/ . Inst.

Maths Applies (1973) 12, 75-90

Numerical Solution of the Radiative Transfer Equation

in Spherical Shells
A. PERAIAH t AND I. P. GRANT

[Received 19 July 1972 and in revised form 25 September 1972]

A method of solving numerically problems of radiative transfer in shells with spherical
symmetry is proposed. The difference equations are derived by discrete ordinate methods
and solved using algorithms due to Grant & Hunt (1968,1969). We have shown that the
method is stable, and will yield non-negative solutions, provided the optical thickness
of an elementary shell and the ratio of its thickness to the radius satisfy certain restrictions. Two simple problems are presented to illustrate the theory.
1. Introduction
THE solution of the radiative transfer equation in plane parallel stratification has been
extensively investigated in fields such as astrophysics, neutron transport and meteorology. However, this is not an adequate representation for studying radiative transfer
in the extended atmospheres of supergiant stars, and a proper study of these should
incorporate the effect of curvature (cf. Underhill, 1970; Vardya, 1971).
Chandrasekhar (1934) and Kosirev (1934) were the first to examine the radiative
transfer equation with spherical symmetry. Recently Castor (1970),Cassinelli(1971)and
Hummer & Rybicki (1971) have examined this problem in some detail. The last
reference describes the "variable Eddington factor" method, in many ways the most
generally satisfactory approach for spherical systems published to date. However,
it does seem to be rather time-consuming, and there is certainly room for alternatives
like the one described in this paper.
Here we shall discuss a method to obtain diffuse radiation in the extended atmospheres of supergiant stars. It is based on the discrete space theory of Grant & Hunt
(1968, 1969a, 19696) which can be applied in principle to any medium which can be
partitioned by a suitable one parameter family of surfaces. So far only the plane
parallel case has been treated in detail, but there is no reason why similar methods
should not be applied in other simple geometries.
We have tried several methods of discretizing the transfer equation in spherical
symmetry (Peraiah, 1971). The major problems come from the fact that a ray changes
its angle with respect to the radius vector as it traverses the medium. Our first attempt
to approximate the (so-called) curvature term used an orthogonal polynomial approximation. This failed to give non-negative transmission and reflection operators, and
was therefore abandoned. We also abandoned an approximation based on the CSN
method proposed by Lathrop & Carlson (1971) for a similar reason. However, the
"cell" approximation described in this paper does give usable results.
t Present address: Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Bombay-5, India.
75

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

Mathematical Institute, 24-29 St. Giles, Oxford

76

A. PERAIAH AND I. P. GRANT

Since the purpose of this paper is to understand the diflBculties which arise in treating
problems with curved geometry, we have confined our attention to the simplest type
of scattering problem with no time or frequency dependence.
2. Reflection and Transmission Operators in a Basic Cell
The equation of radiative transfer in divergence form is

, p, (i')I(r, fi') foj

(2.1)

where co(r) is the albedo for single scattering, I{r, fi) is the specific intensity, r the radius,
H = cos 0, o{r) is the absorption coefficient, b represents the sources inside the cell
a n d p is the phase function. The functions a{r), a>(r), b(r) and p(r, fi, pi') are prescribed
(generally piecewise continuous) functions of their arguments subject to the conditions
b{r) > 0,
o(r) > 0,
0 s a)(r) ^ 1,
and
= 1,

p{r,fi,fi') 5= 0.

-]

- l

If we write A(r) = 4nr2,

U(r, fi) = A(r)I{r, fi)
B(r) = A(r)b(r)
then we can rewrite the equation of transfer in the form

j ^

+ [ ( 1
11

f1

= <x(r)|[l -a)(r)]B(r) + \(o(r) j

(23)

^ p(r, n, fi')U{r, fi') dp'j

for outward-going rays, and

for inward-going rays, where we have restricted fi to lie in the interval [0, 1].
In the "cell" method of deriving difference equations one formally integrates (2.3)
and (2.4) over an interval [rn, rn+1] x [fij-^ /f/+$] defined on a two dimensional grid
(Carlson, 1963; Lathrop & Carlson, 1967). The choice of the set {/} will be discussed
in Section 2. The choice of {fij+i} is dictated by convenience. We shall employ the
roots, fij, and weights, CJt of the Gauss-Legendre quadrature formula of order J over
[0, 1], and define the cell boundaries by writing fi = 0 and taking

= t Ck,
fc=i

j = l,2,...,J.

