ICARUS 5 9 , 4 1 - - 5 9 (1984)

Bidirectional Reflectance Spectroscopy

3. Correction for Macroscopic Roughness

BRUCE HAPKE
Department of Geology and Planetary Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260
Received August 2, 1982; revised March 13, 1984

A mathematically rigorous formalism is derived by which an arbitrary photometric function for

the bidirectional reflectance of a smooth surface may be corrected to include effects of general
macroscopic roughness. The correction involves only one arbitrary parameter, the mean slope
angle 0, and is applicable to surfaces of any albedo. Using physically reasonable assumptions and
mathematical approximations the correction expressions are evaluated analytically to second order
in 0. The correction is applied to the bidirectional reflectance function of B. Hapke (1981, J.
Geophys. Res. 86, 3039-3054), Expressions for both the differential and integral brightnesses are
obtained. Photometric profiles on hypothetical smooth and rough planets of low and high albedo
are shown to illustrate the effects of macroscopic roughness. The theory is applied to observations
of Mercury and predicts the integral phase function, the apparent polar darkening, and the lack of
limb brightness surge on the planet. The roughness-corrected bidirectional reflectance function is
sufficiently simple that it can be conveniently evaluated on a programmable hand-held calculator.

I. INTRODUCTION 1960; Hapke, 1963, 1981) imply that, when

In an earlier paper (Hapke, 1981) expres-
sions were derived which describe the bidi-
rectional reflectance from a macroscopi-
cally smooth, particulate surface, and
which also relate the single scattering al-
bedo of a surface particle to the absorption
coefficient of the material. The reflectance
function takes account of multiple scatter-
ing and interparticle shadowing. In a com-
panion to that paper (Hapke and Wells,
1981) it was demonstrated by comparison
of predictions from this function with
results of laboratory experiments and astro-
nomical observations that the function can
be used to measure quantitiatively the spec-
tral absorption coefficient of a powder and
predict the brightness profiles on planetary
surfaces.
The only major discrepancies between
observations and this theory occur near the
poles and illuminated limb of a low albedo
planet. Rigorous solutions of the radiative
transfer equation for macroscopically
smooth, dark surfaces (Chandrasekhar,
41
single scattering dominates, the brightness
should be independent of latitude and
highly peaked at the illuminated limb.
These predictions are contrary to observa-
tions (Hapke, 1966, 1977). Previously it had
been assumed that these discrepancies are
due to roughness and could be removed if
this factor could be taken into account
properly.
There have been relatively few attempts
in the literature to treat the effects of mac-
roscopic roughness on planetary photomet-
ric functions, and most of these have dealt
with specific topographic shapes. Van Dig-
gelen (1959) and Hameen-Anttila (1967)
considered the effects of cup-shaped de-
pressions. Hapke (1966) used a model for
the Moon in which the surface is taken to
be covered with cylindrical troughs whose
axes are parallel to meridians of longitude.
The latter treatment is unsatisfactory in
several respects. First, the geometry is
highly artificial. Second, only single scat-
tering is taken into account. Third, in com-
mon with most models which treat specific
001%1035/84 $3.00
Copyright © 1984 by Academic Press. Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
42 BRUCE HAPKE
shapes, the reflectance has several different
forms, depending on the angles involved,
and is c u m b e r s o m e to use.
Cook (1981 ) has developed a lunar photo-
metric function which includes roughness
effects. While his function has the advan-
tage of being mathematically simple, it is
based on an empirical psuedo-Lambertian
formalism, rather than the radiative trans-
fer equation. L u m m e and Bowell (1981a,b)
have recently published a rough-surfaced
scattering model. H o w e v e r , there appear to
be serious errors in their photometric func-
tion (Hapke, 1982). Among the many diffi-
culties with their treatment are the follow-
ing: (1) The roughness is assumed to have
no effect on the multiply-scattered compo-
nent of light. This is physically impossible
and violates the principle of conservation of
energy. (2) Their roughness correction
makes the reflectance approach zero at the
limb. Thus, low albedo bodies, such as the
Moon, should be strongly limb darkened,
contrary to observations. While it may be
possible to fit some astronomical data to
their theory, the relations between the de-
duced photometric parameters and actual
surface properties of the body are unclear
and are likely to be seriously in error.
There is a considerable body of literature
which discusses shadowing on a randomly
rough surface; e.g., Muhleman (1964),
Wagner (1967), Saunders (1967), and
Hagfors (1968) and references cited therein.
Most of these papers deal with specularly
reflecting facets, usually in connection with
either analyses of sea glitter or the special
case of backscatter for radar applications.
None of the references with which I am fa-
miliar adequately treat the major problems
of effective surface tilt nor the correlation
between the illumination and viewing
shadows at small azimuth angles.
It is the purpose of this paper to derive an
expression which can be used to correct
any general bidirectional reflectance func-
tion of a smooth surface for effects of
roughness of arbitrary topology.
11. COORDINATE SYSTEMS
In general, any bidirectional reflectance
expression is a function of three indepen-
dent angular variables. Frequently these
are taken to be the zenith angle of the inci-
dent ray i, the zenith angle of the exit ray e,
and the azimuth angle ~, which is the angle
between the projections onto the surface of
the incident and exit rays. In planetary
problems the phase angle g is often used
instead of the azimuth angle because when
analyzing the image of a planet, g is con-
stant over the entire image.
For many planetary applications it is con-
venient to use luminance coordinates, in
which the independent variables are the lu-
minance longitude A, luminance latitude L,
and phase angle g. In this coordinate sys-
tem the equator is the great circle on the
planet containing the subsolar and subob-
server points; the central meridian contains
the subobserver point; positive longitude is
to the east; and the phase angle is positive
when the subsolar point is to the west of the
subobserver point.
These coordinate systems are related by
the following equations:
cos e = cos A cos L, (I)
cos i = cos(A + g) cos L, (2)
cos
-- (cos g - cos i cos e)/sin i sin e, (3)
where 0 -< • -< 7r.
111. ASSUMPTIONS AND APPROACH
The following assumptions are made:
(I) All relevant objects are large com-
pared to the wavelength of light so that geo-
metrical optics is applicable.
(2) The mean slope 0 is assumed to be
reasonably small. Scarps and overhangs
with slopes greater than ~-/2 constitute a
negligible part of the surface. Although the
general roughness correction will be de-
rived for an arbitrary slope distribution, the
 ROUGH-SURFACED PHOTOMETRIC
resulting expressions are greatly simplified
if powers of 6 greater than 2 can be ignored.
(3) Multiple scattering of light from one
macroscopic surface facet to another is ne-
glected. This assumption is consistent with
the second. For example, it is straightfor-
ward to show that the light scattered from
the insides of a hollow spherical cup of
maximum slope &,, covered by a Lambert
surface of normal albedo AN, onto the cen-
tral facet at the bottom when the cup is illu-
minated vertically by light of intensity J is
(J/4)AN sin2&. Thus, the ratio of once-
scattered to incident illumination is second
order in slope and can be ignored if the
slopes and/or the albedo are small.
(4) It is assumed that the surface is made
up of facets tilted at a variety of angles
which have no preferred direction in azi-
muth but can be described by a Gaussian
distribution in zenith angle. The assump-
tion of azimuth independence will certainly
be true on the average for surfaces covered
by craters, boulders, hills, and similar fea-
tures, and it also appears to be true for the
surface of the ocean (Cox and Munk, 1954).
Thus, it is probably a reasonable approxi-
mation for most of the bodies in the solar
system. Its validity may be questioned for
morphologies like folded mountain ranges
or fields of parallel sand dunes. However, it
must be remembered that in planetary ap-
plications the scales of roughness involved
range from greater than a few soil particle
diameters to just below the resolution of the
observing instrument, that is, typically of
the order of a millimeter to several kilome-
ters. Because effects of material strength
and soil cohesiveness are size dependent,
the largest slopes, which dominate the re-
flectance, will occur at the small end of this
size range. Departures from the horizontal
induced by such erosive agents as micro-
cratering, eolian gusting, and fluvial action
are likely to be reasonably isotropic in azi-
muth on the dominating small scales, even
though not necessarily on the less impor-
tant larger scales.
FUNCTION 43
No other assumptions about the geome-
try of the roughness are made. The present
treatment attempts to keep the morphology
as general as possible.
The general procedure of the derivation
will be as follows. First, expressions which
are mathematically rigorous will be derived
and the parameters necessary for their eval-
uation defined. Since the effects are maxi-
mum at grazing illumination and viewing,
these expressions will be evaluated exactly
under these conditions. To obtain useful
approximations the equations will also be
evaluated for vertical viewing and illumina-
tion. The resulting expressions will be con-
nected by analytic extrapolation to give a
solution for intermediate angles.
IV. DERIVATION
The actual surface of the planet can be
imagined to consist of an assemblage of
smooth, unresolved facets of area Af of a
particulate material, where Af is large com-
pared with the cross-sectional areas of the
particles but small compared with the area
viewed by the detector. The normals to the
facets are tilted at various angles 8 with re-
spect to the local vertical and in directions 5
relative to the azimuth of the source of illu-
mination.
Let a(6) be the function which describes
the distribution of tilts. In general, it would
be a function of both 0 and 5 but, by as-
sumption 4, a is independent of 5. Let the
slope distribution function be normalized so
that
and characterized by a mean slope angle 6
defined by
tan 6 = (2/7r) I,“’ tan &z(O) de. (3
Let the facets consist of a material
which, if it covered a perfectly smooth
planet, would reflect an amount of light
44
l(i,e,g) = Jrs(i,e,g)AcoD z
when illuminated by collimated light of in-
tensity J and observed from a distance D by
a detector whose acceptance solid angle is
A60; that is, rs is the bidirectional reflec-
tance function of the surface material in
macroscopically smooth form. Then the
power emitted into unit solid angle per unit
surface area would be
Ys = Jrs cos e.
The amount of light reaching the detector
from the area on the surface of the planet
within Aco with nominal values of i, e, and g
actually comes from many facets tilted at a
variety of angles and can be written
l(i,e,g)
= J fli.~)rs(i,,et,g) cos erdAt(O,~),
where the subscript t on i, e, and A denotes
values appropriate to an incremental sur-
face of area dA,(O,~) = Afa(O)dOd~ tilted at
angles (0,~), and the symbol (i,v) indicates
that the integration is to be taken only over
those surface facets which are both illumi-
nated and visible.
The light l ( i , e , g ) reaching the detector is
interpreted as if it came from a smooth.
horizontal surface of area A = DZA¢o sec e,
where A >> Af and D is the slant range, and
having an effective bidirectional reflectance
function rR(i,e,g); that is,
l(i,e,g)
= AJrR(i,e,g) cos e = JrRAcoD 2.
The objective of this paper is to derive a
correction to rs to obtain re.
Macroscopic roughness has two impor-
tant effects: one is that unresolved shadows
are cast on one part of the surface by an-
other part. The second is that, as the sur-
face is viewed and illuminated at increasing
angles, the facets which are tilted away
from the observer or source tend to be hid-
den or in shadow, so that the surfaces
which are visible and illuminated tend to be
tilted preferentially toward the detector or
BRUCE HAPKE
(6)
Flo. 1. Schematic diagram of the intersection of the
(7) surface and a vertical plane containing the detector.
Shown are the actual surface consisting of a multitude
of unresolved facets A~-, the nominal surface A, and the
effective tilted surface A'. A cut by a vertical plane
containing the source would be similar.
source. To account for both of these effects
I seek to write the bidirectional reflectance
function rR of the rough surface as the prod-
uct of a shadowing function S and the bidi-
(8)
rectional reflectance rs of a smooth surface
of area A ' tilted at effective angles i' and e',
but with the same phase angle g. That is, I
wish to write the reflectance in the form
rR(i,e,g) = r s ( i ' , e ' , g ) S ( i , e , g ) . (10)
Then from (9) the intensity coming from A
can be written as
i(i,e,g)
= A ' J r s ( i ' , e ' , g ) cos e ' S ( i , e , g ) , (ll)
where A' and A are related by (see Fig. I)
A' cos e' = A cos e. (12)
Rewriting and combining Eqs. (8), (10),
and (1 1) gives
(9)
AYn(i,e,g) = A'Ys(i',e',g)S(i,e,g) (13)
= ~ Ys(it,er,g)dA~,
where
Y~(i,e,g) = JrR(i,e,g) cos e,
Y s ( i ' , e ' , g ) =- J r s ( i ' , e ' , g ) cos e',
Ys(it,et,g) = Jrs(i,,et,g) cos et.
Let
/-~o = COS i. (14)
/~ = COS c, (15)
 ROUGH-SURFACED PHOTOMETRIC FUNCTION 45

