Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Assessment of gamma radiation shielding properties of concrete

containers containing recycled coarse aggregates
Dahee Han a,⇑, Woojae Kim b, Sangkyu Lee c, Hakyoung Kim d, Pedro Romero a
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA
b
POSCO E&C, 6F, OIC Building, POSCO Global R&D Center, 100, Songdogwahak-ro, Yeonsu-Gu, Incheon 406-840, Republic of Korea
c
Ministry of National Defense, Seoul, Republic of Korea
d
Department of Architectural Engineering, Dankook University, Suji-Gu, Yongin 16890, Republic of Korea

h i g h l i g h t s

Linear attenuation coefficient, l, of concrete was investigated.

The l values of RCA are slightly lower than NCA.

Surface dose rate of transportable concrete containers was examined.

Maximum surface dose rate of the concrete containers was turned out below 2 mSv/h.

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

Article history: This paper presents an assessment of gamma radiation shielding performance, specifically in terms of
Received 20 July 2017 surface dose rate, of concrete containing virgin and recycled coarse aggregates (RCA) to be used for a
Received in revised form 17 November 2017 transportable concrete container for radioactive waste. In order to evaluate radiation shielding perfor-
Accepted 9 December 2017
mance of the transportable concrete container a numerical simulation method is performed using
Monte Carlo N-particle version 6.1 (MCNP6.1). Prior to evaluating radiation shielding performance of
the transportable concrete containers, radiation shielding properties of four different concrete mixtures
Keywords:
which have two different compressive strengths, 40 and 70 MPa, containing natural coarse aggregate
Recycled concrete aggregate
Gamma radiation shielding
(NCA) and recycled coarse aggregate (RCA), respectively, are assessed using experimental and numerical
Linear attenuation coefficient simulation methods in terms of linear attenuation coefficient (l) to verify the reliability of the numerical
Transportable container simulation method. Density, compressive strength, and static modulus of elasticity tests are conducted to
Radioactive waste determine the parameters for transportable concrete container design. Based on the physical properties
Surface dose rate of concrete a transportable concrete container is designed. In order to assess the radiation shielding with
MCNP6 respect to the maximum surface dose rate of the concrete containers, three different radioactive wastes
are assumed to be loaded in the containers with metal drums and radiation shielding analysis is carried
out using MCNP6 simulation code for the four different concrete containers, comparing with the existing
carbon steel container. It was found that the results from numerical simulation are in good agreement
with the experimentally determined results. In terms of the maximum surface dose rate, all concrete con-
tainers showed considerably lower surface dose rate than the existing carbon steel container.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
One of the problems facing in nuclear industry is the accumula-
tion of radioactive waste from decommissioned nuclear power
plants; this is especially true for the countries with no reprocessing
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dahee.han@utah.edu (D. Han), kimwj@poscoenc.com
(W. Kim), brain239@gmail.com (S. Lee), hykim00@dankook.ac.kr (H. Kim), romero@
civil.utah.edu (P. Romero).
of the used fuels and with limited radioactive waste disposal space.
In order to be properly stored, this radioactive waste needs to be
transported in specific containers. The ideal container for radioac-
tive waste should meet rigorous criteria and the level of perfor-
mance when handling and transporting. According to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations, there are
two primary considerations for the safe transport of radioactive
materials contained in any packaging [1]. The first consideration
is radiation protection in terms of surface dose rate limit and the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.078
0950-0618/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138 123

