Radiation Physics and Chemistry 110 (2015) 87–95

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Radiation Physics and Chemistry

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

Gamma-ray energy buildup factor calculations and shielding effects of

some Jordanian building structures
J.M. Sharaf a, H. Saleh b,n
a
Department of Physics, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
b
Department of Physics, Al- Hussein Bin Talal University, Ma’an, Jordan

H I G H L I G H T S

The shielding properties of three Jordanian construction styles were evaluated.

Geometric progression (GP) method was used to calculate energy buildup factors.

The obtained data were calculated in the energy range 0.05–3 MeV, up to 40 mfp.

An iterative method was used to estimate the buildup factors for multilayer styles.

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The shielding properties of three different construction styles, and building materials, commonly used in
Received 3 May 2014 Jordan, were evaluated using parameters such as attenuation coefficients, equivalent atomic number,
Received in revised form penetration depth and energy buildup factor. Geometric progression (GP) method was used to calculate
25 January 2015
gamma-ray energy buildup factors of limestone, concrete, bricks, cement plaster and air for the energy
Accepted 28 January 2015
range 0.05–3 MeV, and penetration depths up to 40 mfp. It has been observed that among the examined
Available online 29 January 2015
building materials, limestone offers highest value for equivalent atomic number and linear attenuation
Keywords: coefficient and the lowest values for penetration depth and energy buildup factor. The obtained buildup
Energy buildup factor factors were used as basic data to establish the total equivalent energy buildup factors for three different
Equivalent atomic numbers
multilayer construction styles using an iterative method. The three styles were then compared in terms
Building materials
of fractional transmission of photons at different incident photon energies. It is concluded that, in case of
Gamma radiation
GP fitting formula any nuclear accident, large multistory buildings with five layers exterior walls, style A, could effectively
Mean free path attenuate radiation more than small dwellings of any construction style.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction duration, however, complete information about the effective

In the last decades, a great deal of work was done to predict the
protection provided by different structures from accidental release
of radioactive materials. (Jacob and Meckbach, 1987; Meckbach
et al., 1995; Kaur et al., 2012). Radioactive releases are possible
from a major event within a reactor or other activities, such as
spent fuel transportation and accidents involving large radioactive
sources. Emergency planning should therefore include a range of
accident response scenarios to assure that adequate protective
measures can be taken to protect the public. Shelter in place may
be recommended and this means going indoors and remaining
indoors until the emergency is over. Such actions will reduce an
individual’s exposure to radiation resulting from a release of short
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hanhas2002@gmail.com (H. Saleh).
shielding of the dwellings' walls and roofs should be available
(Sharaf and Hamideen, 2013). A properly designed database that
can provide an access to information regarding main protective
measures, shielding and/or evacuation, for example, is invaluable
tool to help first responders to make the correct decisions.
The shielding properties of different structures and building
materials were evaluated using parameters such as mass at-
tenuation coefficients, energy absorption coefficients, and half-
value layer. Beer–Lambert's Law was modified to account for the
effect of secondary radiations that usually occur due to buildup of
photons from the collided part of the incident beam. Buildup
factors of different shielding materials were determined to make
corrections for effective energy deposition in such materials
(Shimizu, 2002; Sandari et al., 2009) and a number of codes were
built for this purpose such as PALLS (Takeuchi and Tanaka, 1984)
and EGS4 (Nelson et al., 1985).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2015.01.031
0969-806X/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
88 J.M. Sharaf, H. Saleh / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 110 (2015) 87–95
Buildup factor is defined as the ratio of the total detector re-
sponse to that of uncollided photons. It may refer to different
quantities of interest, such as photon fluence, exposure or the
deposited energy in the interacting material. Its values among all
quantities are somewhat different and tables of these values are
required as it varies with photon energy, shield material and shield
thickness. The buildup factor tables come from the American
Nuclear Society (ANS) and the American National Standards In-
stitute (ANSI) that were published in 1991, presented buildup
factor for 23 elements, one compound and two mixtures within
the energy range 0.015–15 MeV up to penetration depths of 40
mean free paths (mfp).
There are different methods and codes for computing buildup
factors such as Geometric Progression (GP) method (Harima et al.,
1986), iterative method (Suteau and Chiron, 2005), invariant em-
bedding method (Shimizu, 2002; Shimizu et al., 2004) and Monte
Carlo method (Sandari et al., 2009). However, only small dis-
crepancies were found in the buildup factor values obtained using
three different methods (G.P. fitting, invariant embedding and
Monte Carlo method) for low-Z elements and up to 10 mfp (Shi-
mizu et al., 2004). In additions, a good agreement was observed
between buildup factors computed by G.P. fitting method and
PALLAS code for penetration depth up to 40 mfp (Harima et al.,
1986). It has also been confirmed that the G.P. fitting method has
been as good as other methods/codes for evaluation of buildup
factor values (Shimizu et al., 2004; Singh et al., 2008).
Buildup factor of double layer shields depends on the char-
acteristics of the layer under consideration and on the previously
penetrated layer, so the problem for multilayer shield becomes
more calculated. An early proposal was presented by Jaeger et al.
(1968) to determine the energy buildup factor for multilayer
shields using a homogenized effective atomic number for shield
characterization or simple multiplication of single layer buildup
factor followed by Broader and Kitazume functions. Another ap-
proaches using Monte Carlo calculations with ad hoc defined Kalos
functions enabled computer technology to determine the multi
layer energy buildup factor using semi-empirical formulas devel-
oped by fitting the results of accurate transport through a medium
(Burke et al., 1974) and similar to the characteristic formula pro-
posed by Lin and Jiang. (1996). An approach for calculating the
energy buildup factors of multilayers based on support vector
regression (SVR) technique was also presented by Trontl et al.,
(2005, 2007).
In a previous study that was conducted in this laboratory, the
shielding effectiveness of different construction styles, commonly
used in Jordan, against airborne and external irradiation was in-
vestigated. Some parameters of dosimetric interest were de-
termined for a number of selected building materials using its
measured attenuation coefficients (Sharaf and Hamideen, 2013).
The calculations were based on Beer–Lambert’s Law, which is
usually used for thin wall and narrow beam geometry, and ignored
buildup of scattered radiation so that the radiation intensity
transmitted through walls was underestimated. However, this
study is conducted to find accurate buildup factors over the ne-
cessary range of gamma ray energy as well as finding an accurate
method of combining the buildup factors for multi-layer situa-
tions. Energy buildup factors are calculated using the GP method
for building materials of interest in the energy range 0.05–3 MeV
up to penetration depth of 40 mfp. The obtained energy buildup
factors are then used to generate the total buildup for three dif-
ferent multilayer building styles, so that its shielding factors can be
calculated and compared.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Building materials
Three different construction styles are used in Jordan for con-
structing building exterior walls, as shown in Fig. 1. Style A, the
most commonly used wall system, is typically a multilayered wall
comprising of a 5–7 cm thick limestone layer, acts as a facing
material, supported by a 10 cm of concrete layer and a brick wall of
10 cm thickness. The bricks are usually separated from the con-
crete layer by a 3 cm of air or an insulator and covered from the
inner side by a cement plaster which brings the total thickness of
the section to about 30 cm. Style B, which is common in suburban
areas, consists of two brick walls each of 10 cm thick separated by
a 5 cm insulation layer. The outer and inner sides of the wall are
usually covered with a cement plaster each of 2–3 cm thick, so that
the total section thickness is again about 30 cm. Style C, a simple
style mostly common in rural areas, consists of only one brick wall
of 10 cm thickness with both sides covered with a cement plaster.
This type represents also the internal partition walls commonly
used in most Jordanian buildings. A typical concrete flat roof
commonly used with all building styles, which incorporates rows
of reinforced concrete slabs and concrete bricks, or ribs, with its
internal side is usually covered with 2 cm thick cement plaster and
its total concrete equivalent thickness is 11.1 cm. However, mul-
tistory apartment buildings have become the most popular hous-
ing style, during the last decade, to meet increased demands on
housing with rapid urbanization and high population density.
These buildings serve about 82% of the total population of the
urban areas. In additions, about 40,000 new apartments are re-
quired every year to cover the residential needs. About 94% of
those apartment buildings were constructed using style A while
6% were constructed using style B (DOS, 2004).
It can be seen that Jordanian dwellings are mainly constructed
from limestone, concrete, cement plaster and bricks. Character-
ization of such materials, by determining its equivalent atomic
number, attenuation properties and buildup factors, is needed to
evaluate shielding effectiveness of walls and roofs against airborne
radiation. However, doors and windows are not included in these
calculations. The chemical composition of building materials un-
der consideration, Table1, that was used in our previous study
(Sharaf and Hamideen, 2013), was taken from the literature for
limestone (Mann et al., 2012), ordinary concrete (Bashter, 1997;
Sing et al., 2004), bricks and cement plaster (Ahmad et al., 1998;
CMSI, 2002).
2.2. Buildup factor calculations
The interaction of photons with a material is based on dom-
ination of different partial photon interaction processes in differ-
ent energy regions depending on the material equivalent atomic
number (Zeq) which is a single parameter used to describe the
properties of composite materials in terms of equivalent elements.
Zeq is an energy dependent parameter and can be estimated from
the ratio of the Compton partial mass attenuation coefficient re-
lative to the total mass attenuation coefficient at a specific photon
energy, using the relation (Harima, 1983);
Z1 (log R2 − log R) + Z2 (log R − log R1)
Z eq =
log R2 − log R1 (1)
where Z1 and Z2 are the atomic numbers of elements corre-
sponding to the (μComp/μtotal) ratios, R1 and R2, respectively, and R
(μComp/μtotal) is the ratio for the selected material at a particular
energy, which lies between ratios R1 and R2.
Using the state of the art computer program WinXCom
 J.M. Sharaf, H. Saleh / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 110 (2015) 87–95 89

