0.1717 f0.0103 0.0048 fO.0005
ticular, the Wells calculations agree with nearly
Iron 0.2 0.0272 f 0.0033 -0.0100 f 0.0062
all the experimental values, deviating most from
0.662 0.0430 f 0.0045 0.0063 f 0.0030
1.00 0.0555 k 0.0049 0.0045 0.0021* the data of Clifford. A s is demonstrated by F i g s .
4.35, 4.36, and 4.37, the agreement between t h e
2.50 0.1009 f 0.0073 0.0044 k 0.0010
Wells calculations and the d a t a of Haggmark et al.
6.13 0.1447 f 0.0101 0.0077 f 0.0006
is especially c l o s e , even for s m a l l angles of re-
Lead 0.2 0.0044 f 0.0002 -0.0050 0.0004* flection. Figure 4.38 s h o w s that there is a l s o
0.662 0.0308 f 0.0015 -0.0100 0.0007* good agreement between t h e calculations of Wells
1.00 0.0452 fO.0013 -0.0083 f0.0004 and the data of Barrett and Waldman except near
2.50 0.0882 f 0.0014 0.0001 0.0002* normal reflection (0 = 0 deg). For t h o s e cases
6.13 0.1126 f 0.0048 0.0063 f 0.0003 which c a n b e compared, t h e calculations of Berger
and Morris and values obtained with t h e Chilton-
*Table taken from: A. B. Chilton, C. M. Davisson, and Huddleston formula a r e a l s o i n good agreement
L. A. Beach, T r a n s . Am. Nucl. SOC.8, 656 (1965).
with t h e experimental data, and give the c l o s e s t

T a b l e 4.15. Values of Parameters for Chilton's F i r

and 1 3 7 (0.662
~ ~ MeV). This fit is of the form
(Eq. 4.40) to Monte Carlo Gamma-Ray Differential
aD ,(e,,e,+) = B(e,,e,+) Albedo Data*

CK(E,,B,) x + C' 1 3 7 ~Source

s 6 0 ~ Source
o
X Parameter
1 + COS 8, sec e[i + 2E0(1 - COS e,)] 1 / 2 ' (0.662 MeV) (1.25MeV)

(4.40) C 0.0455 0.0710

where K(E,,O,) is again t h e Klein-Nishina dif- C' 0.0161 0.0114
ferential energy scattering coefficient,
M1
1.512 1.555

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

ferential d o s e albedos for concrete and a l s o for

A1 6Oco 0.50 0.007 0
iron and aluminum could all be represented by
t h e expression 0.75 0.0090
1 .oo 0.0095