second is physical soundness with respect to dropping and stack-
ing resistances.
Nowadays, concrete is widely used as a shielding material
against radiation of strong penetrating power due to its effective
shielding characteristics, relatively low cost, and sufficiently long
durability. For these reasons, many studies have been conducted
in assessing radiation shielding characteristics of hardened
cement paste using various supplementary cementitious materi-
als such as ground granulated blast-furnace slag, fly ash, and sil-
ica fume and so on and of concrete using different kinds of
aggregates for several decades [2–7]. Meanwhile, one of the most
important issues in construction industry is the depletion of vir-
gin aggregate and increase of concrete demolition waste. As part
of viable solution for those, use of recycled aggregates from con-
crete demolition waste was suggested. In this regard, many stud-
ies on mechanical properties and durable performance of
concrete containing recycled aggregates have been conducted
and shown a significant possibility to be used as structural mate-
rials [8–14]. However, there are very few studies dealing with
radiation shielding properties of concrete containing recycled
coarse aggregates (RCA).
The purpose of this study is to present the radiation shielding
properties of transportable concrete containers made with RCA
and intended for transport of radioactive waste from decommis-
sioned nuclear power plants. This is done using a numerical simu-
lation code. Prior to evaluating the radiation shielding performance
of the transportable concrete containers, the physical properties of
hardened concrete samples such as density, compressive strength,
and static modulus of elasticity for two different compressive
strengths, 40 and 70 MPa, each made with 0% (considered the con-
trol sample) or 100% of recycled coarse aggregates are investigated.
In total, radiation shielding performance of four different concrete
mixtures is evaluated using experimental and numerical simula-
tion methods.
Based on the physical properties of the concretes, a trans-
portable concrete container for radioactive waste was designed
with respect to reinforcement based on the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials Load and Resistance
Factor Design (AASHTO LRFD) for culverts [15]. Furthermore, in
order to assess the radiation shielding with respect to the maxi-
mum surface dose rate of the transportable concrete containers
three different radioactive wastes (a low and two intermediate
levels), specially for gamma rays, are adopted to be loaded in the
containers with metal drums and radiation shielding analysis is
carried out using MCNP6 simulation code for the four different
concrete containers, comparing with the existing carbon steel
container.
2. Materials
Concrete with two different compressive strengths, 40 and 70
MPa are analyzed in this study. For each concrete mixture, 100%
of crushed natural granite coarse aggregate (NCA) and recycled
coarse aggregate (RCA), which is obtained from demolition build-
ings meeting Korean Standard F 2573 (KS F 2573) [16] are used.
The same type of sea sand is used as a fine aggregate (FA) for all
samples. Table 1 summarizes the properties of NCA, RCA, and FA,
including the contents of KS F 2573 for recycled coarse aggregates.
Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) equivalent to KS L 5201 Type 1
[16], ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) produced in
Gwangyang, South Korea, and silica fume (SF) manufactured in
Canada are used as cementitious materials. Also polycarboxylate
ether superplasticizer (SP) is added as an admixture. Table 2 shows
chemical and physical properties of all of these materials except

Table 1
Properties of NCA (natural granite coarse aggregate), RCA (recycled coarse aggregate), and FA (fine aggregate).

NCA RCA KS F 2573 FA

Max. size (mm) 19 – 5
OD density (g/cm3) 2.62 2.49 Above 2.5 2.54
Absorption (%) 1.22 3.07 Below 3.0 1.44
Abrasion resistance (%) 17.4 25.9 Below 40 –
Soundness (%) 8.7 13.5 Below 12 4.1

Table 2
Chemical and physical properties of concrete mixture materials.

Weight fraction (%)

OPC (Type1) GGBFS SF XRF
FA NCA RCA
SiO2 21.10 35.18 96.50 91.76 74.60 56.54
Fe2O3 2.90 2.85 0.09 0.39 1.89 6.75
CaO 62.50 36.75 0.2 2.31 4.14 12.56
Al2O3 6.10 17.23 0.25 4.17 11.60 14.29
MgO 2.20 2.43 0.55 0.71 0.55 2.25
Na2O – 2.97 0.25 0.16 1.60 1.67
K2O 1.74 0.38 0.45 0.12 3.51 4.28
TiO2 – 0.97 – 0.11 0.60 0.75
P2O5 – 0.22 – 0.16 0.17 0.13
MnO – 0.37 – – 0.12 0.31
SO3 2.20 0.37 – – – 0.30
Others – 0.27 0.29 0.11 0.10 0.16
LOI 1.07 0.32 1.42 – – –
SG* 3.15 2.85 2.25 – – –
*
SG: Specific Gravity, OPC: Ordinary Portland Cement, GGBFS: Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Salg, SF: Silica Fume, FA: Fine Aggregate, NCA: Natural granite Coarse
Aggregate, RCA: Recycled Coarse Aggregate.
124 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138

Table 3
Proportion of concrete mixtures.

W/B (%) S/a Unit weight (kg/m3)

Water Cement GGBFS SF FA NCA RCA SP (%)
40NCA 36.8 46.7 165 269 179 – 798 945 – 0.75
40RCA – 894
70NCA 22.6 40 160 389 283 35 593 824 – 2.65
70RCA – 778

W/B: Water-to-Binders ratio; S/a: Fine-to-coarse aggregate ratio; Weight of SP: Binders’ weight  SP (%).

Table 4
Elemental composition of each concrete mixture.

Elemental composition
Element Weight (%)
40NCA 40RCA 70NCA 70RCA
H 0.78 0.78 0.75 0.75
O 50.27 48.93 48.67 47.40
Na 0.83 0.70 0.9 0.78
Mg 0.40 0.94 0.52 1.04
Al 4.09 4.66 4.46 5.00
Si 31.12 27.81 27.97 24.78
P 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06
S 0.11 0.06 0.17 0.06
K 1.41 1.65 1.45 1.66
Ca 8.08 10.48 12.26 14.53
Ti 0.21 0.25 0.22 0.26
Mn 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07
Fe 1.11 2.09 1.17 2.45

