Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107944

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/anucene

An improvement to the Kalos’ formula for double layer gamma ray

exposure buildup factors for shielding materials of nuclear and
radiological facilities
Pew Basu a,b,⇑, R. Sarangapani a, B. Venkatraman a,b
a
Safety, Quality and Resource Management Group, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, Tamilnadu 603102, India
b
Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kalpakkam, Tamilnadu 603102, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Gamma ray exposure buildup factors (BUFs) are used in point kernel method based shielding codes to
Received 25 March 2020 estimate the scattered radiation dose rate. BUFs computed by assuming single material for multi-layer
Received in revised form 16 September shielding configuration either overestimate or underestimate the dose rates. Hence, BUFs computed
2020
based on stratified shielding configuration give better estimates of scattered dose rate and provide scope
Accepted 14 October 2020
for further optimization of shielding thickness. In nuclear and radiological facilities, shielding materials
such as concrete (Con), iron (Fe), lead (Pb), and tungsten (W) are normally used as single or multi-
layer shields. For the first time, buildup factors estimated based on Monte Carlo simulations (MCS) for
Keywords:
ASFIT code
double layer shielding configurations (DBUFs) of W and Fe, W and Con, Pb and Fe, Pb and Con, and Fe
BUF and Con are reported. The estimated DBUFs are compared with the values obtained using the empirical
DBUF formulae published by several authors. A significant variation up to 40% is observed between MCS and
Empirical formulae empirical formulae. Hence, the correction factor in the empirical formula of Kalos’ is modified and stan-
MCNP code dardized by carrying out further computations for various double layer shielding configurations and
Mean free path energies. Radiation shielding experiments performed to validate the MCS results are presented.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction report, ANS-1991 (ANSI/ANS-6.4.3-1991) provides standardized