(2.5)

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

J'

RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION

77

It is easy to see that /*,_j. < \ii < fij+^l this follows immediately from the interpolatory
character of the Gauss formula.
We do the fi integration first. This replaces (2.3) by

ff(r)C,j[l-a,(r)]B(r)

(2.6)

TJ - (Pj+i-Vj+iWf+toj+i-PjWf+i
u

j+i

, - i ?

T 1

J I, Z, . . ., J I

and, for convenience, define U$ = U$ by interpolation

(2.8)

Writing
U*(r) = lUHr), -, U*(r)T,
and making use of (2.7), (2.8) we can write (2.6) in matrix form

(2-9)

M^+[AU
or

r
= <x(r){[l -a)(r)]B + (r)+|a)(r)[p + + (r)CU + (r) + p + -(r)CU"(r)]

and similarly

r + (r)CU + (r)+p--(r)ClT(r)]}.
(2.10)
Here C and M are diagonal matrices with elements [Cjdjy], Uijdjy] respectively,
B+ and B~ are vectors with a similar structure to (2.9) and A+ and A~ are square JxJ
matrices defined by the equations

, ; = 1,2,...,J-1

k =j,j = 1,2, ...,J

fc.;_!,;.

2,3,...,/

(2.11)

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

where Uf(r) = U(r, nj), Uj(r) = U(r, ~n}), p++(r)jr = p(r, ^ ^ . ) , p-+(r)jr =
p(r, /Xj, fly), and so on. We get a similar equation from (2.4). The reason for the
choice (2.5) should now be obvious; it permits us to evaluate the scattering integral
term with the maximum accuracy assuming that the solutions Uf, Uj are sufficiently
smooth. Provided we consider the diffuse field we can be sure that this is the case.
However, we have not yet defined l/f+i, and we do this, with some loss of accuracy,
by writing

78

A. PERAIAH AND I. P. GRANT

and
CjAjk = - # y . A f l .
(2.12)
These we call the curvature matrices.
To perform discretization with respect to the radial co-ordinate we integrate
equations (2.10) from rn to rn+1 giving

Here Un+ = U+(rn), whilst variables subscripted with n+$, for example Uf+i, rn+i,
con+i must be associated with some suitable average over the cell. We define Arn+i =
rn+i-rn, 1,,-i = on+iArn+i, and p = Arn+i/rn+i, where rn+i is a suitable mean radius,
for example \{rn+1+rn). A convenient definition of U++i, U~_ is
V:+i = KUn++1 + Un+), U" + i = i(U- + 1 + Un-);
(2.14)
this is the conventional "diamond" difference scheme which was used in the plane
parallel case (Grant & Hunt, 1968).
It is now straightforward, but very tedious, to rearrange (2.13) with the aid of (2.14)
in the canonical form

rt(n + l ) r ( n + l)TU + ~ | | T V |

(2 l5)

(Grant & Hunt, 1969). The r and t matrices and the vectors S* can be expressed in
terms of the matrices and vectors appearing in (2.13). Because of the lengths of these
expressions they are given in the Appendix.
The matrices r and t appearing in the canonical form (2.15) have a physical interpretation as operators for diffuse reflection and transmission, respectively, of radiation
incident on the spherical shell between radii rn, rn+1. Similarly the vectors S n + i can be
regarded as representing the radiation which emerges from the surfaces of the bare
isolated shell due to internal emission sources. For further details see Grant & Hunt
(1969a).
At this point we should, perhaps, say a little about the two formulations we rejected.
In each case this was done because of properties of the A operators which appeared.
The first method tried approximated the /i-variation of U by a polynomial expression
l/(r, ix) ~ f ak(r)pk(ji)
(2.16)
o
where the pk(ji) are the orthonormal polynomials associated with Gauss-Legendre
quadrature on [0, 1], so that if p* is the vector
) . > Pk(Mm)~\