Fig. 1. Geometrical structures representing the three styles used in Jordanian buildings; A, B, and C respectively.

Table 1
Elemental composition (%)of Limestone, Concrete, Brick, Cement Plaster and Air.

Element Limestonea ρ ¼ 2.58 g/cm3 Concretea ρ ¼2.26 g/cm3 Bricka ρ¼ 1.92 g/cm3 Cement Plastera ρ ¼1.52 g/cm3 Airb ρ ¼1.192 × 10−3 g/cm3

Hydrogen 0.090 – – – –
Carbon 11.340 – – – 0.014
Oxygen 49.620 49.300 50.400 46.800 23.179
Sodium 0.040 0.500 0.100 – –
Magnesium 4.760 0.300 0.100 0.600 –
Aluminum 0.430 3.700 4.100 6.200 –
Silicon 2.430 37.000 38.700 30.100 –
Phosphorus 0.020 – – – –
Sulfur 0.110 – – – –
Potassium 0.270 – – – –
Calcium 30.430 8.200 6.500 11.400 –
Titanium 0.040 – – – –
Manganese 0.040 – – – –
Iron 0.400 1.100 0.100 4.900 –
Nitrogen – – – – 75.519
Argon – – – – 1.288

a
Sharaf and Hamideen, 2013.
b
: ANSI/ANS-6.4.3

(Geward et al., 2004), the values of these ratios were obtained for and a2 are the G.P. fitting parameters, taken from the ANSI/ANS-
elements of atomic number in the range (Z¼ 6–20) in which our 6.4.3 standard reference database, corresponding to the atomic
samples lay between in the energy range 0.05–3 MeV. numbers Z1 and Z2 at the given specific energy, respectively.
The obtained Zeq values of the selected materials were then The buildup factors for the selected materials are then esti-
used to interpolate G.P. fitting parameters (a, b, c, d and χK ) in the mated by the computed G.P. fitting parameters, using the follow-
energy range 0.05–3 MeV, using the following interpolation for- ing relation (Harima et. al., 1986):
mula (Harima, 1983; Singh et al., 2009): (b − 1)
B (E, x) = 1 + (K x − 1) ,K≠1
K−1 (3)
a1 (log Z2 − log Z eq ) + a2 (log Z eq − log Z1)
a=
log Z2 − log Z1 (2) and

where Z1 and Z2 are the elemental atomic numbers between which B (E, x) = 1 + (b − 1) x, K = 1 (4)
the equivalent atomic number Zeq of the selected material lies, a1 where
90 J.M. Sharaf, H. Saleh / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 110 (2015) 87–95