the admixture. Table 3 provides the data on the proportion of the
concrete mixtures used in this study. The chemical compositions
of NCA, RCA, and FA are determined using X-ray Fluorescence
(XRF) method and the values are provided in Table 2; chemical
properties of other ingredients used in concrete mixes are provided
from each manufacturer. Table 4 shows the elemental composition
by fraction weight for each concrete mixture.
3. Physical properties of concrete
3.1. Density of hardened concrete
The chemical composition of concrete has an important effect
on its radiation shielding properties. The density of concrete is also
of importance for shielding against gamma rays, with denser mate-
rial exhibiting better shielding properties than porous one. For
these reasons, a density test of hardened concrete is conducted.
The samples size is 100 mm in diameter and 200 mm in height.
The samples are cured for 91 days in a chamber room at a temper-
ature of 20 ± 5 °C and air relative humidity of 50 ± 10%. The atmo-
spheric curing density (ACD) of a sample is determined using Eq.
(1).

g   wACD

ACD density ¼  100
cm3 ðwACD  ww Þ
where WACD represents a mass of atmospherically cured sample, Ww
is a mass of atmospherically cured sample in water, and q is a den-
sity of water.
3.2. Compressive strength
Cylindrical samples, with the same size used for density tests,
are cast in steel molds and kept in a mist room at 20 ± 3 °C for
24 h until demolding. Once demolded, cylinders are placed in a
water bath at temperature of 25 ± 2 °C and tested for compressive
strength at 3, 7, and 28 days of curing. In order to perform the com-
pressive test, a cylinder is placed in the center of a pressure plate,
and load is applied at a rate of 0.6 ± 0.4 MPa/s. The load is increased
for each sample until it fails. Three cylinders per concrete mixture
are tested and the average value of three concrete samples is
reported. The final compressive strength of all concrete mixtures
is compared to the design strengths at a curing age of 28 days as
specified in ASTM C192 [17].
3.3. Static modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio
The Young’s modulus of elasticity of the concretes is deter-
mined using the standard methods for static modulus of elasticity
and Poisson’s ratio of concrete in compression based on ASTM
C469 [18]. Three cylindrical specimens of 100 mm in diameter
and 200 mm in height are used for each concrete mixture and
the average values are reported.
3.4. Results of physical properties of concrete
3.4.1. Density of hardened concrete
Fig. 1 shows the ACD density for each of the concrete samples; it
can be seen that the densities range from 2.289 to 2.398 (g/cm3).
The RCA samples show slightly lower density when compared to
ð1Þ
NCA samples. The lower density of the RCA mixtures is in agree-
ment with other studies [19,20]; it is attributed to the lower den-
sity of RCA.
3.4.2. Compressive strength
The results of the compressive strength tests for each concrete
mixture are shown in Fig. 2. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the design
compressive strength of all concrete mixtures is achieved at the
28th day. The compressive strength of RCA samples for both 40
and 70 MPa is lower than those obtained for the NCA samples. In
more detail, the compressive strengths for 40RCA samples at 28
curing days are 11% lower than 40NCA samples. Also, the compres-
 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138 125

2.6 4. The linear attenuation coefficients of concrete

2.398
2.4 2.308 2.289 2.321
4.1. Experimental method for assessing radiation shielding properties
2.2
of concrete
ACD Density (g/cm3)

1.8
For each mixture, cylindrical concrete samples are cut into sam-
ples of 100 mm in length and used for radiation shielding test. A
1.6 Cs-137 source of 1.79 lCi strength, (emitting gammas of energy
1.4 0.6617 MeV) is used as a gamma source. It is well known that Lan-
thanum Bromide (LaBr3) scintillation detectors offer significantly
1.2
better resolution and higher efficiency than sodium iodide (NaI)
1 scintillation detector [22]. Therefore, LaBr3 scintillation detector
40NCA 40RCA 70NCA 70RCA
is used to measure the gamma energy spectrum with concrete
Type of Sample
sample and without concrete sample. The geometry of the experi-
Fig. 1. Density of concrete samples (with compositions defined in Table 4). mental test setup is shown in Fig. 4. The Cs-137 source and con-
crete samples are placed on a holder. This arrangement allows
the radioactive source and concrete samples to remain in contact
90 during the experiment. A detector is suspended above the concrete
sample using a detector holder. The experimental measurements
Compressive Strength (MPa)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
40NCA
10 70NCA
Design strength (40MPa)
0
0 7
Age (days)
Fig. 2. Compressive strength of each concrete mixture.
sive strengths for 70RCA samples at 28 curing days are 8% lower
than 70NCA samples. This can be attributed to relatively poor
interfacial transition zone between cement matrix and RCA [21].
3.4.3. Young’s elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio
The Young’s elastic modulus determines the resistance of any
material to elastic deformation when a force is applied to the
material. It is an essential parameter for reinforced concrete struc-
tural design. Fig. 3 shows the results of the Young’s elastic modulus
and Poisson’s ratio for all concrete specimens. As can be seen in
Fig. 3, the elastic moduli of 40NCA and RCA are 37.21 and 32.32
GPa respectively. For 70 MPa series, NCA and RCA show 44.82
and 37.90 GPa, respectively. Poisson’s ratio values range from
0.175 to 0.204 although no trend is observed.
55
Elastic modulus (Ec)
50
Young's elastic modlus (GPa)
are taken twice for each sample. First, a radiation count reading
is taken without a concrete sample, indicating the intensity of
the source (I0). The following measurement includes the concrete
sample, thus indicating transmitted intensity (I) of gamma radia-
tion. For each concrete sample, the measurement is repeated three
times and the average peak value is used to calculate a linear atten-
uation coefficient. Based on these values I0 and I, a linear attenua-
40RCA
70RCA tion coefficient (l) is calculated using Beer-Lambert law defined in
Design strength (70MPa) Eq. (2).
14 21 28 1
I ¼ I0 elx ! l ¼ ðlnI0  lnIÞ ð2Þ
x
where x is thickness of a concrete sample.
The elemental composition of concrete affects its radiation
shielding properties because different elements interact with
gamma rays of a given energy differently [23]. For composite mate-
rials such as concrete, the linear attenuation coefficient (l, cm1)
can be obtained from the total mass attenuation coefficient (lq)
as described in Eq. (3).
 
