Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 226 (2004) 585594 www.elsevier.

com/locate/nimb

Flux and dose transmission through concrete of neutrons from proton induced reactions on various target elements
Moumita Maiti a, Maitreyee Nandy b, S.N. Roy a, P.K. Sarkar
b a Department of Physics, Visva Bharati, Santiniketan 731235, India Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1/AF, Bidhannagar, Kolkata 700064, India c H.P.Unit, V.E.C. Centre, 1/AF, Bidhannagar, Kolkata 700064, India

c,*

Received 10 March 2004; received in revised form 13 July 2004

Abstract Simple empirical expressions for transmission of ux and dose through concrete are presented for neutrons from proton induced reactions. For this purpose the neutron emission from dierent targets in proton induced reactions in the energy range 25200 MeV have been considered. The calculated eective dose outside a concrete shield shows overall good agreement with the eective dose estimated from measured neutron ux in the framework of the Moyer model. The calculated eective attenuation length shows a rising trend with incident proton energy and shield thickness. 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PACS: 25.40.h; 28.20.Fe; 87.53.Pb Keywords: Flux and dose transmission; Thick target; Eective attenuation length; Empirical expression

1. Introduction There is a growing interest in the use of high current, low and medium energy proton accelerators for medical and industrial use. For these applications such accelerators need be located in fairly populated areas. Thus the need of radiological safety particularly that of an adequate shield
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 33 23371230; fax: +91 33 23346871. E-mail address: pks@veccal.ernet.in (P.K. Sarkar).
*

design becomes an important issue. The shielding around proton accelerators is designed to protect personnel from intense uxes of secondary particles and gamma radiation created when protons are lost or spilled during the acceleration process or when the proton beam is used and eventually dumped. The radiation environment and radioactivity levels near particle accelerators have been discussed by Sullivan [1], Patterson and Thomas [2] and others [3]. Shielding against neutrons emerges as the main consideration in the design and choice of material

0168-583X/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2004.08.007

586

M. Maiti et al. / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 226 (2004) 585594

for this purpose. The most direct approach to shield design is to measure transmission of neutrons through concrete, which has been accepted worldwide as an ecient and convenient shielding material for accelerators. It is extremely dicult, however, to make sucient number of measurements that are of practical use considering the diversity of incident proton energies and target materials. Radiation transport calculations are thus preferred over measurements that may be utilized only for conrming calculated results. There is usually a great practical convenience in estimating neutron transmission data using simplied empirical equations. In many cases, particularly where incident proton energies are limited to about 200 MeV, the results of such empirical calculations are of sucient accuracy for shielding purposes. The shielding calculations for accelerators are done in two steps. In the rst step the energy and angular distributions of penetrating radiations produced due to primary beam interactions with thick targets are estimated. In the second step, transport of radiation through the shield is estimated. In this paper we attempt to work out a simplied empirical formula (ignoring build up factors) combining the above two steps in one. Earlier we have given empirical formula to calculate energy and angular distributions of thick target neutron yield from proton induced reactions [4]. In the next section we describe the procedure adopted to generate the empirical formula for transmission of neutrons through concrete. In Section 3 we compare our results with those obtained from experimentally measured neutron yield distributions and discuss the results.

H d; h r

H h  expdh=k d;

where H(d, h) is the transmitted eective dose through a shield of thickness d in the direction h with respect to the incident proton beam. Hh() is the eective dose at a distance of 1 m from the target in the direction h with respect to the incident proton beam for neutrons emitted with energy . r is the distance from the target to the outer surface of the shield (or any other point of interest outside the shield). k() is the attenuation length of neutrons of energy  in the material of the shield (concrete in this case). d(h) is the length traversed by neutrons through the shield in the direction h. For transmitted neutron ux /(d, h) through a shield of thickness d at an angle h, in a similar way we have Z 2 /d; h r /h  expdh=k d; 2 where /h() is the ux of neutrons emitted with energy , at a distance of 1 m from the target in the direction h with respect to the incident proton beam. In Eqs. (1) and (2) the factor r2 gives the decrease due to the solid angle eect whereas the exponential factor gives the line of sight attenuation in the shield material. As is evident the present formulation does not consider the build up of neutron ux and dose from secondary scattering and reactions. It may be noted that Eqs. (1) and (2) are valid only for a point source approximation. Although beam losses (source of neutrons) at particle accelerators are usually of an extended nature but such source dimensions are small compared to the thickness of the accelerator shields. Thus the assumptions of point sources are valid for practical shield designs. The values of H(d, h) or /(d, h) are required as functions of both the angle and depth for the shield design. However, in most cases it is only necessary in practice to design the shielding for the forward (h = 0) and lateral (h = p/2) directions.

