You are on page 1of 53

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

BONNER SPHERE SPECTRR(U) NRRL RESERRCH LRB HRSHINGTON
DC K A LOMRY ET RL. 31 DEC 84 NRL-MR-5493
UNCLRSSIFIED F/G 29/6 NL

Elmm/I////Il
IEElllllllllEI
IiIElillElllE

JI&5

11111,.
- . IS

11111
1.8
~l

JJ..L4. 11.6

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART
NATIONAL OF STANDARDS-
BUREAU I963-A

NRL Menrdum Report 5493

The Effect of the Choice of Response Matrix
on Unfolded Bonner Sphere Spectra
. A. LOWRY AND T. L. JOHNSON 0
Health Pftosics Staff

04
Q
(0

I December 31, 1984
Q

-J

NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
Washington, D.C.
0

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

8S" 02 05 01
,~. .. ...............
• ".... *%' " .. ... ... ..

SECURITY CLASSIFICATI'N OF TMuiSFkGE

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

2b DECLASSE(A(,OIN XJO04GRAOIt SCHEDULE Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
4 PERFORMING, ()RC_,A%'AT!ON REPORT NUMBER(S) 5 MONiTOP.NG ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

NRL Memorandum Report 54193
fi PF lo4V~ Nb ORG
AEOF MNZArOTN 6b OFFICE SYMBOL 'a %AME OF MONTrOR.NG ORlGANIZATION
j(if' applicable)
Naval Research Laborators I 6070
6( ADDRE SS City. State anid 11P Code) lb ADDRESS (City. State, and ZIP Code) 21

Washington. DC 20375-5000 PRCRMNIISRMN FE.9
O iN
'A (it apphcable) q

8( ADOLRE,', 3Cty State tnd ZIP Code) 10 SOURCE OP FUNDING NUMBERS
PROGRAM PROJECT ITASK ~ WORK UNIT
ELEMENT NO No NO. ACCESSION NO.
Arlington. VA 22217 637NDN691-239
1I I IIT, E (include Security Classfication)
S 651S18I DN280-077

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

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

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

20 DISTRI01i ()N AVAILABII ''Y OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITYeCLASSIFICATION
LNC ASSII ED INL V- ED C1 SAME AS RPT Q OTIC USERS UNCLASSIFIED
22a NAME OF RESI'ONSIB[E INDIVIDUIAL 22b rELEPHONE (Intluide Area Code) 22c OFFICE SYMBOL
T. L. Johnson (202)767-2232 Code 6070
DO FORM 1473, B4 MAR 83 APR editiorn may be used until exhausted
All other edlions are obsolete

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Of THIS PAGE

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Too - --

cap,

1984. producing a 4. .79 MeV a particle which is stopped in the crystal..K. THE EFFECT OF THE CHOICE OF RESPONSE MATRIX ON UNFOLDED BONNER SPHERE SPECTRA nWTRODUCTION In 1960... 4 m high x 4 mm dia. =CF (E) 0(E) dE j 1.. a (E) is the response function of the jth detector as a function _ of energy Manucript approved October 23. oo . Bramblett et al [1] suggested that neutron spectra could be determined by using a thermal neutron detector in the center of several moderating spheres of various sizes.~& :.2. and 12 inches. Thermal neutrons arriving at the center of the moderator interact in the scintillator. primarily by the 6 Li(n.. Such spheres are usually called "Bonner spheres" after the senior author of the original paper..: .. 8.. europium-activated lithium iodide scintillation crystal as the thermal neutron detector in the centers of polyethylene spheres having diameters of 2. ~ ..Q) 3H reaction. where A is the counting rate of the jth detector.. The response of a set of spheres may be written E max = A. Bonner spheres can serve as a spectrometer because the combined effect of moderation and absorption of the incident neutron spectrum causes the number of thermal neutrons arriving at the centers of the spheres to vary with energy in different ways for the different size moderators.. They used a small. 1- . cylindrical.~. 5. 3. The scintillator is coupled to a photomultiplier and the output is processed to give a measure of the thermal neutron fluence at the center of the moderator.oM (I) i".

Such equations can only be solved if oj(E) is an analytical function. 9 * . Hence. . we were interested in how the choice of matrix affects integral P parameters which are calculated from the unfolded spectrum. . and the response of personnel monitoring devices and radiation survey instruments. In practice. These parameters include dose. - several regions having constant detector responses and fluences. Equation (1) becomes N A. called the response matrix. (1) is replaced by a set of linear equations by dividing the energy region into -. . The purpose of our study was to determine how the choice of response matrix affects the neutron spectrum obtained from Bonner sphere data. has not been measured with sufficient accuracy because of difficulties in obtaining and characterizing suitable neutron calibration fields.2. quality factor. = ajkD(k) j = 1... dose equivalent. which is not the case for Bonner spheres. Eq. . and M is the total number of detectors. .M (2) k=l where S ajk is the response of the jth detector to neutrons in the kth energy interval.S ° O(E) is the neutron fluence as a function of energy. with three appearing in the past few years. Equation (1) is known formally as a Fredholm integral equation of the first kind. and N is the total number of energy intervals. * . In particular. . ajk. total fluence. The set of detector responses.. calculated response matrices are usually employed. average energy. They are calculated using the equation N P = Ck (k) (3) k=l . Several such matrices have been published.

Measure- ments were also made for thermal neutrons. 6 He adjusted the Li(n. 5. 18. Sanna [7] calculated a 31 group set of responses extending from thermal energies to 400 MeV using the adjoint method of Hansen and Sandmeier.1 MeV. plus those for moderators having diameters of 10. 16.7 mm detectors in spheres having diameters of 2. A 52 energy-bin version of these calculations was reported by O'Brien et al [6]. and Ck is the conversion factor per neutron in the kth energy interval. Hansen and Sandmeier [4] calculated the response of the original set of Bonner spheres.025 eV and 50 keY. where P is the parameter of interest. 12. 0(k) is the neutron fluence in the kth energy interval. THE RESPONSE MATRICES USED FOR THIS STUDY When Bramblett et al [1] published the original work on the Bonner sphere spectrometer. Sanna made calculations for 8 mm x 8 mm and 12. and 20 inches. 10. and 18 inches.05 and 15. SAN4. He also investigated the effect of different polyethylene densities and made calculations for water moderators and for gold foil detectors. we call the response matrix for the 4 mm x 4 mm LiI detector in polyethylene spheres. Burrus [2] reported a response matrix having 5^1 energy bins from thermal to 200 MeV.7 mm x 12. For the purposes of this comparison. they reported the experimentally determined response of the detectors for neutrons having energies between 0. In addition to making calculations for a 4 mm x 4 mm detector. This 52 bin version is usually referred to as M65 [3]. These calculated responses. 8.) cross section to ensure that the collision probabil- ities for the cylindrical LiI detector would be retained in each group when it was represented as a spherical detector. In 1973. This matrix is usually referred to as M60 [3]. and the response of the various size moderators was estimated for neutrons having energies between 0. were reported by McGuire [5]. Using this data. 3. since no neutron sources were then available having energies in this region. Using an adjoint transport technique. 3 .

... Calculations were also made for the bare detectors and the . . The most recently available matrix is one calculated at the University of Texas at Austin by Iertel and Davidson 110. The response matrix obtained from these tabulated values and Eq. 100% Li enrichment.. . 10 12. and F. India [8]. (4) is referred to as LOGNM.-. response matrices were calculated at the Bhabha Atomic 6 Research Center.. In addition.._ . having a radius in cr. M..r.. and hydrogen. carbon.. M. Using a Monte Carlo method. . the 3 effect of replacing #he LiI scintillator by a BF detector was studied. and S are parameters. ..' . the method of Hansen and Sandmeir was used to calculate the response of 4 mm x 4 mm and 12... Based on experimental data and calculations available in the literature. Recently. We will refer to the matrix for the 4 mm x 4 mm detector as BARC. '. three new response matrices have been caculcated. as a function of energy. and a density of 4...... Using newly evaluated cross sections for lithium. Zamborowski [9] showed that a good fit to this data could be obtained by as- suming that the response of Bonner spheres of various sizes was given by the energy response function ) F[S2E) (lnrj . . . 5.. Calculations were made for 171 energies between thermal and 17.. of r....7 mm x 12.M(E)) F(E) [SE)(4) 3 S (E) rj V21 where a (E) is the response of the jth sphere. Values of F. .4 eV and 15 MeV for a 4 mm x 4 mm Lil detector.. Bombay.245 cm radius LiI 6 3 scintillator. 8. was taken as being equivalent to a 4 mm x 4 mm cylindrical scintillator. and 18 inches. .. and S were tabulated for 157 energies between 0.. 3.. which are adjusted to give the best fit to the calculated and experimental data. a 0. For these studies.7 mm LiI detectors and for moderators having diameters of 2..061 gm/cm .3 MeV . independent of sphere size. . ..11].

3-.. . ". The neutrons were assumed to be at the log center of the SANNA energy intervals.". For the LOGNM data.. For all the matrices..76 cm cadmium..... Two requests to the authors for such data were unanswered. thus the data for P the BARC matrix was taken from the graphs in reference [8]... .'.. The measured density of the polyethelene was 0....-. ..96 g/cm 3 . The re-binned data for all six matrices are given in Tables la-If. are listed in Table 3.. covering the widest range of neutron energies that we could con- veniently generate using Cf-252 and AmBe neutron sources moderated by Lucite.. all the response matrices were re-binned to the SANNA energy intervals. Sweetwater.... A description of the various sources is given in Table 2. Intervals which crossed a SANNA interval end-point were divided using a log scale before conversion to the two SANNA intervals..'. 8-.. and 5-inch diameter spheres covered with 0. detectors in 2-........ . The spectra have been 5 P.°. expressed as the percent of the total counts. . 10-.... In reducing the LOGNM and UTA4 data... As a convenience for unfolding.. ......... and cadmium in various configurations.. we assumed that the original energies were at the centers of log energy intervals. Log interpolation was also done for the UTA4 data... ....".. ... The detector was a cylindrical 4 mm x 4 mm LiI crystal. -0°.. weighted by the ratio P of their log width.-.... Twenty sets of data were chosen.. steel. Inc.-.. while the counts for the 2-.... polyethylene.-..... -. 5-. '. ....---'_~~~~~~~.. ... 3-.. This data was taken using a set of Bonner spheres obtained from Ludlum Measurements. Total counts for each detector were greater than 104 giving statistical errors on the order of +1%. to the SANNA interval log width.. and 12-inch detectors. . the re- sponses were calculated for each of the 157 energies and this data was reduced to the SANNA grid using log interpolation.. the data from UTA4 is used to calculate the effect of covering the spheres with cadmium. .. No numerical data was available for the BARC matrix.... We call the matrix for the 4 mm x 4 mm detector UTA4. Texas.. _... .. For M60 and M65 this was done by making a spline fit to the data in reference [3]. _ THE NEUTRON SPECTRA The neutron spectra and the associated Bonner sphere data used to test the response matrices were all generated at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) L during the course of establishing the response of the Navy albedo neutron personnel monitoring badge to different neutron spectra.... Intervals that fell completely within a SANNA interval were converted. .

