4.6 Article

Investigation of gamma radiation shielding properties of various ores

Journal

PROGRESS IN NUCLEAR ENERGY
Volume 85, Issue -, Pages 391-403

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnucene.2015.07.016

Keywords

Gamma ray; Mass attenuation coefficients; Effective atomic number; Buildup factor; Radiation shielding

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mass attenuation coefficients (mu/p, cm(2)/g) for some pellet samples produced using barite, magnetite, limonite, hematite and serpentine ores at 81, 276, 302, 356, 383 key photons emitted from Ba-133 and 121, 244, 344, 444, 778 keV photons emitted from Eu-152 have been determined by using HPGe detector. Effective atomic numbers (Z(eff)) and electron densities (N-e) of the ores calculated in the selected energies.. The agreement of measured values of mu/p, Z(eff) and N-e with theoretical calculations is quite satisfactory. Mass attenuation coefficients were found to be highest for barite. The Z(eff) and N-e values for barite are maximum, for serpentine are minimum. Gamma ray energy absorption (EABF) and exposure buildup factors (EBF) were computed for ore samples using the five-parameter Geometric Progression (G-P) fitting method in the energy range 0.015-15 MeV for penetration depths up to 40 mean free path. Variations of EABF and EBF with incident photon energy and penetration depth were also investigated. It has been observed that among the selected ore samples, barite has lowest values for EABF and EBF in the intermediate energy region. Buildup of photons is more for serpentine. Exposure buildup factors (EBF) of given ores were compared with lead, steel-magnetite concrete (SM), concrete and bismuth borosilicate glass (BBS) with %20 mol Bi2O3. Barite is superior in terms of shielding properties among the other ore samples. The present study may be useful for radiation shielding applications. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available