37cs 0.50 0.0132

0.75 0.0167
where Os is the scattering a n g l e described pre- 1.00 0.01 94
viously (see Fig. 4.1); aD3 is the differential
Fe 6OCO 0.50 0.0060
d o s e albedo described in Section 4.1 except that
0.75 0.0065
the exit direction is expressed in terms of 0,)
1 .oo 0.0065
which is a function of 0 and q5; and b is a n e m -
pirical constant for a given 0,, E , , and material. 137cs 0.50 0.0091
Figure 4.40 shows a comparison of Eq. 4.42 with 0.75 0.0120
the experimental data for iron, concrete, and alu- 1.00 0.0130
minum reduced by the appropriate b value given Concrete 6Oco 0.50 0.007 5
in T a b l e 4.16. A plot of the differential albedo 0.75 0.0090
for concrete obtained with a n equation of the same 1 .oo 0.0100
form as Eq. 4.42 is compared with the data of
3?cs 0.50 0.0133
Clifford in Fig. 4.41 for the case of 1 3 7 C sgamma
0.75 0.0165
rays incident at cos 0, = 0.5. The coefficients
1.00 0.0184
used in the equation shown i n the figure gave a
slightly better fit to t h e s e particular data than
* T a b l e taken from: L. G. Haggmark et a l . , N u c l . S c i .
Eq. 4.42, which, however, h a s more general ap- Eng. 23, 138 (1965).
plicability. T h e same plot is compared with
values calculated with the Chilton-Huddleston for-
mula (Eq. 4.39) in Fig. 4.42. (Note: Equation
4.42 is a useful tool for extrapolating the albedo and in Fig. 4.43c, which s h o w s the ratio of t h e
data of Wells presented in F i g s . 4.28 through d o s e rate from t h e 6oCo source that is scattered
4.34 to values of the azimuthal angle q5 other from the concrete t o t h e direct dose rate. [The
than 0 and 180 deg.) 6oCo data for a height of 9 ft is from the work of
An experiment w a s performed by Clarke and Jones e t al. (Convair report CVAC-170). 1'
Batter36 t o measure the effect of extended con- Figure 4 . 4 3 ~a l s o shows the results obtained
crete surfaces on the d o s e from a point source. by Clarke and Batter with the Chilton-Huddleston
As shown in Fig. 4.43a, the detector and source differential d o s e albedo formula. Although pre-
were maintained a t the same level, whereas both liminary values of the constants C and C ' w e r e
the source-detector separation distance and the used for t h i s calculation, the agreement with the
height above the concrete surface were varied. experimental d a t a is good. Later calculations by
T h e sources used were 6oCo and Ig2Ir. T h e var- C h i l t ~ nwith
~ ~ improved values. of the c o n s t a n t s
iation in d o s e w a s found to be a smooth function (those given in Table 4.14) a l s o correlate well
of the ratio of the height h t o t h e separation dis- with the experimental data. On the b a s i s of
tance d which did not vary significantly with Chilton's work, which included the c a s e in which
changes in the separation d i s t a n c e when the height t h e source and detector positions were allowed
w a s varied t o maintain a constant value of the t o vary independently, it was found that the b e s t
ratio. T h i s is demonstrated in Fig. 4.43b, which fit t o the experimental data is obtained when it
shows the percent increase in the dose from the is assumed that all reflections occur a t a depth
lg21r source due t o scattering from the concrete, of 1.7 c m in the material and the albedo formula
l
 28
is integrated over a plane at that depth. Ob-
viously t h i s correction t o t h e location of the inter-
face would b e important only when the source or
detector or both are near the interface.
Measurements similar t o t h o s e of Clarke and
Batter were made by Hendee and Ellis3' except
that a shadow shield w a s placed between the
source and detector and measurements were made
for unequal source and detector heights a s well
as for equal heights. T h e sources used were
6oCo and 137Cs, and the scattering surfaces were
lead, concrete, and water. T h e results indicate
that the ratio of the average height of the source
and detector t o the d i s t a n c e between the source
and detector is t h e parameter most influential in
determining the d o s e scattered from the s l a b s .
For the c a s e s considered, no significant influence
on the scattered d o s e w a s observed by positioning
the source at a height greater or l e s s e r than that
of the detector. For h / d values greater than 0.5,
curves closely fitting the experimental points were
obtained from calculations i n which isotropic en-
ergy albedos ( a E 2 )were used. In the case of the
6oCo source t h e s e values were 0.050, 0.0113,
and 0.049 for concrete, lead, and water respec-
tively. T h e corresponding values for the 1 3 7 C s
source a r e 0.100, 0.013, and 0.083. For h / d
values less than 0.5 t h e reflection curves cal-
culated with the isotropic albedos were below
the experimental values.
Some measurements of the spectra of gamma
rays scattered from a variety of materials were
carried out by Andrews and S t e ~ n , ~but ' a com-
plete listing of their data is not available. In
t h e sample results published in ref. 40 peaks due
t o single and double scatterings a r e clearly vis-
ible.
.-
In a theoretical approach Eisenhauer used a n
image source technique t o study the problem of
radiation reflection from a point source located
above a surface. It w a s shown that t h e geomet-
rical effects c a n b e taken into account by a simple
s c a l i n g function. For a given material and radi-
ation the remaining effects depend primarily on
one angular variable, with only a secondary de-
pendence on t h e ratio of the s o u r c e height to the
detector height. Some applications were made to
neutrons, gamma rays, and particles whose energy
d o e s not change with scattering (one-velocity case).
Leimdorfer used the Monte Carlo method t o cal-
c u l a t e t h e total gamma-ray energy flux albedo from
concrete s l a b s " and a l s o from spherically con-
c a v e concrete walls. 4 2 An interesting result of the
latter s t u d i e s is shown in Fig. 4.44, which gives
the energy flux albedo A,, for 1-MeV gamma rays
from a concrete wall surrounding a spherical cav-
ity as a function of t h e radius of curvature of the
wall. T h e point isotropic s o u r c e is located in
t h e center of a n evacuated cavity in a n infinite
concrete medium. T h e energy flux albedo A,,
is defined a s t h e ratio of t h e collided t o the un-
collided energy flux a t the wall surface. T h e
infinite radius (flat surface) albedo is calculated
to be only about 2.5% higher than the albedo for a
500cm-radius spherical cavity. Other interesting
conclusions drawn by Leimdorfer from t h e s e cal-
culations a r e that reflections beyond the third or
fourth order d o not contribute appreciably t o the
energy flux albedo in the spherical geometry and
that a t least 90% of the reflections occur within
t h e first 24-g/cm2 t h i c k n e s s for gamma-ray en-
ergies below 10 MeV.
4x to2

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

Fig. 4.28. Differential Dose Albedos for Gamma Rays

Incident on Concrete a t 30 deg (4 = 180 deg). (From
Wells, ref. 23.)
 30

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

Fig. 4.30. Differentiol Dose Albedos for Gommo Rays

Incident on Concrete a t 45 deg (4 = 180 deg). (From
Wells, ref. 23.)

.-.

r-
 31

ORNL-DWG 67-2082
2 x

8
6

403
8

ORNL-DWG 67-2081 40-~

i
46' 0 20 40 60 80
8 9 (deg)

6
Fig. 4.32. D i f f e r e n t i a l D o s e Albedos for Gamma 'Rays

4 Incident on Concrete a t 60 deg (4 = 180 deg). (From

Wells, ref. 23.)

a04
1ci2
8

rCi3
0 20 40 60 80
9 (deg)

Fig. 4.31. D i f f e r e n t i a l D o s e Albedos for Gamma Rays

Incident on Concrete a t 60 deg (4 = 0 deg). (From
Wells, ref. 23.)
 32

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

Fig. 4.34. Differential Dose Albedos for Gamma Rays

Incident on Concrete a t 75 deg (4 = 180 deg). (From
Wells, ref. 23.)
c

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)

Fig. 4.36. Comparison Between Calculated and Meas-

-, ured Differential Dose Albedos for 137Cs Gammo Rays
(0.662 MeV) Normally Incident on Concrete. (From
Wells, ref. 23.)
O R N L - D W G 67-2087
c 0.014
1'

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)

Fig. 4.35. Comparison Between Calculated and Meas-

wed Differential Dose Albedos for 6oCo Gamma Rays
(1.25 MeV) Normally Incident on Concrete. (From
Wells, ref. 23.)
 34

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)

Fig. 4.37. Comparison Between Calculated and Meas- I-

ured Differential Dose Albedos for 13’Cs Gamma Rays

(0.662 MeV) Incident on Concrete a t 6 0 deg. (From ORNL-DWG 67-2088
Wells, ref. 23.) 0.011 ,&

o.ot0

0.009

0.008

0.007

0.006
aDI
0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002 5 BARRETT AND WALDMAN (MEASUREMENTS)

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)

Fig. 4.41. Comparison of Gamma-Roy Differential

Dose Albedos for Concrete Obtained with Equation
-\.\ 4.42 with Experimental Data o f Clifford. 137Cs gamma
0.002
\-' rays (0.662 MeV) incident on concrete a t c o s 8, = 0.5.
(From Haggmark et a l . , ref. 34.)