METHOD OF SPECTRUM UNFOLDING The neutron spectra were unfolded from the Bonner sphere data using the YOGI neutron unfolding code developed at NRL by Johnson and Gorbics 113). the separation allows us to compare the experi- mental data to relatively well known calculated data. THE CONVERSION FACTORS The conversion factors used to determine integral parameters from the unfolded spectra are listed in Table 4. from the sources used. Spectra 1. we first fit the data using the MAXIET algorithm [14] followed by the iterative perturbation method of YOGI.0 meters measures 12. 8-. it was anticipated that the general shape of the spectra could be described by a three-component spectrum made up of a high-energy Maxwellian peak. The response of the Navy albedo badge 6 . Therefore. However. 4.4 meters. especially for Cf-252. From physical considerations. 10.5 x 4. and 12-inch detectors. The room having an effective radius of 5.1 x 4. Cf-252 and AmBe.numbered in order of decreasing average neutron energy. Only the first 25 energy intervals were used for the spectrum unfolding since data were only available to approximately 15 MeV for some of the matrices. 10-. This separation was done using the method of Eisenhauer et al [12].2 x 6. we stopped the unfold- ing after 25 iterations. We did not smooth the spectra to the initial MAXIET spectrum. Because of the large size of the moderating configurations. and a thermal component. - energy were not expected. significant numbers of neutrons above this . to prevent wild oscillations in the spectra due to errors in the data or response matrices. Since data for the bare detector were not available for all matrices. 5-. 3-.6 meters. Even though the data for these spectra have larger errors because of this process. we used only the data for the 2-.4 meters measures 7. Also. an intermediate energy component described by I/Ex (E = neutron energy). using an 8% perturbation. The room having an effective radius of 3. it is not possible to separate the direct and room-return components of these spectra. and 12 have errors considerably greater than +1% because they were separated into source and room-return components. Further unfolding produced no significant improvement in the fit to the data. The effective radius of the experimental room is included as an aid in esti- mating the room-return component.5 x 3.

a positive difference indicates that the 7 . The conversion from neutron fluence to dose was taken from the tabulation of Sanna [18]. The response of the Cr-39 detector was taken from Benton el at [16] and the response of the NTA film from Oshino [17].. while the conversion to dose equivalent was supplied by Charles Eisenhauer of the National Bureau of Standards... .. then the fit obtained with the various matrices using only these componenets is an indication of their consistency. there is considerable improvement to the fit data. SAN4. . The response of a completely cadmium covered albedo badge...was determined by making the best fit to the experimental data from 80 spectra generated for that purpose.. After 25 iterations using YOGI. but. especially with UTA4... ... Note that a good fit is obtained... M65.. we have listed the percentage difference between the calculated response of each detector and measured response in Tables 7a-7f... a 1/E . The root mean square of the fit to the data (% average error) is listed in Table 5 for each spectrum unfolded using each matrix and the MAXIET algorithm.7. when considering the matrices. If our assumption that these spectra x can be fit using a Maxwellian.. This con- version was made using log-log interpolation [19] of the data in ICRP 21 [20].. . and a thermal component is correct. . .. was approximated from the calculation of Allsmiller and Barish [15]. The response of the AN/PDR-70 was supplied by Gordon Riel of the Naval Surface Weapons Center.. . it is possible to have data which cannot be fit to a reasonable degree of accuracy with any spectrum. . and. These conversion factors may not necessarily be the most appropriate ones available... but should be adequate for our comparison of the effect of choice of response matrix. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION General Fit to the Detector Data One measure of the appropriateness of a response matrix is how well the Bonner sphere data can be fit.... This data is shown in Table 6. often called a "Hankins" dosimeter.. . .. ... BARC.. In order to illustrate the general characteristics of the fits obtained with each matrix.7% for SAN4 and UTA4.. especially. There appear to be inconsistencies in M60. If there are inconsistencies in the re- sponse matrix.. the average average error being reduced to less than 0.. . A plus sign indicates that the measured response is lower than the calculated response. and LOGNM...

. Note the remarkable agreement..... For M65... the responscs of the 3".... For SAN4.. the responses of the 3" and 10" detectors are too high. the responses of the 2". For LOGNM. From these tables we can draw the following conclusions: a. f. ". It might be argued that the source encapsulation would broaden the spectrum somewhat. . The unfolded spectra were smoothed to the calcu- lated spectrum uSing a moderate amount of smoothing in YOGI. In order to compare the experimental spectra with the calculated spectrum.. 1. particularly.. especially for SAN4 and UTA4...... •..•-. fit.. giving more reasonably shaped spectra... In Table 8 we list the calculated counts for each matrix obtained using the calculated Cf-252 spectrum with the magnitude of the spectrum adjusted to minimize the percent difference between the calculated counts and the experimental counts. . These conclusions suggest that better fits to the data.. ... The differences indi- cate that M60. M65... We did not attempt to do this for this particular study. Note... For BARC. For UTA4.. . The unfolded and calculated spectra are shown in Fig.. For M60.. . spectra were unfolded using each matrix with the calculated spectrum as a starting spectrum for YOGI. As expected from the data... and 10" are too low. Agreement with Calculated Spectra Spectra 4 and 12 were chosen for comparison with the calculations of Grundl and Eisenhauer [21] and Eisenhauer et al [12]... 1... b. c....... . C. . calculated response of the matrix is too high. and 12" detectors are .. the UTA4 matrix gives the • 8 ...... the large discrepancy between the 8". and 10" detectors are slightly low. the responses of the 2". and 12" detectors are slightly low. d. however. the SAN4 * matrix gives the best.... 8". could be obtained if the responses of selected detectors were raised or lowered based on the data in Tables 7a-7f. 5". .. in which case. 10".. There is no discernable trend in the BARC data. .. or the other three are too high. 5". or the 10" response is too high.fGNM..... and 12" detectors. 5".... and UTA4 will give spectra having lower energies than the calculated spectra. the responses of the 8" and 12" detectors are too low... the responses of the 2".Jliqhtly low.

Using no smoothing. far better than the error of about +10% estimated for this data. . The No. 2b. . . . M65. or after 50 iterations. . However. The fit terminated after 1 iteration for SAN4 and after 3 iterations for UTA4. the spectrum is considerably lower in energy than the calculation. :1% error was reached after 20 iterations. BARC. . Note in Table 9 that the cal- culated counts from this spectrum also indicate that the unfolded spectra will have lower energies when using the M60. The data for the BARC matrix is shown in Fig. M65. and UTA4 response matrices. spectra were unfolded with the calculated spectrum as a starting spectrum. .best fit. The spectra obtained with SAN4 and UTA4 are shown in Fig. As expected. . . 9 . The others show a considerable deficiency of high energy neutrons. . . LOGNM. SAN4 and UTA4 give good agreement with the data. and S is the surface of the calibration room in cm 3 . The spectrum obtained with M60. . These are caused by errors in the response matrices or in the detector data. Again. . Fits were terminated when the average error dropped below +1%. and M65 did not fit the data within +1% after 50 iter- ations. . . . 2a.25 Q/S (5) where 3 nv is the thermal neutron fluence rate per cm Q is the Cf-252 emission rate in neutrons per second.:i[ . LOGNM gives a reasonable fit to the data. A thermal component was calculated using the equation [22] nv= 1. further unfolding produced oscillations of 107 in the spectra without significant improvement in the fit to the data. . . 12 spectrum is similarly compared with the calculated room- return spectrum of Eisenhauer [12]. UTA4 gives a slightly softer spectrum. and LOGNM are shown in Fig. . Note the oscillations in the M60 and M65 spectra. . . and smoothed to the starting spectrum. Using each matrix. 2c. . . The error was approximately +2% for each matrix. M60. . This component was then combined with the Eisenhauer calculation in order to make a comparison with the experimental data.

500 -. 1 Cf-252 neutron spectra obtained using each of the the response matrices in the YOGI unfolding code. - The spectra were unfolded using the NBS calculation as the starting spectrum for YOGI.05 0.02 0.01 0. + / 2 + 0.NBS CALCULATION x SANNA o M60 200 11 LOGNM + M650 A BARC >-100 v UTA0 * z50 *- z D 200 * 00 *U 10 Z 0 / z -. 10 .1 0.5 1 2 5 10 15 ENERGY (MeV) Fig.2 0.

0 1.repos marcsihecluae 0. MeV) .0 -6. .. -8.0 LOG (ENERGY. . The calculated • spectrum was used as the starting spectrum for YOGI and the unfolded spectra were smoothed to the calculated spectrum. -CALCULATION ogSANNA CD| ne z an UTA-.0 0.0 1JJ I i---.0 -7.US .0 -5. Fig.i_.0 |" U. I - I 2.0o 30 -. 2a Cf-252 room-return spectrum obtained using the SAN4 t and UTA4 response matrices. % . -1.0 -4.. t ~ * * ..

0 -1.0.0 -7. -CALCULATION D M600 0 650 t zA LU ~1. 12 .0 -8.0a 0 0 0 -0J 0 0 (Jo 0 0 0 0 9 0 0.0 -4.0 LOG (ENERGY.0 1. M65.0 -2.0 -3. 2b Cf-252 room-return spectra obtained using the M60.0 0. The calculated - spectrum was used as the starting spectrum for YOGI and the unfolded spectra were smoothed to the calculated spectrum.0 -6. MeV) Fig.0 -5. and LOGNM response matrices. 2.

0 . CALCULATION BARC [] 00 n 0 w0 00 z :31.0 -7. MeV) Fig.0 -3.0 -2.0 -5.0 -6.0 0.0 - -8. as spctrm te strtig fo YOI an th unflde 13 .0 LOG (ENERGY. The calculated spectrum was used as the starting spectrum for YOGI and the unfolded spectrum was smoothed to the calculated spectrum. 2.0 -4.0 -1.0 0 0 U.0 1. 2c Cf-252 room-return spectra obtained using the BARC response matrix. 0 o 0 00 00 0p 0 0.

0. This simulates how a Bonner sphere system might typically be calibrated.. it was expected that there would be considerable variations in dose.. . as a Maxwellian energy distribution having a temperature of 0.27. 4. 13 to have a temperature of approximately 0. . Below this energy.29..5 MeV.. and UTA4 for spectrum No. The data for average energy is given in Table 10b. (3) and the conversion factors listed in Table 4. Hence. Adding Lucite tends to shift the Maxwellian temperature upward [241 and this trend is observed. The exception is that M60 tends to significantly overestimate the fluence for spectra having energies less than the bare Cf-252.28 MeV. SAN4 and UTA4 give exceptionally good agreement with the average energies usually given for Cf-252 (spectrum 4) and AmBe (spectrum 1) of approximately 2. This data has been normalized using spectrum No. We obtain a temperature of approximately 0. The calculated spectrum gives the same detector counts.. and especially BARC. dose equivalent.-.21.. For each parameter. Spectra 13 through 20 were all generated with Cf-252 or AmBe in the center of a 60 cm dia. . ..15. 0. BARC. M60. The difference between the average energy obtained with SAN4 and BARC is more than a factor of 10 at the lowest energies. .30 MeV. 0. Generally.2 and 4. . .. .. and quality 14 . . .. LOGNM. within +2%. we would expect the Maxwellian component of spectrum No. .24] have calculated the spectrum for fission neutrons in the center of such a sphere.. . 0..3 MeV. Variation of Integral Parameters Integral parameters were calculated for each spectrum unfolded with each matrix using Eq. The fluence data is shown in Table i0a. the fluence does not vary more than +15% with choice of matrix.14. and 0. . steel -- sphere. with corresponding lower values for the other matrices. . Considering the variation in average energy. There is reasonable agreement for average energies above approximately 1 MeV. giving a large under- response.. the Cf-252 source with the room-return com- ponent removed.. .. The best fit to the data for SAN4. .. Ing and Cross [23.45 MeV for spectra 19 and 20 with SAN4 and UTA4. M65. 13 are 0... there are significant variations with SAN4 and UTA4 giving - 40-70% over-response and LOGNM. •.. respectively. These data are presented in Tables lOa-lOj. *. the average value obtained with all the matrices is given along with the ratio of the response obtained with each matrix relative to the average response.