l X l
¼ wi ð3Þ
q i
q i
where Wi and (l/q)i are the fraction by weight and mass attenua-
tion coefficient of ith component, respectively.
4.2. Numerical simulation method
The particle radiation transport code, MCNP (Monte Carlo N-
Particle), is used to simulate the transport of 37 different particle
types for reactor criticality, shielding, dosimetry, detector
0.25
Poisson's ratio (v) response, and many other applications [24]. In this study, MCNP6
code is used to determine linear attenuation coefficients of con-

45 0.2 crete mixtures. In MCNP6 models, the elemental compositions

40 shown in Table 4 are used in material cards. The geometry of all
Poisson's ratio

35
0.15 parameters is set up in accordance with the actual experiment.
30 Radioactive source is defined as a degenerate cylindrical volume
25 source; a circle lies in a plane perpendicular to an axis at a given
0.1 distance, which is equivalent to the actual source used in the
20
15 experiment. Fig. 5 shows the particle tracks emitting from the
10 0.05 source. The LaBr3 detector is defined as a detector and designated
to record data using the F8 tally. In order to determine a linear
5
attenuation coefficient of each concrete mixture, the simulation
0 0
40NCA 40RCA 70NCA 70RCA
is executed twice with 1,00,00,000 histories. These provide the
Type of concrete intensity values without and with concrete to be recorded and then
employed as I0 and I. MCNP6 is based on Monte Carlo method to
Fig. 3. Elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio. simulate particle transport such as neutrons, electrons, and
126 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138

LaBr3
detector

Φ : 100 mm

x : 100 mm Concrete
sample

Cs137 source

Holders

a) With concrete sample b) Without concrete sample

Fig. 4. Experimental setup.

LaBr3
detector

Cs-137
source

Source
Holder
Fig. 5. MCNP6 model of the gamma rays tracks emitted from the Cs 137 source.

photons with continuous-energy, generalized geometry, and time-
dependent [25], while Xcom (photon cross sections database) is
based on deterministic method with theoretical data, providing
photon cross sections for scattering, photoelectric absorption and
pair production, as well as total attenuation coefficients for various
mixtures with 100 of atomic numbers at energies ranging from 1
keV to 100 GeV [26]. In this study, Xcom is used to obtain a linear
attenuation coefficient of each concrete mixture. The elemental
compositions presented in Table 4 are used in Xcom to determine
the total mass attenuation coefficients and then the linear attenu-
ation coefficients that are obtained by multiplying density of each
concrete sample. In the last step, the linear attenuation coefficients
 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138 127