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

(2.13)

RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION

79

then

t]

We insert (2.18) in (2.1) and average over each cell to give an equation in A, B, C, D
which may conveniently be rewritten in terms of cell boundary values like U(rn, Hj).
The result has a similar form to (2.13), but with more complicated matrices on the
right hand side. The same difficulties as with the polynomial approximation (2.16)
and the added algebraic complexity ensured its rejection.
3. Stability, Non-negativity of Operators and Source Vectors
The analysis of the canonical form (2.15) has been described in detail in the second
of the papers by Grant & Hunt (1969). The theory makes use of a modified vector norm
||U||D=||DU||1=^dy|7|

(3.1)

where D = 27iMc is a positive diagonal matrix, and where U denotes U+ or U~.

Thus ||U||j) has the physical meaning of the total flux, ingoing or outgoing, crossing
a given spherical surface. Since there is no ambiguity induced by omitting the suffix D,
we shall leave it out from now on. The matrix norm consistent and subordinate with
(3.1) is given by

||A|| = max |(DAD-%|.

k

(3.2)

j=i

We need to extend these definitions a little before applying them to equations (2.15).
We do this in the obvious way by writing

Define the cell operator matrix S(n, n+1) by the equation

)l

(3 4)

where we require S(, n+1) to have non-negative elements, S(, n+1) ^ 0. Then
||S(n, n +1) || = max (max (Sk, S'k))
(3.5)
k

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

= 5kl, k, I ^ m.
(2.17)
By differentiating (2.16) with respect to /i and using the properties of the pk(jj), one
arrives at an equation of the same form as (2.10) but with different matrices A+, A~.
These matrices are full matrices rather than band matrices, with elements of both
signs, and their structure is such that it is impossible to ensure that the t and r matrices
are non-negative for any choice of radial meshan essential requirement discussed
in the next section.
The CSN method proposed by Lathrop & Carlson (1971) was also tried in an attempt
to find a less crude approximation than the one we adopted finally. The essential idea
is to approximate U(r, fi) in each cell [rn, rtt+1] x [/ly, nj+1\ by a bilinear spline
U(r, n) ~ A + BZ+Cfi + DZij
(2.18)
where
2r-rn-rn+1

80

A. PERAIAH AND I. P. GRANT

where

S'k=

l(m p)

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

We say that S(, n+l)is

strictly dissipative if ||S(, n+l)|| < 1
dissipative
if ||S(, n+l)|| = 1 but some of Sk, S'k < 1 (3.6)
conservative
if ||S(n, n+l)|| = 1 and a// 5 t , St< = 1.
The theory shows how to construct cell matrix operators for composite adjacent
layers (m, n), (, p), say, using the star-product.
S(w, p) = S(m, n) * Sin, p)
(m < n < p)
(3.7)
where the r and t operators appearing in the cell operator of the composite layer are
t(p, m) = t(p, )[I-r(ff7, n)r(p, n)]-H(n, m)
t(m, p) = t(m, )[I-T(p, n)r(m, n)]-H(n, p)
r(p, m) = r(, m)+t(m, ri)t(p, n)[I-r(m, ri)r(p, n)]-H(n,p)
(3.8)
t(rn,p) = i(n,p)+t(p, n)r(m, n)\I-T(j>, n)r(m, n)]-H(n,p).
The cell matrix operators play the role of Green's functions in the discrete theory,
and it is clear that whatever algorithm is used to solve the difference equations (2.15)
the results can be expressed by some equation of the form