/z6 = cos i', (16) because, in principle, once ~ , tx' and S are
found, they can be inserted back into (10) to
p.' = cos e'. (17)
give rR. Thus, the problem of scattering
The other angles are related by from a rough surface is reduced to evaluat-
ing Eqs. (21)-(23). Note that this derivation
/z0t = cos it = cos i cos 0
does not assume that ~ - /x0 a n d / x ' - p+
+ sinisin0cos~, (18) are small, only that Ys is mathematically
/xt = COS et = COS e COS 0 well behaved so that expansion in a Taylor
+ sinesin0cos(g-~). (19) series at any point is possible.
In general, there will be two types of
Note that g is the same for all surface facets shadows. Some of the facets will not con-
within the viewed area. tribute to the surface brightness because
To find/x~,/x', and S expand the Ys func- they are tilted by an angle of more than 7r/2
tions on both sides of the second equality in to the direction to the source or detector;
Eq. (13) in Taylor series about /x0 and /z, such facets will be said to be in a "tilt
and use (12) to obtain s h a d o w . " Some facets will not contribute
because other parts of the surface block ei-
A/x [ 0Ysl ther the view of the detector or the light
- ~,
- s Ys(~o,~.g) + -or,6
- ,~,,. ( / z ; - #o)
from the source; these facets will be said to
Ys + .. = lie in a "projected s h a d o w . " Following
,,, ] L, Saunders (19671 it is assumed that any facet
not in a tilt shadow has the same statistical
r{rs(.o,..g)+ 0 rs IN. (.0,- .o) probability of lying in a projected shadow,
O/Xo~
independent of the slope or azimuth angle
+ -Oix--~ ~,.,,, (txt - Ix) + " ' ' 1 dA, of its tilt.
Let p be the probability that a facet is not
0Ys in a projected shadow. Then in Eq, (20)
= Ys(ht°'/x'g) fti,v)dAt + ~ fci.~)
Ys(/z0, ,~, ,g) can be multiplied by p if at the
OYs ( same time the boundaries of the integration
(l'Z°' -- tx°)dAt + -~g J(i,v) are replaced by the tilt shadow boundaries.
(txt-- tx)dA, + • • ". (20) This has the effect of multiplying both the
numerators and denominators in (22) and
Since/Zo and/z are independent variables (23) by p, which thus cancels in these equa-
and Ys is an arbitrary function of/z0 and/x, tions. Therefore, writing out the expres-
(20) will be satisfied if the coefficients of Ys sions for/z0,,/x,, and dA, explicitly, (22) and
and its partial derivatives are separately (23) become
equal on both sides of the equality. This
gives cos i f , ilt) cos Oa(O)dOd~