1.2 Table 3
Equivalent atomic numbers Zeq, and the GP fitting parameters for Concrete in the
1.0 Limestone energy range 0.05–3 MeV.
Cementplast
Coefficient (cm^-1)
Linear Attenuation

Concrete
Brick Energy (MeV) Zeq a b C d χK
0.8 Air

0.05 13.20 0.142 1.881 0.577  0.083 15.101

0.6 0.0595 13.24 0.101 1.827 0.713  0.067 14.384
0.06 13.24 0.116 2.372 0.663  0.078 14.445
0.4 0.08 13.30 0.042 3.296 0.894  0.038 14.074
0.1 13.33  0.010 3.896 1.107  0.015 13.612
0.15 13.38  0.070 4.103 1.405 0.015 14.124
0.2
0.2 13.45  0.094 3.684 1.549 0.028 14.252
0.3 13.65  0.103 3.107 1.601 0.031 14.384
0.0 0.356 13.53  0.109 2.929 1.594 0.033 14.530
0.1 1 0.4 13.51  0.101 2.786 1.582 0.030 14.662
0.5 13.43  0.095 2.592 1.534 0.027 15.206
Energy(MeV) 0.6 13.73  0.092 2.432 1.503 0.029 14.953
Fig. 2. Linear attenuation coefficients of Limestone, Cement plaster, Concrete, Brick 0.662 13.64  0.088 2.341 1.472 0.028 14.897
and Air with energy. 0.8 13.46  0.083 2.239 1.432 0.028 14.869
1 12.91  0.073 2.119 1.369 0.026 15.075
1.173 14.00  0.065 2.045 1.320 0.019 14.661
1.2 11.97  0.069 2.020 1.325 0.024 14.827
Table 2
1.274 11.96  0.065 1.999 1.305 0.023 14.754
Equivalent atomic numbers Zeq, and the GP fitting parameters for Limestone in the
1.3 12.80  0.062 2.004 1.294 0.021 14.716
energy range 0.05–3 MeV.
1.333 12.42  0.061 1.990 1.288 0.021 14.703
1.5 11.90  0.053 1.940 1.249 0.020 14.488
Energy (MeV) Zeq a b C d χK
1.6 11.93  0.051 1.929 1.231 0.018 14.535
1.7 12.18  0.047 1.911 1.211 0.016 14.555
0.05 14.64 0.143 1.610 0.553  0.075 15.813
1.8 11.90  0.043 1.894 1.193 0.015 14.488
0.0595 14.70 0.130 1.991 0.621  0.081 13.967
1.9 11.86  0.039 1.877 1.175 0.014 14.484
0.06 14.70 0.160 2.040 0.555  0.085 13.659
2 11.64  0.035 1.838 1.161 0.013 14.534
0.08 14.80 0.090 2.825 0.745  0.062 13.613
2.1 11.71  0.032 1.847 1.144 0.011 14.499
0.1 14.84 0.032 3.492 0.940  0.039 13.702
2.2 11.77  0.029 1.831 1.130 0.009 14.476
0.15 14.95  0.043 3.954 1.260 0.001 19.681
2.3 11.74  0.026 1.817 1.117 0.008 14.450
0.2 15.08  0.068 3.708 1.404 0.012 16.476
2.4 11.67  0.023 1.803 1.104 0.007 14.381
0.3 15.25  0.088 3.137 1.514 0.022 14.675
2.5 11.61  0.020 1.789 1.093 0.005 14.258
0.356 15.06  0.094 2.955 1.536 0.033 14.590
2.6 11.69  0.017 1.775 1.082 0.004 14.209
0.4 15.13  0.091 2.810 1.520 0.024 15.449
2.7 11.64  0.014 1.762 1.072 0.003 13.995
0.5 15.04  0.090 2.590 1.503 0.025 15.307
2.8 11.60  0.012 1.749 1.062 0.002 13.708
0.6 15.34  0.086 2.443 1.468 0.025 15.176
2.9 11.64  0.010 1.736 1.054 0.001 13.552
0.662 15.18  0.080 2.363 1.439 0.027 15.071
3 11.65  0.011 1.699 1.057  0.000 13.379
0.8 15.28  0.077 2.247 1.406 0.024 15.259
1 14.86  0.071 2.116 1.358 0.024 15.006
1.173 15.46  0.060 2.036 1.304 0.019 15.414
1.2 13.93  0.064 2.038 1.314 0.018 14.595
1.274 13.98  0.061 2.016 1.296 0.017 14.593 determination of buildup factor for multilayer structures must
1.3 13.98  0.060 2.009 1.290 0.017 14.579 take in consideration not only the characteristics of the layer un-
1.333 12.85  0.060 1.995 1.286 0.020 14.704
der study but also those of the previously penetrated layers.
1.5 13.25  0.052 1.940 1.244 0.019 14.634
1.6 12.42  0.051 1.932 1.230 0.017 14.633 However, a number of formulas for the calculation of gamma-ray
1.7 12.41  0.047 1.912 1.211 0.016 14.628 buildup factors for multilayer structures have been suggested by
1.8 12.16  0.043 1.893 1.193 0.015 14.534
many authors (Guvendik and Tsoulfanidis, 1999; Kazuo and Hir-
1.9 12.25  0.039 1.877 1.176 0.014 14.568
2 12.05  0.036 1.834 1.165 0.013 14.445 ayama, 2001). Lin and Jiang (1996) presented an empirical formula
2.1 12.16  0.033 1.844 1.146 0.011 14.520 that gives the energy buildup factor for multi-layer shields from
2.2 12.14  0.029 1.829 1.132 0.010 14.507 those of single-layered for a plane mono directional source as gi-
2.3 12.22  0.026 1.814 1.119 0.009 14.510
2.4 12.18  0.023 1.800 1.107 0.007 14.478 ven in the following general form:
2.5 11.96  0.020 1.787 1.095 0.006 14.498
2.6 12.04  0.018 1.773 1.085 0.005 14.514
⎛ n− 1 ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ n ⎞ ⎤
2.7 11.94  0.015 1.760 1.074 0.004 14.486 B ⎜⎜ ∑ xi , x n ⎟⎟ = Bn (x n ) + ⎢Bn ⎜⎜ ∑ xi ⎟⎟ − Bn (x n ) ⎥
⎝ i=1 ⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎝ i = 1 ⎠ ⎥⎦
2.8 11.94  0.012 1.747 1.065 0.003 14.473
2.9 11.94  0.010 1.734 1.056 0.002 14.451 ⎡ ⎛ n− 1 ⎞ ⎤
3 11.93  0.012 1.697 1.060 0.000 14.508 × ⎢K ⎜⎜ ∑ xi ⎟⎟. C (x n ) ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎝ i = 1 ⎠ ⎦⎥ (6)