(39)
- The properties of cell matrices with respect to the star product are therefore crucial
to our understanding of the behaviour of our numerical method. The key theorem is
as follows (Grant & Hunt, 19696):
THEOREM 1. Let the cell matrices S(m,ri),S(n,p), m < n < p be non-negative and
each satisfy one of the conditions listed in (3.6). Then their star-product, S(m, p), defined
by equations (3.7), (3.8) exists; it is also non-negative, and
(a) strictly dissipative if both S(m, n) and S(, p) are strictly dissipative;
(b) dissipative if either S(w, n) or S(, p) is dissipative and the other at most
conservative;
(c) conservative if both S(m, n) andS(n,p) are conservative.
To understand these results, we note first that the specific intensity, by its physical
definition is a non-negative quantity. The requirement that S(m, n) be a non-negative
operator is therefore needed to ensure that the response of the layer to arbitrary nonnegative inputs is a non-negative output. The norm ||S(w, n)||, gives essentially the
maximum ratio of the total output flux to that incident on the layer, and so, in the
absence of internal radiation sources should not exceed unity. The theorem shows
essentially that composite layers whose components themselves have operators which
are non-negative and satisfy one of conditions (3.6) inherit the same desirable properties. We therefore wish to assure ourselves that the finite difference approximations
of equation (2.15) and the appendix have these properties. We shall find that this

81

RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION

imposes restrictions both on the optical thickness, x, of a layer and on its "aspectratio", p = Ar/r.
When internal sources are present, we have to include a source vector, (m, p), in
equation (3.9), which may be defined in terms of the vectors (m, n), (n, p),m<n<p,
by
S(m, p) = \(m, n; p)L{m, n)+\'(m; n, />)(, p)
(3.10)
where
and
(

'

>JP)

" L0 Km, n)\l-r(p, n)x{m, n)\-*

It is clear that the behaviour of source vectors and the star product is closely bound
up with that of cell matrices, and it is not difficult to prove (Grant & Hunt, 19696)
THEOREM 2. Let E(j,j+1)
3* 0 be bounded, j = m, m+1, ...,p-1.
also bounded and non-negative.

Then (m,/>) is

We therefore turn to examine the discrete ordinate approximations for cell matrices
and source vectors in spherical geometry given in the Appendix. The main complication
is provided by the curvature operators A+, A" (2.11), (2.12) which contain large
elements of both signs (see Table 1). The result is that the aspect ratio of a layer, p,
TABLE 1

Curvature matrices, [A/J,[AjjJ. Matrices of order / = 4, abscissae ftj = 006943, 0-33001,

0-66999, 0-93057 for Gauss-Legendre quadrature on [0,1]
(a)A/ t

2-23590
-004258
-1-15005
0

0-46494
-1-78139
0
0

1
2
3
4

Ajk=

0
115005
-0-75945
-0-73228

0
0
0-58343
-109379

-2-87476

must be small to compensate for this. From equation (A.4) et seq., it is clear that we
need A+ ^ 0, A~ $s 0, S+- 5= 0, S-+ > 0, and we can achieve this if
T

crit =

HI -

(3.11)

for diagonal elements, and for off-diagonal elements

< min I mil
T

b=7i

where pJk is either pfk+ or pjk~. This gives us

6

(3.12)

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

t(w, )[I-r(p, n)r(m, n)]~lr(p, n)

82

A. PERAIAH AND I. P. GRANT

THEOREM 3. When <x> > 0, it is possible to construct discrete ordinate approximations

for cell matrix operators and source vectors for single layers of maximum thickness and
aspect ratio given by (3.11) and (3.12).

4. Flux Conservation
A convenient test of the efficacy of our methods is to study the case of a spherical
shell with to = 1. On this case, the physical system must neither create nor destroy
energy, and we wish to show that the same thing is true of the finite difference approximation to within acceptable precision. We already know that we can find values of
T and p satisfying inequalities (3.11) and (3.12) in such cases, and it remains to demonstrate that the matrices S(n, n+l) are conservative in the sense of (3.6), when T is
sufficiently small.
Examination of the formulae given in the Appendix shows that for small xn+i,
t(n+1, n) = I-r B + + V B + i +0(T n + i )
r(n + 1 , B) = r B - + V n + i +0(r n + i )
where, in the notation of (A.I),

r-++* = M - ' Q ; ^ .