Fig. 4.39. Comparison Between Calculated and Meas-

ured Differential Dose Albedos for 6oCo Gamma Rays
(1.25 MeV) Incident on Concrete a t 60 deg. (From Wells,
ref. 23.)

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

05 1.0 4.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

9,(rodians) Fig. 4.42. Comparison o f Gamma-Ray Differential
Dose Albedos for Concrete Obtained with Equation
Fig. 4.40. Gamma-Roy Differential Dose Albedo for 4.42 and w i t h Chi Iton-Huddleston Formula. '37cs
Aluminum, Iron, and Concrete a s a Function of the gamma r a y s (0.662 MeV) incident on concrete a t cos 8, =
Scattering Angle 8+. (From Haggmark et af., ref. 34.) 0.5. (From Haggmark et a l . , ref. 34.)
 36

ORNL-DWG 67-2465

SOURCE DETECTOR
-0

ORNL-DWG 67-2091
COhCRETE
0.40

Fig. 4.43a. Geometry for Gamma-Ray Scattering Ex-

0.09
periments Performed by C l a r k e and Batter.

ORNL-DWG 67-2062 0.08

25

-
-z- 20 0.07
I
- 45
0

$10
E 0.06
m
J
a
-6 5 >-
$ 0.05
W
0 z
W

0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 4 2 5 40

h /d 0.04

Fig. 4.436. Increase i n Gamma-Ray Dose Rate from a

0.03
1921r Source Due t o Scattering from a Concrete Surface.
Refer to Fig. 4.43a for experimental geometry. (From
C l a r k e and Batter, ref. 36.) 0.02

14
0.04

12
0
0 too 200 300 400 500
to R(crn)
6W
LL

Fig. 4.44. Gamma-Ray Energy Flux Albedo as a

W
E 6 F u n c t i o n o f Radius o f the Concrete R e f l e c t i n g W a l l
I-
s (1-MeV Source). (From Leimdorfer, ref. 42.)
$ 4

0
C 0.02 c

Fig. 4.43~. Ratio of Dose Rate from 6oCo Source

Scattered from Concrete Surface t o Direct Dose Rate.
Refer t o Fig. 4.43a for e x p e r i m e n t a l geometry. (From
Clarke and Batter, ref. 36.)
 37
4.4 Secondary Gamma-Ray Albedos
Secondary gamma rays, that is, gamma rays
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
gamma rays “reflected” from a material surface.
T h e most important neutron interaction involved is
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
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
energy of t h e neutron plus i t s kinetic energy. T h e
compound nucleus is then usually d e e x c i t e d by
t h e prompt e m i s s i o n of gamma rays, commonly
referred t o as capture gamma rays. Of t h e various
secondary gamma rays p o s s i b l e , c a p t u r e gamma
rays usually c r e a t e t h e g r e a t e s t problem for s h i e l d -
i n g d e s i g n e r s , and therefore t h e f e w s t u d i e s of
secondary gamma-ray a l b e d o s that h a v e been
performed h a v e largely b e e n for capture gamma
r a y s , a s is e v i d e n c e d by t h e d i s c u s s i o n below.
Other secondary gamma rays which could b e of
concern i n s p e c i a l s i t u a t i o n s a r e activation gamma
rays and inelastic-scattering gamma rays. Activa-
tion gamma rays result when t h e absorption p r o c e s s
l e a d s t o a radioactive r e s i d u a l nucleus which e m i t s
gamma rays a t a later time. T h e s e gamma rays
a r e of l i t t l e c o n s e q u e n c e during a period of irradia-
tion, but they c a n l i m i t access t o regions that
have b e e n close t o a weapons burst. Inelastic-
s c a t t e r i n g gamma rays a r e produced when i n a
s c a t t e r i n g p r o c e s s t h e incident neutron effectively
transfers some of its energy t o t h e t a r g e t nucleus.
T h i s p r o c e s s is followed almost instantly by t h e
r e l e a s e of gamma rays by t h e nucleus. Conceiv-
ably, inelastic-scattering gamma rays could b e i m -
portant contributors t o secondary gamma-ray
a l b e d o s , but generally t h i s is not t h e case.
It is c l e a r from t h e preceding d i s c u s s i o n that
t h e a l b e d o definitions given in Section 4.1 d o not
apply precisely t o t h e case of s e c o n d a r y gamma-
ray albedos. To clarify t h e point that i n t h i s
case t h e incident particles a r e neutrons and t h e
emergent p a r t i c l e s a r e gamma r a y s , t h e notation
‘‘(n,~)’’is included in t h e s u b s c r i p t s a s s o c i a t e d
with t h e a l b e d o symbols u s e d below. In all cases
t h e a l b e d o s a r e b a s e d o n a n incident particle cur-
rent or flux and a n emergent gamma-ray d o s e .
4.4.1. CAPTURE GAMMA-RAY ALBEDOS
In determining capture gamma-ray albedos, t h e
capture gamma-ray s o u r c e d e n s i t y within a medium
must be known. T h e d e n s i t y a t a point is given
Sy(E’) = E F c i ( E ) Y i ( E ’ ) N i @ ( E ) dE , (4.43)
I
where
m c i ( E ) = t h e capture c r o s s s e c t i o n of element i
for neutrons of energy E ,
N i = t h e atomic density of element i,
@ ( E ) = t h e s c a l a r neutron flux a t energy E ,
Y i ( E ’ ) = t h e yield per capture in material i of
gamma rays of energy E‘.
Equation 4.43 enumerates t h e q u a n t i t i e s which
must b e defined as a function of position within
t h e absorbing material before gamma-ray l e a k a g e
from t h e medium c a n b e calculated. It a l s o il-
l u s t r a t e s t h e number of parameters which must b e
duplicated in order for secondary gamma-ray d a t a
obtained for a particular s i t u a t i o n t o b e a p p l i c a b l e
to another situation. In many cases sufficient ac-
curacy will be obtained by considering only t h e
t o t a l thermal-neutron flux profile and t h e capture
c r o s s s e c t i o n s averaged over t h e thermal group.
T h e d a t a on capture gamma-ray a l b e d o s a r e q u i t e
limited. Wells’ performed a s e r i e s of Monte C a r l o
c a l c u l a t i o n s from which h e obtained capture gamma-
ray a l b e d o s for t h e portland and T S F concrete
compositions given in T a b l e 4.9. Assuming t h a t
only thermal neutrons were incident, h e arrived a t
t h e following e x p r e s s i o n s for t h e differential d o s e
’
albedo, which is given in (rads hr- steradian- ’)/
(unit thermal-neutron flux) incident at a n g l e 8,:
for portland c o n c r e t e and
(4.45)
for T S F concrete. It is s e e n from t h e s e t w o e x -
p r e s s i o n s t h a t for normal incidence and reflection
 38