S = (l£t/~A) f( i,v) dAt, (21) ¢

+ sin i J(tilt} sin 0 cos ~a(O)dOd~
/~0 = (24)
f(t,tl a( O)dOd~
I~o' = f<i.v~ IzotdAt / f , i,v) dAt, (22)
and
and
cos e f(til~lcos Oa(O)dOd~:

/Z ' = f~i,v) l'ztdAt /f~ i,v) dA,. (23) + sin e f , iit) sin 0 cos(~
- T')a(O)dOdl;
Similar expressions for higher powers of Iz~ ~'= , (25)

and ~ ' can be found, but are not necessary /(tilt) a( O)dOd~
46 BRUCE HAPKE

where (tilt) denotes the b o u n d a r y of the tilt of view is completely filled by surfaces
shadow region. which are visible and totally illuminated.
L e t AT be the total rough area included Thus,
within the nominal area A, whether visible
S(/~0,tx,0) = (tx'°/tz(cos 0))F,, = 1,
and illuminated or not,
where
AT = .~f,ll(0,Od A , . p,0 = p~'('t~ = 0). (27)
Also, A is just the projection of all facets Hence,
onto the horizontal plane
F,,(e) = /z(cos 0)//x '°. (28)
A ;~,~oo cos OdA,, Because of the assumption of azimuthal
s y m m e t r y of the surface morphology, F,,(e)
Because of azimuthal s y m m e t r y must be independent of q~, and also F;(i)
must have the same functional dependence
A / A T = f~.'2 on i as I%(e) does on e; thus,
Tr/2

cos Oa(O)dO
/f ) a(O)dO =- (cos 0).
where
Fi(i) = /x0(cos O)/tx~'~~, (29)

Thus, expression (21) for S can be written

/z[~° = /z[ffq~ = 0). (30)
S(t~o,l~,*) = (Ix'/tx)(AT/A) (Ji,,,, d A , / A T )
Let the quantities A,, and A; be defined by
(26)
A,,/Ar = I - F,,.
= (~'#x(cos O))F~.v,
where A,,/AT is the fraction of the facets in
where the visibility shadows, and
(
Fiv(/X°'/x'~P) = )6.,)dAffAi Ai/A-r - 1 - Fi

is the fraction of the facets in the illumina-

is the probability that a facet will be both
illuminated and visible.
I. The C a s e W h e n i <- e
It is convenient to consider separately
the situations when i -< e and i ~ e. Define
the quantities Fi(i) and F,,(e), respectively,
as the fraction of the facets which are illu-
minated and the fraction which are visible.
Because of azimuthal s y m m e t r y F,, and F,
are independent of q~. L e t . / ' b e the fraction
of the illumination shadow which overlaps
the visibility shadow.
When i -< e the illumination shadow is
always smaller than the visibility shadow
and m a y be regarded as partially hidden by
it. When q~ = 0 and i < e, the illumination
shadow is c o m p l e t e l y hidden, so that
Fiv(/z0,/z,O) - F,,. But when ~P - O, no
shadows are visible and the d e t e c t o r ' s field
tion shadows. These include both the tilt
and projected shadows. When xp = O, all of
the illumination shadows are hidden in the
visibility shadows; the visibility and illumi-
nation shadows are perfectly correlated, so
that
f= I
and
Fir = F,, = I - A,./AT.
As q~ increases, a fraction 1 - f of" the
illumination shadows will be exposed.
When ,Is = 7r, f = O, and the two types of
shadows are completely uncorrelated, so
that
Fi, = 1 - A,JA-F - AflAT + (A./AT)(AflAj-)
-- (I - A,./AT)(I - AflAT)
= F,,F;,
 ROUGH-SURFACED PHOTOMETRIC FUNCTION
where the t e r m A e A i / A 2 corrects for the
a m o u n t of r a n d o m overlap. The last equa-
tion states that when the two shadows are
c o m p l e t e l y uncorrelated the probability
that a facet will be both illuminated and vis-
ible is the p r o d u c t of the separate probabili-
ties.
When ~ < 7r, A i in the last expression for
Fly must be replaced by (1 - f ) A i / ( A T -
f A i ) , where this t e r m accounts for the facts
that only a portion 1 - f o f the illumination
shadow is r a n d o m l y e x p o s e d , and only an
area AT - f A i is available to be occupied by
this uncorrelated part of the illumination
shadow. Thus, the general expression for
the probability that a facet will be both illu-
minated and visible is
Fiv = [l - A~/AT]
I1 - (1 - f ) A i / ( A T - f A i ) ]
= [1 - Ae/AT][1 - Ai/AT]/[1 - f A i / A T ]
= Ffl~,/(l - f + fF;).
Combining this result with with (26), (28),
and (29) gives
S ( i , e , q t) = (ix'/ix'°)(ix0/ix~°)(cos 0)
[1 - f + f(IX0/IX~°)(cos 0)3-'. (31)
Thus far, the derivation has been rigor-
ous. In the r e m a i n d e r of this subsection ap-
proximate, analytic expressions for IX6,
Ix', and S which are suitable for practical
calculations will be developed. This will be
done by evaluating equations (24) and (25)
exactly for i and e near zr/2 and near 0; the
solutions thus obtained will be connected
by analytic extrapolation to furnish expres-
sions for intermediate angles.
First a suitable expression for f , the frac-
tion of the illumination shadow hidden in
the visibility shadow, will be found. It will
be a s s u m e d that f is a function of q~ only
and is independent of i and e, which will be
a good a p p r o x i m a t i o n at grazing illumina-
tion and viewing. The surface can be con-
sidered as being m a d e up of p r o t u b e r a n c e s
and depressions of m e a n width d and mean
height tan Od/2. As xF increases from zero
the fraction of the tilt illumination shadows
47
e x p o s e d will increase a p p r o x i m a t e l y lin-
early with ~ and be completely e x p o s e d at
qt = ~r; hence this c o m p o n e n t o f f will de-
crease a p p r o x i m a t e l y as ~/Tr. H o w e v e r ,
for e and i near rr/2 the projected shadows
are cast by objects of width - d onto sur-
faces a distance - d a w a y , so that these
shadows are nearly completely e x p o s e d
when • > 1 radian. Since for large angles
the s h a d o w consists roughly equally of tilt
and projected c o m p o n e n t s the fraction ex-
p o s e d at q; = 1 is a p p r o x i m a t e l y (½) × (1/Tr)
+ (½) × 1 ~ ~-. Thus the fraction hidden may
be a p p r o x i m a t e d by a function which de-
creases rapidly f r o m a value of 1 at q~ = 0,
to a value of about 1 - - ~ = ~ a t ~ = I and
then a p p r o a c h e s 0 as hu a p p r o a c h e s n-. A
simple function with the required proper-
ties is
f ( ~ ) = e x p [ - 2 tan(q~/2)]. (32)
Returning to IX~ and IX', only the tilt
shadows affect these quantities. The
b o u n d a r y of the tilt illumination shadow is
given by (18) with i, = n'/2, or
cos ~ = - c o t 0 cot i. (33)
This equation has no solution when 0 -< 0 <
7r/2 - i, but ~ lies b e t w e e n n-/2 and 37r/2
when zr/2 - i -< 0 -< n'/2. Similarly, the
b o u n d a r y of the tilt visibility shadow is
given by (19) with et = 7r/2:
cos(~ - qt) = - c o t 0 cot e, (34)
which has no solution when 0 - 0 < rr/2 -
e, but ~ lies b e t w e e n n-/2 + ~ and 3n'/2 +
when n-/2 - e -< 0 -< n-/2.
Equations (24) and (25) are readily evalu-
ated at i = e = 0 and 7r/2. F o r vertical illumi-
nation and viewing the integrals o v e r cos
and cos(~ - ~ ) vanish, and
i = e = 0: IX~ = IX' = ( c o s 0 ) . (35)
I f the tilt shadows are represented in a polar
diagram with 0 and ~, respectively, as the
radial and angular variables, then when i =
e = 7r/2 the tilt shadow boundaries are the
straight radial lines ~ = ~ - 7r/2 and ~ = ~-/
2, while the limits on 0 are 0 to ~-/2. H e n c e ,
48 BRUCE HAPKE