Point kernel method based codes are widely used in gamma ray
shielding design. The contribution of scattered radiation dose rate
at the exit of the shielding medium is accounted by exposure
buildup factors (BUFs). Many investigators used various radiation
transport methods such as moments (Spencer and Fano, 1951;
Goldstein and Wilkins, 1954; Eisenhauer and Simmons, 1975;
Chilton et al., 1980), discrete ordinate (Trubey, 1983; Tanaka and
Takeuchi, 1981), invariant embedding (Shimizu et al., 2004;
Salehi et al., 2014), and Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) (Chilton,
1967; Chilton et al., 1980; Hirayama, 1995; Sardari et al., 2011;
Kiyani et al., 2013; Salehi et al., 2014; Atak et al., 2015) for the esti-
mation of the BUFs of shielding materials. In point kernel method
based shielding design codes, BUFs expressed as fitting functions
such as Taylor’s (Taylor, 1954), Berger’s (Chilton, 1965, 1979),
Capo’s (Capo, 1958), and Geometric Progression (GP) (Harima
and Nishiwaki, 1972) are used. American National Standards
⇑ Corresponding author at: Safety, Quality and Resource Management Group,
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, Tamilnadu 603102, India.
E-mail address: pewbasu@igcar.gov.in (P. Basu).
BUFs for 23 elements (Be, B, C, N, O, Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, S, Ar, K, Ca,
Fe, Cu, Mo, Sn, La, Gd, W, Pb, and U), water, air, and concrete
(Con) for 25 energies from 15 keV to 15 MeV and 16 optical thick-
nesses between 0.5 mfp and 40 mfp. The BUFs of Be-Cu, H2O, air,
and Con were estimated based on moments method in which the
interaction coefficients, attenuation coefficients, and energy depo-
sition coefficients are based on Hubbell’s data (Hubbell, 1969). The
BUFs of Mo-U were estimated using PALLAS code (Tanaka and
Takeuchi, 1981). The estimated BUFs were validated by performing
computations with ASFIT (Gopinath and Santhanam, 1971;
Subbaiah et al., 1982, 1989) and EGS4 (Nelson et al., 1985) codes
and interpolated using GP fitting function (Harima and
Nishiwaki, 1972). Although, ANS-1991 report is no longer main-
tained as American National Standard due to non-compliance with
procedure but the data is still widely used in shielding design and
analysis (Shultis and Faw, 2005, Overcamp, 2009, Mann et al.,
2016). The BUFs estimated by modern codes are in agreement with
ANS-1991 data (Sanders, 2010).
Despite the advancements, the BUFs computed by assuming a
single medium between source and receptor for stratified shields
may under or over estimate the dose rates (Lin and Jiang, 1996).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107944
0306-4549/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Basu, R. Sarangapani and B. Venkatraman
Transport computations were performed by several investigators
using deterministic methods or MCS or experiments to express
the BUFs for stratified shields as double layer exposure buildup fac-
tors (DBUFs) in the form of simple empirical formulae. ASFIT code
gives DBUFs for normal incidence of plane parallel beam with
stratified slab shielding configuration. For the computation of
DBUFs, other methods viz., an iterative procedure for point isotro-
pic source with spherical shielding configuration of Pb, Fe, Al, and
water (Suteau and Chiron, 2005) and support vector regression
technique for Pb, Fe, Con, and water (Trontl et al., 2007) are
reported. The empirical formulae for the estimation of DBUFs for
plane mono directional source with stratified slab shielding config-
urations are reported for combinations of Pb and water (Kalos’,
1956; Bowman and Trubey, 1958), polyethylene, Al, Fe, and Pb
(Broder et al., 1962), Al and Pb (Burke and Beck, 1974), Pb, Fe,
and water (Harima, 1983). Similarly, formulae are reported for
point isotropic source with stratified spherical shielding of Pb, Fe,
and water (Lin and Jiang, 1996) and slab shielding of Pb and C
(Miyasaka and Tsuruo, 1966). Many other investigators also stud-
ied DBUFs for different gamma energies and shielding materials
using MCSs and empirical formulae (Chakarova, 1992; Bakos,
1994, 1995; Bakos and Tsagas, 1994; Shin and Hirayma, 1998;
Guvendik and Tsoulfanidis, 2000; Al saadi, 2012; Aldhuhaibat
et al., 2015; Alkhatib et al., 2016; Mann et al., 2016).
In nuclear and radiological facilities, shielding materials viz.,
Con, Fe, Pb, and W are widely used. Con is used as the basic con-
struction structure of hot cells and bulk biological shielding. Fe is
normally used as shielding material for doors and as complemen-
tary shielding. Pb is used as shielding material for hot cells and
radiation detectors. W found its way as a substitute of Pb because
of its attractive features such as high melting point, high thermal
conductivity, low erosion rate, low swelling, and favorable
mechanical properties than Pb and does not possesses the chemi-
cal toxicity associated with Pb (Demir et al., 2017; Basu et al.,
2019). Complementary shielding for duct penetration and radia-
tion shielding windows in hot cells is provided with Pb or Fe.
Therefore, double layer shielding such as Pb + Con or Fe + Con or
reverse configurations is found in radiation facilities. In transport
cask design, shielding configurations of Pb + Fe or W + Fe are highly
popular. The DBUFs estimated using the published empirical for-
mulations for the shielding material configurations of nuclear facil-
ities is likely to over/under estimate the scattered dose rate due to
the change in the source-shield geometry and selection of materi-
als. Hence, in the present work, MCSs are performed using MCNP-
4A code (MCNP, 1997) to compute the DBUFs for double layer con-
figurations of W, Pb, Fe, and Con. A modification in the correction
factors of the Kalos’ formula (KF) is proposed since the estimated
DBUFs observe to vary significantly compared to the values
obtained using empirical formulae. The standardization of the
modified formula by performing further MCSs for a wide range of
gamma energies and several double layer shielding configurations
and radiation shielding experiments carried out to validate the
MCS results are presented.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Monte Carlo simulations (MCSs)
In MCS of radiation transport, tracking of a particle from emis-
sion to final absorption is termed as history. To simulate a history,
appropriate set of differential cross sections (DCSs) for the interac-
tion mechanisms are required. The DCSs determine the probability
density functions (PDFs) of the random variables that characterize
free path between successive interaction events, type of interac-
tion taking place, energy loss, angular deflection in a particular
2
Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107944
event, and initial state of emitted secondary particles, if any. Ran-
dom histories are generated by appropriate sampling methods
developed for these PDFs. A simple mean of the simulated histories
can provide the required information for a given experimental
arrangement. The Monte Carlo method yields the same informa-
tion as the solution of the Boltzmann transport equation, with
the same interaction model, but it is easier to implement. However,
the results are affected by statistical uncertainties, which can be
reduced by increasing the sampled population and implementing
variance reduction techniques. In gamma ray transport, the inter-
actions such as pair production, incoherent and coherent scatter-
ings, photoelectric absorption with fluorescent emission are
considered. In the present work, MCSs are carried out using