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

Fig. 4.45. Capture Gamma-Ray Differential Albedos

where uD2 is given (rads hr-' steradian-')/
(incident unit thermal-neutron current) and po and ,u
are t h e c o s i n e s of t h e incident and reflected polar
.
angles respectively T h e corresponding expression
for t h e total albedo is
AD 2 ( f l , Y )= 3.77 1 0 - ~ ( 1 . 0 1 + 1 . 6 7 ~-~0 . 5 6 ~ ; ),
(4.47)
given in (rads/hr)/(incident unit thermal-neutron
current). T h e s e equations fit t h e Monte Carlo d a t a
t o within 15%.
Figure 4.45 compares t h e differential albedos
obtained with t h e Maerker-Muckenthaler expression
with t h o s e obtained with t h e Wells expression for
T S F concrete, the latter being converted t o t y p e 2
albedos. T h e data differ by a factor of "2, which
may have resulted from s e v e r a l c a u s e s . In the
Wells calculations neutron histories were ter-
minated after 5 0 collisions, whereas 200 collisions
were allowed in the Maerker and Muckenthaler cal-
culations. According t o additional s t u d i e s per-
formed by Maerker and Muckenthaler' '
and also
by Coleman et al.,' however, this would account
for no more than 20% of t h e difference. Other dif-
ferences may appear in t h e gamma-ray yields, t h e
minimum gamma-ray energy considered, and the
for Thermal Neutrons Incident on Concrete. (From
Wells, ref. 17, and Maerker and Muckenthaler, ref. 19.)
i
concrete composition. In particular, t h e layered
concrete s l a b used by Maerker and Muckenthaler
had more iron nearer t h e surface than did the
homogenized s y s t e m used by Wells. T h e additional
iron a t t h i s position probably resulted in more iron-
capture gamma rays emerging from t h e surface.
Coleman et a1.8 calculated, also by Monte Carlo
methods, t h e capture gamma-ray albedos resulting
from the slowing down and capture of neutrons
incident on concrete a t intermediate energies (0.5
e V to 200 keV). As w a s t h e c a s e for t h e Maerker
and Muckenthaler calculations, t h e concrete w a s
assumed t o be a five-region s l a b , with two of t h e
regions containing s t e e l ; however, a t most t h e
iron contributed only 20% of t h e capture gamma-ray
dose.
T h e empirical equations representing t h e results
of Coleman et al. are shown in T a b l e 4.17. T h e
departure from unity of t h e last term in parentheses
in t h e expressions for t h e differential albedos
reflects t h e contributions from captures occurring
a t nonthermal energies. T h e s e expressions re-
produce t h e Monte Carlo v a l u e s t o within 15%for
the differential albedos and t o within 10% for the
total albedos.

.-.

'&.
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 ~ ~ )

0.5 - 1.8 e V p L2.12 + 0 . 7 2 ~+~p (-1.46 + 2 . 9 2 ~ ~+)p'(0.40 - 2.68p0)1 10P7(4.52 +4 . 3 3 ~ ~ )

x (1.07 - 0 . 0 2 ~ ~ )

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.

Wells and T ~ m p k i n s calculated

~~ the capture
gamma-ray d o s e rate a t a point 3 ft above the sur-
face of s e v e r a l materials that was due to a n inci-
dent spectrum of neutrons, including fast neutrons,
from reactor and weapon sources. The materials
considered were Nevada Test Site (NTS) s o i l , T S F
concrete, T S F sandy s o i l , and sea water. Calcula-
tions of the production of capture gamma rays within
the materials were based on experimentally de-
termined thermal-neutron fluxes a s a function of
depth in the material.
The calculational geometry- used by Wells and
cumulative plot of the capture gamma-ray d o s e rate
as a function of 8 for t h e T S F concrete, and Fig.
4 . 4 6 ~is a s i m i l a r plot for the NTS soil.
A more precise calculation was carried out by
French, Wells, and S ~ h a e f f e rfor ~ ~the case of t h e
T S F concrete. The capture gamma-ray source
strength a s a function of depth w a s determined in
the same manner as described for t h e Wells and
Tompkins calculations, but the gamma-ray leakage
ORNL-DWG 67-2464
D

Tompkins is shown in Fig. 4.46a. T h e detector

was assumed t o b e located a t P , and a point kernel
program44 w a s used t o c a l c u l a t e the angular d o s e
distribution arriving a t P . After normalization t o a
unit thermal-neutron flux uniformly incident over
the surface of t h e absorbing plane, t h e results
were found to fit a function of the form
"'\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\."' ' ~ '\\\\\\\\\\"

~ ( 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)

Fig. 4.46b. Cumulative Capture Gamma-Ray D o s e Fig. 4 . 4 6 ~ . C u m u l a t i v e Capture Gamma-Ray D o s e

Rate 3 f t Above TSF Concrete D u e to U n i t Thermal- Rate 3 f t Above N e v a d a T e s t Site S a i l Due t o U n i t
Neutron Flux Incident on Concrete Surface. (From Thermal-Neutron F l u x Incident on Soil Surface. (From
.
Wells and Tompkins, ref. 43.) Wells and Tompkins, ref. 43.)