- 15 . The response per Rem of 2 personnel dosimeters which have lower . The responses of two albedo dosimeters aregiven in Tables 10f and 10g.LiF thermoluminescence dosimeter pair behind a 0. This indicates that these response matrices generally give spectra that are too low in energy. * energy cut-offs is given in Tables 10h and 10i. and SAN4 and UTA4 giving significantly lower readings. The data for a completely cadmium covered albedo dosimeter is given in Table 10g. is given in Table 10f. there is more variation of the response of this dosimeter with neutron energy than with the Navy albedo badge. the average calculated response for these spectra varies by about a factor of 37. however.38 mm cadmium filter. and i0e where the responses are given respectively for the dose. 10d. There are differences up to a factor of 2 for dose. which consists of 6 7 a LiF. the response of all devices was normalized to the response obtained from the cal- culated Cf-252 spectrum [21]. The response of the Navy TLD badge. Thus. This is borne out in Tables 10c. depending on the j choice of matrix. The calculated response per Rem of 4 personnel dosimeters and a neutron Remmeter are given in Tables lOf-10j. and a factor of 2 for quality factor. approximately a factor of 9. The average response of this dosimeter varies by about a factor of 3. a factor of 4 for dose equivalent. The response per Rem of NTA type film is given in Table . This data is very similar to that in Table 10F. with BARC giving significantly higher readings than the average. the actual response of this badge to these spectra can be obtained by multiplying the data in column 2 by the data in column 3. with BARC showing the greatest variation. The error on this response is approximately ±10%. with SAN4 giving the highest values and BARC the lowest. and quality factor. and M65 the least. In Table 10h we list the re- sponse of a Cr-39 detector which has a lower energy cut-off of approximately 150 keV.3 over this energy range of spectra. a factor of approxi- mately 2. dose equivalent. For these calculations. especially for spectra having low average energies. while the measured variation is about a factor of 20. Since the conversion factors for this table were obtained using experimental data and the SAN4 matrix. There are variations of more than a factor of 6. We see significant variations for the lower energy spectra. Our experimental data [25] gives a factor of 3. in good agreement *i with SAN4 and UTA4. factor with a strong correlation between the four parameters.

We especially thank Dr. and for providing dose equivalent conversion factors -* for this grid. Nolan Hertel of the University of Texas at Austin for providing computer tapes of his response matrix prior to publication. . Finally. Finally. We are indebted to Dr. Lamberieux. Charles Eisenhauer of the " National Bureau of Standards for providing the calculated Cf-252 spectrum in the Sanna energy grid. Our study indicates that only SAN4 and UTA4 consistently give reasonably shaped spectra that fit the sphere data within experimental error. Nash of the Health Physics Staff for providing data for the neutron spectra used in this study. between BARC and the other matrices. we might expect wide variations depending on where the matrix tends to put the energy peak of the lower energy spectra. Kimberly A. we list the response of the AN/PDR-70.. we thank Dr. 10i. for the lowest energy spectra. was a participant in the Research Apprentice Program for high school students. This is indeed the case. in Table 10j. and agree well with other calculated and ex- perimental data. Since NTA film has a lower energy cut-off of approximately 0. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank A. We thank Dr. Gordon Riel of the Naval Surface Weapons Center for providing conversion factors for the AN/PDR-70 Remmeter. The predicted response of this instrument is within ±20% independent of the choice of matrix. there is more than 3 orders of magnitude difference * . an Anderson-Braum type Remmeter. m fl-. Centre d'Etudes Nucleaires de Cadarache for bringing to our attention the work of H.5 MeV. CONCLUSIONS The choice of the response matrix used to unfold neutron spectra from Bonner sphere data has a significant effect on the spectra obtained and on the integral parameters calculated from the spectra. Lowry. This study indicates the need for further calculations and experimental verification of the Bonner sphere response matrix in order to optimize the information derived from this type of neutron spectrometer.. This work was performed while one of the authors. Zaborowski [9]. L. J. This program is sponsored by the University of the District of Columbia and 16 * -. E.

L. "Dosimetrie et Spectrometrie Neutroniques Avec les Spheres de Bonner Establissement d'une Matrice Log-Normale de Reference. "Bonner Ball Detector Responses for Neutrons From Thermal Energies to 17. Sandmeier. R. 9.E. Inst. 1984. 385-459. and Engr. R. REFERENCES 1. P." Health Physics 45(l). "Response Functions of Spherically Moderated Neutron Detectors. 12. Hansen and H.H. "Inference of Accelerator Stray Neutron Spectra from Various Measurements. ORNL-3360. and T. Sanna and J. Method. N. Burrus. We extend our appreciation to everyone involved in this program. Davidson and N. Bonner. LA-3435.A. Schwartz. Tochlin). Roesch. "Neutron Penetration Factors Obtained by Using Adjoint Transport Calculations".A. Burger. D. Venkataraman. Sci. Nucl. 22.the District of Columbia Government. 3. Meth. "Thirty-One Group Response Matrices for the Multisphere Neutron Spectrometer Over the Energy Range Thermal to 400 MeV. 17 . J. "Measurement of Neutrons Reflected from the Surfaces of a Calibration Room. 10.W.3 MeV. 1-12 (1960)." in Topics in Radiation Dosimetry: Supplement 1. 8. and G. 42(4) 489-495 (1982).S. M." submitted to Nucl. Sanna.3 MeV. Los Alamos National Laboratories (1965). R. HASL-267.W. 296 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1962). Nagarajan. March 1973.Zaborowski. C. 315-320 (1965).B. "Bonner Spheres and Threshold Detectors for Neutron Spectroscopy". Hertel and J. Johnson. and T. Meth. 2. Hertel. O'Brien. R. Dr.W. "Dose Equivalent Determinations in Neutron Fields by Means of Moderator Techniques. "A New Type of Neutron Spectrometer. Marilyn Krupsaw. G. C. 115- 120 (1980). Dhairyawan. 5. 9.E.M. R. W. Davidson. McLaughlin. McGuire. "The Response of Bonner Spheres to Neutrons from Thermal Energies to 17." Nucl. 169. and especially to Kim's advisor. 7.R.S." CEA-N-2241. 6. UASEC CONF 651109. 286 (1965). 11.. Inst." USAEC Report No. Bramblett." Health Phys. Nachtigall and G." Nucl.France (1981).P. in cooperation with the Naval Research Laboratory. New York: Academic Press (1972). Commisariat d l'Energie Atomique .I. S. "A Dose Monitoring Instrument for Neutrons from Thermal to 100 MeV". K.L.E. (Edited by F." in First Symposium on Accelerator Radiation Dosimetry and Experience. Inst. 192 (July 1983). H. Attix. W. Ewing. 4. Eisenhauer. and E.

W. H. "Compendium of Neutron Spectra in Criticality Accident Dosimetry.A. "Modifications of an Iterative Code for Unfolding Neutron Spectra from Multisphere Data. 40. T. . Vienna. Schwartz." Health Phys.L. J. "Data for Protection Against Ionizing Radiation from External Sources. Wallace.G.W. 16. 22. Johnson. 21. 41(6). Nash and T.180 (1978). Benton. "Spectra and Dosimetry of Neutrons from Various Sources Shielded by Iron.V. 47(1). Marka.L.M. 18-'. 801-809 (1981).13. Nuclear Cross Sections and Technology.G. C. Oshino. STI/DOC/10. (July 1958). 17. "Fission Spectrum Neutrons for Cross Section Validation and Neutron Flux Transfer.A. and Engr. Johnson and S. Eisenhauer. unpublished NRL data. 26. 24. 13-28 (1974). 25. Frank and R. H. Lawrence Radiation Laboratory Report UCRL-8358. M. R. 15. New York. Sanna. Eisenhauer and R. 774-777 (1981). R. Ing and W. 41. 58. D. 24. and J." Health and Safety Laboratory Energy Research and Development Administration. A.V. Cross. Wheeler." International Atomic Energy Agency." Health Phys." Health Phys." Proc." Health Phys. 1975). H. Oswald. E.. "Difficulties in Calculating Spectrum- Averaged Values of Neutron Dose Equivalent.G. Johnson. R. Ing and S.E. "The Calculated Response of 6 LiF Albedo Dosimeters to Neutrons with Energies < 400 MeV. ICRP Publicatica 21. (1973). Gorbics. "A Directed Search Algorithm for Finding Physically Reasonable Neutron Spectra from Bonner Sphere Data.L. 182 (1984). HASL-311 (1976). 250 (March 3-7. "Proton-Recoil Neutron Dosimeter for Personnel Monitoring." Health Phys. "An Iterative Perturbation Method for Unfolding Neutron Spectra from Bonner Sphere Data. Barish." Health Phys.C.L. Conf. 23. Grundl and C. 420-430 (1975). "Response of NTA Personnel Monitoring Film Worn on Human Phantom. 71-80 (1973). 18. Patterson and R. NBS Special Publication 425. Alsmiller Jr. 859 (1981)." Nuclear Sci." International Commission on Radiological Protection. A. 20. 19. "A Method of Calibrating Slow-Neutron Detectors.S. T. Washington. 14.