MCNP-4A code (MCNP, 1997). It is a general purpose code for solv-
ing radiation transport of neutrons, photons, electrons, and cou-
pled neutron-photon, and electron-photon in a given medium.
The code treats an arbitrary three dimensional configuration of
materials in the geometry in the form of cells bounded by first, sec-
ond degree surfaces, and some special fourth degree surfaces. Cells
are defined as union and intersection of surfaces and as comple-
ments of already existing cells. The code has a very powerful
source card for defining the characteristics of the radiation source.
Point wise radiation interaction cross-section data for the materi-
als are used from the library of the code.
In the simulations, parameters such as position, energy, and
particle type are assigned in the source definition (SDEF) card.
The other default parameters are particle weight (=1), time (=0),
and direction (isotropic). Only photon transport mode is invoked
in the simulation. Therefore, the detailed electron transport phy-
sics is ignored and thick-target bremsstrahlung (TTB) approxima-
tion is assumed in the simulation. In the TTB approximation, the
electrons travel in the direction of the incident photon and are
immediately annihilated. Hence, any bremsstrahlung photons pro-
duced by the non transported electrons are banked for later trans-
port. Point detector tally is used for the computation of uncollided
and scattered dose rates and the tally satisfied all the mandatory
statistical tests with a maximum relative error of 3%. In modeling
the shield, geometry splitting technique is used as the variance
reduction technique. The shielding thickness of the medium is
sliced into number of smaller slabs of thickness 1 mfp. The incor-
poration of geometry splitting technique increases the population
of particles in the favorable regions with appropriate weights to
provide better sampling and thereby reduces the variance. In the
present work, the number of particle histories (NPS) generated var-
ies from 1.0E+06 to 5.0E+08. The BUFMCS is deduced from the
results of MCSs using the following relationship.
R
RðEÞ/S ðr; EÞdE
BUFMCS ¼ 1 þ ð1Þ
RðE0 Þ/0 ðr; E0 Þ
where R(E0) and R(E) are the energy dependant flux to dose rate
conversion factors at energy E0 and E respectively, /0(r, E0) is the
uncollided fluence rate at ‘r’ for source energy E0, and /s (r, E) is
the scattered fluence rate at ‘r’ per unit energy interval at ‘E’. R(E)
values are taken from ANSI/ANS6.1.1, 1977.
The geometry modeled is a point isotropic source and slab
shield. The computations are performed for reference gamma
energy of 1 MeV with W, Pb, Fe, and Con as single and combination
of double layers. For single layer configuration, the length and
breadth of the slab is assumed as 20 cm and the thickness of the
slab is varied from 1 mfp to 8 mfp. For double layer configuration,
the length and breadth of each slab is assumed as 20 cm and the
thickness of the first slab which is near the source is assumed as
4 mfp and the thickness of the second slab which is near the recep-
tor is varied from 1 mfp to 4 mfp. Thus, the combined thickness of
the double layer configuration varies from 5 mfp to 8 mfp. The
P. Basu, R. Sarangapani and B. Venkatraman
schematic source-shield configuration assumed for the estimation
of BUFs and DBUFs is shown in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively. Both the
source and detector are collimated by Pb shield to avoid scattered
gammas from surrounding media reaching the detector.
2.2. Shielding experiments for the validation of MCS based BUFs
A hollow acrylic tube of diameter 4 cm and height 30 cm is posi-
tioned along the axis of a PVC container of diameter 28 cm and
height 30 cm. The space between the acrylic tube and container
is filled with water. A standard Amersham make sealed 137Cs
source of strength 13.17 ± 0.40 MBq is kept at the middle of the
tube. The dimension of the standard source is 3 mm
(diameter)  15 mm (height). The schematic of the experimental
arrangement is shown in Fig. 3. The gamma dose rate on the outer
surface of the container is measured using Automess-GmbH make
Teletector (6150AD-t). The detector is a portable, battery operated
device to measure gamma and X ray dose rates. A built-in Geiger
Muller (GM) counting tube serves as the detector. The energy
response of the instrument is 45 keV to 3 MeV. The maximum
energy dependence of the instrument is 30% compared to
662 keV gammas emitted by 137Cs. The range of dose rate and its
linearity is 0.1 lSv/h to 10 Sv/h and ±10% respectively. The sensi-
tivity of the instrument measured with a 137Cs source is
580 pulses/lSv. To compute the BUF, dose rates are measured on
the outer surface of the container and along the mid plane of the
source with air and water filled conditions. The estimated BUFexpt.
of water is deduced using Eq. (2).
DðxÞ
BUFexpt: ¼
D0 expðlxÞ
where, D(x) is the measured total dose rate with water medium
(mSv/h), D0 is the measured dose rate with air medium (mSv/h), m
is the total attenuation coefficient (cm1) at 0.662 MeV, and x is
the thickness of water medium (cm). The experimental geometry
is modeled using MCS for computing the BUF. The number of parti-
cle histories (NPS) scored is 1.0E+05 and the result satisfied all the
mandatory statistical tests with a maximum relative error of 1%.
Fig. 1. Schematic geometry of the single layer computational shield model.
Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107944
2.3. Shielding experiment for the validation of MCS based DBUFs
Double layer shielding configuration is made by sandwiching Pb
square slab of length 30 cm and thickness 2.5 cm and Fe square
slab of length 30 cm and thickness 1.25 cm. A standard 60Co source
of strength 163.91 ± 9.83 MBq collimated by a Pb enclosure is used.
The source to detector distance is fixed at 1 m. The gamma dose
rate on the outer surface of the slab is measured using
Automess-GmbH make Teletector (6150AD-t). The schematic of
the experimental arrangement is shown in Fig. 4. The gamma dose
rates are measured for four configurations of Pb and Fe slabs. The
estimated DBUFexpt. is deduced using Eq. (3).
DðxÞ
DBUFexpt: ¼    ð3Þ
D0 exp½ l11 þ l12 x1 þ ðl21 þ l22 Þx2 
where, D(x) is the measured total dose rate with double layer
shielding configuration (mSv/h), D0 is the measured dose rate with
air medium at the same location (mSv/h), m11 and m12 are the total
attenuation coefficient (cm1) of the first medium for gamma ener-
gies 1.17 MeV and 1.33 MeV respectively, x1 is the thickness of the
first medium (cm), m21 and m22 are total attenuation coefficient
(cm1) of the second medium for gamma energies 1.17 MeV and
1.33 MeV respectively, and x2 is the thickness of the second med-
ium (cm). The experimental geometry is modeled using MCS for
computing the DBUFs. The number of particle histories (NPS) scored
is 3.0E+07 and the result satisfied all the mandatory statistical tests
with a maximum relative error of 4%.
ð2Þ
2.4. Empirical formulae for DBUFs
The empirical formulae used for the estimation of DBUFs are
given below. For calculating the DBUFs using the empirical formu-
lae, the single medium BUFs of ANS–1991 data base is used. The
values of various parameters such as a, b, and c for gamma energy
of 1 MeV are computed using XCom software (Hubbel and Berger,
1987).
3
P. Basu, R. Sarangapani and B. Venkatraman Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107944

Fig. 2. Schematic geometry of the double layer computational shield model.

Fig. 3. Schematic of the experimental arrangement for the estimation of BUF.