I-

T a b l e 4.18. V a l u e s of Constants Required for

C a l c u l a t i n g Capture Gainma-Ray Dose R a t e s
from t h e concrete was calculated by using the C-18
Monte Carlo code.4 The resulting angular d o s e
--
by Eq. 4.48 rates, in rads hr-' steradian-', were found t o fit
a n equation of t h e form
Density
Material
(g/cm )
3 C n Reference o(e)= 6.14 10-8 cos e. (4.49)

TSF sandy s o i l 1.469 8.9 x lo-' -$ a T h i s equation g i v e s d o s e r a t e s that a r e approxi-

TSF concrete 2.41 9.18~
Nevada t e s t s i t e 1.18 9.7 x
soil
Sea water 1.025 1.37~10-~
aW. C. Farries and J. R. Stokes, Postanalysis of
Ordnance Corps Radiologically Protected Pod T e s t s
a t ORNL-TSF, General Dynamics/Fort Worth Report
FZK-145 (1962) (Secret).
bV. R. Cain, A Study of the Radiation Shielding
Characteristics of Basic Concrete Structures a t the
Tower Shielding Facility, Oak Ridge National Lab-
oratory Report ORNL-3464 (1 964).
'C. S. Cook, W. E. Thompson, F. M. Tomnovic, R. L.
Mather, J. M. Ferguson, and P. R. Howland, Operation
Plumbob, Project 2.2, Neutron-Induced Activities in
Soil Elements, Defense Atomic Support Agency Report
WT-1411 (1959) (Secret).
dW. A. Biggers and F. Waddell, General Report on
Weapons T e s t s , External Neutron Measurements, 1946-
1956, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report W T -
9004, p. 167 (1957) (Secret).
mately 24% lower than t h o s e obtained with Eq.
0 b
4.48.
-% C
Capture gamma-ray d o s e rates for materials s i m i -
lar t o t h o s e studied by Tompkins and Wells and by
-2 d French et al. may b e approximated from t h e equa-
tion
D = ID(@)@ dQ , (4.50)
where @ D ( e ) is obtained by either Eq. 4.48 or 4.49.
A somewhat different approach w a s used by
Budka et aZ.47-49 for calculating t h e reflection of
capture gamma rays from s l a b s of concrete and
NTS s o i l . In their calculations, which were per-
formed with t h e GRATIS Monte Carlo program4'
and included transmission through t h e s l a b a s well
a s reflection from it, t h e independent variables
were the energy and distribution of t h e secondary
gamma-ray s o u r c e s rather than t h e energy of t h e
‘5

4
incident neutron. L e a k a g e from both s l a b f a c e s
w a s c a l c u l a t e d for gamma-ray s o u r c e distributions
represented by t h e function
N.(x) = Tk,
I
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
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.,
X = x / T ) , and N I. ( F ) dY r e p r e s e n t s t h e estimated
number of gamma r a y s of energy E. originating a t
J
depth x t o x +. d x centimeters from t h e reflecting
surface. T h e fractional d o s e leaking from t h e s l a b
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,
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
20 in. for monoenergetic photon e n e r g i e s between
1.0 and 11.0 MeV.
While t h e r e s u l t s obtained from t h i s t y p e of cal-
culation a r e not n,y a l b e d o d a t a per se, they may
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
incident neutron current or flux provided t h a t t h e
distribution of gamma-ray s o u r c e s within t h e s l a b
i s known and t h a t t h i s distribution c a n b e reason-
ably approximated by t h e polynomial e x p r e s s i o n
Nj(X) = Aoj + a I j F ... + a .F4.
41
T h e c o e f f i c i e n t s ak related t o t h e weighting func-
t i o n s for t h e individual r e s u l t s for t h e Fk distribu-
t i o n s and must b e determined s u c h that t h e total
number (or d o s e ) leaving t h e reflecting s u r f a c e w i l l
b e given by
M . K
2
j=1 k=O
z ‘jk a z j
tR =
41
distribution and which h a v e b e e n normalized s u c h
that t h e integral of t h e polynomial over t h e s l a b
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
(4.51) transmission d a t a . Small c h a n g e s in material
composition may b e accounted for in terms of their
influence on t h e thermal-neutron flux profile and
capture spectrum if they d o not greatly influence
t h e gamma-ray attenuation properties.
Some of t h e d a t a on reflected d o s e for t h e case
of c o n c r e t e of t h e composition shown in T a b l e 4.19
a r e presented‘in F i g s . 4.47 through 4.51. T h e
“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
ratio of reflected d o s e n e a r t h e s l a b face to t h e
d o s e which would b e found a t t h e same point in t h e
a b s e n c e of t h e gamma-ray attenuating material
(that i s , t h e s o u r c e dose). For’the a s s u m e d infinite-
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-
pendent of t h e s o u r c e depth distribution. F i g u r 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
energy.
It is emphasized that t h e d a t a c a l c u l a t e d by
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
(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-
tion of t h e d a t a will, however, be very s e n s i t i v e
to composition.
A complete l i s t i n g of t h e energy and angular
distribution of t h e transmitted and reflected gamma
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.
(4.53) Table 4.19. Composition of Concrete ( p = 2.3 g/cm 3 )

j=1 k=O Used i n C a l c u l a t i o n s by Budka e t 01.