obtained from Xcom and MCNP6 code are compared with the val-
ues from the experiments.
4.3. Error propagation
The number of counts reading in an experiment tends to follow
a Gaussian distribution. Meanwhile, the MCNP6 outputs provide
relative errors, for both rI and rI0, of the peak at certain energy.
Based on these, standard errors of the linear attenuation coefficient
obtained from the experimental measurements are determined as
shown in Eq. (4).
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2  2
@l @l
rl ¼ r2I þ r2I0
@I @I0
where l is the linear attenuation coefficient, I is transmitted inten-
sity, I0 is unshielded intensity, and rI and rI0 are standard errors of
transmitted intensity and unshielded intensity respectively. In
addition, for errors of the numerical simulation, the relative errors
provided by MCNP6 simulation are utilized.
4.4. Results of the linear attenuation coefficients of concretes
Both, the NCA and RCA samples are tested for their linear atten-
uation coefficients for the two different design compressive
strengths (40 and 70 MPa). Fig. 6 displays the gamma energy spec-
tra obtained from Cs-137 source with concrete samples and with-
out concrete samples. As can be seen in Fig. 6, the peak number of
counts is shown at 0.6617 MeV of gamma energy, following a Pois-
son distribution under the explicit assumption that the Poisson
distribution can be approximated by a Gaussian distribution. How-
ever, it should be noted that if the number of counts increases
enough, the Gaussian approximation is not valid [27]. Table 5
shows the average transmission values obtained from the experi-
ment and MCNP6 simulation. Aforementioned above, these values
correspond to the gamma energy of 0.6617 MeV; the values are
normalized to unity. As it can be seen in Table 5, both the experi-
mental average number of counts and MCNP6 probabilities for the
case without concrete samples (Figs. 4 and 5) show much higher
values compared to the case with concrete samples. This indicates
that gamma rays are attenuated by concrete sample. The normal-
ized transmission rates in the experiment range from 0.1574 to
0.1786 for all concrete mixtures. From the MCNP6 simulation it
can be seen that the normalized transmission rates range from
0.156 to 0.168, which is in good agreement with the experimental
values.
Based on the I and I0 values obtained from both the experimen-
tal measurements and MCNP6 simulation for all concrete samples,
the total mass attenuation coefficients are calculated and com-
pared with Xcom data, as shown in Fig. 7. In comparison of the
total mass attenuation coefficients obtained from the experimental
ð4Þ
method to the results from numerical simulation MCNP6 and
Xcom, the results from both numerical simulation and Xcom range
within 5 percent of error amount, implying that there is a good
agreement between the experimentally measured and numerically
simulated mass attenuation coefficients. In addition, it is obvious
that the experimentally determined total mass attenuation coeffi-
cients are slightly lower than the results obtained from MCNP6 and
Xcom. This might be attributed to the crystalline nature of the
molecular arrangement of detector source which can make inci-
dent beam geometry narrow, possibly reducing the total mass
attenuation coefficient values [25,28].
The linear attenuation coefficient values with the errors are pro-
vided in Table 6. The standard errors of experimentally determined
linear attenuation coefficients for each concrete mixture range
from ±0.0154 to ±0.0165, indicating that all measurements are
within 2rl, 95% confidence interval. The relative errors obtained
from the MCNP6 models range from ±0.0332 to ±0.0344 which is
considered as low error [24]. When linear attenuation coefficient
of 40RCA is compared to 40NCA, no significant differences are
found. However, for 70 MPa series, RCA samples show slightly
lower linear attenuation coefficients than NCA. This can be attrib-
uted to lower density rather than the chemical properties. This is
because the total mass attenuation coefficient of 70RCA is close
to 70NCA.
0.09 Exp. MCNP6 Xcom Error amount: 5%
2/g)

350 Without concrete 40 NCA

40 RCA 70 NCA 0.08
300 70 RCA
250
0.07
200
Counts

150

100 0.06

50

0 0.05
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 40NCA 40RCA 70NCA 70RCA
Photon Energy (MeV) Type of concrete sample

Fig. 6. Gamma energy spectra obtained from Cs-137 source with concrete and Fig. 7. Measured and numerically determined total mass attenuation coefficients
without concrete samples. for each concrete sample.

Table 5
Experimental and MCNP6 values for various concrete mixtures.

Without concrete sample (I0) With concrete sample (I)

40NCA 40RCA 70NCA 70RCA
Exp. Counts 281.67 48.33 50.33 44.33 49.33
Normalized 1 0.1716 0.1786 0.1574 0.1751
7
MCNP6 (1  10 particles) Probability 5.41E04 9.09E05 9.23E05 8.44E05 9.02E05
Normalized 1 0.1680 0.1706 0.1560 0.1667
128 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138

5. Radiation shielding properties of transportable concrete ing and storing radioactive materials. In this section, based on the
containers IAEA regulations [1], an IP-2 type concrete container is designed
and assessed with respect to radiation shielding performance, then
5.1. Reinforcement design of containers compared to the existing IP-2 type steel container. The shape and
size of the IP-2 type concrete container is referred from the existing
In design of packaging to transport radioactive material, two IP-2 type steel container. The dimensional properties of both con-
main aspects should be complied with IAEA regulations [1]. The tainers are shown in Fig. 8.
first is associated with radiation shielding performance in terms Based on the dimensional properties of the concrete container,
of surface dose rate limit. The other one is related to physical structural analysis to design reinforcement of concrete container is
soundness such as resistance to free drop and stack for transport- investigated. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications for culvert
were referred [15]. The approximate strip method is used for the
design with 1 foot (30 cm) wide design strip. A 3-Dimensional shell
Table 6 frame model is used to analyze the container. The material and
Linear attenuation coefficients values with errors of each concrete sample. design parameters are shown in Table 7. In order to analyze the
structural properties of concrete containers, applicable load combi-
Concrete sample ACD Linear attenuation coefficient
density (l, cm1) at 0.6617 MeV nations and load factors are selected as shown in Table 8. Based on
(g/cm3) the load combinations and factors, a structural analysis is per-
Exp. ± Standard MCNP6 ± Relative
errors errors
formed using a commercial matrix analysis program. Table 9
shows the structural analysis result.
40NCA 2.308 0.1763 ± 0.0156 0.1784 ± 0.0332
40RCA 2.289 0.1723 ± 0.0154 0.1769 ± 0.0329
Eventually, the areas and spacing of steel reinforcement for
70NCA 2.398 0.1849 ± 0.0165 0.1858 ± 0.0344 each member are determined by strength limit state for flexure
70RCA 2.321 0.1743 ± 0.0155 0.1792 ± 0.0333 in accordance with AASHTO LRFD design specifications and crack
control, shear limit, minimum reinforcement limit, and maximum