Fig. 4. Schematic of the experimental arrangement for the estimation of DBUFs.

2.4.1. Kalos’ formula (Kalos’, 1956)

Kalos’ (1956) proposed an empirical formula based on Monte
Carlo calculations for Pb slab of 3 mfp preceded and succeeded
by up to 3 mfp of water slab, for evaluating DBUFs for a plane–nor-
mal source.
Bðx1 ; x2 Þ ¼ B2 ðx2 Þ þ ½B2 ðx1 þ x2 Þ  B2 ðx2 Þ ½K ðx1 Þ C ðx2 Þ
B(x1, x2) = DBUF with thickness of first medium as x1 mfp and
second medium as x2 mfp.
Bi(xi) = BUF of the ith layer with thickness of xi mfp.
x1 + x2 = total mfp thickness of both first and second medium.
ð4Þ C(x2) = correction factor.

For Pb followed by water

B1 ðx1 Þ  1
K ð x1 Þ ¼ ð5Þ C ðx2 Þ ¼ 1 ð6Þ
B2 ðx1 Þ  1
For water followed by Pb
i.e. the ratio of the scattered component transmitted through x1 mfp
C ðx2 Þ ¼ exp ð1:7x2 Þ þ ða=K Þ ½1  exp ðx2 Þ ð7Þ
of the first medium relative to that of the second medium,
4
P. Basu, R. Sarangapani and B. Venkatraman
ðlc =lt Þ1
a¼
ðlc =lt Þ2
i.e. the ratio of Compton scattering cross section to total attenuation
cross section in the first and second medium respectively.
2.4.2. Bowman–Trubey formula (Bowman and Trubey, 1958)
Bowman and Trubey (1958) proposed an empirical formula for
evaluating the DBUFs based on Monte Carlo transport calculations
of gamma rays through stratified slab shielding configuration of Pb
and water. The source is assumed to be a mono directional beam of
energies 1, 3, 6, and 10 MeV and the slab thickness vary from 1 to 6
mfps.
Bðx1 ; x2 Þ ¼ B1 ðx1 Þ B2 ðx2 Þ exp ðx2 Þ
þ B2 ðx1 þ x2 Þ ½1  exp ðx2 Þ
2.4.3. Broder formula (Broder et al., 1962)
Broder et al. (1962) proposed a formula for evaluating DBUFs
based on shielding experiments with heterogeneous media con-
sisting of different combinations of polyethylene, Al, Fe, and Pb
for source mean energy of 1.25 MeV.
Bðx1 ; x2 Þ ¼ B2 ðx1 þ x2 Þ þ B1 ðx1 Þ  B2 ðx1 Þ
2.4.4. Burke–Beck correction factors for Kalos’ formula (Burke and
Beck, 1974)
Burke and Beck (1974) proposed new correction factors to the
KF based on experimental measurements with Al–Pb slabs,
For Zhigh + Zlow configuration
C ðx2 Þ ¼ exp ðx2 =cÞ þ 1:5 ½1  exp ðx2 Þ
For Zlow + Zhigh configuration
C ðx2 Þ ¼ exp ðcx2 Þ þ ða=K Þ ½1  exp ðx2 Þ
ðlc =qÞ1
c¼
ðlc =qÞ2
i.e. the ratio of the mass Compton scattering cross section of first
medium to that of second medium.
2.4.5. Harima formula (Harima, 1983)
By fitting the Shimizu’s data of DBUFs using invariant embed-
ding method (Shimizu, 1967), Harima (1983) proposed a formula
for the estimation of DBUFs for plane parallel beam with slab
shielding configuration of water, Fe, and Pb.
Bðx1 ; x2 Þ ¼ B2 ðx2 Þ þ ½B1 ðx1 Þ  1 Bs ðx2 Þ
 p
a
B s ð x2 Þ ¼ þ cðx2  xs Þ
a þ xb2
where a, b, c, p, and xs are the fitting parameters.
2.4.6. Lin–Jiang correction factors for Kalos’ formula (Lin and Jiang,
1996)
Lin and Jiang (1996) proposed a modification in the correction
factors of KF based on the estimation of DBUFs using EGS4 code
(Nelson et al., 1985) for point isotropic source with stratified
spherical shield geometry of Pb, Fe, and water,
For Zhigh + Zlow configurations
C ðx2 Þ ¼ exp ð1:08bx2 Þ þ 1:13blðx2 Þ
For Zlow + Zhigh configurations
C ðx2 Þ ¼ 0:8lðx2 Þ þ ðc=K Þ exp ðx2 Þ
Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107944
ðlt =qÞ2
ð8Þ b¼ ð18Þ
ðlt =qÞ1
i.e. the ratio of the total mass attenuation cross section of second
medium to that of first medium.
B 2 ð x2 Þ þ 1
lðx2 Þ ¼ ½1  exp ðx2 Þ ð19Þ
B 1 ð x2 Þ þ 1
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Analysis of BUFs and DBUFs using MCNP and ASFIT codes
The single medium BUFs computed using MCS for Pb, W, Fe, and
Con of thickness ranging from 1 mfp to 8 mfp for gamma energy of
ð9Þ
1 MeV are shown in Fig. 5. The BUFs for Pb is found to agree within
2% compared to the values reported by Hirayama (1995), Lin and
Jiang (1996), Chibani (2001), and Shimizu et al. (2004). The BUFs
for Fe is found to agree within 3% compared to the values reported
by Hirayama (1995), Chibani (2001), and Shimizu et al. (2004), and
within 11% compared to the values reported by Lin and Jiang
(1996). The BUFs for Con is found to agree within 3% compared
to the values reported by Chilton (1967), Chibani (2001), Shimizu
ð10Þ
et al. (2004), and Kiyani et al. (2013).
Figs. 6 and 7 shows the BUFs and DBUFs for W, Pb, Fe, Con and
their double layer configurations obtained using MCNP and ASFIT
codes respectively. For computing the BUFs and DBUFs using ASFIT
code, the mesh widths in space coordinates selected are 0.5 mfp
and 1 mfp respectively. The option for choosing W as the shielding
material was not available in the original ASFIT code. Hence, a
modification in the photon cross section file has been made in
ð11Þ
the code to include W as one of the shielding material. The DBUFs
are found to increase with thickness of the shield but lies within
ð12Þ the bounds of BUFs of the constituent medium. The analysis of
BUFs is presented for single layer of thickness 8 mfp and double
layer configuration of 4 mfp of each medium. The BUFs computed
ð13Þ using MCS for Fe is higher than the DBUF obtained with W + Fe and
Pb + Fe by a factor of 1.32 and 1.41 respectively. Similarly, the BUF
computed using MCS for Con is higher than the DBUF obtained
with W + Con, Pb + Con, and Fe + Con by a factor of 1.36, 1.44,
and 1.04 respectively. The DBUFs computed using MCS for
Fe + W and Fe + Pb is lower compared to the reverse configurations
ð14Þ
ð15Þ
ð16Þ
Fig. 5. Estimated BUFs using MCNP code for point isotropic gamma source of
ð17Þ energy 1 MeV and slab shield of Pb, W, Fe, and Con.
5
P. Basu, R. Sarangapani and B. Venkatraman Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107944

Fig. 6. Estimated BUFs and DBUFs using MCNP code for point isotropic gamma source of energy 1 MeV and slab shielding configuration.

i.e., W + Fe and Pb + Fe by a factor of 1.71 and 1.89 respectively. and Con + Fe is lower compared to the reverse configurations by
Similarly, the DBUFs computed using MCS for Con + W, Con + Pb, a factor of 1.67, 1.88, and 1.06 respectively. The BUF computed

6
P. Basu, R. Sarangapani and B. Venkatraman Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107944

Fig. 7. Estimated BUFs and DBUFs using ASFIT code for point isotropic gamma source of energy 1 MeV and slab shielding configuration.

using MCS for Pb is lower compared to DBUF for Fe + Pb by only 8%. alone is found to provide equivalent shielding for the materials
Hence, double layer configuration of Zlow + Zhigh instead of Zhigh investigated. The behavior of BUF curves generated by MCNP and

7
P. Basu, R. Sarangapani and B. Venkatraman Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107944

Fig. 8. Estimated BUFs and DBUFs using MCNP code for point isotropic gamma source of energy 1 MeV and slab shielding configuration (single medium – 8 mfp, double layer
– each medium 4 mfp).