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

0.30 ORNL-DWG 67-2099

LL
J
0.55
n
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)

Fig. 4.48. Fraction of Capture Gamma-Ray Dose

Reflected from Concrete Slab as o Function of the
Source Energy [ N , ( 2 ) = d. (From Budka and Dolce,
ref. 49.)
 43

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)

Fig. 4.49. Fraction of Capture Gamma-Ray Dose

Reflected from Concrete Slab as a Function of the
Source Energy [Nj(!Z) = E21. (From Budka and Dolce,
ref. 49.)

.’
 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

SOURCE DOSE (rods)

O N w VI 4 0) (D 0

'e

1
!
 45
4.4.2. ACTIVATION GAMMA-RAY ALBEDOS
T h e s u b j e c t of neutron activation of a material
is treated in Chapter 2 in t h e s e c t i o n on r e s i d u a l
radiation. It is mentioned here only t o call atten-
tion t o t h e fact t h a t activation r e s u l t s in t h e e m i s -
s i o n of d e c a y gamma r a y s , which may b e described
in terms of a n n,y albedo. An important difference
between t h i s t y p e of a l b e d o and a neutron-capture
a l b e d o is t h e time d e l a y between t h e incident
neutrons and emergent gamma rays.
A s in t h e case of capture gamma rays, activation
gamma r a y s a r e primarily a product of thermal-
neutron absorption and t h u s will b e determined by
t h e thermal-neutron flux intensity. Activation
gamma r a y s w i l l not add appreciably t o t h e total
d o s e measured by a detector t h a t remains stationary
throughout t h e evolution of a weapon detonation;
however, i t will b e t h e most i n t e n s e component,
t o b e considered in occupying terrain near t h e loca-
tion where t h e detonation occurred.
4.4.3. IN E LASTIC-SCATTE R ING GAMMA-RAY
ALBEDOS
A s w a s mentioned earlier, when a neutron scat-
t e r s i n e l a s t i c a l l y , part of i t s energy is absorbed
by t h e t a r g e t nucleus, r a i s i n g t h e nucleus t o a n
e x c i t e d state. An intermediate s t e p may b e t h e
formation of a short-lived compound nucleus by
union of t h e target n u c l e u s and incident neutron.
In a n y case t h e e x t r a neutron is either s c a t t e r e d
or e j e c t e d from t h e n u c l e u s , which t h e n d e c a y s
b a c k to i t s ground s t a t e by t h e e m i s s i o n of gamma
rays. T h e time b e t w e e n t h e neutron interaction
and t h e gamma-ray e m i s s i o n is negligible
sec). If t h e energy of t h e incident neutron is insuf-
f i c i e n t to r a i s e t h e t a r g e t nucleus t o i t s f i r s t
e x c i t e d s t a t e , i n e l a s t i c s c a t t e r i n g cannot occur.
C r o s s s e c t i o n s for i n e l a s t i c s c a t t e r i n g a r e not
w e l l known. T h e y a r e complicated by t h e multi-
plicity of l e v e l s to which t h e t a r g e t nucleus may b e
excited and t h e multiplicity of gamma-ray e n e r g i e s
which may b e emitted i n t h e p r o c e s s of d e c a y from
a given energy level. A s t h e neutron energy in-
c r e a s e s , s o d o e s t h e number of nuclear levels.
When t h e energy of t h e incident neutron e x c e e d s
about 4 MeV, t h e gamma-ray e m i s s i o n spectrum
becomes e s s e n t i a l l y continuous for most s c a t t e r i n g
species .
T h e e m i s s i o n of i n e l a s t i c s c a t t e r i n g gamma r a y s
from a s u r f a c e on which weapons neutrons a r e
incident w i l l not add significantly t o t h e reflected
d o s e rate; however, t h e gamma r a y s produced by
i n e l a s t i c s c a t t e r i n g may c o n s t i t u t e t h e most pene-
trating component of t h e reflected d o s e (that i s ,
they may h a v e t h e highest energies). T h u s if i t
is planned to s h i e l d a g a i n s t t h e gamma r a y s re-
flected from a material, t h e inelastic-scattering
component s h o u l d b e considered.
N o a l b e d o d a t a a r e a v a i l a b l e e i t h e r from experi-
ments or from a n a l y s e s for u s e in e s t i m a t i n g in-
e l a s t i c gamma-ray return from various materials.
Preliminary e s t i m a t e s may b e made by u s i n g a
single-scattering approximation, and -more s o p h i s -
t i c a t e d c a l c u l a t i o n s may b e made by a Monte C a r l o
approach. In e i t h e r case t h e outcome would de-
pend on t h e availability of appropriate c r o s s -
s e c t i o n d a t a , and a t t h i s time there a r e many g a p s