where Bn (xn) and xn are the energy buildup factor and the thick-
tanh (x/χK − 2) − tanh ( − 2)
K (E, x) = cx a + d ness (in mfp) of the n-th layer, respectively.
1 − tanh ( − 2) (5)
⎛ n− 1 ⎞ n− 2
B ( ∑i = 1 xi , x n − 1) − 1
E is the incident photon energy; x is the penetration depth in K ⎜⎜ ∑ xi ⎟⎟ = n− 1
terms of mean free path. ⎝ i=1 ⎠ Bn ( ∑i = 1 xi ) − 1 (7)
The K(E,x) variation with depth represents the photon multi-
plication and the change in the spectrum shape. is the ratio of the scattered beam transmitted through all layers
proceeds xn to the transmitted one through the same thickness (in
2.3. Multi- layer structures mfp) of the final material.
C (xn) is a correction factor, defined for high atomic number
The above procedures are valid for single-layer structures and material followed by a low atomic number material as:
 J.M. Sharaf, H. Saleh / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 110 (2015) 87–95 91

Table 4 Table 5
Equivalent atomic numbers Zeq, and the GP fitting parameters for Brick in the en- Equivalent atomic numbers Zeq, and the GP fitting parameters for Cement Plaster in
ergy range 0.05–3 MeV. the energy range 0.05–3 MeV.

Energy (MeV) Zeq a b C d χK Energy (MeV) Zeq a b C d χK

0.05 12.67 0.142 2.025 0.587  0.082 14.306 0.05 14.54 0.139 1.620 0.560  0.073 15.960
0.0595 12.70 0.091 2.023 0.738  0.060 14.190 0.0595 14.60 0.126 2.008 0.629  0.079 13.927
0.06 12.70 0.100 2.537 0.712  0.071 14.270 0.06 14.60 0.157 2.059 0.562  0.084 13.646
0.08 12.75 0.025 3.492 0.958  0.028 14.169 0.08 14.69 0.086 2.855 0.754  0.060 13.661
0.1 12.78  0.026 4.050 1.178  0.005 13.332 0.1 14.75 0.029 3.515 0.949  0.037 13.710
0.15 12.80  0.081 4.133 1.470 0.022 14.055 0.15 14.87  0.044 3.960 1.266 0.001 19.261
0.2 12.69  0.105 3.678 1.615 0.034 14.018 0.2 14.86  0.071 3.707 1.423 0.014 15.930
0.3 13.29  0.106 3.072 1.620 0.033 14.317 0.3 14.88  0.092 3.130 1.534 0.024 14.192
0.356 12.98  0.105 2.926 1.611 0.033 14.483 0.356 15.02  0.094 2.955 1.537 0.033 14.614
0.4 12.87  0.104 2.786 1.600 0.032 14.728 0.4 14.99  0.092 2.805 1.528 0.025 15.222
0.5 12.66  0.098 2.590 1.551 0.029 15.129 0.5 15.06  0.090 2.591 1.502 0.025 15.311
0.6 12.87  0.096 2.427 1.524 0.032 14.765 0.6 15.14  0.086 2.443 1.472 0.025 15.038
0.662 14.23  0.082 2.378 1.449 0.024 14.598 0.662 15.20  0.080 2.363 1.439 0.027 15.091
0.8 12.87  0.084 2.237 1.440 0.029 14.697 0.8 15.30  0.077 2.247 1.405 0.024 15.261
1 11.98  0.075 2.115 1.378 0.027 15.121 1 14.89  0.071 2.116 1.358 0.024 15.007
1.173 14.00  0.065 2.045 1.320 0.019 14.660 1.173 14.91  0.062 2.035 1.313 0.019 15.221
1.2 11.97  0.069 2.019 1.325 0.024 14.827 1.2 14.12  0.064 2.035 1.312 0.018 14.719
1.274 11.96  0.065 1.999 1.305 0.023 14.754 1.274 14.02  0.061 2.015 1.296 0.017 14.604
1.3 11.93  0.064 1.994 1.299 0.022 14.709 1.3 14.02  0.060 2.008 1.290 0.017 14.590
1.333 12.41  0.061 1.990 1.288 0.021 14.703 1.333 14.45  0.057 1.992 1.280 0.017 14.817
1.5 11.24  0.054 1.937 1.252 0.020 14.337 1.5 13.33  0.052 1.940 1.244 0.019 14.606
1.6 11.63  0.051 1.934 1.230 0.018 14.536 1.6 13.06  0.050 1.936 1.230 0.016 14.741
1.7 11.57  0.046 1.916 1.210 0.016 14.537 1.7 12.71  0.047 1.914 1.211 0.016 14.722
1.8 11.36  0.042 1.900 1.191 0.014 14.576 1.8 12.87  0.043 1.896 1.194 0.014 14.807
1.9 11.28  0.038 1.884 1.173 0.013 14.606 1.9 12.49  0.040 1.877 1.177 0.013 14.672
2 11.50  0.035 1.839 1.160 0.013 14.581 2 12.34  0.035 1.834 1.163 0.012 14.585
2.1 11.37  0.032 1.851 1.142 0.010 14.555 2.1 12.51  0.033 1.844 1.147 0.011 14.661
2.2 11.36  0.028 1.835 1.128 0.009 14.499 2.2 12.48  0.030 1.829 1.133 0.010 14.612
2.3 11.32  0.025 1.821 1.114 0.007 14.401 2.3 12.52  0.027 1.814 1.120 0.008 14.550
2.4 11.44  0.022 1.805 1.103 0.006 14.296 2.4 12.55  0.024 1.799 1.108 0.007 14.435
2.5 11.42  0.019 1.791 1.091 0.005 14.122 2.5 12.42  0.021 1.785 1.097 0.006 14.326
2.6 11.39  0.017 1.777 1.080 0.004 13.870 2.6 12.50  0.018 1.771 1.086 0.005 14.089
2.7 11.30  0.014 1.764 1.070 0.002 13.416 2.7 12.44  0.016 1.757 1.076 0.004 13.927
2.8 11.38  0.012 1.750 1.061 0.001 13.183 2.8 12.39  0.013 1.744 1.067 0.003 13.756
2.9 11.38  0.009 1.738 1.052 0.000 12.725 2.9 12.42  0.011 1.731 1.058 0.002 13.374
3 11.33  0.010 1.703 1.054  0.001 12.041 3 12.40  0.012 1.695 1.060  0.000 13.118