.JLL..+. .. tok r oca c LU I . . . .. . o o I I l L. . . . lo Q 0 -w o o o ~ oo oo +oooooo ooo I ". .-. . .+ .. . I I I " c N w M " C I I I ... .. 4 + + r-v-I..-. .. .. . T. . I. . .C>oDo o o o o oooo lQoooo oooo0o o.. . . . . .. o -wC 0 c Q . . . . • . . . ...... . .. I~~CC 0 0.. < L . )oo oooooooQ I . . I I oclaooo o oooC)oo ooooooooooooooo oDImM oo )oo o oC)oo o o o o. I I o I m ...-i co a. . 0oC.-... .LLLJlJifiLJ. I + I ..c .. oc wIrr-q. . .mw w a. . I ocI I c oM . +JW . . ...+NflN. ..-. . . . ... Ii 0 rWr J r.. . . .. .t. . .. . -T. IQ0c 0rI~~ a a . . . . . .. .. . I l I . . ..u.. ... .. . . + . .. 0 w000 - 0 ~ ~ - ..o ..I ~ -( I 0 0 Ic I 00a0 -- I I ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ 0 * ~ 0.O. ..-. .. . . . . . -0-0o0++ + It Li . . o m c...-.. . . ... . . . -. .-. .0 .00 . . UiJ . . + .. ...0 I c c c oI r C0I I 004OW00 r r t a'O 000 ID0 O I I II 0I T. o c!. . o. ..-IC'OO o oQ oo o oC Do o o )o o o o Q I4.. '.. ... ..L . .. I 1 0 00. .0 . iW.. .(/) .... . ..iW. . . . . . .~1 +*4+ +4+ . IND 0 I r-I I 00.. ..i. . . . . 0 0 + + + ~ l+ . iJ~ .o . .. 0 0 o...JJJL ~~ .00 * ~ t 0 I0t ~ .o~~ ... . L~I OI L C~S 0C 0 0 0C01900 . . . . . 0 :> o0 . . . .... ~...i . l L . .o 4++ + + ++ . . . .. .t. . .t.. . .oo. C/() I I w I I ++lINNl l etflfl-. ..ii o .. .... . + 0 I9 I m I il% o r- w w w ww. . . . JI . .M (N %D " co o o . -v Nwa .. o . . . .0 . .. . . 4 o 0 o 0o I o o o o L.. .. ... + + ioooooooooooooooooooooooooooi . . . . . . .• . . i . . I f + +O .-I. .. . .oT1' '< I mm . Dw"c c -. 0 o00 I~ I~ 1 fl I.j w Ww g w w w ... .

. . a.I :.r-. 40M r %D a'C I f 11w1w1 0a lM w4+ 0 C) I I ID 400~~~~~~ 000 0400 0 0 00 0 0 CD' 0 0 00 I * W* * Ia.&W -4-r0r-0000 0 0 0 I I N ~ r l . + 0 1 I I C-4 W N m' Co .I~ C IC C CC CC IC2C0C . . I: I I: I * V Iz I I. . . . .-.. W ~ M fr l C 0 -C r0 C I 0 V . I .. NIN'C. . if. . .IN NNN NN .J0Co. . . .Lt. Nr N.. . nM~ a. 4COD . .. . 4' 4~ 00aa.. "I a'44ta'0IININ4C0 I I I . . I--.V C . t. .I CCC CCC CC C CC CC CC CC I . 0 N C 0 i~ C (N 4 C r N ''. .' N C N . 000 C0 C 40 0 0 C. . ... .-l M4a'I . 1N N I I I *++*W*++tt0+0+w+**T **+II M4 II a. 00 I I I D I I **t 1" V * . -i. . IL Il 0u00C0+0C C00 C00 000 --.+ 1 c * I.4I ((Ir a: r.. . 00 0C I IDf C qWil 00( I) i0 CD .I I . .--I CC-r r-0~a'4 CCS . .I .-. . .L11-cr t * 41'C- a'01 t+ ~wU~L +tt' . C~'r'. I i C .CO I I IN~ 04a'a -iL' '..0 r0a4c0a C-. C C C 40IflCI .~ Ml ~ rI. II 4C. . 0 -OLO.1 I~ It I I D.~~~~CCC C C C C C C C C O I OOO C C Cc C C CC C C C C O C C I~~ I I I I ' 14 I~1.. . I I coI ++ wt + t+ twt w* 4 4 *j ti + 4 * I 0 CDC 00 a) D C) 00C 000C 00 C 0 0 0 00 I4..I . 4 NC C 'N O O W-00a'O O C OI =± IN (D CN Cii ICD 0 0I I 0 (D iC C) N t fl0 CD I +* w * * * * j~ ~~~ 0I CC)a r- * *t-t-++"I 0'~o4Q-4- . . . . O. I . . -0 -'0--.. . .ai IUUW.4 n.i.I . " .JL-+-JIA1d.. ..C C CCC CICC CIC CCr I .I.-. 1 . .t II t . -iai .r L r UM z '-T C-:>M. . i'0 iC C I . .. . -(..qaaco c Im ~~~I I1 4 I I II.~ 1 0 r-.10 NNN. IMI~lCCr--. * I t ~ t * * IWa I ~ I .0 I I O O C OC OO O CO Oa> C COO I I I 0(D 0 0 C 4 >0 0 (( C-i 4 a Ti. N 1 ~a. . .L( O 0 I I I II * * + I I (NI It I I~ 0~ )~ M 01r.. C C C ~ C C C C . l40 ~ r V I-I r ~ C 0 11 C 14N~ I I..

iiCiII ( 0 N ~ N 0 .i~f±~~' .f .I ID0c . (D 00(D 0D C) CD CD 00 C (]0000 C00 C OD m wC 1 1 1 N hC W111. (C4 1 7 00000 1 00000 I II L IO I 0I 00 O I 000 m mC01 0. m0 D 1-' CI 1% -N' o1N IU I D . -w ICa. m 'C o wN . . 0 ID 'T w r mC N. . . ~N0 mC1) -.1 l Iw .. --t 1gfr r-~ w. .-WD L-I mN w w v g rr Nm. 1.-a.f . w -I - GoI D -w r~l-I.. ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( cC l CD0 C) -. N g g ' ~~ L~ 1 g ± ' L CO N C ii 0~ I N~ ( 21 (N1111. CI i W -( N ( N"Nm(N ( N ( N ( Nw N NwNmNo m cNN-w M0 1 w-4 o~-C ~ ~ ~ I. w I. . .en m1 . I zi I >-I I I I I I I i I I II I i I +i I L WWI L L LJW L L L L L L U L W0 L L UjW i It y w( i 'N.C .-N Cgl0 ..C. g1. 4.g c) gn. aL. - ol.-z100 .IwwI . I I m II cr C 1 ID I i om o I o Iil . . --- (NNNNN((((NNN 4 4 . I. . .w c) 43h Vl w m C C4 m w m m m 1-m oo 1. M-i g-. --. ~ 1. c3 wL-I o N( mN1 -w N li. m oi - C 1*.. . .C m m I ' w I l . -MW. . . D 1 0% 1 1C) % WW -wm" W W UUUUUUUUUU~g4±LJUUUU W C o L WL ID In %D I . I-N (N . -(o(NNeefe r 1 (NCI It .~ .1- "I c) o 1-i mAIll %v N 'C 1 -.. . . . . vN(( w 1.OD X ( 1 01I r-il C~( Nr Cr (N 0 r-C 'W' ~ cI (n w -w~a.L UJ I .. o . . .ggl . . C/ iI--r .C) 1w 4.mAA. > " 1o m.- g-N-ii1f 1. 1 L .-D . " ~~ :e (.- I mi 1-w (D c) mID m mo w %D I -i C~0 -C .

1 o Iii I ~ + 1NII4I CJ)0001 r I WIon I i ~ O a ~ I i .W-fl 0.. 0r..6 o~ c. 0 0 IN 14l ll .IO C Q1 c 0 C I mn ~ CII --.. .l-0CJNN 4~tI? . I. + + t I I = I LUULJ U) tw 4. r ~ ro o 0 0 0 I ~~~ 1 -111 .CJNLNJCJLLJI.W fO 0 ~ 0 0 0 .-.0-Ln-0-N.XYLL1Jd.LLI.l I Cn V O o ~ I I04lWO. cy '~~frrll'n~ffcl~nler.cL I ~ I I I I 1 -Q. .q o o o I CI I l l 1 10 11 0 1111C11 0 00 011 -1.4.~ N0QCQ 0 0 I02 CI Q CD W~-r.cC C c I zr .OW .. -I -uI -- -11 l t . Q CL. 0 o r. ' .2LL c 14L.1 -111 .1 .. 0C 0 I I I ininU)WWINWW. ~ fl 2 2W I ~ l?''~..I.. 00 00 N J00 00 O C. -N .?-c4 c ~ N ) ~ 0 0 > .. -~ -. C> It ) 0 I.J I CD c I I C)( C)I C ~ O C)N. I~0.I. W rl .l . I ~ ~ ~ ~ W ac OWT .1iI. t-. *7 OD h ~ at~~ c~r..-rcQlC u 0 JO 00 10 Q I wi t IIUSILLJ w aI (71 J 0 L. . aI r r c l c c J. . rr-n.. I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 100 00 00 00 wr0 0 . -( -0 C 0IC Q 0 I I nI Q I I 1 1 1 1 I Ii I II I II I I I +-.~-I~ 0 1 0Q00Q01111 0 Q 00 I C .-o o o Qc~.iLJI.~ Q Q~~nn wc 4-. .I-or-.Q1 I . >. ul w UJJ'11 w. -. 0 0 0 __ : -~ c ~ r'.-. 1 1 -. o:? rN..

N+-+.04-I11 Ccr.. . . . . 00 w 00 0 -_ .Itrllf+lF I C++-4Q--I++INO. r-I.c1 .D. ' I O O O I I100000(A 00 m00 000D00000A0' 00C0( I C4+. . . 1 1 . + + + + .. . I0 00a0r-0W00 000 00 000 000 000 D . .C-.. -. .. .. (D .. ++0.ooooooooe.. .I.. . .+.11. .. I .4A .D .s . 1-WtW4W4-W*I I I (D ) 4m (DWuW(OCOc m a. WtlC! oooO I m 1-. .. . . .(D. . 0 '1D0 0 4 *..IOW4. . 0. I co I II -Ioo I 00m ooooen 000D00 oa'-. . . . 0 .. -. . I .+(A .'D. . 1 0. .O-O . . Io0 0oo al'CIIf4NNN~ . .-'Doo o U) 00 0 c: c00 0000c 1 C LU 114 00 LU 01 1 0 0 00 "i0 0 0 I DC. --.lr W1 0 Woo (DI CD k.-4000 It I -O . ... .(1. . C. 4 -I I I I I . 1 .-r~X.. c . . ... ..IL. . -. CD D (D1..04D04D0CD0 ..O ~J0 O . C.l t . .t0. L r -~P D 0 0 0 I i III O W N I> O 0 0 . . .0 00 CD 0 00 CD00 'D0D0(D0(D I CD00 0 OD(7 C mI -I -l -ii -I-D CD *$---(D-D I mom I 4It t *. -)i (D.1S-I' c C! . 0D ° I I I ~~~ 0 c) 0. . ..(. ... I . -+(A -. . .. ..I I .. 0 '0 0 . .1 "1. +e+++ + 4 * It 00 . '0 000 000 I Ol0. . -1- I J... I I0000000000000000000 II ~ ~ Co ne ~ ~ I .+ . . (A . I D.-. . I'll0I0000 . .. . . t l l 4 0 0 0 I I 23 .. . 1 Or. 0 0 0 L .. .. w. . I I I.... .oo--ooooo )D0m0 mP0'D0 mw0(D00 000 . c u 0 OOO I IO C I I Il 11 U 1 1 11 111 11 111111Ul 11 + . . .'.- 0 l 00 "I 00 wI1u 00 00 00 00 00 . I I I CD 'DL~ rh10. ~1 D D0 0 00 c.. 0000 WW WUI Ul L) al W11i UlW I J W111111 Ul. I.. . 4 4 I (D10 10 -It 11 .1 4 *l0( D D ' (D 0I Li(D U) Io CDi 1c . ++ ''D.. -. m (D D' (D DC D 0 D( 3 (D ' I 1w IIO D c) 1. 4 .C. -1-1-1-1 O J O U 0 'D1U11)0C00 C> I I H . . w 0 " CD OOD Dly D 1 (D ( . . ... .Z .. 200D0(D0C.-. . . fl CN l J ' 0 0 I I c c 1 :C I I IN N-. . ('. . . . .