i = e = 7r/2: H o w e v e r , these integrals could be evalu-

p.[~ = p.' - (1 + cos ~){sin 0}/(rr - ~I/), ated at a n y i, e, and xI* if the c u r v e d s h a d o w
(36) b o u n d a r i e s could be a p p r o x i m a t e d in the di-
a g r a m by a p p r o p r i a t e s e g m e n t s o f straight
where radial lines o f constant/~ and circles o f con-
(sin 0) = sin Oa(O) dO. stant 0. This a p p r o a c h is carried out as fol-
)
lows.
W h e n ~ = 0 Eq. (36) s h o w s that the effec- T h e effect o f the illumination s h a d o w
tive surface is tilted t o w a r d the source and alone on/x~ m a y be a s c e r t a i n e d by setting e
d e t e c t o r by an a m o u n t sin-J(2(sin 0)/rr). = 0 and using (33) as the (tilt) b o u n d a r y in
F o r intermediate values o f i and e the in- (24). The integration o v e r ~ in the three in-
tegrals are m u c h m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d b e c a u s e tegrals in the n u m e r a t o r and d e n o m i n a t o r
the s h a d o w b o u n d a r i e s (33) and (34) are o f (24) m a y then be carried out exactly to
o v e r l a p p i n g c u r v e s in the 0 - ( diagram. give, r e s p e c t i v e l y .

/'rr2 ,

Jltilt)
cos Oa(O)dOd~ =
. o
2rr cos Oa(O)dO

t~ 2sin 1(1 - cot20 c o t 2 i ) 1/2 COS Oa(O)dO. (37a)

- _ J

f, tilt)
sin 0 cos ~a(O)dOd~ =
- /7 - ¢
(1 - cot:O cot2i) ~'~ sin Oa(O)dO, (37b)

£1ilta(O)dOd~ JiTz'a(O)dO+ l~'] sin-I(l-coteOcot2i)';2a(O,dO, (37c)

w h e r e the value o f the sin ~ is to be taken b e t w e e n rr/2 and rr. N o w , the f a c t o r (1 - cot20
cot2/) ~/2 has the following properties: it rises with infinite slope f r o m the value z e r o at 0 =
rr/2 - i to the value unity at 0 = rr/2, where it has a slope o f zero. Thus, as a beginning
a p p r o x i m a t i o n this f a c t o r m a y be replaced by a unit step function at 0 = ~r/2 - i. (This
a p p r o x i m a t i o n will be c o r r e c t e d for below.) T h e n (37) b e c o m e s

cos Oa(O)dOd~ ~ [- 27r cos Oa(O)dO + ~r cos Oa(O)dO, (38a)

till) • rr/2 i

sin 0 cos ~a(O)dOd~ = 2 sin Oa(O)dO, (38b)

tiltl - - ?

a(O)dOd~ ~ 2rra(O)dO+ 7ra(O)dO. (38c)

tilt) 0 ,2 i

Similarly, the effect o f the visibility s h a d o w alone on/,~'~ m a y be ascertained by setting i

= 0 and using (34) in (24) to obtain

f,,,u cos Oa(O)dOd~ = f]'-~' cos Oa(O)dO

+ 2 sin 1(1 -- cot10 cot2e) ~I: COS Oa(O)dO, (39a)

. I
tiltl
sin 0 cos ~a(O)dOd~ =
f/~2
2 c o s ~(1 - cot20 cot2e) 1/2 sin Oa(O)dO, (39b)

Jltih a(O)dOd~ = f7~ 2rra(O)dO+ . .2 ,.2 sin I(1 - cot20 cot2e)l'2a(O)dO, (39c)
 ROUGH-SURFACED PHOTOMETRIC FUNCTION 49

which, upon approximating (1 - cot20 cot2e) v2 by a unit step function at 0 = 7r/2 - e,

becomes

f~
tilt )
(~,2-~ 27r cos Oa(O)dO + (~/2
COS Oa(O)dOd~ --~
d0 d 7r/2- e
rr cos Oa(O)dO, (40a)

fJ( sin 0 cos ~a(O)dOd~ ~-

fo/2
tilt)
2 cos • sin Oa(O)dO,
d 7r,~2-e
(40b)

L, -- fd 2a,O),O + f;L ,40c,

These approximations are equivalent to 37r/2 + q / a n d the circles 0 = 7r/2 - e and 7#

replacing the curved illumination shadow 2. These squared shadows are illustrated in
boundary in the 0 - g diagram by a square- Fig. 2. At grazing illumination and viewing
cornered shadow bounded by the radial these approximations b e c o m e exact. With
lines g = 7r/2 and 3~'/2 and the circles 0 = the simplified boundaries of the squared-
rr/2 - i and rr/2, and replacing the visibility shadow approximation the three integrals
shadow by a square-cornered shadow in Eq. (24) may be evaluated for the case
bounded by the radial lines ~ = 7#2 + qz and when neither i, e, nor ",It are zero to give

f( (~r/2 e
cos Oa(O)dOd~ ~- 27r cos Oa(O)dO + (,~/2 cos Oa(O)dO
tilt) dO d zr/2 e

--
J~/2-i ~ cos Oa(O)dO, (41a)

f(tilt) sin 0 cos ~a(O)dOd~ = (,~n

d 1r/2 e
2 cos • sin Oa(O)dO
+ (7r/2
(1 - cos qt) sin Oa(O)dO, (41b)
d n-/2 - i

f( a(O)dOdg ~- ( ~/2 ~ 2rra(O)dO + (zr/2 7ra(O)dO - - - 7ra(O)dO. (41c)

tilt) d0 d 7r/2-e 77" d rc/2-i

The first term in (41b) is the same as identical with the last term in (38a)
(40b). The second term corrects for the weighted by the integral of d~. Equation
fraction of the illumination shadow visible (41c) is similarly related to (40c) and (38c).
and is identical with (38b), weighted by the The approximation may be improved by
integral of cos ~d~ o v e r the portion of the 0 replacing the integrals in (41), which appear
- ~ diagram not covered by tilt shadows. in (38) and (40) and result from the squared-
The first two terms in (41a) are the same as shadow boundaries, by their more exact
(40a). The last term corrects for the fraction counterparts in (37) and (39), respectively,
of the illumination shadow sticking out which describe the curved shadows. This
from behind the visibility shadow, and is gives