factor, B12(E, x), equals to that of the double-layer structure. The

C (x n ) = exp ( − 1.08βx n ) + 1.13βl (x n ) (8)
effective atomic number, Zeff12, and the effective thickness, xeff12, of
and for low atomic number material followed by a high atomic the equivalent single layer were defined by Trontl et al. (2007) as:
number material as: x eff 12 = x1 + x2 , (12.a)
C (x n ) = 0.8l (x n ) + (γ /K ) × exp ( − x n ) (9)
Z1x1 + Z2 x2
where; Z eff12 =
x1 + x2 (12.b)
(μ c / ρ ) n − 1
γ= , Z1, Z2, x1, x2 are the atomic number and the thickness (in mfp) of
(μ c / ρ ) n (10.a) each layer. The process is then repeated for the other adjacent
layers. Each iteration turned an n-layer structure into an (n  1)-
(μ t / ρ ) n layer structure.
β=
(μ t / ρ ) n − 1 (10.b)

and 3. Results and discussion

B n (x n ) + 1
l (x n ) =
B n − 1 (x n ) + 1
[1 − exp ( − x n )]
(11)
The parameters required to calculate buildup factors for mul-
tilayer structures according to the above formula, include single
material buildup factors, Compton mass attenuation coefficient as
well as total mass attenuation coefficient. In this work, the above
formula was used for a primary double-layer shield buildup factor
calculations while multilayer buildup factor calculations was
conducted using a recursive procedure similar to that suggested by
Suteau et al. (2004). The n-layer structure is treated as a combi-
nation of (n  1) double layer structures. The buildup factor is
calculated for the first two layers, which are then replaced by an
equivalent single layer structure made of a material whose buildup
The variation of the calculated linear attenuation coefficient (μ)
with photon energy, for the selected materials, is shown in Fig. 2. It
can be seen from the figure that μ, for all the selected materials,
shows higher initial values at lower incident photon energy then
decreases sharply with the increase in the photon energy up to
100 keV. With further increase in incident photon energy above
100 keV, the decrease becomes slower with almost negligible
variation above photon energy of 1 MeV. This behavior can be
explained on the basis of dominance of different partial photon
interaction processes (Kaur et al., 2012). Fig. 2 also shows that
limestone has the highest μ values whereas the lowest values
were observed for cement plaster. Higher values of μ indicate
higher probability of photon interaction or lower penetration
92 J.M. Sharaf, H. Saleh / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 110 (2015) 87–95

Table 6 0.0595
0.356
Equivalent atomic numbers Zeq, and the GP fitting parameters for Air in the energy 0.662
1000
range 0.05–3 MeV. 1.173

500
Air 1.274
1.333
Energy (MeV) Zeq a b c d χK
0
1000
0.05 7.74  0.071 4.344 1.390 0.027 13.544
0.0595 7.75  0.117 4.873 1.594 0.049 13.751 500 Concrete
0.06 7.76  0.114 4.831 1.655 0.049 13.693
0.08 7.77  0.158 4.936 1.980 0.071 13.649 0
 0.173 1000

B(E,x)
0.1 7.77 4.635 2.118 0.077 13.878
0.15 7.75  0.174 3.880 2.161 0.071 14.402
500
0.2 8.00  0.174 3.365 2.126 0.071 13.980 Cement-Plaster
0.3 6.00  0.175 2.797 2.129 0.069 14.960 0
0.356 7.67  0.150 2.717 1.918 0.060 14.143 1000
0.4 7.00  0.151 2.620 1.898 0.060 14.210
0.5 8.00  0.132 2.479 1.746 0.053 14.280 500
Limestone
0.6 8.00  0.120 2.367 1.656 0.048 14.310
0
0.662 8.02  0.118 2.315 1.610 0.045 14.336 1000
0.8 8.03  0.100 2.214 1.518 0.040 14.382
1 8.95  0.082 2.104 1.412 0.032 14.574 500 Brick
1.173 8.02  0.080 2.041 1.357 0.030 14.178
0
1.2 7.00  0.076 2.045 1.355 0.032 14.483
1.274 7.00  0.071 2.020 1.331 0.030 14.470 0 10 20 30 40

1.3 8.00  0.072 1.997 1.316 0.027 14.206 Depth (mfp)