2. Empirical formulation We consider neutron emission from proton induced reaction on thick targets. These neutrons are emitted in all directions and has a distribution of energy depending on the incident proton energy and the target mass. For estimating transmitted dose due to these neutrons through a shield of thickness d we have used the simple equation of the form

M. Maiti et al. / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 226 (2004) 585594

587

We, therefore, restrict our calculations in these two directions only. 2.1. Estimation of Hh() and /h() For this purpose we dene Y(, h) as the ux of neutrons per MeV at a distance of 1 m from the target, the neutrons having energy  emitted in the direction h with respect to the incident proton beam. The quantities Hh() and /h() can be estimated as H h  Y ; h f  and /h  Y ; h: 4 Here, Y(, h) is calculated for proton induced reactions on thick target where the incident protons are completely stopped. f() is the ux-to-dose conversion factors for neutrons of energy  and is taken as recommended by ICRP74 [5]. Y(, h) can be estimated for dierent targets and for dierent incident proton energies by using the empirical formula reported in our earlier work [4]. This is briey outlined as follows for the sake of completeness. Y(, h) can be determined from the energy distribution of the ux Y() following the Kalbach systematics [6] as described below: Y ; h Y  a cosha sinha; 4p sinha 5 3

2.2. Estimation of eective k In Eqs. (1) and (2), k() is a function of neutron energy  and its value for concrete can be obtained from [3]. Now, if we can dene some kh which is eff independent of  (but may be a function of incident proton energy Ep, target mass A and angle h) then we can rewrite Eq. (1) as Z h 2 H d; h r expdh=keff H h  d r2 expdh=kh H h eff and similarly Eq. (2) as /d; h r2 expdh=kh /h ; eff where Z H h H h  d and /h Z 9 8

10

/h  d:

11

Eqs. (8) and (9) thus become independent of the neutron emission energy . In order to estimate kh eff we have calculated H(d, h) using Eqs. (1) and (3). We have then estimated kh as eff R  Y ; hf  expdh=k d R kh dh= ln : eff Y ; hf  d 12 thus estimated are found to The values of depend on the incident proton energies Ep and concrete slab thickness d but not on the target mass. In Fig. 1 we have plotted kh against Ep eff for dierent thickness of concrete d and for neutrons emitted at 0 with respect to the incident beam direction. In Fig. 2 we have given a similar plot for neutrons emitted at 90 with respect to the beam direction. Here h = 0 is for forward direction and h = 90 is for lateral direction. With increasing proton energy the values of kh ineff creases up to about 150 MeV and then reaches some saturation value. A second degree polynomial of the type kh C 0 C 1 E p C 2 E 2 eff p 13 kh eff

for h 0 and Y ; h Y  a ; 4p sinha for h 90 ;

where for protons the slope parameter a can be estimated as [6] a 0:04 1:8206 106 3 6:652428 109 4 : 7 We assume that the parameter a is independent of the incident proton energy, Ep. Y() can be estimated empirically by a set of polynomials having incident proton energies (in MeV) and target masses (in amu) as described in detail in our earlier work [4].

588

M. Maiti et al. / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 226 (2004) 585594

0.40

0o
d=4.0 d=3.5 d=3.0 d=2.5

0.24

90o
0.22
d=4.0 d=3.5 d=3.0

0.35

0.20

0.30

d=2.0 d=1.5

eff (m)

0.25
d=1.0

eff (m)

0.18

d=2.5

0.16

d=2.0

0.20

d=0.5

d=1.5

0.14

0.15
0.12

d=1.0 d=0.5

0.10 0 50 100 150 200

0.10 0 50 100 150 200

Proton energy, Ep (MeV)

Fig. 1. Plot of kh against incident proton energy, Ep for eff dierent slab thickness, d at forward direction. The solid line represents the tted curve through the data (symbol).