.1. 11111 c-: 11 11 11 CD11 1 0I 0I1 It ILi 4JLIUIIIIDILJi.. . .- 'A CA w:r 0 ~~ II 1 ~ 1 4 ~ 1 4441 4 ~ I11 I ~ ~ 1 1 ~1 ~ I 1 l.2. . a00 J U) 24 . .4C 0 I 10 0 0 1 0 0 I 0 -- 0 . c f l l ' 4 C I C11I1o1111 IL 1 1I 1 1 w. .I.1IMC c IL I. .0 :4 (D W-4e.. I I I ~ ~ 00 lllON 0 ~ 7 0 ~ 0 lcIC10NC. k I" I.1. 1.. A IQ. .(. .0i . r-4cnn 0. . a. CA (7 -w0 000 00 000W00 m000m C) 000 MN I I C D1 cWa I 00000> 00 D00000) 0000 0 00000c I6 "w k I 1 C I0al I~ a. II 111 I .. .-- 0000 . .UU114i1 411J1 I Ie I o a: . .4. 1 1 I.IN'C I I. w~ a:-. 11 1-0 4 0 1 0 i n I. . I 1- .c. . C .o I w 10000-0m0m00w0m0c0 CA00 m0r0 a. .. . . - I o00 D o 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 4) I I I wI I I III I4 I kI " .00 II 1111111111114 741o 1114.-. In 0 I I in000. I W4 404 . .JU . .W. .LICU.

0 Q w' m) z' z' z' C') U) C' CA')n ) Cww' CA) L/3 C') C' C1) I 0 V-) I 1z C I uj I w I C C) P" I O) I DC'w 0. C J C4 C C. -4 0 V.S C (4 CS- a I0 CCj C'u0O D)O Cl o to 0 I I4.) w 0" 0) C . I I W . C C.4 C \ U4)4-) a ) w. F: ( S. 1 0 u I Q) D ) N N C N () N W u N l j j Q 0 N j j 00 . 0 0 003 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) CL i) I .4-'E 0 4-E 0 E ) FzU+. Icn) W ') < < 4-. . 0 00. ) CCJ V S4 VC -. 4 F M. U) U. C)C (C :3 C)3 toCC Lo.-U. 0 . W) 04. V N '. ) 04- QC 4-U) Q 41 4-) () -)~n 04 C) 0.4 C) *d -4 *HA.0C 4-0 .. + 0 . C)u )' C4) C+ .J I I C' C C. U) 4) 4' 4 1 0 C3o 40 0 0 40 -1 V . 41 LI) I. 4 414 < < 4-4-4A AI 4. 0) C) CW Z CD 0) Q) C 4' 0) 4. I I U) C Cu) 0 E) F. C) *d V) 4) 0) C- Q) >0 4. V) +)() U) LIz C> I I o 14 ~F) 0 C) 0 C) W C) .'-0 '-4 u w (D -'.v CC) a)-C4 C) C" 0 Iu V. X. 5.n I) ) C C\j C 'Jc Ci C)~ I C I) C C Cj C CC C N Cj C C)i N N CC O I . q))JC .'Al (1 ) i~ r0 0r. 0..-4 *. 1. I 25 .4 ::1 *.-I 4-4. F+' C) +' 04 . N4 r.4 . 0 0 0 H (0 (C a ) (0 0 C (n 4-) C 4-' l C) C) 4-' C)) 4-) C) >1 b--i OC OC 0'i 4-) 0 C)) C) 4-) F= 4' Q 4-4 (A 4) 4. 0 r. U )(0 41 r.. 4 'I < 4-4 4. C.) .4*-0 4. NQ C1 C) C) -) C C C)::I.j)(C .)() 0 L 0 0 0 I C) I ) C) 4C) I C) I C) +C) )4. 4-'r 4-'C 0.4 W 4 S-. 0 C) 0 Q) C)-' .) . 3 C C.0 a X x X4- x.0Do I E E E 1 I1 41 E S I I 4I I I I C) I I I U.0.0 -4 to (D 0 04 IDC toC) Lo 0)) 4-H. ) . 4-.*4-4 *. C .- Q) 4 -' .4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wC (C Q W CQC (D C (D CD 0 1J I j E U) $~4 *. 4-' 4J' 4-'C M.0 . *. U ( V SV EC SC coC U) U) C. .-0 I () 40 + ) 4 1 ) . 4 C.- C) (0 0 M- 4 ~VM--4) 2 *' C) -) V ) mOC w. C.0 5 C C C 4 C U) C0 O C C C C C 0 C D C I I 0 (C o 01 0 0 .. l 1 f0. 4) *414* I I ) (v. X 4-) 0 W 0 0 D k (D0 o 0( I 0 0 c0( CU LO V) 4' (C (a 4 4-) f -4'-4 (24a -4 0 0o C) C 0 .-4 C) 'L. 0A C)) C) C) C) Q) C) (v C) C) 4-) 4.

..49 8..31 5.65 20 18.26 18.. EXPRESSED AS THE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL COUNTS...00 3 9.......34 23..64 14.87 14.61 6 5.97 17...87 6.22 7.39 25...10 14 18..10 13..80 16.94 30.65 25..55 9...37 7..80 7...42 10 16.17 13.14 28..39 19.59 25.53 26..26 18.52 15..15 13 8.88 13.76 12.......43 21.....20 29..38 32.82 30...85 30..31 18 17.57 15 11.05 8 15....25 9..22 19 22..22 12...79 18.....13 10.....98 .26 24.....71 7 15...53 9.....94 23.92 3....09 26..05 28.85 2..61 18.40 6.49 2..... FOR THE VARIOUS NEUTRON SPECTRA DETECTOR RESPONSE (% of total) SPECTRUM NUMBER 2" 3" 5" 8" 10" 12" 1 1.45 23....01 25.03 10....73 11 6..15 26. A TABLE 3 THE DETECTOR COUNTS.. - I ...62 17 17......70 28..99 14.25 3...87 14..12 9 11....22 34....91 17.62 20...29 8.80 7. ......93 28.27 4.04 5.28 30.....66 22..44 4 1..58 5 4...21 22..23 11.76 5.89 20.......76 25...64 9..15 18..........07 20.93 12.....04 14.13 33.47 6. .....70 21. ...45 15.....30 5..00 26.27 3..05 16..19 25..61 14.09 17..83 25. 26 .......61 28..39 26...29 2 4.91 24.78 18...64 22. .27 16 14.59 18.28 9..29 20..54 3.20 24.73 10..21 28.89 12.66 27.94 12 15..13 22.

. I 1 3C 30C a 3(D( D( C C3 C)C n I MC lI Dammmw-. 1 m m 11m r N w L 1z ' ICjL ~ oL l WV) I O mIO QL IC G 01O C 4 . W I -.I ~ -L CD0 l tr ) Wm .I Dr4IDL U ( m 11 m C4 J- C%~C0 rON-1 I I I1 -4. .IO0 0> L O_1 7 -v4L N " mt ) Y)C O >C -. 0000C~ 3ClC 0 O(Dr-u C'~) .(Dr-r-0OGo( 00 w 0 1( nt (Uo -C IHr rLU mj Wt1 4 W . W CPJN-IO \NO-ClL . o( * 1-L 13 1 0 Y nt l nt Dmr j I Li0 JC i 1 U Z 4 1 0 I W I r N D . OC -( t 0 L AM r 3L 4-Tv -C lC I I -. N. r- .(PC3.0 . I C) C) C)i 11 0I (D 1 0 CDC DaC II 3C )C ii -IJC I DCJ LA oz an 0) Ln -1-4 Il LU 0 0 C )0 LO M Cm 04-1- I-oLU * Z 4 I fJ DC CD 3C)3 )C a DCI C)0 D C3( CVf . Cf ~LUJ ~fl ~ C'J -127 . 4C )wwm( . . I z m p Cmm1w 7 )c 7 D0 p( ' 71 Da 1()()0 Dc 1 0G IP0 I * (AI)'1C2. M ~ .t-~l j -i I o q I D z m CD0 = r mC . 10 0 Co IM m I I LO~ 3 u M ( 4r )C 4C)_r "C)L 7 OC)0 Ma lL IY Cl -m I wI Or DNr-CJO n0L (D0. : )M i OC 10 Dl - w =3 I aCM m -tLOL. NDt O z :O W Oz ClN OQM a)0 w mw wli m wm 11 wi wmw w mm wI mi 0411 y . 4. Nr ix IMc> I C) I 1 I 0. .

03 0.63 2.55 19 1.21 1.49 6.03 0.02 7 0.46 6 1.00 18 0.46 13 0.09 5.48 5.47 3.30 4.09 9 0.03 3.- .60 2.50 1.64 1.11 2.64 1.85 3.50 6.39 4.74 2.75 0.78 7.95 2.35 4.46 28 -------------------------------------------------------------.38 2.77 6.19 0.25 0. Table 5 The Average Error (%) on the Fit to the Detector Data for each Spectrum and Matrix Using Only the MAXIET Algorithm to Determine the Spectrum MATRIX SPECTRUM NUMBER SAN4 M60 M65 LOCNM BARC UTA4 1 0.97 1.52 2.28 2.57 1.33 1.97 17 2.88 1.33 0.35 0.01 2.D.84 1.08 1.07 20 1.23 0.43 0.18 3.13 3.82 8.29 5.92 1.75 2.50 5.60 8 1.55 5.98 14 1.91 7.23 3.57 4.96 3.68 7.35 4.57 2.28 3. 0.53 0.70 5.18 4.18 3.20 1.46 0.65 3.05 1.65 2 0.99 0.01 4.56 6.01 7.49 1.61 5.86 10 2.48 1.43 1.99 15 1.83 7.61 1.89 3.27 3.18 5.45 1.80 4.24 5.92 1.55 1.58 11.03 AVERAGE 1.04 1.73 3 1.90 3.85 1.02 S.82 3.11 4.71 3.45 0.04 2.13 1.31 2.35 1.55 7.93 0.93 1.81 11 1.33 5 0.64 0.95 16 1.44 8.09 4.79 0.27 5.65 0.29 0.10 1.72 12 1.61 0.10 0.47 3.55 2.04 4 1.63 5.