ASFIT codes is observed to follow a similar trend. The ratio of BUFs interchanged viz., Fe + W, the ratio based on MCNP and ASFIT codes
for Fe and DBUFs for W + Fe computed by MCNP and ASFIT codes is is 1.71 and 1.88 respectively. The variations in the DBUFs com-
1.32 and 1.22 respectively. When the double layer shields are puted by MCNP and ASFIT codes is due to the geometry of source

Table 1
Estimated BUF and DBUFs from experiment, MCNP and ASFIT codes.

Shield Thickness (cm) Dose rate (lSv/h) BUF/ DBUF

Total (measured) Uncollided (calculated) MCNP (M) ASFIT (A) Experiment (E) Ratio
M/A M/E
Water 12.0 33.00 16.84 1.97 ± 0.02 1.98 1.96 0.99 1.01
Pb + Fe 2.5 + 2.5 5.50 2.23 2.49 ± 0.08 2.45 2.47 1.02 1.01
Pb + Fe 2.5 + 5.0 3.00 0.78 3.77 ± 0.15 3.73 3.85 1.01 0.98
Fe + Pb 2.5 + 2.5 5.00 2.23 2.11 ± 0.07 1.98 2.24 1.07 0.94
Fe + Pb 2.5 + 5.0 1.30 0.43 2.59 ± 0.11 2.38 3.02 1.09 0.86

8
P. Basu, R. Sarangapani and B. Venkatraman Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107944

Table 2
Estimated DBUFs for point isotropic gamma source of energy 1 MeV with slab shield (Zhigh + Zlow) configuration.

Media MCNP Modified Kalos’ ASFIT Kalos’, Bowman and Trubey, Broder et al., Burke and Beck, Harima, Lin and Jiang,
Formula 1956 1958 1962 1974 1983 1996
(present work)

2 W + 1Fea 2.63 2.63 2.93 2.80 3.71 2.89 3.05 2.95 2.94
2 W + 2Fe 3.54 3.62 3.88 3.94 5.25 4.19 4.36 4.16 4.35
2 W + 3Fe 4.77 4.59 4.86 5.21 6.75 5.63 5.77 5.50 6.01
2 W + 4Fe 5.86 5.79 5.88 6.63 8.33 7.20 7.28 6.98 7.89
2 W + 5Fe 7.10 7.04 6.94 8.18 10.01 8.89 8.90 8.58 9.96
2 W + 6Fe 8.45 8.43 7.95 9.86 11.81 10.69 10.63 10.32 12.18
3 W + 1Fe 3.09 3.18 3.37 3.20 4.73 3.33 3.55 3.42 3.39
3 W + 2Fe 4.27 4.19 4.40 4.37 6.61 4.77 4.97 4.72 4.95
3 W + 3Fe 5.37 5.35 5.45 5.68 8.30 6.34 6.45 6.14 6.79
3 W + 4Fe 6.59 6.62 6.52 7.13 10.01 8.03 8.02 7.69 8.86
3 W + 5Fe 7.84 7.92 7.54 8.71 11.81 9.83 9.69 9.37 11.14
4 W + 1Fe 3.62 3.62 3.79 3.54 5.82 3.73 3.99 3.85 3.78
4 W + 2Fe 4.76 4.81 4.89 4.74 8.07 5.30 5.49 5.23 5.47
4 W + 3Fe 6.09 6.03 6.00 6.08 9.96 6.99 7.03 6.73 7.45
4 W + 4Fe 7.60 7.34 7.05 7.55 11.81 8.79 8.64 8.35 9.68
2 W + 1Conb 2.65 2.78 3.21 2.98 4.25 3.22 3.22 3.16 3.19
2 W + 2Con 3.70 3.83 4.42 4.40 6.31 4.92 4.85 4.70 5.08
2 W + 3Con 4.87 4.98 5.71 6.04 8.32 6.83 6.63 6.45 7.36
2 W + 4Con 6.20 6.04 7.07 7.88 10.41 8.90 8.58 8.40 9.96
2 W + 5Con 7.47 7.31 8.50 9.93 12.71 11.20 10.72 10.55 12.90
2 W + 6Con 8.57 8.41 9.75 12.16 15.21 13.70 13.03 12.85 16.13
3 W + 1Con 3.10 3.23 3.70 3.38 5.54 3.73 3.70 3.66 3.66
3 W + 2Con 4.35 4.41 5.04 4.84 8.09 5.64 5.45 5.33 5.77
3 W + 3Con 5.44 5.50 6.42 6.51 10.36 7.71 7.31 7.18 8.29
3 W + 4Con 6.91 6.73 7.86 8.40 12.71 10.01 9.34 9.24 11.22
3 W + 5Con 8.45 7.89 9.14 10.49 15.21 12.51 11.55 11.50 14.51
4 W + 1Con 3.56 3.78 4.16 3.73 6.93 4.20 4.13 4.12 4.08
4 W + 2Con 4.83 4.93 5.61 5.21 10.00 6.27 5.95 5.90 6.36
4 W + 3Con 6.36 6.20 7.08 6.91 12.61 8.57 7.90 7.86 9.10
4 W + 4Con 7.51 7.33 8.39 8.83 15.19 11.07 9.99 10.01 12.28
2Pb + 1Fec 2.53 2.51 2.78 2.64 3.67 2.83 2.60 2.78 2.74
2Pb + 2Fe 3.40 3.48 3.72 3.75 5.23 4.13 4.02 3.96 4.06
2Pb + 3Fe 4.74 4.43 4.70 5.01 6.74 5.57 5.44 5.27 5.61
2Pb + 4Fe 5.47 5.61 5.71 6.41 8.32 7.14 6.93 6.72 7.37
2Pb + 5Fe 6.61 6.83 6.76 7.94 10.01 8.83 8.53 8.30 9.31
2Pb + 6Fe 8.40 8.21 7.84 9.59 11.81 10.63 10.23 10.00 11.42
3Pb + 1Fe 2.96 3.01 3.14 2.94 4.68 3.25 2.89 2.78 3.08
3Pb + 2Fe 3.92 4.01 4.15 4.08 6.58 4.69 4.45 4.53 4.51
3Pb + 3Fe 5.00 5.14 5.18 5.36 8.28 6.26 5.95 5.92 6.19
3Pb + 4Fe 6.09 6.38 6.25 6.79 10.01 7.95 7.49 7.45 8.09
3Pb + 5Fe 7.42 7.65 7.33 8.34 11.81 9.75 9.13 9.10 10.18
4Pb + 1Fe 3.29 3.34 3.47 3.20 5.75 3.63 3.13 3.74 3.37
4Pb + 2Fe 4.56 4.49 4.55 4.36 8.03 5.20 4.81 5.10 4.88
4Pb + 3Fe 5.58 5.65 5.63 5.66 9.94 6.89 6.37 6.57 6.66
4Pb + 4Fe 7.25 6.92 6.73 7.10 11.80 8.69 7.95 8.17 8.67
2Pb + 1Cond 2.56 2.65 3.03 2.81 4.21 3.16 2.77 2.97 2.96
2Pb + 2Con 3.56 3.68 4.23 4.21 6.29 4.86 4.49 4.47 4.72
2Pb + 3Con 4.73 4.81 5.50 5.82 8.31 6.77 6.28 6.18 6.83
2Pb + 4Con 6.02 5.87 6.85 7.63 10.41 8.84 8.20 8.09 9.25
2Pb + 5Con 7.18 7.12 8.28 9.66 12.71 11.14 10.31 10.20 11.98
2Pb + 6Con 8.06 8.22 9.71 11.86 15.21 13.64 12.58 12.47 15.00
3Pb + 1Con 2.90 3.07 3.43 3.11 5.48 3.65 3.06 2.97 3.32
3Pb + 2Con 3.98 4.22 4.73 4.54 8.06 5.56 4.93 5.11 5.23
3Pb + 3Con 5.17 5.30 6.09 6.17 10.34 7.63 6.79 6.93 7.51
3Pb + 4Con 6.11 6.51 7.52 8.02 12.70 9.93 8.78 8.95 10.17
3Pb + 5Con 8.09 7.67 8.96 10.08 15.21 12.43 10.94 11.17 13.16
4Pb + 1Con 3.30 3.48 3.80 3.37 6.86 4.10 3.30 3.99 3.63
4Pb + 2Con 4.49 4.60 5.19 4.81 9.95 6.17 5.28 5.74 5.65
4Pb + 3Con 6.03 5.83 6.63 6.47 12.58 8.47 7.22 7.68 8.09
4Pb + 4Con 7.31 6.95 8.08 8.35 15.18 10.97 9.26 9.81 10.93
2Fe + 1Cone 3.40 3.51 4.01 4.24 5.06 4.33 4.90 3.78 4.50
2Fe + 2Con 4.41 4.61 5.24 5.87 6.80 6.03 6.95 5.25 6.51
2Fe + 3Con 5.59 5.83 6.55 7.70 8.59 7.94 9.09 6.94 8.71
2Fe + 4Con 7.07 6.89 7.94 9.71 10.54 10.01 11.30 8.84 11.02
2Fe + 5Con 8.51 8.21 9.41 11.94 12.77 12.31 13.72 10.95 13.54
2Fe + 6Con 9.31 9.35 10.87 14.36 15.24 14.81 16.34 13.21 16.23
3Fe + 1Con 4.45 4.41 5.10 5.56 6.97 5.70 6.60 4.91 5.96
3Fe + 2Con 5.66 5.69 6.45 7.34 8.96 7.61 9.04 6.52 8.35
3Fe + 3Con 7.02 6.80 7.86 9.30 10.82 9.68 11.43 8.34 10.86
3Fe + 4Con 8.38 8.14 9.34 11.48 12.94 11.98 13.95 10.37 13.51
3Fe + 5Con 9.86 9.28 10.81 13.87 15.32 14.48 16.61 12.60 16.33
4Fe + 1Con 5.61 5.65 6.26 7.02 9.13 7.21 8.47 6.22 7.58
4Fe + 2Con 6.92 6.88 7.73 8.92 11.32 9.28 11.27 7.98 10.32
4Fe + 3Con 8.27 8.29 9.24 11.05 13.31 11.58 13.99 9.95 13.20
4Fe + 4Con 9.73 9.47 10.72 13.39 15.54 14.08 16.77 12.13 16.18
a
2 W + 1Fe– 2 mfp tungsten followed by 1 mfp iron
b
2 W + 1Con – 2 mfp tungsten followed by 1 mfp concrete
c
2Pb + 1Fe – 2 mfp lead followed by 1 mfp iron
d
2Pb + 1Con – 2 mfp lead followed by 1 mfp concrete
e
2Fe + 1Con – 2 mfp iron followed by 1 mfp concrete