1.333 8.03  0.070 1.986 1.307 0.026 14.224
1.5 7.51  0.058 1.937 1.269 0.024 14.343 Fig. 4. Variation in energy buildup factors with penetration depth for 0.0595 MeV
1.6 7.34  0.053 1.919 1.244 0.022 14.345 (241Am), 0.356 MeV (133Ba), 0.662 MeV (137Cs), 1.173 MeV (60Co), 1.274 MeV (22Na)
1.7 7.34  0.048 1.895 1.223 0.020 14.324 and 1.333 MeV (60Co) for Air, Concrete, Cement Plaster, Limestone, Brick.
1.8 7.26  0.043 1.873 1.205 0.019 14.267
1.9 7.21  0.039 1.851 1.188 0.017 14.190
values were observed at both lower and higher energy regions
2 7.21  0.039 1.836 1.174 0.017 14.097
2.1 7.34  0.031 1.814 1.156 0.014 14.153
with a maximum in the intermediate energy region. This can be
2.2 7.30  0.028 1.797 1.142 0.012 14.038 explained on the basis that Zeq values were determined from the
2.3 7.45  0.024 1.783 1.128 0.011 14.125 contribution of Compton scattering process and the dependence of
2.4 7.41  0.021 1.768 1.116 0.009 13.995 this process cross section on incident photon energy. Moreover, it
2.5 7.41  0.018 1.754 1.105 0.008 13.903
has been observed that, Zeq values for limestone were about 15%
2.6 7.34  0.015 1.740 1.094 0.007 13.697
2.7 7.37  0.013 1.729 1.084 0.006 13.628 higher than those obtained for the other materials.
2.8 7.37  0.010 1.717 1.074 0.005 13.486 The obtained G.P. parameters were then used to compute the
2.9 7.37  0.008 1.707 1.065 0.003 13.353 energy buildup factor for the chosen building materials within the
3 7.34  0.012 1.709 1.055 0.003 13.168
incident photon energy range 0.05–3 MeV and up to a penetration
depth of 40 mfp. The variation of the energy buildup factor with
incident photon energy for three fixed penetration depths of 5, 10
5mfp
10mfp and 20 mfp, is shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen from the figure that
2000
20mfp the energy buildup factor for all materials are initially small at low
1000 photon energy and increases with increasing photon energy until a
Air
maximum is reached, within the energy range 0.15–0.2 MeV, then
0
decreases again with further increase in the photon energy. This
400
behavior is due to the dominance of Compton scattering and so
200 Concrete
the increase in the number of multiple scattered photons at the
0 intermediate photon energy that causes the higher values of the
400 energy buildup factor at this region. On the other hand, the
B(E,x)

200 Cement Plaster dominance of photon absorption process due to photoelectric ef-
fect in the low energy region and pair production in the high
0
energy region, results in lower values of energy buildup factor at
400
those regions. Further, values of buildup factor obtained for
200 Limestone
limestone and cement plaster were lower than those obtained for
0 concrete and bricks which indicate that the buildup factor varies
400
inversely with Zeq since absorption processes are more dominant
within materials of higher Zeq value.
200 Brick
It should be noted also that the magnitude of the buildup factor
0
is directly proportional to the penetration depth due to the in-
0.1 1
crease in the scattering volume and thus the number of multiple
Energy (MeV)
scattered photons. This is made clear when variation of build up
Fig. 3. The energy buildup factor dependence on energy for 5 mfp, 10 mfp and 20 factor with the penetration depth was computed at specific pho-
mfp for Air, Concrete, Cement Plaster, Limestone, Brick. ton energies of 0.0595, 0.356, 0.662, (1.173 & 1.333) and 1.274 MeV,
emitted from point sources of 241Am, 133Ba, 137Cs, 60Co and 22Na,
depth, which is the reciprocal of the linear attenuation coefficient. respectively. A similar trend has been observed, at all photon en-
The equivalent atomic numbers (Zeq) and the G.P. fitting para- ergies, for the variations of buildup factor with penetration depth
meters for the selected materials at different incident photon en- for all the selected materials as shown in Fig. 4. In general, buildup
ergies are presented in Tables (2–6). Slight variation can be ob- factors were low at low penetration depths and increase with an
served in the Zeq values with the incident photon energy. Small increase in penetration depth until at some higher penetration
 J.M. Sharaf, H. Saleh / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 110 (2015) 87–95 93

Structure A
28 Limestone- Concrete- Air- Brick- CementPlaster

24

B(E, x1+x2+x3+x4+x5)
20

16

12

0
0.1 1
Energy (MeV)

Fig. 5. Energy Buildup factor of structure composed of (Limestone, Concrete, Air, Brick and Cement Plaster) layers with energy.

Structure B
24 Cement Plaster-Brick-Air-Brick-Cement Plaster
22

20
B(E,x1+x2+x3+x4+x5)

18

16

14

12

10

0
0.1 1

Energy (MeV)

Fig. 6. Energy Buildup factor of structure composed of (Cement Plaster, Brick, Air, Brick and Cement Plaster) layers with energy.

16
Structure C
Cement Plaster-Brick-Cement Plaster
14

12
B(E,x1+X2+X3)

10

0
0.1 1
Energy (MeV)

Fig. 7. Energy Buildup factor of structure composed of (Cement Plaster, Brick and Plaster) layers with energy.

depth of 30 mfp or more its values tend to become nearly constant.
This may be due to the absorption of multiply scattered photons
and annihilation radiation after traveling long distances and their
energies have reached very low values. However, the lowest
buildup factors through all depths were found for limestone that
enhances its usefulness as a radiation shield. Fig. 4 also shows that
energy buildup factor is higher at the photon energy of 0.356 MeV
than that obtained at other photon energies. This is due to ex-
clusive dominance of Compton scattering at intermediate photon
energy. This is because multiply scattered photons, of intermediate
energy, exist for a longer time within the absorber so that their
contribution to energy spectrum would be highest and this leads
to a higher value of buildup factors. It is also seen that the buildup
factor decreases with the increase in incident photon energies
from 0.6 to 1.333 MeV. A sharp fall in the value of buildup factor is
observed for energies greater than 1.02 MeV, which ultimately
depicts the dominance of pair production process in this energy
region.
94 J.M. Sharaf, H. Saleh / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 110 (2015) 87–95

16 factors for single layer and double layer structures were compared
14 Roof to values found in the literature: (ANSI/ANS-6.4.3, 1991) for single
12 layer structures and (Lin and Jiang, 1996; Hirayama and Shin, 1998)
for double layer structures. A double-layer configuration com-
10
B(E,x)