¢r/2 e
f.i). cos Oa(O)dOdg -~ I
.tO
27r cos Oa(O)dO
rr/2
+ 2 sin-)(1 - cot20 cot2e) v2 cos Oa(O)dO
J ~r/2- e
XI/' (~'/2
-- 2 sin-l(l - cot20 cot2i) 1/2 cos Oa(O)dO, (42a)
"IT d ¢r/2 i
 50 BRUCE HAPKE

sin 0 c o s ~a(O)dOd~ "=-

~f,'2 2 c o s xP(I - cot20 cot2e) 1,2 sin Oa(O)dO

(42b)

f(tilt)
a(O)dOd~ ]'~,'2~'2zra(O)dO +
• o • '2 c
2 sin l(1 - cot20 cot2e)l]Za(O)dO

-- 2 sin I(1 - cot20 cotZi)J/2a(O)dO, (42c)

q~
7T f~,2
'2 ¢

w h e r e the v a l u e o f sin ](1 - c o t 2 0 cot2e) ~/2 is to be t a k e n b e t w e e n 7r/2 a n d ~-, b u t the v a l u e

o f sin-J(1 - cot20 c o t 2 i ) 1/2 m u s t be t a k e n b e t w e e n 0 a n d 7r/2.
E q u a t i o n (42) is e v a l u a t e d a n a l y t i c a l l y as f o l l o w s . Define the a v e r a g e v a l u e o f a n y
f u n c t i o n F(O) as (F(O)) = f~/2 F(O)a(O)dO. W h e n i a n d e a r e c l o s e to 7r/2 the i n t e g r a l s in
(42) m a y b e e x p a n d e d in T a y l o r s e r i e s in cot e a n d cot i to give

Ji cos 0 aCO)dOd~ = ~'(cos 0) + 2(cot 0 cos 0)col e - -*77"- (zr(cos 0 ) - 2(cot 0 cos 0)cot i)
tilt)

l 2 (cotOcosO) e) +( 2 (cotOcosO) i) I
=Tr(cos0) 2-(1 cot --- 1 cot
~r (cos 0) ~r zr (cos 0)
rr(cos 0) 2 - exp ( 2 (cot 0 c o s 0 ) e)
7r (cos 0) cot

q~ exp ( 2 (cot 0 cos 0) i)l (43a)

- ~ zr <cos O) cot ,

,m, sin 0 cos ~a(O)dOd+ + 2 cos qs (sin 1 ( c ° t 2 0 sin 0) cot2e ]

0) - 3+

+ (1 - cos qs) [ (sin 0) - ~I ( c o t 2 0 sin 0) cot-' i

cos 1 (cot 0 cos 0) cot2e)
= 2(sin 0) qt (I 2 (sin 0)
Xp(l l ~cot0cos0) i)]
+ sin2 5- 2 (sin 0) c°t2

2(+,. + J+o++ ( 0 +o+ + cot2e/

2(sin 0)
qs (cot 0 cos 0) )]
+ sin 2 ~- exp ( cot2i (43b)
2(sin 0)

h~
fltilt)
a(O)dOd~ = zr + 2(cot 0) cot e - - - (~- - 2(cot 0) cot i)
7T

= ~v [ 2 - (1 - 2 (COt 0) cot e I - - -*,

( 2
' 77 77" , 77

[
~ rr 2 - exp
7T
(cot 0) cot e t *- - - e x p (+
77"
- - {cot 0) c o t i /] .
"B"
(43c)

In o r d e r t o p r o c e e d f u r t h e r it is n e c e s s a r y
to c h o o s e a s l o p e d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n a(O).
S i n c e (43) c o n t a i n s o n l y a v e r a g e s o f t r i g o -
n o m e t r i c f u n c t i o n s w e i g h t e d b y a(O) the
e q u a t i o n s a r e i n s e n s i t i v e to the e x a c t f o r m
o f a(O) u s e d . T w o d i s t r i b u t i o n f u n c t i o n s ,
Gaussian and exponential, which have been
w i d e l y u s e d in p l a n e t a r y applications
( S a u n d e r s , 1967; H a g f o r s , 1968) w e r e in-
v e s t i g a t e d . T h e n u m e r i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s be-
 ROUGH-SURFACED PHOTOMETRIC FUNCTION 51

where A and B are constants. In general, if

-vr ~t , al(O)dO is the one-dimensional distribution,
then the corresponding two-dimensional,
azimuth-independent slope distribution
function is
"n" 'rr
- 2 aj(O) sin OdOd~
(Hagfors, 1968). Thus a(O) is taken as
a(O) = A exp[-tan20/
B tanZO]sec20 sin 0. (44)

Assumption (2), that the mean slope 0 is

not too large, will now be used for the first
time. Using the slope distribution function
(44) and applying (4) and (5) it is found that,
to second order in 0,
FIG. 2. Schematic diagram showing the square-cor-
nered approximation to the tilt s h a d o w s in (0, ~) space A = 2/rr tan20,
for the case w h e n i -< e. The projected s h a d o w s are
a s s u m e d to be r a n d o m l y distributed over the part of B=TT,
(0,~) space not in tilt s h a d o w s . See text for definitions
of the terms "tilt" and " p r o j e c t e d " s h a d o w s . (cot 0) = cot 0,
(sin 0) = (~'/2)(cos 0) tan 0,

tween the two turned out to be quite minor; (cot 0 cos 0) = cot 0(cos 0)
hence, the Gaussian was chosen. = (2/7r) cot20(sin 0),
Let al(O)dO be the function describing the and
distribution of slopes on any vertical cut
with arbitrary azimuth through the surface. (cos 0) = (1 + 7r tanZ0) -V2. (45)
Then a~(O) is assumed to be of the form
Inserting these results into (43) and the re-
a)(O)dO = A exp[-tan20/B tan20]d(tan 0), suiting expressions into (24) gives

[
/.to = X/I + 7r tan20 cos i + sin i tan 0
cot20 cot2e) W cot20 cot2i)
COS qr e xp ( 7r- / + sin22 - e xp ( ~ -/
(46)
2 - exp(- - c2o t 0 c o t e
77"
) *- - - e x p (-2- c o t 0 c o t i
"B" 7T
)
This expression is in the desired form and is exact for conditions of grazing and normal
illumination and viewing•
Identical arguments give:

/z
1
X/1 + 7r tan20
[cos e + s i n e t a n 0
exp ( c°tZ°-c°t2e)~./ - s i n 2 ~ exp ( c°t20--trc°t2 i// I

2 - exp(- -2 cot 0 cot e ) *- -- exp (-2 -

7T 77" 77"
cot 0 cot i ) • (47)
52 BRUCE HAPKE

If desired, r o u g h n e s s e x p r e s s i o n s correct to about ~'/2 - 0, /z/I ~ /~0{cos 0} and /z'

higher o r d e r in 0 m a y be found using (24),
(25), (43), and (44), but probably would not
be justified b e c a u s e o f assumption (3).
E q u a t i o n s (46) and (47) describe the ef-
fective tilt o f the surface. Although they ap-
pear c o m p l i c a t e d , their b e h a v i o r is rela-
tively simple. W h e n i and e are smaller than
/z{cos 0). H o w e v e r , when i or e are larger
than about ~'/2 - 0, the effective surface is
tilted t o w a r d the source and d e t e c t o r by
- O . T h e effective tilt a p p r o a c h e s zero as
a p p r o a c h e s 7r.
Finally, the factors #~0 and /z '° in S can
be evaluated

exp ( c°t20 c°t2i)

'0 __ [ 77
cos i + sin i tan O
/-to - V1 + 7r tan20
"~- exp
( - - - 2c o t ()coti
) (48)

77"
and
cot20 cot2e )
1 exp 7r
#,0= X/I + ~-tan20
cos e + sin e tan O
2 - exp
(2- cot 0 c o t e
)I , (491
77
T h e n from (31),