9
P. Basu, R. Sarangapani and B. Venkatraman Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107944

Table 3
Estimated DBUFs for point isotropic gamma source of energy 1 MeV with slab shield (Zlow + Zhigh) configuration.

Media MCNP Modified Kalos’ Formula ASFIT Kalos’, Bowman and Broder et al., Burke and Beck, Harima, Lin and Jiang,
(present work) 1956 Trubey, 1958 1962 1974 1983 1996
2Fe + 1Wa 2.44 2.39 2.37 2.33 2.76 3.14 2.55 2.42 2.47
2Fe + 2 W 2.73 2.72 2.58 2.62 2.65 3.40 2.71 2.59 2.69
2Fe + 3 W 3.03 3.11 2.82 2.96 2.70 3.65 2.99 2.79 2.90
2Fe + 4 W 3.51 3.52 3.05 3.30 2.87 3.91 3.31 2.99 3.13
2Fe + 5 W 4.08 4.04 3.27 3.61 3.07 4.15 3.62 3.19 3.37
2Fe + 6 W 4.39 4.52 3.50 3.92 3.28 4.38 3.93 3.42 3.63
3Fe + 1 W 3.13 2.95 2.85 2.78 3.52 4.26 3.13 3.05 3.05
3Fe + 2 W 3.42 3.20 3.00 3.00 3.14 4.51 3.17 3.12 3.26
3Fe + 3 W 3.80 3.58 3.20 3.36 3.06 4.77 3.42 3.27 3.41
3Fe + 4 W 4.06 4.10 3.40 3.69 3.15 5.01 3.71 3.42 3.57
3Fe + 5 W 4.71 4.58 3.61 4.01 3.32 5.24 4.02 3.60 3.76
4Fe + 1 W 3.70 3.55 3.36 3.27 4.35 5.55 3.79 3.76 3.74
4Fe + 2 W 3.78 3.71 3.43 3.40 3.67 5.81 3.64 3.72 3.94
4Fe + 3 W 4.17 4.17 3.58 3.74 3.42 6.05 3.83 3.80 4.01
4Fe + 4 W 4.44 4.64 3.76 4.08 3.43 6.28 4.11 3.92 4.10
2Con + 1Wb 2.50 2.42 2.39 2.40 2.96 3.53 2.61 2.46 2.60
2Con + 2 W 2.76 2.76 2.60 2.63 2.74 3.79 2.72 2.62 2.78
2Con + 3 W 3.13 3.16 2.83 2.97 2.74 4.04 3.00 2.82 2.95
2Con + 4 W 3.55 3.58 3.07 3.31 2.88 4.30 3.32 3.01 3.15
2Con + 5 W 3.90 4.11 3.29 3.62 3.07 4.54 3.63 3.22 3.37
2Con + 6 W 4.30 4.60 3.51 3.93 3.28 4.77 3.93 3.44 3.62
3Con + 1 W 3.07 3.03 2.90 2.91 3.90 4.98 3.26 3.16 3.31
3Con + 2 W 3.26 3.27 3.04 3.04 3.31 5.23 3.19 3.21 3.44
3Con + 3 W 3.87 3.66 3.23 3.37 3.14 5.49 3.43 3.34 3.52
3Con + 4 W 4.18 4.19 3.43 3.70 3.18 5.73 3.72 3.49 3.63
3Con + 5 W 4.44 4.69 3.63 4.02 3.33 5.96 4.03 3.66 3.79
4Con + 1 W 3.79 3.62 3.44 3.47 4.94 6.67 3.99 3.96 4.13
4Con + 2 W 4.06 3.79 3.49 3.45 3.93 6.93 3.68 3.88 4.23
4Con + 3 W 4.38 4.28 3.63 3.76 3.54 7.17 3.84 3.94 4.20
4Con + 4 W 4.49 4.77 3.80 4.10 3.48 7.40 4.13 4.04 4.21
2Fe + 1Pbc 2.28 2.25 2.21 2.17 2.67 3.10 2.36 2.39 2.63
2Fe + 2Pb 2.51 2.44 2.34 2.35 2.54 3.34 2.43 2.53 2.87
2Fe + 3Pb 2.75 2.74 2.50 2.60 2.58 3.58 2.63 2.71 3.05
2Fe + 4Pb 2.99 3.10 2.66 2.84 2.72 3.81 2.85 2.89 3.23
2Fe + 5Pb 3.21 3.42 2.82 3.07 2.92 4.04 3.07 3.08 3.41
2Fe + 6Pb 3.41 3.59 2.97 3.28 3.11 4.25 3.28 3.28 3.59
3Fe + 1Pb 2.78 2.67 2.64 2.57 3.43 4.27 2.88 3.02 3.34
3Fe + 2Pb 2.98 2.82 2.71 2.67 3.02 4.51 2.81 3.06 3.58
3Fe + 3Pb 3.19 3.14 2.82 2.91 2.92 4.74 2.96 3.19 3.69
3Fe + 4Pb 3.41 3.45 2.95 3.16 3.00 4.97 3.17 3.32 3.79
3Fe + 5Pb 3.58 3.62 3.09 3.36 3.15 5.18 3.37 3.49 3.91
4Fe + 1Pb 3.35 3.21 3.10 3.00 4.23 5.54 3.47 3.73 4.19
4Fe + 2Pb 3.49 3.27 3.08 2.99 3.51 5.77 3.20 3.66 4.44
4Fe + 3Pb 3.70 3.50 3.15 3.22 3.26 6.00 3.30 3.72 4.45
4Fe + 4Pb 3.83 3.66 3.25 3.45 3.26 6.21 3.47 3.82 4.47
2Con + 1Pbd 2.34 2.28 2.23 2.23 2.88 3.51 2.42 2.43 2.80
2Con + 2Pb 2.57 2.49 2.36 2.36 2.63 3.75 2.44 2.56 2.99
2Con + 3Pb 2.79 2.80 2.52 2.61 2.62 3.99 2.63 2.74 3.12
2Con + 4Pb 3.00 3.18 2.68 2.85 2.74 4.22 2.85 2.91 3.26
2Con + 5Pb 3.23 3.49 2.83 3.08 2.92 4.45 3.08 3.11 3.41
2Con + 6Pb 3.41 3.65 2.99 3.28 3.11 4.66 3.28 3.30 3.58
3Con + 1Pb 2.90 2.76 2.69 2.69 3.78 4.96 2.99 3.13 3.66
3Con + 2Pb 3.07 2.90 2.74 2.70 3.17 5.20 2.83 3.15 3.81
3Con + 3Pb 3.20 3.24 2.85 2.92 2.99 5.43 2.97 3.26 3.84
3Con + 4Pb 3.50 3.55 2.98 3.17 3.03 5.66 3.18 3.39 3.87
3Con + 5Pb 3.63 3.72 3.11 3.37 3.16 5.87 3.38 3.55 3.95
4Con + 1Pb 3.49 3.30 3.16 3.20 4.80 6.66 3.66 3.93 4.68
4Con + 2Pb 3.63 3.37 3.12 3.03 3.76 6.89 3.23 3.82 4.82
4Con + 3Pb 3.72 3.62 3.18 3.24 3.37 7.12 3.31 3.86 4.71
4Con + 4Pb 3.89 3.78 3.28 3.46 3.30 7.33 3.48 3.94 4.63
2Con + 1Fee 3.31 3.22 3.63 3.70 4.65 4.44 4.11 3.75 3.96
2Con + 2Fe 4.28 4.20 4.54 5.09 5.82 5.71 5.34 4.79 5.07
2Con + 3Fe 5.06 5.20 5.51 6.65 7.08 7.18 6.76 5.97 6.35
2Con + 4Fe 6.67 6.46 6.52 8.29 8.54 8.79 8.34 7.22 7.79
2Con + 5Fe 7.46 7.81 7.58 10.01 10.18 10.51 10.03 8.68 9.45
2Con + 6Fe 9.04 9.25 8.66 11.83 12.04 12.41 11.84 10.28 11.07
3Con + 1Fe 4.15 4.26 4.62 4.84 6.41 5.99 5.51 5.07 5.28
3Con + 2Fe 5.16 5.20 5.56 6.41 7.66 7.46 6.81 6.09 6.45
3Con + 3Fe 6.56 6.46 6.57 8.17 8.91 9.07 8.35 7.25 7.78
3Con + 4Fe 7.49 7.82 7.63 9.97 10.37 10.79 10.04 8.49 9.36
3Con + 5Fe 8.79 9.26 8.70 11.82 12.13 12.69 11.85 9.94 10.91
4Con + 1Fe 5.23 5.23 5.67 6.10 8.44 7.89 7.08 6.58 6.77