23 2.69 14 1.32 6 0.21 0.33 5 0.** .78 3.42 1.40 1.61 0.46 1.40 0.65 0.31 1.10 6.35 4.81 0.63 0.68.53 0.43 i.25 4.36 2.D.62 0.50 3.30 4.77 0.60 3 0.74 1.56 2.45 6.31 0.45 0.07 1.00 1.27 29 .29 0. 16 1.36 1.16 3.65 1.09 1.17 9.51 1.74 1.65 7 0.97 1.37 0.74 0.88 0.59 0.20 3.24 2.14 0.61 1.39 0. . .64 3.65 S.52 0.4b 0.88 1.57 4.38 18 0..68 2.37 6.91 0.78 0.72 0.47 1.24 1.14 2.44 0.62 2 0. S Table 6 The Average Error (%) on the Fit to the Detector Data for Each Spectrum and Matrix Using MAXIET and YOGI to Determine the Spectrum - MATRIX SPECTRUM NUMBER SAN4 M60 M65 LOGNM BARC UTA4 1 0.26 4.54 2.53 3.41 2.56 0..26 8 0.02 0.62 0.91 0.65 AVERAGE 0.63 13 0.49 1.93 0.67 2.75 1.96 9 0.83 2.36 2.63 6. .84 1.55 10 1.24 3.90 0.89 17 1.34 3.96 1.64 2.33 0.83 2.09 2.18 0.71 0..51 3.64 20 0. . .47 0.00 2.60 2.25 2.83 0.63 0.84 15 0.43 1.42 12 0.58 0.00 1.28 3.15 0.39 5.30 1. 0.71 0.87 3.69 0.60 3.08 1.44 19 0.66 2.66 2.02 11 0.47 6.49 4 0.86 2.

72 -1.07 2.09 -0.29 -3.59 3.01 0.12 0.95 1.88 4 0.14 0.72 -2.37 2.32 0.84 19 0.86 5 -0.28 -0.95 -3.63 -3.21 3.19 -0.84 -4.81 8.28 -3.56 3.15 3.89 4.62 -0.53 -1.89 8 0.28 0.27 30 .21 0.59 -0.50 -3.62 -1.34 -0.65 -1.02 -0.82 18 0.03 0.46 1.65 0.51 -2.67 -3.79 -0.95 -0.27 -1.50 2.91 2.00 0.17 -1.22 -3.13 0.17 0.16 -2.27 0.21 9 0.97 -1.78 6.37 -4.13 15 -0.60 -3.D.70 -1.30 0.15 0.62 6.14 0.06 20 0.58 -2.62 -0.35 3 -0.79 -1.38 -2.97 2.33 -2.77 S.45 1.68 -3.09 -2.35 1.42 1.03 -0.38 1.73 -1.83 2.37 2.52 17 0.54 7.02 10 -0.78 AVERAGE 0.37 12 0.81 2.08 0.65 16 0.45 11 -0.11 14 -0.37 -0.10 0.65 2.92 5 6 -0.00 -0.03 0. ! Table 7a The Percent Deviation of the Calculated Detector Data from the Experimental Detector Data for the M60 Response Matrix DETECTORS SPECTRUM NUMBER 2" 3" 5" 8" 10" 12" 1 0.03 -3.84 -1.21 1.52 -3. 0.52 -1.06 0.66 -2.97 -1.05 -1.68 -0.53 -2.70 5.10 0.45 -3.85 -0.26 1.56 4.7:1 .99 6.29 0.68 13 -0.06 7 -0.24 -2.02 0.58 6.25 2 -0.30 -2.05 0.86 -1.30 -1.04 1.

87 -0.35 6.64 5.63 1.25 5 -0.73 -0.65 2.14 3.88 -0.48 -3. ..36 2.87 20 -0.25 0.39 3.98 17 -1.18 -0. .01 7 -0.91 -1.75 3 -0.68 -0. .-. Table 7b.62 4.4b 2 -0. .39 -0.31 -1. -0.D.24 2.68 3.02 4.41 -2.53 -1.27 -0...77 3.75 19 -1.80 AVERA .72 -1..13 -3.24 0.07 2.48 1.00 -1.53 4 0...67 -5.35 -4..06 2.: . ..63 4.50 0..49 -1.52 1. .86 -0..17 -0. ..73 -3..61 2.54 15 -1.48 0..26 4.9b -1.85 -4.14 0.19 5.36 -0.29 -3. -7.66 -1..86 1.49 6..28 -0.55 1.65 9 -0.68 1.35 -1.39 4.-..16 4.99 S.78 16 -0.56 0..56 -1.60 18 -1.69 -0.42 -1.80 10 -1..02 -0.16 -4.23 11 -1..49 12 -0.84 -1.68 -3.96 -0.85 -0.13 -6.27 -0.17 3.08 -0.21 2.69 1. .61 6 -1.66 -1..73 4.21 -0.09 1..77 1.45 13 -1.49 -2.56 -3.83 0.34 -0.20 4..48 3..79 1.09 -0..81 1.15 -0.97 -1.38 -4..02 -1..27 0.41 1.81 14 -0.53 0.78 0..80 2.36 5..40 -4..69 -0.99 -1..49 3.16 -5.92 -1.53 -0.63 2.45 8 -0.48 31 ::::. The Percent Deviation of the Calculated Detector Data from the Experimental Detector Data for the M65 Response Matrix DETELCTORS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SPECTRUM NUMBER 2" 3" 3" 8" 10" 12" 1 0..--. 0.22 -2.09 -5.21 -0.

63 0.05 0.17 0.15 0.67 0.36 -0.14 -0.20 -0.90 0.29 10 -0.25 0.39 9 -0.53 32 .85 0.22 -0.03 -0.62 -0.61 0.25 1.98 0.56 0.39 -2.75 -1.39 0.52 -0.99 -1.53 1.25 0.30 1.07 1.71 1.28 -0.48 20 -0.53 0.17 12 -0.42 0.00 0.03 -0.40 1.46 15 -0.37 -0.60 1.18 0.76 0.17 S.46 -0.86 1.53 -0.66 0.08 0.23 0.67 13 -0.40 -0.01 0.55 -0.76 -0.39 -0.52 -0. 0.16 0.84 -0.86 18 -0.77 -1.59 0.24 7 -0.80 1.24 -0.60 -0.08 0.21 AVERAGE -0.88 -0.67 -1.35 1.84 0.07 0.04 0.15 0.95 -0.53 -1.55 0.16 -0.49 0.36 0.05 0.17 17 -0.D.30 -0.91 11 -0.76 0.41 -0.53 0.17 0.90 3 -0.22 -0.86 -0.48 -0.80 0.03 -0.27 14 -0.03 8 0.73 -0.47 -0.36 19 -0.22 -0.16 2 -0.08 -0.13 6 -0.80 -0.19 0.55 -0.42 -0.39 0.53 5 -0.40 0.91 1.23 -0.38 -0.09 0.09 -0.91 -0. Table 7c The Percent Deviation of the Calculated Detector Data from the Experimental Data Data for the SAN4 Response Matrix DETECTORS SPECTRUM NUMBER 2" 3" 5" 8" 10" 12" 1 0.78 0.63 0.22 -0.18 0.32 -0.37 0.62 4 -0.20 0.75 0.15 0.15 16 -0.44 -0.01 -0.22 -0.

49 0.26 1.15 -0.03 1.10 -0.13 -0.30 -0.06 -0.44 -0.78 -3.83 1.11 0.56 0.23 20 0.37 0.14 -0.09 12 0.67 -1.03 -0.27 -0.17 -0.92 -1.01 13 0.25 0.64 -0.36 -0.17 -0.83 0.83 19 0.05 0.92 -1.03 0.03 -0.56 3.39 -0.14 2.08 4 0. The Percent Deviation of the Calculated Detector Data from the Experimental Detector Data for the LOGNM Response Matrix.99 1.10 11 0.46 0.14 -0.49 0.33 -0.39 8 0.52 -0.36 -0.90 -2.04 -0.10 -0.38 -0.56 2 -0.27 0.92 -1.05 -1. -------------------------------------------------------------- 33 .87 18 0.09 -0.09 -0. 0.32 -0.48 -0.22 0.97 -1.25 0.83 1.34 -0.68 0.15 0.47 16 0.79 1.21 -0.39 0.26 -0.11 0.57 0.14 0.07 0.02 -0.61 1.14 -0.35 -1.24 10 -0.24 -0.80 14 0.34 9 0.05 -0.49 3 0.54 -1.58 1.91 1.57 AVERAGE 0.20 1.00 -1.63 1.33 0.15 -0.D.35 0.66 15 0.78 0.15 0. Table 7d.76 S.61 6 0.69 1.30 -2.13 -1. ----------------------------------------------- DETECTORS ------------------------------------------------------------ SPECTRUM NUMBER 2" 3" 5" 8" 10" 12" 1 0.42 0.43 0.69 -1.38 -0.06 -1.27 1.93 5 0.07 17 -0.70 -0.43 0.50 1.20 -0.78 -0.03 -----.75 -0.43 0.19 0.91 -0.33 0.45 7 0.65 1.37 -0.74 -2.99 -0.94 1.86 1.31 -0.27 0.46 1.

4.74 1.47 10 -1.97 -1.76 -0.89 13.32 5..2. = ° ° .40 .74 .09 -10.35 -0.74 -10..55 -3.53 7.00 -9.08 4.59 6 -0..5.15 0.18 2. .31 15 -1.D.28 -2." .7.4.15 . 2.65 .25 4.13 2.92 6. The Percent Deviation of the Calculated Detector Data from the Experimental Detector Data for the BARC Response Matrix.61 4 8. .22 8.40 5.57 2.79 -11.' .67 3 -1. " " " .05 -4.60 -4." °°' ° .11 2.56 -* 19 -0.05 .51 3.50 5.98 3.0.78 6.16 -0.29 2.26 AVERAGE -0.84 2.14 -0.81 10.07 3.95 3.22 0. Tabl e 7e.32 -5.83 13 -0.. .41 0.° "°"° ' °'°% '" .45 3.16 . °" °°''" .74 .62 .63 2.79 5.04 2.13 -1.79 -1.04 .31 3. .04 18 -1.24 5.90 -4.88 8. "".05 -0.49 16 -1.28 S.28 4.62 3. ".49 -6.64 -0.97 3.37 3.17 7. .11 -0.31 11 -0.8.10 2.2.19 1.93 1.20 5.57 1. °' .57 0.71 -4.1.52 12 -1.02 -10.79 -0. DETECTORS SPECTRUM NUMBER 2" 3" 5" 8" 10" 12" 1 1.82 .8.-.10 -0.19 -0. 5.12 34 p" .8.62 3.19 5 0.10 0.".91 8.10 -3.85 -0.94 3.41 7 -1.1.12 4.59 8 -0.." .46 -0.36 . o.17 .-.74 14 -0.9.76 1.99 0.93 -3.66 1.40 0.32 20 0.79 9 -1.00 3.° .98 1.27 -0.74 3.41 0.31 3.60 17 -0. .9.43 .45 . -" ..75 1.87 2 -0.53 0.31 -0.75 0.38 0.68 4.56 .97 2.