3304

3280
12 274.6 570 150.25 570 150.25 570 150.25 570 274.6 12

91 12
570

1480

1504
158
570
12 91

3400
1200

a) Inner and external dimensions of the existing carbon steel container

Fig. 8. Dimensions of the existing and concrete container (unit: millimeter, mm).
 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138 129

150

570

1300 1600
100

80
52
150

150 2720 150

3020

180

840 1200

180

b) Inner and external dimensions of concrete containers

Fig. 8 (continued)

Table 7
Materials and design parameters.

Unit weight Reinforced concrete, cc 2400 kg/m3

Concrete Compressive Strength, f’c 40 MPa (6 ksi), 70 MPa
Lid thickness, TL 0.18 m
Bottom slab, Tb 0.18 m
Wall thickness, Tw 0.15 m
Reinforcement clear cover 0.04 m
Modulus of elasticity, Ec 33 GPa
Steel reinforcement Modulus of elasticity, Es 200 GPa
Yield strength, fy 400 MPa
Reinforcement bar D13 (12.7 mm, D, 126.7 mm2, A)
Maximum rebar spacing Wall 200 mm (8 in) longitudinal
250 mm (10 in) transverse
Lid and slab 200 mm (8 in) longitudinal
250 mm (10 in) transverse

reinforcement limit are checked, satisfying with the specifications. code for four different concrete mixtures, comparing to the existing
Fig. 9 shows the final reinforcement design of concrete container. carbon steel container manufactured by Korea Hydro & Nuclear
Power co., Ltd. (KHNP) [29].

5.2. Evaluation of surface dose rate limit

In order to assess the radiation shielding integrity of packages
in terms of surface dose rate of the concrete containers containing
low and intermediate level of radioactive waste, respectively, radi-
ation shielding analysis is carried out using MCNP6 simulation
5.2.1. Description of numerical simulation analysis
Radioactive waste consists of various kinds of radionuclide that
emits different radiations such as alpha, beta particles, and gamma
rays. In this study, for radioactive waste source three different
types of radioactive waste source terms are used, neutron activated
130 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138

Table 8
Applicable load combinations and factors.

Dead load (DL) Top lid 0.18 m  1.60 m  3.02 m  2400 kg/m3 = 2087 kg
Long wall (0.15 m  0.84 m  3.02 m  2400 kg/m3)  2 = 1826 kg
Short wall [0.15 m  0.84 m  (1.6–0.3)  2400 kg/m3]  2 = 786 kg
Bottom slab 0.18 m  1.6 m  3.02 m  2400 kg/m3 = 2087 kg
Total DL 2087 + 1826+786 + 2087 = 6786 kg
Live load (LL) - Assumption: two more packages are stacked on the very bottom package
(1) Eight of 200 L drums with maximum weight of 480 kg; 8  480 kg  2
packages = 7680 kg
(2) Weight of two containers; (2087 + 1826 + 786 + 2087)  2 = 13,572 kg
(3) Eight of 200 L drums on the bottom slab of very bottom package; 8  480 kg
= 3840 kg
- Total live load
7680 + 13,572 + 3840 = 25,092 kg
Load combos Strength limit state 1.25DL + 1.75 LL
Service limit state 1.0DL + 1.0 LL

Table 9
Structural analysis results for load combinations.

Top lid Long side wall Short side wall Bottom slab
Inside Outside Inside Outside
Strength Max. moment (kN-m) 5.70 2.11 5.34 0.62 2.26 1.72
Governing shear (MPa) 47.61 12.55 7.65 13.31
Associated Mu (kN-m) 0.20 0.47 0.16 0.01
Service Max. moment (kN-m) 3.32 1.22 3.12 0.36 1.32 1.05
Governing shear (MPa) 27.17 7.38 4.48 8.20

A A'

1600

3020

180

D13 @ 200 D13 @ 250 D13 @ 200

D13 @ 250

840 1200

D13 @ 250 D13 @ 200

180

Fig. 9. Reinforcement design of concrete container (unit: millimeter, mm).