J ]'
S =
'
(/~'/#'°)(/~0//~[~°) V'I + ~-tan2O I 1 -f+ V I + 7r tan:0 (#°l/z[(~)

2. T h e C a s e W h e n i >- e
Similar reasoning for the situation when i > e leads to the following expressions:

,
/-to = X/I + ~- tan20 [ cos i + sin i tan 0

exp ( cot20 cot2i) _ sin2_5_ exp

77" _
(50)
- . . i)
. cot . O cot *77" exp 2 0co, e) j
l [ 7i" ' 77"

/z' = V I + ~-tan2 o [ c o s e + sinetan O

cos • exp ( c°t:O c°t:i~ " ~ q~ c°t2 °t2e)l

2 - exp ( - ~. . . . . . . ~ -~--- ~
/ (51)

S ( i , e, ~ ) = (/z'//~'°)(/z0/~[~ °) '
%/1 + 7r tan20 I I -f+ s
X/1 + 7r tan20 (PJkt'°) 1' (52)

w h e r e f(~),/-to °, a n d / z ' ° are the same as for n o w to be interpreted as the fraction o f the
the i -< e case and are given, respectively, visibility s h a d o w hidden in the illumination
by (32), (48), and (49), e x c e p t that f ( q O is shadow.
 ROUGH-SURFACED PHOTOMETRIC FUNCTION 53

V. A P P L I C A T I O N S TO D I F F E R E N T I A L mated by
PLANETARY PHOTOMETRY
Bo ~ e x p ( - w 2 / 2 ) ; (55)
The equations derived in the preceding
section can be used to correct any arbitrary H(x) = (! + 2x)/[l + 2x(1 - w)1/2]; (56)
bidirectional reflectance of a smooth sur- w is the average single-scattering albedo;
face for effects of macroscopic roughness. P ( g ) is the average single-particle scatter-
In the first paper in this series (Hapke, ing function normalized so that
1981) a comprehensive photometric func-
tion for a smooth particulate surface was
derived from the equation of radiative
(1/4~-)
f; P ( g ) sin g d g = l;

transfer. The reflectance includes effects of and h is a backscatter parameter related to

non-isotropic scattering, multiple-scatter- the porosity of the soil. The parameter h is
ing, porosity, and blocking and shadowing discussed in detail in Hapke (1963, 1981); it
by individual particles on a microscopic is essentially equal to the ratio of the mean
scale. The function is size of the openings between soil particles
w to the extinction mean free path. It is dou-
rs(i,e,~) = [/x0/(/x0 + /x)]
ble-valued and approaches zero as the po-
{[1 + B ( g ) ] P ( g ) - 1 + H(/x0)H(~)}, (53) rosity approaches either zero or one, with a
maximum for intermediate porosities. Typi-
where B ( g ) is the backscatter function de- cal values are h - 0.2-0.6.
scribing the opposition effect
Inserting Eq. (53) into the results of Sec-
B(g,h) = Bo{l - (tan]gl/2h) tion IV gives the following photometric
[3 - e x p ( - h cot[gl)] function for a rough-surfaced planetary re-
golith for the case when g -> 0. The function
[1 - exp(h cotlg])]}, (54)
when g < 0 can be obtained from the g -> 0
when Ig] -< ~-/2, and B(g) = 0 when [g] function by simultaneously changing the
> ¢r/2, Bo is a semiempirical factor approxi- signs of A and g.

1. W h e n i <-- e (or A <-- - g / 2 )

!
W /-I- 0
rk(i,e,g) = 47r IZop + , {[1 + B ( g ) ] P ( g ) - l + H(/z~)H(/z')}

/z '/Zo
(57)
/x'°/z~ ° ~/1 + 7r tan20 [1 - f + f(tzo/tZ~ ° t l + 7r tan20)]
where 0 is the mean slope angle, defined by (5), and/z~'),/z',/x6 °, p~,0 and f are defined,
respectively, by (46)-(49) and (32).

2. W h e n i >- e (or A >- - g / 2 )

!

w t.to
rR(i,e,g) = ~ /x~ + /x' {[1 + B ( g ) ] P ( g ) - 1 + H ( / ~ ) H ( t z ' ) }

/z'/x0
(58)
~,0/,~0 V I + 7rtan20 [I - f + f(iz/ix '° ~/1 + 7rtan20)]

where 0,/z6,/z',/~60, ~,o, and f are defined, 3. R e c i p r o c i t y

respectively, by (5), (50), (51), (48), (49), Equations (57) and (58) satisfy the
and (32). Helmholtz reciprocity conditions
54 BRUCE HAPKE

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Longitude (degree) Latitude (degree)

FIG. 3. Effects of macroscopic roughness on the brightness profiles of a low alhedo (it’ = 0.25)planet
at three phase angles 8. For clarity the surface is assumed to he covered with isotropically scattering
particles and the opposition effect is neglected. Solid lines. reflectance ~1’~ relative to a Lamhert
surface for 6 = 25”; dashed lines, 6 = 0’. (A) Profiles along the luminance equator. (B) Profiles along
the central meridian of the iilumindted part of the disk.

rR(i,e,g)Icos i = rR(e,i,g)/cOs c. for 6 = 25”. The results are shown in Figs. 3

and 4, along with smooth-surface bright-
Interchanging i and e in (57) divided by cos i
ness profiles for comparison. For simplicity
gives the brightness of the reciprocal point
these figures were calculated assuming iso-
(58) divided by cos e.
tropic scatterers (P(g) = I) and no opposi-
tion effect (11 = 0).
4. E,rumplrs Figures 3A and 4A show reflectance ver-
To illustrate the effects of roughness, sus longitude along the equator for several
Eqs. (57) and (58) were used to calculate phase angles. Note that the bright limb
reflectance profiles 7rrK (:l,L,g). relative to surge, which is predicted by rigorous solu-
a Lambert surface, on a low albedo (11’ = tions to the radiative transfer equation to
0.25;) and a high albedo (H, = 0.95) planet occur on low albedo planets, is removed by

A 06T.-_

g
T.._T7 _.._7___ , _-~-_~l .,

w 0.95

1
05 -10”

0 ,o 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90
Longitude (degree) Latitude (degree)

FIG. 4. Effects of macroscopic roughness on the brightnesb profilrz of a high nlbedo (\I’ - O.Vi)
planet at three phase angles R, For clarity the surface is assumed to he covered with isotropically
xattering particles and the opposition effect i\ neglected. Solid lines. reflectance 7rrK relative to ;L
Lamhert surface for 4 = 2S”; dashed lines, ti = 0”. (A) Profiles along the luminance equator. (H) Profile\
along the central meridian of the illuminated part of the disk.
 ROUGH-SURFACED PHOTOMETRIC FUNCTION 55

the roughness correction. Note also that at f

small phase angles the roughness may have l(g) = Jri.v~ Y(i,e,g) dA
opposite effects on limb and terminator = (,~.,2, e (~/2 Jr(A,L,g)
brightness, depending on the albedo. The J A = -zr/2 J L = -7r/2

brightnesses are reduced if the albedo is cos eR 2 cos L d L d A

low, but are increased if the albedo is high
= 4 J R 2 ( -e'2 f~/: r ( A , L , g )
and multiple scattering is important. This JA= zr/2 dL=O

behavior occurs because near the limb or cos A cos2LdLdA, (59)