in s u c h d a t a . T h e d a t a t h a t a r e available a r e
maintained in a c e n t r a l f i l e by t h e Sigma Center
a t Brookhaven National Laboratory. Compilations
h a v e also b e e n published for some elements by
United Nuclear Corporation.’ In addition, a sum-
mary of neutron energy thresholds and p o s s i b l e
gamma-ray e n e r g i e s h a s b e e n given by Goldstein.’ ’
 46
References
‘R. E. Maerker and F. J. Muckenthaler, “Calcu-
lation and Measurement of the Fast-Neutron Dif-
ferential Dose Albedo for Concrete,” Nucl. Sci.
Eng. 22, 455 (1965).
2F. J. Allen, A. Futterer, and W. Wright, Neutron
Reflection and Flux Versus Depth for Nevada T e st
Site Soil, Ballistic Research Laboratories Report
BRL-1190 (January 1963); ... for Concrete, Bal-
listic Research Laboratories Report BRL-1189
(January 1963); ... for Iron, Ballistic Research
Laboratories Report BRL-1199 (March 1963);
Neutron Reflection and Flux Versus Depth for
Water, with an Appendix, Comparison of Results
of National Bureau of Standards, Ballistic Re-
search Laboratories Report BRL-1204 (June 1963);
Neutron Reflection and Flux Versus Depth for
Aluminum with an Appendix: Neutron Dose Trans-
mission Versus Thickness, Ballistic Research
Laboratories Report BRL-1238 (February 1964);
and Angular Distributions and Energy Spectra of
Neutrons Transmitted Through Polyethylene, Bal-
listic Research Laboratories Report BRL-1148
(classif ied) (September 196 1).
3F. J. Allen, A. Futterer, and W. Wright, De-
pendence of Neutron Albedos upon Hydrogen Con-
tent of a Shield, Ballistic Research Laboratories
Report BRL-1224 (October 1963).
4R. L. French and M. B. Wells, An Angular De-
pendent Albedo for Fast-Neutron Reflection Cal-
culations, Radiation Research Associates Report
RRA-M31 (November 1963).
’Y. T. Song, F a s t Neutron Streaming Through
Two-Legged Concrete Ducts, U.S. Naval Civil
Engineering Laboratory Report NCEL-TR-354
(Feb. 2, 1965).
6A. B. ‘Chilton and C. M. Huddleston, A Semi-
empirical Formula for Differential Dose Albedo for
Gamma Rays on Concrete, U.S. Naval Civil Engi-
neering Laboratory Report, NCEL-TR-228 (Nov.
16, 1962); also, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 17, 419 (1963).
7R. L. Henry, L. G. Mooney, and R. J. Provost,
Study of Radiation Penetration and Reflection from
Shield Materials, General Dynamics/Fort Worth
Report FZK-183 (August 1964).
8W. A. Coleman, R. E. Maerker, F. J. Mucken-
thaler, and P. N. Stevens, “Calculation of Doubly
Differential Current Albedos for Epicadmium Neu-
trons Incident pn Concrete and Comparison of the
Reflected Subcadmium Component with Experi-
ment,” Nucl. Sci. Eng. 27, 411 (1967).
9E. F e r m i , On the Motion of Neutrons in Hydrog-
enous Substances, NP-2385 [translated from Ric.
Sci. V11(2), 13 (1936)I.
“0. Halpern, R. Lueneburg, and 0. Clark, “On
Multiple Scattering of Neutrons. I. Theory of the
Albedo of a Plane Boundary,” Phys. Rev. 53, 173
(1938).
“S. Glasstone and M. C. Edlund, The Elements
of Nuclear Reactor Theory, Van Nostrand, New
York, 1952.
2S. Chandrasekhar, Radiative Transfer, Claren-
don Press, Oxford, 1950.
13L. V. Spencer, J. A. Diaz, and E. Moses,
Neutron Penetration in Cylindrical Ducts, National
Bureau of Standards Report NBS-8542 (Sept. 1,
1964).
4A. Mockel, “Reflection,,and Transmission by a
Strongly Absorbing Slab,” Nucl. Sci. Eng. 22, 339
(1965).
”R. Bellman, R. Kalaba, and M. Prestrud, i-
lnvariant Imbedding and Radiative Transfer in
Slabs of Definite Thickness, American Elsevier
Publishing Co., New York, 1963.
’ 6 G . C. Pomraning, “The Albedo Problem,”
Nucl. Sci. Eng. 21, 265 (1965).
1 7 M . B. Wells, Reflection of Thermal Neutrons
and NeutronGapture Gamma Rays from Concrete,
Radiation Research Associates Report I?RA-M44
(June 1964).
8M. B. Wells, Gamma Dose Rates Resulting from
Neutron Capture in Air and Concrete, Convair/Fort
Worth Report, NARF-59-31T (September 1959).
”R. E. Maerker and F. J. Muckenthaler, “Meas-
urements and Single-Velocity Calculations of Dif-
ferential Angular Thermal-Neutron Albedos for
Concrete,” Nucl. Sci. Eng. 26, 339 (1966).
20H. Greenspan and I. G. Baksys, Addenda to
Newsletters No. 3 and 4, Argonne National Lab-
oratory Newsletter No. 9 (TID-18481) (March 1963).
21C. M. Davisson and R. D. Evans, “Gamma-Ray
Absorption Coefficients,” Revs. Mod. Phys. 24,
79-(1-952).
2M. Leimdorfer, The Backscattering of Gamma
Radiation from Plane Concrete Walls, Aktiebolaget
Atomenergi Report AE-92 (December 1962).