8
6 energy of 1 MeV. Single layer buildup factors deviate from re-
4 ference data on an average of 9.6%. Average deviations observed
2
0
0.1 1 parison results were found to be acceptable for the purpose of this
Energy (MeV)
Fig. 8. Energy Buildup factor of roof composed of single concrete layer with energy.
Table 7
Fractional transmission of photons for walls and roof as a function of photon
energy.
Style structure Fractional transmission of photons (%)
Photon energy (MeV)
0.0595 0.356 0.662 1.173 1.274
A – 3.278 12.719 16.955 23.049
B – 43.022 50.069 50.020 59.939
C 1.823 98.105 87.402 77.749 85.381
Roof 0.439 53.487 54.226 54.006 60.836
The variation of the energy buildup factor with incident photon
energy, for the multilayer wall construction styles under con-
sideration, is shown in Figs. 5–7. It can be seen from the figures
that the variation follows the same trend as discussed above for a
single layer structure. The main difference that appears in the
figures is the value of the buildup factor of the equivalent layer for
each structure. Order of the materials within multilayer structure
and magnitude of their Zeq and m, affect the final value of the en-
ergy buildup factor of each structure. Further, the buildup factor
for the three styles peaked at photon energy of 0.15 MeV, which is
in agreement with the results reported in the literature for ma-
terials of similar chemical composition (Kaur et al., 2012; Mann
et al., 2012). The maximum buildup factor values obtained for
structures A, B and C were 27.3, 23.2 and 14.3, respectively. These
values were then decreased, at incident photon energy of
1.333 MeV, to 4, 3.7 and 2.5, respectively. High Zeq and m values of
limestone that is used as a face layer in style A, slightly affect
values of the buildup factor of that layer and the following four
layers of the structure and this is due to the small thickness of the
limestone layer. Generally, for any multilayer structure, if the
magnitude of the buildup factor starts to be high at the first layer it
continues to increase to higher values in the following layers even
if a low Zeq material (air) is introduced at the middle of the
structure. This can be explained on the basis that any additional
layer will increase the scattering volume and so the number of
multiply scattered photons. The presence of an insulating layer or
air at the middle of the structure may increase the number of
scattered photons due to its low Zeq value; however, its small
thickness makes its effect on the value of the buildup factor almost
negligible. This is in agreement with the results reported by Su-
teau et al. (2004) which confirm that buildup factor of a three-
layer shield converges towards the buildup factor of a double-layer
shield if the thickness of one of the layers is infinitesimal ( o0.001
mfp). The small thicknesses of materials in Style C interpret the
low value of its energy buildup factor in comparison with styles A
and B. The variation of the energy buildup factor with incident
photon energy for the roof is shown in Fig. 8.
To verify the results of our calculations, the values of buildup
posed of water (Zeq ¼7.42) and iron (Z¼26), identical to that given
in the literature, was calculated using our approach at photon
for water–iron and iron–water buildup factors of double-layer
configurations were 8.5% and 12.8%, respectively. However, com-
study.
The obtained energy buildup factors for the construction styles
and the roof were used to examine the effectiveness of each style
in shielding against external radiation. By calculating the concrete
equivalent thickness of each structure, the fractional transmission
of photons, T, at different incident photon energies, was calculated
according to the Beer–Lambert's Law that was modified to account
for the effect of secondary radiation (Sharaf and Hamideen, 2013).
The results obtained, Table 7, indicate that the accuracy of trans-
mitted fraction is strongly dependent on the accuracy of buildup
1.333
factors used in the calculations. In our previous study, the value of
26.115 buildup factor was set to unity and so the radiation intensity
63.915 transmitted to the other side of the wall was highly under-
88.075
estimated. Based on the results obtained here, it can be reported
64.320
that the exterior wall of style A, with equivalent concrete thickness
of 23 cm attenuates about 87% and 74% of the incident photons of
energy 0.662 and 1.333 MeV, respectively. In case of wall of style B
with equivalent concrete thickness of 14.8 cm, the above values
reduced to 50% and 36% for the same energies and it became only
13% and 12% for the wall of style C that has an equivalent concrete
thickness of 8.7 cm. The roof section, which is similar in all con-
struction styles, with a concrete equivalent thickness of 11.1 cm,
was found to attenuate 56% of the incident 0.662 MeV photons
and 36% of the incident 1.333 MeV photons. It should be noted,
however, that shielding provided by roofs is much more important
than that offered by exterior walls in case of nuclear accident.
Based on the experience obtained after the Chernobyl accident, it
was found that contaminated roofs were estimated to have given
the highest dose contribution, so that the critical population group
was residents of single-story buildings or the top floor of multis-
tory buildings (Andersson et al., 2002). The doses received from
contamination on walls over the first decade after deposition were
estimated of at least a factor of 2 smaller than those received from
the contamination on roofs in the same housing area, primarily
due to the vertical orientation of walls so that they receive less dry
deposition per unit area, (Roed and Andersson, 1996).
Generally, it is often very difficult to predict by how much in-
cident radiation will be attenuated in passing through a combi-
nation of exterior and interior walls of a building of any con-
struction style but it is not difficult to observe that large multistory
buildings with exterior walls of style A, may effectively attenuate
radiation more than small dwellings of any construction style.
Significant benefits can be achieved in using the basement and
lower floors of multistory buildings as public shelters, during the
earliest phase of a major nuclear accident, in which the concrete
floors of upper stories can effectively attenuate different compo-
nents of the incident radiation. This can so far influence decisions
concerning where to seek shelter and when to evacuate.
4. Conclusions
The attenuation properties of different building materials
commonly used in Jordan were evaluated and discussed in terms
of equivalent atomic number, attenuation coefficients, penetration
 J.M. Sharaf, H. Saleh / Radiation Physics and Chemistry 110 (2015) 87–95