10
P. Basu, R. Sarangapani and B. Venkatraman
Table 3 (continued)
Media MCNP Modified Kalos’ Formula ASFIT Kalos’,
(present work) 1956
4Con + 2Fe 6.54 6.45 6.65 7.85
4Con + 3Fe 7.59 7.81 7.69 9.81
4Con + 4Fe 9.17 9.26 8.76 11.76
a
2Fe + 1 W – 2 mfp iron followed by 1 mfp tungsten
b
2Con + 1 W – 2 mfp concrete followed by 1 mfp tungsten
c
2Fe + 1Pb – 2 mfp iron followed by 1 mfp lead
d
2Con + 1Pb – 2 mfp concrete followed by 1 mfp lead
e
2Con + 1Fe – 2 mfp concrete followed by 1 mfp iron
and the influence of finite and infinite medium BUFs. The source
configuration considered in MCNP is a point isotropic whereas in
ASFIT it is defined as a plane parallel beam.
3.2. Analysis of BUFs with type of shielding medium
Fig. 8 shows the variation of BUFs and DBUFs obtained using
MCS for different shielding medium of total thickness 8 mfp. The
BUF of Pb is found to be lowest compared to W, Fe, and Con. The
shielding configuration of Fe + Pb gives the lowest DBUF as com-
pared to others and the second best combination is Con + Pb. For
shielding configuration of Pb + Con, the replacement of Pb with
Fe increases the contribution of scattered gammas by 1.33,
whereas, for the shielding configuration of Con + Pb, the replace-
ment of Pb with Fe increases the contribution of scattered gammas
by a factor of 2.3. Therefore, in the double layer shielding configu-
rations, Z of the shielding material near the detector plays an
important role in attenuating the scattered radiation. The scattered
radiation generated by the Zlow material near the source is effec-
tively absorbed by the Zhigh material near the receptor. Hence,
higher the Z of the material near the receptor more is the attenu-
ation of the scattered gammas.
3.3. Validation of the MCS computed BUFs and DBUFs with shielding
experiments
Table 1 gives the dose rates and estimated BUFs and DBUFs
based on experiments, MCNP and ASFIT codes. The estimated
BUF for water using MCNP is within 1% compared to the values
based on experiment and ASFIT code. Similarly, the estimated
DBUFs using MCNP are within 14% and 9% compared to the values
based on experiment and ASFIT code.
3.4. Comparative analysis of DBUFs using MCNP, ASFIT code, and
empirical formulae
Tables 2 and 3 give the DBUFs computed using MCNP, ASFIT
code, and empirical formulae for shielding configurations of
Zhigh + Zlow and Zlow + Zhigh respectively. The variation of DBUFs
estimated using MCNP and ASFIT codes are within ± 23%. The
DBUFs computed for W + Fe using formulations of Kalos’, Bow-
man–Trubey, Broder, Burke–Beck, Harima, and Lin–Jiang is higher
than the values obtained with MCS by a maximum factor of 1.17,
1.7, 1.27, 1.26, 1.22, and 1.44 respectively. For W + Con, the DBUFs
computed using formulations of Kalos’, Bowman–Trubey, Broder,
Burke–Beck, Harima, and Lin–Jiang is higher than the values of
MCS by a maximum factor of 1.42, 2.07, 1.6, 1.52, 1.5, and 1.88
respectively. The DBUFs computed for Pb + Fe using formulations
of Kalos’, Bowman–Trubey, Broder, Burke–Beck, Harima, and Lin–
Jiang is higher than the values of MCS by a maximum factor of
1.2, 1.78, 1.34, 1.29, 1.26, and 1.41 respectively. For Pb + Con, the
DBUFs computed using formulations of Kalos’, Bowman–Trubey,
Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107944
Bowman and Broder et al., Burke and Beck, Harima, Lin and Jiang,
Trubey, 1958 1962 1974 1983 1996
9.70 9.50 8.42 7.57 7.97
10.89 11.22 10.06 8.72 9.44
12.40 13.12 11.86 9.95 10.89
Broder, Burke–Beck, Harima, and Lin–Jiang is higher than the val-
ues of MCS by a maximum factor of 1.47, 2.22, 1.69, 1.56, 1.55,
and 1.86 respectively. The DBUFs computed for Fe + Con using for-
mulations of Kalos’, Bowman–Trubey, Broder, Burke–Beck, Harima,
and Lin–Jiang is higher than the values of MCS by a maximum fac-
tor of 1.54, 1.64, 1.59, 1.76, 1.42, and 1.74 respectively. For shield-
ing configuration of W + Con, Pb + Con, and Fe + Con, the maximum
variation between the DBUFs from MCS and all empirical formulae
are more than 40%. However, for the shielding configuration of
W + Fe and Pb + Fe, the maximum variation between the DBUFs
from MCS and empirical formulae are more than 30% excepting
for Kalos’, Burke–Beck, and Harima formulae. Hence, it is observed
that no single empirical formula can derive DBUF for Zhigh + Zlow
configurations which fit the MCS data within 30% for all shielding
configurations. The ratio of DBUFs computed for configuration of
Zlow + Zhigh using formulations of Kalos’, Bowman–Trubey, Broder,
Burke–Beck, Harima, and Lin–Jiang relative to MCS vary between
0.83–1.34, 0.7–1.61, 1.0–1.91, 0.85–1.35, 0.76–1.26, and 0.8–1.34
respectively. The study reveals that the deviation between DBUFs
from MCS and empirical formulae are higher by more than 30%
excepting for Harima formula for Zlow + Zhigh configurations. The
variation is due to the geometry of source and shield configuration
and shielding materials considered while deriving the formulae. In
the empirical formulations, either plane mono directional source
with stratified slab shielding configuration or point isotropic
source with stratified spherical shielding configuration is consid-
ered. The shielding materials studied to arrive at those empirical
formulae are Pb, Fe, Al, polyethylene, and water.
3.5. Improvement of Kalos’ formula for the estimation of DBUFs
Based on the results of MCSs for point isotropic source with
stratified slab shielding configuration, new correction factors C
(x2) by replacing the expressions (6) and (7) is proposed for double
layer configuration of W, Pb, Fe, and Con.
The new correction factor C(x2) for Zhigh + Zlow configurations is
Cðx2 Þ ¼ expðx2 =cÞ þ ð1:1=cÞ ½1  expðx2 Þ ð20Þ
The new correction factor C(x2) for Zlow + Zhigh configurations is
Cðx2 Þ ¼ expðcx2 Þ þ ðia=KÞ ½1  expðx2 Þ ð21Þ
The parameter ‘i’ is specific to the shielding configuration and
has the following values:
i = 0.90 for Fe + W combination
= 0.95 Con + W combination
= 0.78 for Fe + Pb combination
= 0.85 for Con + Pb combination
= 1.00 for Con + Fe combination.
The DBUFs computed using expressions (4), (5), (20), and (21)
are given in Tables 2 and 3 for Zhigh + Zlow and Zlow + Zhigh configu-
11
P. Basu, R. Sarangapani and B. Venkatraman Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107944