Proton energy, Ep (MeV)

Fig. 2. Plot of kh against incident proton energy, Ep for eff dierent slab thickness, d at lateral direction. The solid line represents the tted curve through the data (symbol).

describes this trend well. The coecients Cis in turn depend on the concrete slab thickness d and can be tted as C i bi0 bi1 d bi2 d 2 : 14

The values of bij (j = 0, 1, 2) are listed in Table 1. The change in kh with increasing depth is beeff cause the more easily absorbed low energy neutrons are attenuated more rapidly. This process is often described as spectrum hardening. The values of kh thus obtained are for dose transmission. For eff ux transmission we get kh as eff R  Y ; h expdh=k d R kh dh= ln : eff Y ; h d 15 We have found no signicant dierence between the values of kh for dose and ux transmission. eff Therefore the same values of kh can be used for eff both dose and ux attenuation in concrete. The values of Hh and /h are estimated using Eqs. (3) and (10) and Eqs. (4) and (11) respectively

for dierent incident proton energies and dierent target masses. These estimations were for ux and dose at 1 m from the target for 1 mA beam current. Expressing Hh and /h as a function of Ep it is observed that these quantities can be estimated from second degree polynomials of the type H h Ep b1 Ep b2 E2 p and /h Ep b01 Ep b02 E2 : p 17 16

Plots of total dose, Hh(Ep) against proton energy, Ep for 0 and 90 have been shown in Figs. 3 and 4 respectively. Similar type of plots have been obtained for /h(Ep). The coecients bis and b0i s are tted in turn against mass numbers A using polynomials bi
jmax X j0

M ji Aj

18

M. Maiti et al. / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 226 (2004) 585594 Table 1 The values of the coecients bij Angle () 0 i 0 1 2 0 1 2 j=0 0.1287 3.2337e4 2.3180e6 0.1227 6.2438e5 5.2557e8 j=1 0.0295 1.1165e3 2.4140e6 8.3514e3 3.1447e4 6.1324e7 j=2 2.7384e3 1.0176e4 1.3505e7 7.1642e4 2.8058e5 1.4026e7

589

90

8x1010 7x1010 6x1010

(a) Ep< 100 MeV (0o)

7x10 6x10 5x10

H [Sv. / h]

10

10 10

(a) Ep<100 MeV (90o) A>100

A>100

H [Sv. /h]

5x1010 4x1010 3x1010 2x1010 1010 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

4x10 3x10 2x10

10 10 10

A<100

10 0

10

A<100
20 40 60 80 100 120

1.2x1011 10
11

(b) Ep> 100 MeV (0o)

8x10 7x10 6x10

H [Sv. / h]

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

(b) Ep>100 MeV (90o) A>100

A>100
10

H [Sv. / h]

8.0x10 6.0x10

5x10 4x10 3x10 2x10 10

10

4.0x1010 2.0x1010 0 120 140 160 180 200 220

A<100

A<100

0 120 140 160 180 200 220

Proton energy, Ep (MeV)

Fig. 3. Plots of Hh against incident proton energy, Ep at 0 angle. The solid line represents the tted curve through the data (symbol).

Proton energy, Ep (MeV)

Fig. 4. Plots of Hh against incident proton energy, Ep at 90 angle. The solid line represents the tted curve through the data (symbol).

and b0i
jmax X j0

N ji Aj ;

19

where for both 0 and 90 angles and 35 6 Ep 6 100 MeV, jmax = 2 for i = 1 and jmax = 3 for

i = 2. In the energy region Ep > 100 MeV jmax = 3 for both direction. We have dierent set of parameter values in the energy range 2535 MeV for both 0 and 90 angles when A < 100 in Eq. (18) and in