47
23M. B. Wells, Differential Dose Albedos for
Calculation of Gamma-Ray Reflection from Con-
crete, Radiation Research Associates Report
RRA-T46 (December 1964).
2 4 J . M. Berger and J . Doggett, “Reflection and
Transmission of Gamma Radiation by Barriers:
Semianalytic Monte Carlo Calculations, ” J. Res.
Natl. Bur. Std. 56, 89 (1956).
”M. J. Berger and D. J. Raso, “Monte Carlo
Calculations of Gamma-Ray Backscattering,”
Radiation Res. 12, 20 (1960).
26M. J. Berger and D. J. Raso, Backscattering
of Gamma Rays, National Bureau of Standards
Report NBS-5982 (July 25, 1958).
”D. J. Raso, “Monte Carlo Calculations on the
Reflection and Transmission of Scattered Gamma
Rays,” Nucl. Sci. Eng. 17, 411 (1963).
“M. B. Wells, Air and Concrete Scattering of
Gamma Rays, Convair/Fort Worth Report MR-N-
229 (NARF-59-11T) (March 1959).
“A. B. Chilton, C. M. Davisson, and L. A.
Beach, “Parameters for C-H Albedo Formula for
Gamma Rays Reflected from Water, Concrete, Iron,
-7 and Lead,” Trans. Am. Nucl. SOC. 8, 656 (1965).
30C. M. Davisson and L. A. Beach, “A Monte
2 Carlo Study of Back-Scattered Gamma Radiation, ”
Trans. Am. Nucl. SOC.5, 391 (1962).
31A. B. Chilton, “A Modified Exposure Albedo
Formula for Gamma Rays Reflected from Concrete,”
Trans. Am. Nucl. SOC.9 , 369 (1966).
32M. J. Berger and E. E. Morris, Dose Albedo
and Transmission Coefficients for Cobalt40 and
Cesium-137 Gamma Rays Incident on Concrete
Slabs, National Bureau of Standards Report NBS-
9071 (July 5, 1966).
33C. E. Clifford, Differential Dose Albedo Meas-
urements for 0.66 MeV y’s Incident on Concrete,
Iron and Lead, Defense Research Chemical Lab-
oratories, Ottawa, Report DRCL-412 (August
1963).
34L. G. Haggmark e t al., “Differential Dose-
Rate Measurements of Backscattered Gamma Rays
from Concrete, Aluminum and Steel,” Nucl. Sci.
Eng. 23, 138 (1965).
35M.J . Barrett and J. Waldman, Experimental
Gamma-Ray Backscattering by Various Materials,
Technical Operations Research Report TO-B 64-68
(July 1964).
36E. T . Clarke and J. F. Batter, “Gamma-Ray
Scattering by Concrete Surfaces,” Nucl. Sci. Eng.
17, 125 (1963).
. ,
37B. L. Jones e t al., Air and Ground Scaftering
of Cobalt-60 Gamma Radiation, Consolidated
Vultee Aircraft Corporation Report CVAC-170
(Mar. 30, 1955).
38A. B. Chilton, Backscattering of Gamma Rays
from a Point Source Near a Concrete Plane Sur-
face, University of Illinois Engineering Experi-
mental Station Bulletin 471 (1964).
39W. R. Hendee and J. L. Ellis, “Scattering of
Gamma Radiation from Semi-Infinite Slabs,” Health
Phys. 12, 673 (1966).
40D. G. Andrews and J. J. Steyn, “Experimental
Differential Number, Energy and Dose Albedos for
Semi-Infinite Media, for Normally-Incident Gamma
Radiation,” Trans. Am. Nucl, SOC. 8, 655 (1965).
‘C. Eisenhauer, “An Image Source Technique
for Calculating Reflection of Gamma Rays or
Neutrons,” Health Phys. 11, 1145 (1965).
42M. Leimdorfer, Backscattering of Gamma Radi-
ation from Spherical Concrete Walls, Aktiebolaget
Atomenergi Report AE-93 (January 1963).
43M. B. Wells and K. W. Tompkins, unpublished
data.
44D. M. Peterson, Shield Penetration Programs
C-17 and L-63, General Dynamics/Fort Worth
Report NARF-61-39T (Dec. 29, 1961).
45R. L. French, M. B. Wells, and N. M. Schaeffer,
Penetration of Neutron and Gamma Radiation
Through the Openings of Underground Structures,
Radiation Research Associates Report RRA-T41
(Nov. 30, 1964).
6M. B. Wells, Radiation Resistant Combat
Vehicle Investigation - F i n a l Report, Volume Ill:
Monte Carlo Multilayer Slab Geometry Shielding
Code C-18, General Dynamics/Fort Worth Report
FZK-134-3 (Secret).
4 7 A . J. Budka, Gratis - A Monte Carlo Computer
Program for Calculating Transmission Information
for Secondary Gamma Radiation, Ballistics Re-
search Laboratories Report BRL-1223 (October
1963).
48A. J. Budka and T. Dolce, Secondary Gamma
Ray Transmission Through Plane Slabs of Con-
crete, Ballistic Research Laboratories Report
BRL-1307 (September 1965).
49A. J. Budka, W. Brand, and T. Dolce, Second-
ary Gamma Ray Transmission Through Nevada Test
Site Soil, Ballistic Research Laboratories Report
BRL-1329 (July 1966).
’ON. Tralli e t al., F a s t Neutron Cross Sections
for Titanium, Potassium, Magnesium, Nitrogen,
 48
Aluminum, Silicon, Sodium, Oxygen, and Manganese
- Final Report, United Nuclear Corporation Report
UNC-5002 (NDL-TR-30) (January 1962); A. D.
Krumbein, Neutron Cross Sections for Beryllium,
United Nuclear Corporation Report UNC-5014, Vol.
B (NDL-TR-36, Vol. B) (May 1962); and M. H.
Kalos, H. Goldstein, and J. Ray, Revised Cross
Sections for Neutron Interactions with Oxygen and
Deuterium - F i n a l Report, United Nuclear Corpora-
tion Report UNC-5038 (NDL-TR-40) (Aug. 31,1962).
'H. Goldstein, "Sources of Neutrons and Gamma
Rays," Chapter 8 in Shielding, Part B, Vol. I11 of
Reactor Handbook, edited by E. P. Blizard and
L- s- Abbott, Interscience, New York, 1962.
 49

0 RN L- R SI C-2 1
(DASA-1892-2)

INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION

1-5. L. S. Abbott 38. A. M. Weinberg

6. R. G. Alsmiller, Jr. 39. H. Yamakoshi
7. J. R. Buchanan 40. G. Dessauer (consultant)
8-13. H. C. Claiborne 41. B. C. Diven (consultant)
14-18. C. E. Clifford 42. W. N. Hess (consultant)
19. S. J. Cromer 43. M. H. Kalos (consultant)
20. V. M. Homrick 44. L. V. Spencer (consultant)
21. W. H. Jordan 45- 1045. RSlC Distribution
22. Joanne S. Levy 1046-104a. Central Research Library
23-24. F. C. Maienschein 1049. Do cum ent Reference Section
25. S. K. Penny 1050- 1070. Laboratory Records Department
26-35. B. F. Maskewitz 1071. Laboratory Records ORNL R.C.
36. D. A. Sundberg 1072. ORNL Patent Office
37. D. K. Trubey

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)