depth and energy buildup factor. The obtained buildup factors
were then used to calculate the total equivalent energy buildup
factors for three different multilayer construction styles using an
iterative method.
The energy buildup factors, calculated using geometrical pro-
gression relations, were found to depend on the equivalent atomic
number and vary with the incident photon energy. Limestone,
among the selected building materials, showed the lowest value
for energy buildup factor due to its higher values of equivalent
atomic number and linear attenuation coefficient.
In terms of photon fractional transmission, the five layer wall
construction style of type A, appears to offer better gamma-ray
shielding than that provided by the other two styles of type B and
type C. Accordingly, lower floors of multistory buildings, with type
A exterior walls, may be used as public shelters during the earliest
phase of a major nuclear accident.
References
Ahmad, A., Hussein, A., Aslam, 1998. Radiation doses in Jordanian dwellings due to
natural radioactivity in construction materials and soil. J. Environ. Radio 41 (2),
127–136.
Andersson, K.G., Roed, J., Fogh, C.L., 2002. Weathering of radiocaesium con-
tamination on urban streets, walls and roofs. J. Environ. Radio 62 (1), 49–60.
ANSI/ANS-6.4.3, 1991. Gamma ray attenuation coefficient and buildup factors for
engineering materials.
Bashter, I.I., 1997. Calculation of radiation attenuation coefficients for shielding
concretes. Ann. Nucl. Energy 24 (17), 1389–1401.
Burke, G., de, P., Beck, H.L., 1974. Calculated and measured dose buildup factors for
gamma rays penetrating multilayered shields. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 53, 109.
CMSI, 2002. Report on Concrete Block And Bricks Manufacturing. The Construction
and Material Science Institute, RSS, Amman.
DOS, 2004. Population and Housing Census. vol.1. characteristics of buildings. De-
partment of statistics, Amman.
Geward, L., Guilbert, N., Jensen, K., Levring, H., 2004. WinXCom- a program for
calculating X-ray attenuation coefficients. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 71, 653–654.
Guvendik, M., Tsoulfanidis, N., 1999. Formulas giving buildup factor for double-
layered shields. Nucl. Technol. 131, 332–336.
Harima, Y., 1983. An approximation of gamma ray buildup factors by modified
geometric progression. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 83, 299–309.
Harima, Y., Sakamoto, Y., Tonaka, S., Kawai, M., 1986. Validity of geometric pro-
gression gamma ray buildup factors. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 94, 24–25.
Hirayama, H., Shin, K., 1998. Application of the EGS4 monte carlo code to a study of
multilayer gamma-ray exposure buildup factors of up to 40 mfp. J. Nucl. Sci.
Technol. 35 (11), 816–829.
Jaeger, R.G., Blizard, E.P., Chilton, A.B., Grotenhuis, M., Hö nig, A., Jaeger, T.A., Ei-
senlohr, H.H., 1968. Engineering Compendium on Radiation Shielding. In:
Shielding Fundamentals and Methods. vol. 1. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
95
Jacob, P., Meckbach, R., 1987. Shielding factors and external dose evaluation. Radiat.
Prot. Dosim. 21 (1/3), 79–85.
Kaur, U., Sharma, J.K., Singh, P., Singh, T., 2012. Comparative studies of different
concretes on the basis of some photon interaction parameters. Appl. Radiat.
Isot., 70; , pp. 233–240.
Kazuo, S., Hirayama, H., 2001. Calculation of gamma ray buildup factors for two
layered shields made of water, concrete and iron and application of approx-
imating formula. Radiat. Phys. Chem 64, 583–584.
Lin, U., Jiang, S., 1996. A dedicated empirical formula for γ-ray buildup factors for
point isotropic source in stratified shields. Radiat. Phys. Chem 48, 389–401.
Mann, K.S., Singla, J., Kumar, V., Sidhu, G.S., 2012. Investigation of mass attenuation
coefficients and exposure buildup factors of some low-Z building materials.
Ann. Nucl. Energy 43, 157–166.
Meckbach, R., Jacob, P., Le Grand, J., 1995. Measurement and simulation of spectral
photon fluence rates in a small building exposed to a 60Co source. Nucl. In-
strum. Methods A 356 (2-3), 530–536.
Nelson, W.R., Hirayama, H., Rogers, D., 1985. “The EGS4 code system” SLAC-265.
Stanford Linear Acceler Center, Stanford, California.
Roed, J., Andersson, K.G., 1996. Clean-up of Urban Areas in the CIS Countries Con-
taminated by Chernobyl Fallout. J. Environ. Radioactivity 33 (2), 107–116.
Sandari, D., Abbaspour, A., Baradaran, S., Babapour, F., 2009. Estimation of gamma
and X-ray photons buildup factor in soft tissue with Monte Carlo method. Appl.
Radiat. Isot. 67, 1438–1440.
Sharaf, J.M., Hamideen, M.S., 2013. Photon attenuation coefficients and shielding
effects of Jordanian building materials. Ann. Nucl. Energy 62, 50–56.
Shimizu, A., 2002. Calculations of gamma ray buildup factors up to depths of 100
mfp by the method of invariant embedding, (I) analysis of accuracy and com-
parison with other data. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 39, 477–486.
Shimizu, A., Onda, T., Sakamoto, Y., 2004. Calculations of gamma ray buildup factors
up to depths of 100 mfp by the method of invariant embedding, (III) generation
of an improved data set. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 41, 413–424.
Singh, C., Singh, T., Kumar, A., Mudahar, G., 2004. Energy and chemical composition
dependence of mass attenuation coefficients of building materials. Ann. Nucl.
Energy 31, 1199–1205.
Singh, T., Kumar, N., Singh, P.S., 2009. Chemical composition dependence of ex-
posure buildup factors for some polymers. Ann. Nucl. Energy 36 (1), 114–120.
Singh, P.S., Singh, T., Kaur, P., 2008. Variation of energy absorption buildup factors
with incident photon energy and penetration depth for some commonly used
solvents. Ann. Nucl. Energy 35 (6), 1093–1097.
Suteau, C., Chiron, M., 2005. An iterative method for calculating gamma-ray buildup
factors in multi-layers shields. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 116, 489–492.
Suteau, C., Chiron, M., Arnaud, G., 2004. Improvement of MERCURE- 6’s general
formalism for calculating gamma-ray buildup factors in multilayer shields.
Nucl. Sci. Eng. 147 (1), 43–55.
Takeuchi, K., Tanaka, S., 1984. “PALLAS-ID(VII), a code for direct integration of
transport equation in one dimensional plane and spherical geometries”. JAERI
M84, 214.
Trontl, K., Smuc, T., Pevec, D., 2005. Application of support vector regression in
estimation of buildup factors for double-layer shields. In: Proceedings of the
European Nuclear Conference ENC, pp. 49.1– 49.9.
Trontl, K., Smuc, T., Pevec, D., 2007. Support vector regression model for the esti-
mation of γ-ray buildup factors for multi-layer shields. Ann. Nucl. Energy 34,
939–952.