 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138 131

Table 10
Physical and chemical properties of A533B alloy steel.

Chemical compositions (wt%)

C Al Si P S V Cr Mn Fe Ni Cu Mo
0.18 0.014 0.24 0.017 0.004 0.002 0.12 1.42 Bal. 0.84 0.14 0.51
Density
7.874 g/cm3

Table 11
Physical and chemical properties of biological shielding concrete.

Chemical compositions (Weight fraction)

H C O Na Mg Al Si K Ca Fe
0.0221 0.00248 0.5749 0.01521 0.0013 0.01995 0.30463 0.01005 0.04295 0.00644
Density
2.300 g/cm3

Table 12
Activity inventory of RPV and biological shielding concrete of the designated reactors.

Component Nuclides Half-life (year) Specific activity* (Bq/g) Fraction (%)

4
WWER-440 RPV Mn-54 0.83 1.80  10 0.656
Fe-55 2.74 2.47  106 88.677
Co-60 5.30 2.90  105 10.412
Ni-59 7.60  104 7.40  101 0.003
Ni-63 1.00  102 7.30  103 0.262
Total 2.79  106 100.000
Biological shielding concrete of WWER-440 Ca-41 1.00  105 1.12  100 0.011
Co-60 5.30 7.50  101 0.751
Eu-152 13.50 9.48  103 94.938
Eu-154 8.60 4.20  102 4.206
Cs-134 2.50 8.12  100 0.081
Fe-55 2.74 1.22  100 0.012
Mn-54 0.83 1.11  100 0.011
Total 1.85  104 100.00
AM RPV Mn-54 0.83 1.32  104 0.014
Fe-55 2.74 7.50  107 78.140
Co-60 5.3 9.10  106 20.837
Ni-59 7.60  104 8.20  103 0.009
Ni-63 1.0  102 9.60  105 1.000
Total 9.60  107 100.000
*
10 years elapsed after final shutdown.

activity inventories of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and biolog-
ical shielding concrete of the Water-Water Energetic Reactor-440
(WWER-440) type operated in Armenia [30], and the activity
inventory of the reactor vessel of the Russian Atom Mirny (AM)
reactor type operated in Obninsk, Russia [31]. The RPV of
WWER-440 and AM reactor were made of A533B alloy steel pro-
duced using the basic oxygen furnace-ladle refining furnace
(BOF-LRF) process. For the biological concrete of WWER-440 nor-
mal concrete was used. Tables 10 and 11 show the chemical and
physical properties of A533B alloy steel and biological shielding
concrete respectively.
Such reactor parts exposed to neutron radiation around reactor
core contain elements that can be transformed into radionuclides
that emit radiation. Radioactive waste is mainly classified by type
of radionuclides, their concentrations, and half-life. The regulations
of IAEA [1] provide sufficient information on the limit and basic
radionuclide values which should be concerned. Based on the reg-
ulations, the radioactivity concentration in specific activity and
half-life of the principal radionuclides of the RPV of WWER-440,
AM reactors, and biological shielding concrete of WWER-440 ana-
lyzed by Babcsány et al. and Suvorov et al. [30,31] are shown in
Table 12.
In addition, it is essential to classify the different kinds of
radioactive waste for managing them more effectively. Therefore,
based on the specific activity values in Table 12, radioactive waste
from WWER-440 and AM RPV are classified using Eq. (5).
X
n
TACi
¼ WCI ð5Þ
i¼1
EACi
where WCI is waste classification index, n is the number of radionu-
clides, TACi is the total activity of ith radionuclide, and EACi is the
activity concentration for exempt material, also known as clearance
level, of ith radionuclide. As can be seen in Eq. (5), the WCI values
imply where the radioactive waste should be classified. If the WCI
is equal to or less than 1.0  103 the radioactive waste can be con-
sidered as low level radioactive waste, if WCI values ranged from
1.0  103 to 1.0  106, it can be considered as intermediate level
radioactive waste. Lastly, if WCI values exceed 1.0  106, the
radioactive waste should be classified as high level radioactive
waste [30]. In addition, for the activity concentration for exempt
materials also known as exemption or clearance level, even though
EAC values differ from each country regulation, EAC values in this
study are referred from IAEA (2009) [1] to calculate WCI. Table 13
132 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138