Similar formulae hold for t(w, n+ l),r(n, n+1) with + and superscripts interchanged.
The proof that equations (4.1) lead to a conservative cell matrix depends on the identity

/ ; 7 =0

(4.3)

which is an immediate consequence of (2.11) and (2.12). Moreover, the normalization

of the phase function p{r, \i, n') equation (2.1), leads to the restriction
|

= 1-

(4-4)

Thus a typical sum, Sk, in equation (3.5), can be written

,n)+r(n + l,n)]D-%
= l,2

J.

(4.5)

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

This gives us limited comfort. We cannot hope to get non-negative operators in

non-scattering media, and even when it is possible to construct them, the values of
p permitted are very small. Nevertheless there exists a range of problems which can
be attempted successfully so that the method is not without its uses.
To complete this Section, we note that the algorithms (3.7), (3.8) and (3.10) do not
always provide the most economical method of solving radiative transfer problems
with the aid of equations (2.15). The different possibilities are set out in Grant & Hunt
(1969a). However, one place where the algorithms of this section are important is the
construction of cell matrices and source vectors which do not satisfy the limitations of
the inequalities (3.11) and (3.12). In particular, if we have a shell which is subdivided
into thinner shells each having the same normal optical thickness and nearly the same
curvature, the very fast doubling algorithm (Grant & Hunt, 1969a) may be invoked
with little loss of accuracy.

83

RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION

In practice, one finds that Sk = 1 to within the rounding error of the computer,
provided care has been taken to ensure that (4.3) and (4.4) are satisfied to the same
accuracy. Our algorithm is therefore conservative in a practical sense, although it is
rather hard to to give a rigorous proof.

WU-

FIG. 1. Description of the diffuse radiation field in spherically symmetric atmospheres.

atmosphere, and for this purpose, the most efficient algorithm is based on the observation that equations (2.15) can be written as a linear system with a block tridiagonal
matrix of rather simple form. The algorithm, described by Grant & Hunt (1968),
assumes that the domain of interest is divided into N shells as shown in Fig. 1. One
first computes, sequentially for n = 1, 2 , . . . , N, the matrices r(l, ri) and vectors
V*+t, V*+i from
(, n+1) (5.1)
with the initial conditions r(l, 1) = 0, V^ = U+(B). This requires calculation of the
auxiliary quantities
t(n+1, ri) = t(n+1, n)[I-r(l, )r(n+1, w)]-1
t(n+1, n) = r(n+1, n)[I-r(l, )r(+1, n)]-1
)r(l,n)
(5.2)

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

5. Numerical Tests of the Method

In many problems of interest the geometrical situation can be represented by Fig. 1.
Here the region A < r < B is the domain of interest, either the extended atmosphere
of a giant star, or the atmosphere of a planet. In this situation, we usually wish to
know the radiation field at internal levels as well as the amount emerging from the

84

A. PERAIAH AND I. P. GRANT

which do not need to be preserved from one step to the next. Next one computes
sequentially for n = N, N-1, N-2,..., 2, 1

u,-=i(, B + i)u.- t ;^}

<">

UN+I=TGU++1

(5.5)

then equations (5.3) need modifying for n = N. Wefindeasily that

U^ +1 = [ I - r ( l , N + l f r e ] - 1 ^

(5.6)

from which UJV+I can be obtained using (5.5) and thence all remaining fluxes can be
calculated using (5.3).
In both sets of calculations reported here we have used a discretization with constant
Ar = (BA)/N, and have ignored source terms, setting Z,?+i = ,T+i = 0 for all
values of n. We have not taken too much care to optimize the choice of aspect ratio
p = Ar/r, although this has a minor effect on the truncation error. We have simply
chosen pn+i = Arn+i/rn (note that the discretization shown in Fig. 1 implies rn > rn+1)
and have in all cases used N = 100. The atmosphere has been chosen to be homogeneous for simplicity and the radial optical thickness is denoted by x.
TABLE 2

Global energy conservation for a conservative isotropically scattering shell illuminated isotropically on the inner boundary, r = A. The columns give the total flux emerging from the shell
at radii A and B, and verify the equation F+(A)+F~(B) F~(A) = %. Calculations are based
on 8 point Gauss-Legendre quadrature
x = a(B-A):