590

M. Maiti et al. / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 226 (2004) 585594

Table 2 The values of the coecients Mji i 25 6 Ep 6 35 MeV 0 90 35 6 Ep 6 100 MeV 0 A < 100 A < 100 A < 100 A P100 90 A < 100 A P100 Ep > 100 MeV 0 A < 100 A P100 90 A < 100 A P100 Table 3 The values of the coecients Nji i 25 6 Ep 6 35 MeV 0 90 35 6 Ep 6 100 MeV 0 A < 100 A < l100 A < 100 A P100 90 A < 100 A P100 Ep > 100 MeV 0 A < 100 A P100 90 A < 100 A P100 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 j=0 3.4808e+10 1.6017e+10 3.0180e+10 1.5513e+10 6.8646e+11 4.9662e+9 8.3858e+11 1.1261e+10 7.4991e+11 2.0399e+9 1.2023e+11 2.6458e+9 2.7783e+11 1.5377e+9 1.9013e+10 3.0736e+11 1.3917e+9 1.7664e+10 j=1 3.1283e+9 1.6603e+8 2.3054e+9 1.8964e+8 1.6853e+10 3.1503e+7 1.5705e+10 3.1213e+8 1.6031e+10 1.5757e+7 2.4011e+10 1.6910e+8 1.7215e+9 3.4129e+6 3.8832e+8 1.0009e+9 6.1185e+7 4.0025e+8 j=2 9.5586e+6 1.5941e+6 5.3554e+6 1.6901e+6 1.0031e+8 1.8458e+6 7.5784e+7 7.5543e+5 1.0980e+8 9.4061e+5 9.7914e+7 3.6687e+5 1.6429e+8 1.1174e+5 2.5675e+6 1.5837e+8 1.2986e+6 2.5099e+6 j=3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8382.016 0.0 0.0 0.0 4810.3745 0.0 0.0 6.4320e+5 780.2194 5461.9579 6.0847e+5 5703.9492 5061.8666 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 j=0 7.9289e+5 3.2745e+6 1.9462e+7 2.5453e+6 1.3803e+8 1.0437e+6 1.81e+8 2.3880e+6 1.5097e+8 4.3584e+5 2.2247e+7 4.4696e+5 2.9607e+7 2.7389e+5 3.8196e+6 6.1860e+7 3.0276e+5 3.9655e+6 j=1 4.5717e+5 27264.1174 8.5415e+5 14229.5708 3.1613e+6 5508.4387 3.5855e+6 67620.8239 2.9671e+6 2851.3057 5.4246e+6 35603.1820 1.0707e+6 7994.5250 77820.7671 3.8425e+5 13503.7852 89427.1854 j=2 376.9129 276.9509 3387.4654 173.8923 17767.2261 375.9618 17105.6551 163.2684 19607.5612 193.4289 22052.0518 75.3270 29772.3271 152.4456 523.8629 33724.8420 286.9441 560.1809 j=3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7039 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9815 0.0 0.0 124.1752 0.5470 1.1318 131.2186 1.2527 1.1296

this case jmax = 2. Values of Mjis and Njis are listed in Tables 2 and 3.

3. Comparison with experimental data In order to compare the calculated values of Hh(Ep) as given by Eqs. (16) and (18) with experi-

mental data, we have taken the experimentally measured angular distribution of neutron yields at 0 from thick targets and have converted them to dose by using ux-to-dose conversion factors recommended by the ICRP74 [5]. We have used the ux to eective dose conversion factors as given in ICRP74 for neutrons incident in anteroposterior (AP) geometry on a human adult anthro-

M. Maiti et al. / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 226 (2004) 585594

591

morphic model. Conversion of the neutron energy spectrum to dose is an accurate and reliable method for obtaining neutron dose. Furthermore, the neutron energy spectrum is an invariant quantity whereas the dose is not, since the ux to dose conversion factors have been changed in the past and might be changed in future. The thick target experimental data used for the present comparison are 30 MeV and 52 MeV protons on Fe, Cu and Pb [7], 68 MeV protons on Cu [8] and 113 MeV protons on Fe [9]. Tables 4 and 5 give a comparison of the calculated results and experimental data along with C/E (Calculation/Experiment) ratio of Hh and /h. The experimental energy spectrum is available above 4 MeV and therefore has been augmented by the calculated evaporation part (below 4 MeV) of the spectrum. We can observe that for low proton energies the agreement between calculation and experiment is good though the calculated results underpredict the dose. This discrepancy can be attributed to the underprediction of the calculated neutron energy distribution.

However, the underpredictions mostly occur in the low energy part of the distribution and therefore will not have serious eects in the case of transmission through thick shields. To obtain energy distribution of neutrons from proton induced reactions, we have used the hybrid model code ALICE91. The code does not consider direct reaction mechanism and restricts preequilibrium nucleon emission only up to two particles. These processes are likely to contribute to the observed discrepancy at higher proton energies (above 100 MeV). It may be noted here that in the comparison the uncertainties in experimental measurements have not been taken into account. Next we compare the total transmitted dose through dierent thicknesses of concrete as calculated with Eq. (8) and the experimentally measured neutron energy spectrum calculated using Eq. (1). In calculating Eq. (1) the k() values are taken from [3]. Fig. 5 shows a plot for transmitted eetive dose of neutrons from 30 MeV protons incident on thick targets of Fe, Cu and Pb [7]. In