-.44 -0.37 0.51 1.71 -1. "" " o..'. .71 14 -0.' .04 0.47 7 -0.29 -1. . .02 0.30 -0.66 0.' . . "°.43 AVERAGE -0.13 0...61 0. . ° o-" .97 -0." " .29 -0." -" . . .68 0.21 -0.93 -0.57 4 0.48 -0.54 0.21 0. ." . -'.38 -0.55 0. *. .44 -0. . Response DETECTORS SPECTRUM NUMBER 2 " 3 " 5 1" 8 10" 12" 1 0.11 -0.65 -0. . . . %' . . Table 7f. ..':'.66 -1. " ..81 -0.05 -0.22 0.15 0.".40 -0.20 0.21 0.75 0.50 -0..41 -0.37 -0..01 -0.05 0.10 1. .72 0..40 -1. .85 3 -0." .37 1..- ..21 0.69 1.90 -1.19 -0. . 0.78 -0.27 0.45 9 -0.70 1." .94 -1.31 0.18 0.55 13 -0. .94 0.58 0.85 -1.70 0. o.61 -0. .22 0.93 -0.36 2 -0.13 19 -0.06 -0.06 5 -0. ~' ."-. . -. ... "-''*'.93 0.44 1. -.28 0.05 -0...-.79 1.51 11 -0..11 0.39 15 -0.22 0.°.47 10 -0.03 6 -0..58 -0. .12 8 0. %".14 0.54 0.85 -0.39 16 0.' . .24 18 -0.51 20 -0....°.D..54 -0.. .°'.30 -0.28 0.82 0.10 0.28 0..°.30 0.49 0.. " -°.13 0.76 -0.12 -0.79 -0.57 1. • ..40 -0. ' %°.29 0.14 0.83 -1..33 -0.16 -0.57 0.. .39 12 -0. "" . .55 0. .13 -0.29 0.33 S. .39 0..14 0.76 0.47 -0. . ..21 -0. from The the Percent Deviation Experimental of the Detector DataCalculated Detector for the UTA4 DataMatrix.49 0.52 -0.55 0.59 -0. .55 -0. -•.31 0. "-.35 0.06 0.45 17 -0.43 35 .." o" . .22 0.49 -1.35 0.• .

- S. 1 U) I N 1I4 C) 4-' u 1 CI 4~ HCD -0 0) O CN ' N - ~ (N LAA LN OH HNH L W a) I L 4O I 01 I 04l 4-3 In m0 00 14 . * I HmM -40 C4 1A n CN m ~ r-4'DA u S-. I LO~. . I I I N m OLD NLD LAO D N6 .. H m (N Ni L-A N N I (n'. . 1 CO v m C-4 'D IDC. 4'4L HoIL -1 OH a% NOn <h L N vAL HN r- I 0') 4N Ln LA -D4-4 O~ 0 moD ~ N I U L I I . n o -i o .to 4 H C4Ir .r H A 0O~ q r-~ r-o N I I H I C4 M ' CN .. c I I. ~. 0) . LAL . .- * . 0 II Z I 3N C-. I LA I (D4-U 1 I L o m Z I C-. I I r.

-0 1~ 1-i N 4 N... I UJ %01 WO om (W mm -~r-m- 4-) of I 01 WI. C14Wr-I mN mm-4 or-4 1 ~ ~ aJ)= ..W I I I HI (N CC) HI c c I U) I I II 0 1I Ln I Z I Wo I0 1H 00 L a) aI ~ .... - D.. I dr(N -1 ma O'T mL LnA 4.... I a0 I I I- *.... 0O In0 4-)4.4'I o4 a.... 0 I a i a.V) 1 1 -1 r-I CH 1 I Ni H'' rH (NH 4.. rj -a' oom m a -V(1 m I 'm v 'A I 1 mm 14 C- mo r-' C'4 1N . ..E-4I (Cs~ -Cc I 37 I Z. (m W a I I oa m oL a OW a) r.c 1 71 c a) aul q Ln . O :)I 1 'a....riA Lnm co (U.TaI n o . LE-l II 01 X a m:enN rjco rNLA %o . N I N .. 04* I ua1 :a _AO (n LA n O W r.. . 0r m LA LAD C( .. r.... C (D ..'J I I I 1\ j r I .1a a LA %D l a1 m~i.V)_-. I dpI1 01 m k (NO' C m-i r-i m m W( N 0 I 4... -.. r-...2 . a CL I 1 a I H I F:4 4-)C 0 1 1 rI ... . 4-H I (N_ H. %C. _IH L JL u C... 1N (N n Hy OD (. ~ c I C-) 1 LA m 0' L o s w01.. -4 c)o o% v.... D( 4 1 LnL (n r... I Ia Wa I I ~. I Z 1. (D Iar Z a I ~Im o LA. a inj m (N4 I I u I I I II c~ II ~ ~ F - f L) S. ~L 4 m C I I I I I O II C........ 0 ...... 1 -q .. m(N i.

:j) j Ii I .CIlj 1.4~~ 18 U 7 .50 U. w45 U.ju%) 1. Sl5 U .i2 Vj. 8.Yi 57o1 i. ' U..5.bb/ 1. 0I.UI4 1 . u'4 I ..:s!) ut.t k.937/ 38 .911) 1..S.97 1 4 1. L.5.5. U . U1.4u I . 541 it) 1 tdl l. jub .4 U.'bt/ L. .b/ 9 1.. u. 1. U&/ 4 1.u 1. U.J u.j7u 1 .is1.6 1 . UJU b 1. The Average Neutron Fluence Obtained Using All the Matrices and the Ratio of the Fluence Obtained with each Matrix to the Average Fluence 1 l. U. V44 1.u17 0 O.9J1 .667 I.ij J.b3 1Loo U..YaI 19~ I. 91 U.2. iIU U L. Table 10a. SL: J. U IlI U.4'V 1Uu 1.i Vl.Utj'I U.jU l.u54 I . 0 2 1.4 1.LJ6U I .YU U. J. 1. V~o .9j4 v.J V. 1 u u.S1 U u. 191 U. 95 0 lt1 1.4 1.9:i4 1.U Iju 1.

l14U u.I / :. .uu .uo) I.. . u.o u.ol O.'.. .jo: u... 6. 1J.. 111 u. .-J4 u.Z44 I..iv u 01. 1. I.. --. ji u . The Average Average-Energy Obtained Using All the Matrices and the Ratio of the Average-Energy Obtained with Each Matrix to the Average Average-Energy SiLECThd?1 AtV Z k -. 1/0 I .L. u 14 1.14 1.-..•. 3 -.. uio I1. b1..4b 1 . .) I. I. 1. : 1. ..4 I1 4. .i j - I 39 ". 0:. J05 - I. J6 115 . . 1.0. dj u..u V.u1 .. . ul:i .J30 4:d V... . . 5LU 1. IJ U. JJ 1./tJ( u. . bi 5: J... Vj. 1 j7 1/ V.5uo u...u0O I. .410 1. 7.b:u1 4.b zb1 . jj114 u. 7a uJ.) j u A.ilu I.sb 1..%J ub. .0 u4U u. .) %J t. .JOJ...: 4. 11o l.04 b 4 1. .I 1. o 1. l<.3 1 . ..'4 6 1.S u. . I...-...)~ 1.. ~u p 1u I 4 1. 1S-' I.. u.V71 j~a J.u d4 1.Obj .. . . Iu luj I. 13 .a_) u 1. . . . u ~ luo u.0u L:) l.. Le 1.. S44j I J. s 1 1j I. .. ? .. lJ4 .. 1.-.14_5 11 u. b J.dj . .Jo u. Itl u. t.. uo U. 0IZ U.Lvi t A.ul 16J U. . .41 u .3 9 V. - IOU irii b it li 4 C. Table lOb.. 1... ucu u . . I. .u= l 1.. 1Ub .ijO 10 .31 lb u.: u 17juo d.-.l e t I. L.)1 1. . .. ._ 19 J.4 u..-)I U.. . .. SJ4 V .]-. . u. o1 4. lbo . A . 1. o I.:I u . 51 . Jjy 1 10 id. 1. . tsJ . I.

b/5 1. uj i u 4-)jtj I 1. 19 .buu U..14 4J U.COU V.1Pt i. olu I . 1.(.%J4 u U. uih / J . /z 1.04J2 5 i.jjJI I. 76oj 1. )au u i.4.441 I.u o u.1oj1 V.O2V 1.'5b' I.151 U. I U u.. ~ 1. Iu 1 . uu 4 4.5 b~ U. "41i .It)I 1.44Z 1 1. a U. 1)45 12l . 9d 1LulI ' v 1 . I.440 b 1. Iju. O4 1. and the Ratio of Dose Obtained with each Matrix to the Average Dose .&o4 U.15U 1.uou .U34 4 5.zJ! I. ------ 0 . 5) . 1 1. .iz u .ia . ld.5t .144 0. L. 55I U. U4d 1. U j -1~ 1.. The Average Dose Obtained Using All the Matrices. U.i 1.Juo L.4j5 l . u .1I14 u..4 JI 1.IJ I . 4d ' . CIA - Table 10c.Li U.31L ~T t7W. Jb+ u . u%) 9 Z. 4!)b 1. AVtA~ --.*q u.o. -! 1. It.. )diJ 14 1.uid U. )11 *d 2.11 u J s4 ~9 U.&57 40 .:jr. 9jo (J 9 1. b lu u.b I. S4. 915 V. i09 3 4.%ib U.O5J-*4~ 1.

.u7 . U0 4 4.14 u..U u.a. J. o -. . I.1Ulu T b IL ...s U..t 1 . I. 'bl Slbo U.9OCS 1 UL 11.olo- . UJ'4 1. OJ9 13 14 J 1. 75. ThbI U. 0t 1. 4J. I o V) U.d7 1.a l.. The Average Dose Equivalent Obtained Using All the Matrices -Li- and the Ratio of the Dose Equivalent Obtained with Each Matrix to the Average Dose Equivalent . 9 .1 14 1..I24 U1v t049A / j .4. I"2 1b U u. b74u j}bl U. U7i I1./J 1.su . 51% U.. 951 si. 0011 b.p1 U 1. J)h . Ooj u.4jjI 1 . 1. V itG "... !) I/Uj j .1 L' ..Th U %.-.-.U9 43 4.3 i.8U.--7-S " - i CT eu I-.z~u U. jb u. I . 0VU 141 •16 Di %J.. J.9 V.--. U. jsb 1 1.-- Table 10d.1 . i~4 1. e IVa. 1...93.I 3.1 U j 1Ut) V. I U.231 1.9 4U . Q.° U.Iu u.Uedu u . 014 1. ) 10 1. 50 U. 1.)b 10.0 Vo u 1. )U19DzU. 1J 1. . . v.5 UJ."15 ) . 'J'-b u O u. Ob u U.U 18 . t~d .. I U .. --.' I. 15 U. #79.3 j 1.: U. Io1 b j. uj 7 U.4 U .91S .1)b Jj J...ii1 .143 Ij. jbW U.45 1 .- 11 J.u . :0 Q 10.gu t. Jl0i 4 tu 3 J.011 . J714 1. 1.5/ U.'~ I U.Si u .0 L-0 1v 1. bI U. U.i4 V.