10

B/A

F~(B)l2n

F+(A)/2n

F-(B)/2n

F+(A)/2n

F-(B)/2n

F+(A)l2n

10
1-3
1-5
1-7
20

019503
0-24617
0-27325
0-29611
0-32439

0-30497
0-25383
0-22675
0-20389
0-17561

010383
013354
015177
016881
019227

0-39617
0-36646
0-34823
0-33119
0-30773

005387
007550
008650
009716
011254

0-44163
0-42450
0-41350
0-40284
0-38746

The first series of calculations prescribe Ut+ = 0 and assume an isotropic flux,
F~(A) = n in the outward direction at the inner boundary. Table 2 analyses the global
energy balance. Because we have a conservative isotropic scattering domain, and no
flux is incident on the outer boundary, we expect to find
F~(A) = F~(B)+F+(A)
(5.7)
where F~(B) is the total energy emerging at r = B, and F+(A) is the total energy
backscattered into the inner region. Equation (5.7) is satisfied to within rounding

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

with the initial condition UN+I = U~(A), say, and where

t(,w + l) = T n+i t(,n+l).
(5.4)
If, instead of prescribing the flux incident at r = A, one has a reflecting surface with
an operator rG,

RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION

85

FIG. 2. Angular distribution of the run of specific intensities from bottom (n = 100) to the top
(n = 1) of the atmosphere in plane parallel case, T = 10, B/A = 10, N = 100, <o = 1, pjk = 1 for
all / and k.

Figures 2 and 3 show the angular distributions at different shell boundaries for the
case of a plane parallel slab, B/A -> 1, and an atmosphere with B/A = 1 -5. A common
difficulty in calculations of this sort arises from the rapid change in the angular
distribution near the outer boundary, which can give rise to unphysical oscillations
in both radial and angular distributions in the first few shells (Grant, 1968). There is
no sign of such behaviour in either graph, though it appears immediately inequality
(3.11) is violated. Figure 4 shows the emergent angular distribution for different values
of B/A, exhibiting the well-known tendency for the distribution to approach that of
a parallel beam at large distances from the centre of the system, although the ratio
B/A is too small in the test calculations to show this markedly. Figures 5 and 6 display
the emergentfluxas functions of T and B/A respectively.
The second set of problems we have used to test our model are those in which we

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

errors (1 part in 109) provided care is taken to ensure that (4.4) is satisfied to the
same precision. This is readily achieved in the case of isotropic scattering by presenting
the Gauss-Legendre abscissae fij and weights Cs to a sufficient number of significant
digits, though more care has to be taken with other phase functions (Grant & Hunt,
19696).
Apart from verifying that the method gives globalfluxconservation, Table 2 shows
a feature we might expect on physical grounds, namely an increase in the relative flux
emerging from the outer surface as B/A increases.

86

A. PERAIAH AND I. P. GRANT

0005
-I

FIG. 3. Angular distribution of the specific intensity from the inside (n = 100) to the outside (n = 1)
of a spherical atmosphere, T = 10, B\A = 1-5, N = 100, a> = 10, isotropic scattering.

5r o-3^

oih

00

FIG. 4. Angular distribution of emergent intensity, T = 5, <o = 10, isotropic scattering. (1) B\A
2 0 ; (2)B\A = 1-5; (3)B\A = 1-3; (4)B/^ = 10.

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

001 b

87

RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION

0-4

= l-5;(3) BIA = 10.

035

0-30 -

0-20

E
UJ

010-

IO

20

FIG. 6. Emergent fluxes as function of BjA. <o = 10, isotropic scattering.