Table 4 Estimation of C/E ratio of Hh for 1 mA proton beam at forward angle Ep (MeV) 30 30 30 52 52 52 68 113 Target Hh (lSv/h) Calculated Fe Cu Pb Fe Cu Pb Cu Fe 1.643e+9 1.592e+9 9.754e+9 5.236e+9 5.255e+9 2.218e+10 8.789e+9 2.254e+10 Experimental 2.015e+9 2.122e+9 1.153e+10 6.484e+9 7.087e+9 2.287e+10 1.08e+10 3.5e+10 0.815 0.750 0.846 0.808 0.741 0.970 0.814 0.644 C/E

Table 5 Estimation of C/E ratio of /h at forward angle for 1 mA proton beam Ep (MeV) 30 30 30 52 52 52 68 113 Target /h (n/cm2/s) Calculated Fe Cu Pb Fe Cu Pb Cu Fe 7.2345e+12 6.9656e+12 4.3676e+13 2.3308e+13 2.3390e+13 9.9705e+13 3.9524e+13 1.0359e+14 Experimental 9.082e+12 9.573e+12 5.168e+13 2.947e+13 3.228e+13 1.030e+14 4.9625e+13 1.6125e+14 0.797 0.728 0.845 0.791 0.725 0.968 0.796 0.642 C/E

592
10 11 10 10 10 9 10 8 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4 10 -5 10 0
12

M. Maiti et al. / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 226 (2004) 585594
10 12

30 MeV 1mA current

10 11 10 10 10 9 10 8 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10
2

52 MeV 1mA current

Effective dose (Sv./h)

Effective dose (Sv./h)

Pb (x103)

Pb

(x103)

Fe Cu Pb Present cal.

Cu (x102)

10 1 10
0

Fe Cu Pb Present cal.

Cu (x102)

10 -1
Fe

Fe

10 -2

Shield thickness, d (m)

Fig. 5. Comparison of experimental data (symbols) of transmitted dose with calculated results (lines) for 30 MeV proton on Fe, Cu, Pb at 0 lab angle. Error bars are shown when they exceed the symbol size.

Shield thickness, d (m)

Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental data (symbols) of transmitted dose with calculated results (lines) for 52 MeV proton on Fe, Cu, Pb at 0 lab angle. Error bars are shown when they exceed the symbol size.

these cases the calculated dose agree well with measured data. In Figs. 6 and 7 we show a similar comparison for 52 MeV protons on Fe, Cu, Pb [7]; 68 MeV and 113 MeV proton on Cu [8] and Fe [9] target respectively. The calculated results using the empirical formula show a slight overprediction. This small overprediction is alright in our opinion since this might compensate for the build up factors that have not been considered in the present formulations. Agosteo et al. [10] have used Monte Carlo codes to calculate attenuation in concrete for neutrons produced by 100400 MeV protons on thick iron and tissue targets. We compare our calculated results of kh and Hh at 0 and 90 with those reeff ported by Agosteo et al. In Table 6 we compare the values of Hh in units of Sv m2 p1 at 0 and 90 for 100, 150 and 200 MeV protons incident on thick iron targets. The values of Hh as obtained by the present calculation is lower than those reported by Agosteo et al. in the forward direction (0) while at 90 the trend is reverse. This discrepancy may be attributed to the dierence in the esti-

mated angular distribution of neutron emission from proton induced reactions. In our calculations, to estimate angular distribution of neutron emission we have used the empirical Kalbach systematics [6] that was formulated by tting large number of experimental data. However, our calculations underpredict Hh at 0 for proton energies around and above 100 MeV due to reasons as discussed earlier. Furthermore, dierence in ux to dose conversion factors may also contribute partially to the observed discrepancy. In Table 7 we compare our calculated results of kh (in units of kg/m2) with those reported by eff Agosteo et al. at 0. Since, in our present work kh is obtained as a function of slab thickness, eff we have given the values at slab thickness of 1 m, 2 m, 3 m and 4 m. It can be seen that for all incident proton energies the values reported by Agosteo et al. are larger than those of the present calculations even for 4 m slab thickness. We have given values only up to 4 m slab thickness since in practical situations the shield thickness usually do not exceed 4 m. However, it may be noted that

M. Maiti et al. / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 226 (2004) 585594

593

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1

113 MeV p+Fe & 68 MeVp+Cu 1mA current

0o [Fe (x103)]

0o [Cu(x10)]

Fe (0o) Cu (0o) Cu (90o) Present cal.