Jj J...I / 1. #b . + I J.. .) U. ' .:l -j0 J. U. 9". Cilo I. . U11 1. . ~~~ . U.9 d.5 u....".1 J 11 .1 0. . .!i11 7'. The Average Quality Factor Obtained Using All the Matrices and the Ratio of the Qaulity Factor Obtained with Each Matrix to the Average Quality Factor 1 V. 2 t.-.. Ck.9k1 j. 91b 0 it5 U.. .. U:-.UJ U...)3 -4-..)Jj I.10 1o.jo44 J. k. /. C .-. . l. ou l. 12U 19 .oji. .Uu2 J. b ut) U..dbl1 .~ ..099 1111I .#Id u.bJ 1. db 4 ...d 42 ** * ~ ~ ~ . U.. . . J. l. " ' " • .Jl C. 0lit ..Ui 4j. . . 'Jbp I J~. 5 1u I.ug05j 1.-)u 31 i. .u 1. I. 0Iu 12 V. V. . :A. 9bU 1. 104 1 J.. .O V.Vud 1. :jqj 1. . b }II .4.U'd j. J4:. * . I. . 1.. . t. '. ". l. J U U.l 0 5 U.'.UI L.04%) 10 .) j~ .-.1 U. .40 1.ulu .. .-bJ 1.*v %.'. ". .U. JoJ U.21 19 . .b J. :d U.. IL tJ U.. UJz 1. . tjou 13 1 . l 0.u/l 15 6~ . . '.t)lu . Table 10e. o *1 U .. -4 4 "2 u 4 . 9v4 o b.t j U u.. . 0 lu 1.. I. V-1 " . 9b # I.:~~~ ~".-..35 1. '. ' .I.dbb .1d 1. .. SJ . c U.b411 V.II 59 . l. J I .).t U . -.u11 v. 1 1. J : U. it5 J .. ' . ~~~. . .j U.. 1.•)~1'V . 0. bj 1.Uzb . 0:)q U.. . . V o ...1..) 1. .J.. . 4'. . . ' . ..' - . ' .U..

J. . 11-4-. 0 Jj i..-. 1/ .2A4 . .151 . U. 1. 1. t i..J IL .. i Table lOf. 5o 0. V.4... o1 j. 9u.sI I.l.ov / oV u(3/. . j L...0i0 A t. . 34o i.!Ju0 u..0 I i~j 1.a I. . i94.f.)1 .u1. U.* I~ t uzb 1. !01 1 l. 43 . 60 .jJ ..l. Ji u..V4 t. .5zc1 i. it. . U.zo . 1lod V o.Z. .41J u. lua 1.i5 U. .0 4l .1 1.). 5 o) I.O4So U. * 1..' -. 5u) i.J. 4 6 1 l. . 1 i. ... V . 5bt iJ.111 o.4 u . o u. uuJ.1 U4 U ..u I... 5 1.U'... 1 The Average Navy TLD Badge Response Obtained Using All the Matrices and the Ratio of the Response Obtained Using Each Matrix to the Average Response i-~~~~~° C j'I .4 u. .a4 p 14 . JQ %.) .. I. l. I 5.) Q1. 1/ U..o .11 1...io .' 14 1 o.0"o U. i u1 ...o u. . b J.OdJ 1.5 . 70uu4 .u . IJ.uV%0 1 5 v %... o . t. lIu . 097 04 14 J u/ uu.. .5o ')ol 1..675J u.0J touoj . 0 0. .-. 114 V -. . u . U. I u 11 . . :6u J. O7VV[- 18 . 1. So u ..-. 00j .

uul 10 11. 0aj 1. . j4 V. . 1.bJi 12 .771 . .INu 1. o70 4 1.9Id b e. o 1. . 1 u .. .5ou u. U. 11.uLY u~dtu l. lou 17 6 . . 7 u t . 7 7 1 4. i U. The Average "Hankins" TLD Badge Response Obtained Using All the Matrices and the Ratio of the Response Obtained Using Each Matrix to the Average Response 5 kc4 RUNI h i LtIL !At3 . L At A /A LA Ak1L 1 '.4 I. . /4j j C)bO 5 1.ho I 1j u. l. .+ V.€o . 0u.u .5d.u-" u...5:) l.0o u u. . . dj 5 u. V. dj: 7 u. c .1 .o.b i I 1 .zi 1.1 iJ..u/ A. . 4b 1. ui d l l 1. .1lo6 U . oz l ljI i.@J i I. 113 J. eL b I. ... . J-' 2. Table lOg.j/ Ao .t. o . . odu 1. U.2oi l. .' J1 J -'z. .o.. ija l. .. 1... . l. . J. . . ':)d 4j/4 V.bI :u-.74 1. .o . J l.j 1. .%l 1 ..dO' i.!. . Ij.u u.751 I1. v ?J 5 .. J V.ud!> 1.7u4 : 13 1 1. 609 ti.. dIl u.lV5 V. t.J kLji u. I ' l u. Jo4 I.lI O I . u. uu u .I 1.1.1o7 u.11. 4+ 1.01V 0.V 16# U. .e1i u.61i .jal .. o".Jol I.b I I l. luu U. 2 1.d4u 1. 1.td o 4. ../4 u .44 '1 ..' " lb I6. Ilu U.51 u.= J. 1U 4 . . 1.. ._)I u. o. j ou .bu9 1.14U . .Ib.2.4 j-. . .1lid 1. . lib u.

i. ~ --------.995 L. . s U . .4 J.AL%.. 5. uu V.. I U.Olu U.i'lz1 1. Uj 1... 49U 1..PEC iiUA AV LJA A NdXD L J. mez %d..1 .7J4 U. U 5 to44 1. 1. 14i . 9 .111 I / 1. ].Jou J...uu 1.1 u. -# bJ.074--- 14 0. '- 11 U.L"Iu 1..014.4 /.11d lb U . u.P u... 45 1.483 I . 1. 1. I. U s .94 1 1 .J .( 1.. J95 1 .j l. 1. .UUl 1. The Average CR-39 Badge Response Obtained Using All the Matrices and the Ratio of the Response Obtained Using Each Matrix to the Average Response •mL.4. 1. I.'o 1U t.U . 1. 2 V. 9o.i -!% aZbt uV L a .U44 b 0. .}j.UjU tb J. j J*. U0b-)1 1.bb5 1. U 1..J 5 V .011 a U.6l41 1.7 .u4 5 U... . 4J U. i . UIA4 1 . JVl l. 956 1.4 1 1.tua t. I~a lI/ U. 1. O .)dJo u.-U i . kUj ..' .so V. 9to 15 u. U1 . ub1 1. uzc I ! l. Z o l.1 U. 1.oJ b II u.aP ..bJ9 U.Uo. 1 . .104 J.. .0.. (11 1. %Oj U. Pta-i Uit ...j4U 1.tj. JJ %U U.djj U. 446 1.. v.. I-4. o-d U. Ij 1.o4.ljU U.5JVu . OUU 1I. 1.11 . g9..1/14 l .. dt . 0 0 4. /V.uU. 6ij U.a can%.3.. JuO 1. .U/14 U . '. dj:s 1. J. u.lkt u. 1. 14. u.o 1."i . 010 4 k. dkj U. 1 .u U. u. 11 U. J50 1. Aa 'or ae t u UuI'. JV A..30 U. n4 I. . ~ ~ ~ ~ - 45 .1U J. j j .0 4 1.. 5uo 1 .. . 5 U. . U. Gb 1. l'7V U. jj U .0 u .. 1.. J-14 u.PU I.I .j.1zo/ 1. 8a J. J.J. Table 1Oh.j 1 P. 0i) d I. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .ii . . U 61iJ I.blu u. . . UU 9J J. U . .04U U. dud U.u~ .juU U. Lou LT.

J50 v. -4 1J i. . 10. bI . V.) J4 i Id U..80 j 1.u. 0..51j U. 0 . it) V. J t 1. 1tk. . J j .- Table 10i.Ju V.u u. U' / j. 4.jjI U.4 .1 1.'.v4t b J. 1.': 0 I I.'.44 l.:) 1.d45 l. UZ'I ij.J I 1. 1II 14 %.]- 46 . 5. . Ulu . oil I . do v.. V.V. V. i.5 1. J.j 0jja 1.u l. JuL 1.z 1. 4io 1 .uji A Iz1. zb j It V.' . ()t1o J1 1 1. I. 4 o.4 Z I.UJ4 .017 I 1. u.. V.to 1.. UJ4 u. 4 t.1 j . 6 jI 1 . U.141 J.4 1 ..! V.6 1 0 I. .dJ 1 1.). Ui.4 U .. U v. 1J U Iw I . I . JJ5 1. 9 d4 9U . 5j4 . JuP 2u ~~~~~~ ~ ~ oCt ~ . 504 Uj.Ji l. ./ l I I4V U. P P. .dj iia .. 9 01 1 u. 4 . jU U. uu lu U. . l . lut 0 .uil 1. U 1i 1 I. ~Jt U. 1u4 I. .ijujb I.L .*j i. l/ 0 U. . The Average NTA Film Badge Response Obtained Using All the Matrices and the Ratio of the Response Obtained Using Each Matrix to the Average Response hU I t Ei{ S AS 4 tU dt hue BdAR . 04 1.Q24 I) 1. .) 1.zju . l.uo v. Vb:P 5 v .#. I: I.4 I. CI. 0I.jjo/ I. U 5L .1u. I . jt.t u j. 1-' u .. luo U...I t) J..u O i.c .. l. t:)/ Vj. kI b.00l u..o . j4 j U.IU 1.611 U.154 Ob. lul u. 1 4j 1. 1.JJ4 1.jujJ I .014 1. l- J'. 4.j 3 4 d U.cJ z uV. 40U.oi 1.j/.9 jj 6 Pjo 1. il. 5 !1 4)0 . UJ. j j% 1. :1 %J 1. 4b 1. '. 1.

'i J4 1 .94 J.. .9d9 15 1./19 U. Ili 1.uzi I..J-o 1. ij. . *95..11J9 1 . uwJ u.1lu1 J. 14 u. V!.Ob51 1.90 I 1I. u1 i..i.09 12 1. The Average AN/PDR-70 Remeter Response Obtained Using All the Matrices and the Ratio of the Response Obtained Using Each Matrix to the Average Response N--U I. S.91 i ..o U.a i.. ul.9 : 1..ub.) u.6 i.j-.it_ .UJ46 J.--E-----. 1-I I. (Lto U. I u.U.991 I .bi V.. lo..J1o U.l-.Jo7 U.9 i . . 5 . t~j4j V. 973 11 1 1. 1. -j.. uju u.. 971 1. 1 u.-I5 U. )u .j.1l 1.00 5 .0 .ucju I. 9'. 9d9 I4 I. l. 47 47 ..(hui J o U.9:jl l. _ _ IA 1 u. 97 1 U. . Table lOj. t. to ..1I u. ud kiU 0. 1-. d. : 1. u .I .'4 1. dosI I.OUI i. u.j u. 4u .' 17 1 . U. Oa..j.)l 7 U. u%)1 i~g !.* 14 ut u. 95to 1. Y OI- .104 u. 2j l. oU4 41 . Z. 1. . 911" " 16 1. 1..l U. :09U lh 1 u-' V. 1.41 9 I. J'sj i V*4 J j b.0.U21 1. . 1s91 11 1 . 1.. J 0.o o U: IJ15 1 . N_4ha_______kI_. 9d4 V. U..I.. J6 .. . u Il u .. --. 144.i j I u . 934 le U.90b 1. . jo I . i 1. oul 1. t...l). .977 u.i.o6 . . 11to V.917 1.1 1.Jt) I uou %j.uo 9.. I| v. . u u u.. .. OU. I.Q. 9bj b 1.uj9 0.-. 05d I. 'J j.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii FILMED II 3-85 DT .3-8 . .