terminator only areas tilted preferentially
toward the o b s e r v e r or source, respec-
tively, contribute to the brightness, and
the reflectance is similar to that of a smooth
surface closer to the center of the crescent,
but suitably modified by S. These effects
are not predicted by photometric functions
which do not take effective tilt into ac-
count.
Figures 3B and 4B give the brightness
versus latitude along the central meridian of
the illuminated crescent. The effect of
roughness is to cause the brightness to gen-
erally decrease with latitude. This result is
in contrast to calculations made on the ba-
sis of rigorous solutions of the radiative
transfer equation for smooth, low albedo
planets, which predict that the reflectance is
proportional to/~0/(/x0 + /~), and thus is in-
dependent of latitude (Eqs. (1) and (2)).
H o w e v e r , in the rough-surface, low albedo
case the manner in which the brightness de-
creases with latitude depends on the phase
angle. At small phase angles the brightness
is nearly independent of latitude, as ob-
served for the Moon by Minnaert (1961). As
g increases the polar darkening becomes
more pronounced.
The theory is compared with observa-
tions of a real planet in Figs. 5A and B,
which shows brightness profiles on the sur-
face of Mercury, as observed by Mariner 10.
The fit is seen to be quite good for a mean
slope angle of 20 ° .
where the last equation follows from the
fact that any bidirectional reflectance func-
tion r must be symmetric with respect to
the northern and southern hemispheres and
reciprocal with respect to the A = - g / 2 me-
ridian.
Equation (59) may be written in the form
l(g) = JRZap(w, O)qb(g, w, 0), (60)
where
Ap(w, O) = I(O)/JR 2 (61a)
is the physical or geometric aibedo, defined
as the ratio of the brightness at zero phase
to the brightness (J/rc) (rrR 2) of a Lambert
disk of the same radius illuminated and
viewed normally, and
~b(g, w, 0) = I(g)/l(0) (61b)
is the integral photometric function of the
body. The integral phase function of a uni-
form planet is a symmetric function of g:
~b(-g) = qb(g).
In H a p k e (1981) the reflectance of a mac-
roscopically smooth, particulate surface,
Eq. (53), was inserted into Eqs. (59)-(61) to
give
Ap(w,0) = (w/8)[(1 + Bo)P(O) - 1]
+ (ro/2)(l + ro/3), (62)
and
4,(g, w, o) = ~
I{8 [(1 + B(g)P(g) - I]

Vl. INTEGRAL PLANETARY PHOTOMETRY ro

+ ~ - ( 1 - ro)
} {1 - sin(Igl/2)
The integral brightness of a uniform
2
spherical planet of radius R at phase angle g tan(Igl/2) ln(cot(Igl/4)} + ~ ro2
is found by integrating the intensity per unit
area o v e r the portion of the body which is sin[g] + (Tr - I g l ) c o s Igl] (63)
both illuminated and visible: 77" J
 B I r , I i

06 A ' I I ' I
• ," , Mercury
Mercury
04 ., * • 0.20 °

05 * e, ** • 0: 2 0 °

.04 O3 oe

lit
fir
O3

O2

.0"2 e,, ~%e

°i

OI

0 , , I , , 1 , ,
-90 ° -60" 30 ° 0 ° oo 30 ° 60 ° 90 °

LongJ1ude a Letitude L

MERCURY
II ~ = 20

E
.q

z"
O
C_ 1

u_

<

52
ua

4
3o 6 0' 9'0 "
120 150
PHASE ANGLE, g, d e g

F]~. 5. C o m p a r i s o n o f the t h e o r e t i c a l p h o t o m e t r i c f u n c t i o n with o b s e r v a t i o n s of M e r c u r y . L i n e s are

t h e o r e t i c a l b r i g h t n e s s e s c a l c u l a t e d f r o m the e q u a t i o n s g i v e n in S e c t i o n s V and VI with the f o l l o w i n g
p a r a m e t e r s : w = 0.25, h = 0.40, 0 = 20 °, and P(g) = 1 + 0.579P~ + 0.367P2, w h e r e P; a n d P2 are the
first a n d s e c o n d L e g e n d r e p o l y n o m i a l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . (A) B r i g h t n e s s v e r s u s l o n g i t u d e a l o n g the lumi-
n a n c e e q u a t o r at g = 77 °. D o t s are d a t a of M a r i n e r 10. (B) B r i g h t n e s s v e r s u s latitude a l o n g the A =
- 5 0 ° m e r i d i a n o f l u m i n a n c e l o n g i t u d e at ~,, = 77 °. Dots are data of M a r i n e r 10. (C) I n t e g r a l p h a s e
f u n c t i o n in m a g n i t u d e s n o r m a l i z e d to o b s e r v a t i o n s at ,~, = 10°. Dots are d a t a of D a n j o n (1949).
56
 ROUGH-SURFACED PHOTOMETRIC FUNCTION 57

where ~-- • ~ ' ' r iO o

~ ~-~~~--~-~- ~-~2o~
r0 = [1 - (1 - w)ll2]l[1 + (1 -- w ) 1/2] (64)
0.9
is the bihemispherical reflectance of a semi-
infinite m e d i u m of isotropic scatterers with
single-scattering albedo w. In deriving (62) 0.6

and (63) t e r m s of order r~/24 were ignored.

The first term in (63) describes primarily the
0.7
once-scattered light, and is proportional to
the integral p h a s e function of a sphere with
L o m m e l - S e e l i g e r surface elements. The 0.61 , I , I b I , I , I , L , L , l , l ,
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
second t e r m arises f r o m the multiply-scat- W

tered light and is proportional to the inte-

gral phase function of a sphere with L a m - FIG. 6. The physical albedo correction factor C(w.O)
(Eq. 65) plotted against single-scattering albedo w for
bert surface elements. several values of mean slope 0.
W h e n Eqs. (57) and (58) for a m a c r o s c o p -
ically rough surface were inserted into the
rection is the same for both the singly- and
a b o v e equations, analytic expressions for
multiply-scattered c o m p o n e n t s of ~h and is
the physical albedo and integral phase func-
insensitive to w. H e n c e , for practical calcu-
tion could not be obtained. H e n c e , the inte-
lations K(g,O) can be taken as a function
gration was done numerically for values of
which is independent of w and multiplies
0 up to 60 °. The calculations showed that
both c o m p o n e n t s of ~b. It was found that for
the integral p h o t o m e t r i c function of a
g ~< 60 °, K could be represented to a good
rough-surfaced planet can be written in the
a p p r o x i m a t i o n by the empirical function
form
K(g,0)
ap(w,O) = (w/8)[(1 + Bo)P(O)
= e x p { - 0 . 3 2 0 [ t a n 0 tan(g~2)] v2
- l] + C(w,O)(ro/2)(1 + r0/3), (65)
- 0.520 tan 0 tan(g/2)}, (68)
and
where 0 is in radians. F o r g ~> 60 ° , this
4J(g,w,O) = K(g,O)ch(g,w,O), (66) equation o v e r e s t i m a t e s K, which should be
found by interpolation using Table 1.
where 4J(g,w,O) is given by (63). The func-
tions C(w,O) and K(g,O) are the calculated 1

factors by which the physical albedo and

integral phase function of a smooth-sur-
faced planet must be corrected for effects
of m a c r o s c o p i c roughness. T h e y are dis- o

cussed below and shown in Figs. 6 and 7; K

is tabulated in Table 1.
It was found that, to within 1%, C in (65)
could be r e p r e s e n t e d by the empirical ex-
pression
C(w,O) = 1 - (0.0480 + 0.004102)r0
o 30 so 90 12o 15o leo
- (0.330 - 0.004902)r2o, (67) g (degree)

where 0 is in radians. FIG. 7. The integral photometric function correction

factor K(g,OI(Eq. 66) versus phase angle g for several
The factor K(g, O) is controlled primarily
values of mean slope 0. This quantity is the ratio of the
by the shadowing function S(i,e,g). Thus, integral brightness of a planet with a rough surface to
within a small error, the phase function cor- that of one with a macroscopically smooth surface.
58 BRUCE HAPKE