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

FIG. 5. Emergent fluxes'as function of optical depth, w = 1-0, isotropic scattering. (1) BIA = 2-0;

88

A. PERAIAH AND I. P. GRANT

TABLE 3

Net fluxes, F+ = F~, at shell interfaces, x = 2, BjA = 1-5

n
100
50
20
10

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

F+/27T =

F~/2n

1-1146
0-7139
0-5698
0-5314
0-5277
0-5241
0-5206
0-5171
0-5136
0-5101
0-5067
0-5033
0-5000

6. Conclusions
The method described in this paper enables the accurate calculation of radiative
transfer in spherically symmetric shells subject to the limitations imposed by the
inequalities (3.11) and (3.12). It is therefore limited in practice to situations in which
the albedo for single scattering is not too small, and in which the phase function is
not too highly peaked about the forward direction. This covers many of the practical
cases, but it is clear that a radically new departure will be needed if one wants to
perform accurate calculations near a centre of spherical symmetry or in atmosphere
with a low single scattering albedo.
It seems that the conditions under which the method may be used are applicable
in the envelopes of some supergiant stars, and we have made use of it to study a simple
line formation problem (Peraiah & Grant, 1971,1972).
One of us (A. P.) wishes to thank Dr M. S. Vardya for reading the manuscript.

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

have illuminated the same system isotropically at the outer boundary and assumed
specular reflection at the inner boundary (rG = I in (5.5)). In such a case the positive
and negatively directed fluxes at every interface should be equal, and in the case
of an isotropic slab should have the same value, n, at all levels. Table 3 shows what
happens in a spherical shell with B/A = 1-5. There is again equality of inward and
outward netfluxesat each shell boundary, although the values rise towards the inner
radius r = A. This seems plausible on physical grounds, but it is not easy to find a
simple analytical model to check the behaviour.

RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION

89

Appendix
Formulae for the Matrices and Vectors Occurring in (2.15)
Define first
Qn+4 = M . + i

(A.I)

+- =
_
QnV*

and then
S++=M-K+*(I-Q.V*)
(A.2)

and
A+ =
A-

= CM+K+itf-Q-V*)]"1 J '

(A.3)

Write
r+- = A+S+-,

r~+ = A-S-+

(A.4)

and
(A.5)

t+ = | I Then
t-[A-S
2t-r-+A+M

(A.6)

and
T n+i (l-co B+i )t+|A+B++r+-A-Bi
T n+i (l-co. +i )t-|A-B-+r-+A+B+|.

(A.7)

REFERENCES
CARLSON, B.

G. 1963 In B. Alder, A. Fembach & M. Rotenberg (Eds.) Methods of computational physics Vol. 1 pp. 1-42, New York: Academic Press.
CASSINELLI, J. P. 1971 Astrophys. J. 165, 265.
CASTOR, J. I. 1970 Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. 149, 111.
CHANDRASEKHAR, S. 1934 Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. 94, 522.
GRANT, I. P. & HUNT, G. E. 1968 Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. 141, 27.

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

QnTi = i<Bn

90

A. PERAIAH AND I. P. GRANT

GRANT, I. P. & HUNT, G. E. 1969a Proc. R. Soc. A. 313, 183-197.

GRANT,
GRANT,

I. P. & HUNT, G. E. 19696 Proc. R. Soc. A. 313,199-216.

I. P. 1968 /. Comput. Physics 2, 381.

HUMMER, D. G. & RYBICKI, G. B. 1971 Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. 152,1.

KOSIREV, N. A. 1934 Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. 94, 430.

giant Stars, September 1971.

PERAIAH, A. & GRANT, I. P. 1972 Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc. 160, 239.

Downloaded from imamat.oxfordjournals.org at University of South Carolina - Columbia on November 24, 2010

LATHROP, K. D. & CARLSON, B. G. 1967 /. Comput. Physics 2, 173-197.

LATHROP, K. D. & CARLSON, B. G. 1971 /. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer 11, 921-948.
PERAIAH, A. 1971 Unpublished D. Phil. Thesis, Oxford University.
PERAIAH, A. & GRANT, I. P. Contribution to 3rd Trieste Colloquium on AstrophysicsSuper-

A. B. In H. G. Groth & P. Wellmann (Eds.) Spectrum formation in stars with

steady-state extended atmospheres, p. 3, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 332,
August 1970.
VARDYA, M. S. Contribution to 3rd Trieste Colloquium on AstrophysicsSupergiant Stars,
September 1971.

UNDERBILL,