the density of concrete as 2400 kg/m3. This slightly higher value of the density is likely to make our values of kh smaller than those obtained by Agoseff teo et al. In Fig. 8 we have plotted the values of kh at 90 eff as given by Agosteo (solid squares), IAEA 283 [3] (open circles) and our calculations (solid lines). For lower proton energies (below 100 MeV) the IAEA 283 [3] data agree well with kh for 1 m slab eff thickness while at higher proton energies the agreement is better with our calculated results for larger thickness. This is because the neutron transmission curve is not strictly exponential for all ranges of slab thickness. It is, therefore, justied to consider kh as a function of slab thickness. eff

Effective dose (Sv./h)

90o [Cu]

4. Conclusion
3 4 5

Shield thickness, d(m)

Fig. 7. Comparison of experimental data (symbols) of transmitted dose with calculated results (lines) for 113 MeV proton on Fe at 0 lab angle and 68 MeV proton on Cu at 0 and 90 lab angles. Error bars are shown when they exceed the symbol size.

Agosteo et al. considered the density of concrete at 2310 kg/m3 while in our calculation we have taken

Empirical relations have been developed for transmission of neutron ux and dose, produced in proton induced reactions on dierent target elements, through ordinary concrete. The calculated eective attenuation length has been found to increase with incident proton energy. This may be explained by the fact that with increasing proton energy the high energy neutron emission increases and a large thickness of concrete is required to re-

Table 6 Comparison of Hh between present calculation and Agosteo et al. [10] Ep (MeV) Hh (Sv m2 p1) 0 Present cal. 100 150 200 7.92e16 1.414e15 2.036e15 Agosteo 1.1e15 4.0e15 5.3e15 90 Present cal. 5.213e16 8.80e16 1.07e15 Agosteo 4.4e17 1.2e16 3.8e16

Table 7 Comparison of kh at 0 between present estimation and Agosteo et al. [10] eff Ep (MeV) kh (0) (kg/m2) eff Agosteo Present cal. (q = 2400 kg/m3) d=1 m 100 150 200 636 899 1030 411.26 495.39 579.98 d=2 m 506.64 627.85 725.41 d=3 m 572.81 714.77 812.23 d = 4m 609.77 756.17 840.45

594
800 700

M. Maiti et al. / Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 226 (2004) 585594

Comparison of eff (90o)

= 2400 Kg / m3

Attenuation length, eff (Kg / m2)

600
IAEA data Agosteo et al. Present cal.

ured neutron ux using the Moyer model. Our calculations agree well with the dose transmission estimated from measured data for all cases except for 52 MeV incident proton. In this case the empirical relation overpredict to some extent the eective dose for large shield thicknesses.
d=4.0 m

500

Acknowledgements This work has been carried out as part of a project (no. AERB/20/04) sponsored by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, India.

400

d=2.0 m

d=1.0 m

300

References
[1] A.H. Sullivan, A Guide to Radiation and Radioactivity Levels near High Energy Particle, Nuclear Technology Publishing, 1992, ISBN 1870965183. [2] H.W. Patterson, R.H. Thomas, Accelerator Health Physics, Academic Press, New York, USA, 1973. [3] IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 283, Vienna, 1988, p. 216. [4] M. Maiti, M. Nandy, S.N. Roy, P.K. Sarkar, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B 215 (2004) 317. [5] Annals of the ICRP, ICRP Publication 74, Conversion Coecients for use in Radiological Protection against External Radiation, Vol. 26, No. 3/4, 1996. [6] C. Kalbach, Phys. Rev. C 37 (1988) 2350. [7] T. Nakamura, M. Fuji, K. Shin, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 83 (1983) 444. [8] S. Meigo, H. Takada, H. Nakashima, T. Sasa, Su. Tanaka, K. Shin, S. Ono, in: Proc. Nucl. Data for Sci. and Technol., Trieste, 1997, p. 413. [9] M.M. Meier, D.A. Clark, C.A. Goulding, J.B. McClelland, G.L. Morgan, C.E. Moss, W.B. Amian, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 102 (1989) 310. [10] S. Agosteo, A. Fasso, A. Ferrari, P.R. Sala, M. Silari, P. Tabarelli de Fatis, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B 114 (1996) 70.

10

100 Proton energy, Ep (MeV)

Fig. 8. Comparison of eective attenuation length from IAEA report no. 283 and Agosteo et al. (symbols) with present calculation (lines) for transverse shielding.

duce the ux to a given value. For a given proton energy the eective attenuation length increases with shield thickness. This in a way compensates for the contribution of buildup factors that are not explicitly considered here. Using the empirical relation for dose transmission the eective dose outside the concrete shield is calculated at dierent distances from the target and dierent shield thicknesses. These results are compared with eective dose estimated from meas-