TABLE 1 VII. C O N C L U S I O N S

INTEGRAL PHASE FUNCTION ROUGHNESS The derivation of a planetary photomet-

CORRECTION FACTORS K(L,,O) ric function which was begun in Hapke
, (19811 is completed by equations (57), (58),
() - (65), and (66). These sets of equations de-
(}" l ()' 20<' 30' 40' 5() 60
scribe the scattering of light from a rough
0 1.00 I.(R) l .IX) 1.00 ).iX} IO0 I .(R) planetary regolith or undulating cloud top.
2 IAX) 0.997 0.991 0.984 0.974 0.961 0.94~
"~ 1.00 0,994 0.981 0.965 0.944 0.918 0.881
The model is based on radiative transfer
lO 1.00 0.991 0.970 0.943 (1.909 0.866 0.809 theory in a particulate medium and includes
20 I.(}0 0.988 0.957 0.914 0.861 0.797 0.718
30 1.00 (}.986 (1.947 0.892 (}.82~ 0744 0.644
effects of microscopic interparticle shad-
4(1 1.00 (}.984 (}.938 0.871 0.789 0.692 0:77 owing, multiple scattering, and macro-
~0 1.00 0.982 0.926 0.846 0.748 0.635 OS(}9
60 [.0(} 0.979 0.911 0.814 0698 IL~,70 0 4:~ scopic roughness. The differential photo-
70 1.00 0.974 0.891 0.772 0.6~7 0.499 0.~66 metric equations for smooth and rough
8(1 IAX} 0.968 0.864 0.719 0.566 0.42~ 0.296
90 lAX) 0.959 0,827 0.654 0.487 0.~46 0,2~1
surfaces and the integral smooth-surfaced
l(X) l.(X} 0.946 (L777 0.575 O40~ 0.27~ O.17s expressions are given in closed analytic
II(} IAX) 0.926 0.7(}8 0.484 0.320 0.208 0. I~0
12(1 I(8} (1.894 (1.617 0.386 (124~ 015~ 0.()9~ form. The roughness correction factors for
130 I.(X) 0.840 (}.50~ 0.290 0.17~ 0.107 0.(})'~ integral photometry are given by analytic
14(} I.(X) (}.747 0.374 0.201 0. 117 0.070 0.041
150 IAX} 0.590 0.244 O. 121 0069 0.04(} 0023 functions for small phase angles, and for
160 IAX} 0.366 0.127 0.060 1L032 0.018 0.O10 large phase angles may be obtained by in-
170 I.(X} 0.128 (L0~7 0.(}16 0.008~ 0.(X147 0.(X126
lNO IAX) 0 O 0 0 0 0
terpolation using tabulated values. These
equations should be useful in the interpreta-
tion of photometry of solar system objects
Inspection of Fig. 7 shows that, although when the scattering by an atmosphere is
macroscopic roughness causes an opposi- negligible o r , for planets with optically
tion effect, the brightness peak is quite thick atmospheres, when the scale heights
broad and cannot be separated from the rest of the gases and cloud particles are the
of the phase curve. At small phase angles same within the region of the atmosphere
the regions which are appreciably shad- which contributes significantly to the
owed tend to be close to the limb, where brightness.
their effects on l are minimized by the fac-
tor cos e in the integrand of (59). Over most ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
of the disk, as the Sun elevation angle 1 thank K a r e n Wells for assisting with the numerical
changes, decreases in the brightnesses of integrations of Section VI, Eddie Wells for helpful com-
those facets oriented away from the Sun are ments and discussions, and Jay Goguen for useful crit-
compensated by increases in the bright- icisms and suggestions. This work was partially sup-
ported by a grant from the Planetary Geology Program
nesses of other facets which are oriented
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
more directly toward the Sun. The major tion. During 1982-1983 l was a National Research
effect on ~h occurs when ]A'J > ,-r/2 and the C o u n c i l - N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y of Sciences Fellow at the
heavily shadowed areas are nearer to the Space Science Division. N A S A A m e s Research Cen-
center of the disk. At very large phase an- ter; major revisions to this work were done during this
period.
gles the brightness of a rough planet is only
a few percent of that of a body with a
smooth surface, thus accounting for the REFERENCES
fact, known since antiquity, that the Moon CHANDRASEKHAR. S. (19601. Radiatiue 7)'an,~ji, r.
is invisible when less than about one day Dover, New York,
COOK, A. (1981). A new photometric function for sur-
from new.
faces without a t m o s p h e r e s . Preprint.
The theoretical integral phase function is C o x , C., AND W. MUNK (19541. M e a s u r e m e n t of the
compared with observations of Mercury by r o u g h n e s s of the sea surface from photographs of
Danjon (19491 in Fig. 5C. the S u n ' s glitter. J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 44, 838-85(I.
 ROUGH-SURFACED PHOTOMETRIC FUNCTION
DANJON, A. (1949). Photometrie et colorimetrie des
planets mercure et Venus. Bull. Astron. 14, 315-
345.
HAGFORS, T. (1968). Relations between rough surfaces
and their scattering properties as applied to radar
astronomy. In Radar Astronomy (J. Evans and T.
Hagfors, Eds.), pp. 187-218. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
HAMEEN-ANTTILA, K. (1967). Surface photometry of
the planet Mercury. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Set. A6
252, 1-19.
HAPKE, B. (1963). A theoretical photometric function
for the lunar surface. J. Geophys. Res. 68, 4571-
4586.
HAPKE, B. (1966). An improved lunar theoretical pho-
tometric function. Astron. J. 71, 333-339.
HAPKE, B. (1977). Interpretations of optical observa-
tions of Mercury and the Moon. Phys. Earth Planet.
Inter. 15, 264-274.
HAPKE, B. (1981). Bidirectional reflectance spectros-
copy: I. Theory. J. Geophys. Res. 86, 3039-3054.
HAPKE, B. (1982). The Lumme-Bowell photometric
parameters: Reality or fantasy? Ball. Amer. Astron.
Soc. 14, 726.
59
HAPKE, B., AND E. WELLS (1981). Bidirectional reflec-
tance spectroscopy: 2. Experiments and observa-
tions. J. Geophys. Res. 86, 3055-3060.
LUMME, K., AND E. BOWELL (1981a). Radiative
transfer in the surfaces of atmosphereless bodies: I.
Theory. Astron. J. 86, 1694-1704.
LUMME, K., AND E. BOWELL (1981b). Radiative
transfer in the surfaces ofatmosphereless bodies: II.
Interpretation of phase curves. Astron. J. 86, 1705-
1721.
MINNAERT, M. (1961). Photometry of the Moon. In
Planets and Satellites (G. Kuiper and B.
Middleurst, Eds. L pp. 213-248. Univ. of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
MUHEEMAN, D. (1964). Radar scattering from Venus
and the Moon. Astron. J. 69, 34-41.
SAUNDERS, P. (1967). Shadowing on the ocean and the
existence of the horizon. J. Geophys. Res. 72, 4643-
4649.
VAN DIGGELEN, J. (1959). Photometric properties of
lunar crater floors. Rech. Obs. Utrecht. 14, 1-114.
WAGNER, R. (1967). Shadowing of randomly rough
surfaces. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 41, 138-147.