Fig. 9. Estimated DBUFs using MCNP and KFM for point isotropic gamma source of energy 1 MeV and slab shielding configuration.

12
P. Basu, R. Sarangapani and B. Venkatraman
Fig. 10. Estimated DBUFs with gamma energy using KFM and MCNP for point isotropic source and slab shielding configuration.
rations respectively. To compute the DBUFs based on proposed for-
mulation, the single medium BUF data computed using MCS is
used.
3.6. Standardization of the proposed correction factors of Kalos’
formula in the estimation of DBUFs
The DBUFs are estimated using modified KF (KFM) for the
experimental configuration shown in Fig. 4. The ratio of the esti-
mated DBUFs based on KFM and experiment for Pb + Fe and
Fe + Pb vary by a factor of 1.08 and 0.85 respectively. Similarly,
the ratio of DBUFs based on KFM and MCSs for the same shielding
configurations vary by a factor of 1.07 and 0.91 respectively. The
standardization of KFM is carried out by performing further simu-
lations for configurations viz., W + Fe or Con, Pb + Fe or Con, Fe + W
or Pb or Con, Con + W or Pb or Fe. The thickness of the first medium
is assumed as 2 mfp and the thickness of the second medium is
varied from 1 mfp to 6 mfps and the assumed gamma energy is
1 MeV. The DBUFs obtained using KFM and MCSs is shown in
Fig. 9 and the variation is found to be within ±8%. Similarly, the
variation between KFM and ASFIT code is observed to be 0.85 to
1.06 for Zhigh + Zlow configuration and 0.89 to 1.31 for Zlow + Zhigh
configuration. The KFM is further tested in the energy range
0.5 MeV to 15 MeV for shielding configurations of W (2
mfp) + Fe (1 mfp) and Fe (2 mfp) + W (1 mfp). The computed DBUFs
based on KFM and MCSs with gamma energy are shown in Fig. 10
and the variation is within ±9%. Hence, the KFM is observed to pro-
vide better estimates of DBUFs for shielding combinations of W, Pb,
Fe, and Con compared to the values obtained using empirical
formulae.
4. Summary and conclusions
In nuclear and radiological facilities, shielding materials such as
Con, Fe, Pb, and W are widely used in combinations as stratified
shields. For stratified shields, BUFs estimated based on double
layer configuration give optimum shielding requirement compared
to a single layer assumption. Therefore, DBUFs computed using
MCS are compared with the results of ASFIT code and various
empirical formulae for the aforesaid materials. The present work
revealed a significant variation up to 40% in the estimated DBUFs
between MCS and empirical formulae. Hence, correction factors
13
Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107944
of the Kalos’ formula are suitably modified. The modified Kalos’
formula is standardized by carrying out additional computations
using MCNP and ASFIT codes for various double layered shielding
configurations and gamma energy range of 0.5 MeV to 15 MeV.
For the materials considered in the present work, the double layer
configuration of Zlow + Zhigh provides an equivalent shielding com-
pared to a single layer of Zhigh alone for the same effective
thickness.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pew Basu: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original
draft. R. Sarangapani: Supervision, Writing - review & editing. B.
Venkatraman: Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr R. Venkatesan, Head, RESD, IGCAR and
Dr V. Subramanian, Head, RAMS, RESD, IGCAR for their support
in this work.
References
Al saadi, A.J., 2012. Calculation of buildup factor for gamma–ray exposure in two
layered shields made of water and lead. J. Kufa Phys. 4 (1), 1–10.
Aldhuhaibat, M.J.R., Alfakhar, M.K., Amana, M.S., 2015. Numerical buildup factor
calculation of gamma rays for single, dual and multi layers shields using lead
and aluminum. Int. J. Recent Sci. Res. 6 (7), 5184–5189.
Alkhatib, S.F., Park, C.J., Jeong, H.Y., Lee, Y., 2016. Layer–splitting technique for
testing the recursive scheme for multilayer shields gamma ray buildup factors.
Ann. Nucl. Energy 88, 24–29.
ANSI/ANS6.1.1, 1977. ANS6.1.1 Working Group, M. E. Battat. American national
standard neutron and gamma ray flux to dose rate factors, American Nuclear
Society, La Grange Park, Illinois.
ANSI/ANS–6.4.3, 1991. Gamma–ray attenuation coefficients and buildup factors for
engineering materials. American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois 60525,
USA.
Atak, H., Çelikten, O.S., Mehmet, T., 2015. Finite and infinite system gamma ray
buildup factor calculations with detailed physics. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 105, 11–14.
P. Basu, R. Sarangapani and B. Venkatraman
Bakos, G.C., 1994. Comparison of build up factors for two energies (1.43 and 2.75
MeV) photon penetration through double layer shielding slabs. Ann. Nucl.
Energy 21 (10), 651–657.
Bakos, G.C., 1995. Improvement of build up factors for multi–energy c–rays
penetration through Al, Fe and Pb shield combinations. Ann. Nucl. Energy 22
(2), 125–130.
Bakos, G.C., Tsagas, N.F., 1994. Photon penetration through thick double–layer
shielding slabs. Ann. Nucl. Energy 21 (11), 659–666.
Basu, Pew, Sarangapani, R., Venkatraman, B., 2019. Gamma ray buildup factors for
conventional shielding materials and buildup factors computed for tungsten
with a thickness beyond 40 mean free paths. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 154C (108864),
1–7.
Bowman L. A., Trubey D. K., 1958. Monte Carlo calculation of gamma ray dose rate
buildup factors for lead and water shields and Monte Carlo calculation of the
deposition of gamma ray heating in stratified lead and water slabs. ORNL–2609,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Broder, D.L., Kayurin, Y.P., Kutrezov, A.A., 1962. Transmission of gamma radiation
through heterogeneous media. Sov. J. Atom. Energy 12 (1), 26–31.
Burke, G.de P., Beck, H.L., 1974. Calculated and measured dose buildup factors for
gamma rays penetrating multilayered slabs. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 53, 109.
Capo, R. M., 1958. Polynomial approximation of gamma ray buildup factors for a
point isotropic source. U.S. AEC Report APEX–5l0.
Chakarova, R., 1992. Exposure buildup factor for a Cobalt–60 point isotropic source
for single and two layer slabs. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 40 (3), 241–244.
Chibani, O., 2001. New photon exposure buildup factors. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 137, 215–
225.
Chilton, A.B., 1965. 2Parameter formula for pointsource buildup factors.
Nucleonics 23 (8), 119–122.
Chilton, A.B., 1967. Buildup factors for point isotropic gamma ray sources in infinite
medium of ordinary concrete. Nucl. Eng. Des. 6, 205–212.
Chilton, A.B., 1979. Tschebycheff fitted Berger coefficients for Eisenhauer-Simmons
gamma ray buildup factors in ordinary concrete. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 69, 436–438.
Chilton, A.B., Eisenhauer, C.M., Simmons, G.L., 1980. Photon point source buildup
factors for air, water and iron. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 73, 97–107.
Demir, E., Karabas, M., Sonmez, S., Tugrul, A.B., Ovecoglu, M.L., Buyuk, B., 2017.
Comparison of radiation properties of tungsten and additive metal coatings on
321 stainless steel substrate. Acta Phys. Pol., A 131 (1), 71–73.
Eisenhauer, C.M., Simmons, G.L., 1975. Point isotropic gammaray buildup factors
in concrete. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 56 (3), 263–270.
Goldstein, H., Wilkins, J.E., 1954. Calculations of the Penetrations of Gamma Rays.
NDA/ AEC Report NYO-3075. U.S. Government printing office, Washington, DC.
Gopinath, D.V., Santhanam, K., 1971. Radiation transport in one–dimensional finite
systems–part I, development in the anisotropic source–flux iteration technique.
Nucl. Sci. Eng. 43, 186–196.
Guvendik, M., Tsoulfanidis, T., 2000. Formulae giving buildup factor for double–
layered shields. Nucl. Tech. 131, 332–336.
Harima, Y., 1983. An approximation of gamma ray buildup factors for two layer
shields. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 85 (1), 45–51.
Harima, Y., Nishiwaki, Y., 1972. An Approximation of gamma ray buildup factors by
geometrical progression. Nucl. Eng. Des. 23, 209–227.
Hirayama, H., 1995. Calculation of gamma-ray exposure buildup factors up to 40
mean free path using the EGS4 Monte Carlo code with a particle splitting. J.
Nucl. Sci. Technol. 32 (12), 1201–1207.
Hubbel, J.H., Berger, M.J., 1987. X-COM, Photon cross sections on a personal
computer. NBSIR, 3597–3598.
Hubbell, J.H., 1969. Photon cross sections, attenuation coefficients, and energy
absorption coefficients from 10 keV to 100 GeV. NSRDSNBS 29, National
Standard Reference Data System, U.S. National Bureau of Standards.
14
Annals of Nuclear Energy 151 (2021) 107944
Kalos’, M.H., 1956. Quoted in Goldstein H., Fundamental Aspect of Reactor
Shielding. Addison-Wesley Publ, Reading, Massachusetts, p. 225.
Kiyani, A., Ali, K.A., Marziye, B., Hossein, M., 2013. Calculation of gamma buildup
factors for point sources. Adv. Mat. Res. 2 (2), 93–98.
Lin, U.T., Jiang, S.H., 1996. A dedicated empirical formula for gamma ray buildup
factors for a point isotropic source in stratified shields. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 48
(4), 389–401.
Mann, K.S., Heer, M.S., Rani, A., 2016. Gamma–ray double–layered transmission
exposure buildup factors of some engineering materials, a comparative study.
Radiat. Phys. Chem. 125, 27–40.
MCNP–Monte Carlo Neutron and Photon transport code, version 4A, 1997. ORNL,
RSICC–CCC–200.
Miyasaka, S., Tsuruo, A., 1966. Dose buildup factors of multi layer slabs for a point
isotropic source. J. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 3 (9), 393–400.
Nelson W. R., Hirayama H., Rogers D., 1985. The EGS4 code system, SLAC–265,
Standford Linear Accelerator Center.
Overcamp, T.J., 2009. Energy absorption buildup factors and energy conservation. J.
Nucl. Sci. Tech. 46 (5), 479–483.
Salehi, D., Sardari, D., Jozani, M.S., 2014. Estimation of exposure buildup factor in
Iron using different methods: a comparative study. J. Nucl. Energy Sci. Power
Gen. Technol. 3 (2), 1–6.
Sanders, C.E., 2010. Development of Buildup Factors for Updating the ANSI/ANS-
6.4.3 Standard. International Conference on Nuclear Engineering.
Sardari, D., Sassan, S., Maryam, T., 2011. Evaluation of gamma ray buildup factor
data in water with MCNP4C code. Ann. Nucl. Energy 38, 628–631.
Shimizu, A., Onda, T., Sakamoto, Y., 2004. Calculation of gamma-ray buildup factors
upto depths of 100 mfp by the method of Invariant Embedding. J. Nucl. Sci.
Technol. 41 (4), 413–424.
Shimizu, A., 1967. Tabulation of dose transmission factors for homogeneous slabs.
NBS–9617, U. S. National Bureau of Standards.
Shin, K., Hirayma, H., 1998. Description of multi layered gamma ray exposure
buildup factors up to 40 mfp by the approximating model. J. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35
(12), 865–873.
Shultis, J.K., Faw, R.E., 2005. Radiation shielding technology. Health Phys. 88 (6),
587–612.
Spencer, L.V., Fano, U., 1951. Penetration and diffusion of X-rays. Calculation of
spatial distributions by polynomial expansion. Phys. Rev. 81, 464L.
Subbaiah, K.V., Natarajan, A., Gopinath, D.V., 1982. Effect of fluorescence,
bremstrahlung, and annihilation radiation on the spectra and energy
deposition of gamma rays in bulk media. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 81, 172–195.
Subbaiah, K.V., Natarajan, A., Gopinath, D.V., 1989. Impact of coherent scattering on
the spectra and energy deposition of gamma rays in bulk media. Nucl. Sci. Eng.
101, 352–370.
Suteau, C., Chiron, M., 2005. An iterative method for calculating gamma ray buildup
factors in multi layer shields. Radiat. Prot. Dos. 116 (1–4), 489–492.
Tanaka S., Takeuchi K., 1981. PALLASPL, SP-Br: A code for direct integration of
transport equation in one-dimensional plane and spherical geometries,
JAERIM 9695, Japan Atomic Energy Institute.
Taylor, J.J., 1954. Application of gamma ray buildup data to shield design.
WAPDRM217.
Trontl, K., Smuc, T., Pevec, D., 2007. Support vector regression model for the
estimation of c ray buildup factors for multi–layer shields. Ann. Nucl. Energy
34, 939–952.
Trubey, D.K., 1983. Standard reference data for gamma-ray transport in
homogeneous media. In: Presented at the Sixth International Conference on
Radiation Shielding, Tokyo, Japan.