shows the EAC values for the principal radionuclides of the three
components.
Based on the specific activities and EAC values in Tables 12 and
13, WCI of RPV of WWER-440 and AM reactors and biological
shielding concrete of WWER-440 is calculated by using Eq. (5)
and classified as each level. Fig. 10 shows the calculated WCI val-
ues of each component.
As can be seen in Fig. 9, WCI values of WWER-440 RPV and AM
RPV component were 3.10E+4 and 9.19E+5 respectively. Since the
values range between low and intermediate level, they can be con-
sidered as intermediate level radioactive waste. In addition, WCI
value of biological shielding concrete for WWER-440 reactor was
9.98E+2, which is below 1.00E+3. Therefore, biological shielding
concrete for WWER-440 can be considered as low level radioactive
waste.
5.2.2. Geometrical properties of numerical simulation
MCNP6 is executed based on geometrical properties of a model
so the results obtained from the simulation are significantly
affected by the geometrical properties. Therefore, an exact and rea-
sonable geometrical setup for model is one of the most essential
concerns on executing MCNP6. In order to evaluate the radiation
shielding performance of IP-2 type concrete container designed
in this study and the existing IP-2 type steel container developed
by KHNP, radiation shielding analyses in terms of surface dose rate
limit are performed using MCNP 6.1 V. For geometrical properties
of IP-2 type concrete container, the geometry of all parameters
shown in Fig. 8 is modeled by using the geometry specifications
of MCNP 6.1 V. In addition, eight 200-liter drums are loaded in
the container and all drums are identically modeled with a diame-
ter of 570 mm, height of 850 mm, and thickness of 1.2 mm.
Table 13
The EAC values for the principal radionuclides of the RPV of WWER-440 and AM
reactors and biological shielding concrete of WWER-440.
Principal Nuclides Half-life (year)
Mn-54 0.83
Fe-55 2.74
Co-60 5.30
Ni-59 7.60  104
Ni-63 1.00  102
Ca-41 1.00  105
Eu-152 13.50
Eu-154 8.60
Cs-134 2.50
Radioactive waste sources in the drums, containing only gamma-
rays emitting radionuclides, are assumed to be homogenized and
evenly distributed inside the drums. For the geometrical properties
of the existing IP-2 type developed by KHNP, the geometry of all
parameters shown in Fig. 7 is modeled by using the geometry spec-
ifications. However, in a regard of the worst scenario, namely for
conservative analysis for shielding performance of the IP-2 type
KHNP container, reinforced channels on the side walls and lifting
attachments are excluded, only modeling the thinnest walls. For
radioactive waste sources and drums, all parameters are modeled
in the same way for the IP-2 type concrete container. Fig. 11 shows
the geometrical properties of the both IP-2 type containers created
by MCNP visual editor on 3-D dynamic plotting.
5.2.3. Numerical simulation details on input cards
In order to evaluate radiation shielding performance using
numerical simulation program, it is essential to define data cards
set such as source, material, and tally cards. For material cards,
the drums and IP-2 type KHNP container are defined as carbon
steel and their elemental compositions and physical properties
are shown in Table 14.
Four different concrete mixtures are used for IP-2 type concrete
container. In other words, a numerical simulation for each concrete
mixture is performed. The elemental components of each concrete
mixture are shown in Table 4. For radioactive source, multiple arbi-
trary volumetric sources with different energy photons in the form
of a cylinder filled into the steel drums are defined in radioactive
source cards. This method uses the rejection technique by setting
a finite room over designated source cells. In this method, size
and location of the designated source cells and source photon ener-
gies play a main role in defining source specifications. The source
photon energies of the principal radionuclides of the RPV of
WWER-440 and AM reactors and biological shielding concrete of
WWER-440, shown in Table 12, are defined in source cards respec-
tively. Table 15 shows the source photon energies of the nuclides
Activity concentration obtained from RPV of WWER-440 and AM reactors and biological
for exempt material (Bq/g)
shielding concrete of WWER-440.
1  101 Flux tally at a point, also known as F5 type, is defined in the tally
1  104
card. Using the coordinates of the point detector, the flux values in
1  101
1  104 unit of the number of particles per cm2 are measured on the sur-
1  105 face of the IP-2 type containers. Therefore, the point detectors
1  105 are defined to be placed on the sides and top of the containers.
1  101 Fig. 12 shows all points where the flux is measured. For particle
1  101
transport history, in order to decrease uncertainty in regard to
1  101
the tally results the number of particles is defined up to 1E+07.

WCI Low level limit(1E+3) Intermediate level limit(1E+6)

Waste classification Index

1.0E+07
1.0E+06 9.19E+05
1.0E+05 3.10E+04
1.0E+04
9.98E+02
1.0E+03
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
WWER-440 RPV
WWER-440
AM RPV
concrete
Fig. 10. WCI values of WWER-440 and AM RPV and WWER-440 concrete structure.
 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138 133

conversion factors using MCNPX code at the decommissioning

stage of Ignalina nuclear power plant [37]. The results showed that
the data obtained from the ANSI/ANS-6.1.1-1991 were the most
reliable for various doses and shielding calculations in the case of
decontamination of radioactive equipment and similar applica-
tions, turning out a statistically good agreement between the sim-
ulation results and experimental results. Therefore, in this study
the flux-to-dose conversion factors from ANSI/ANS-6.1.1-1991
are used to determine the dose rate. ANSI/ANS-6.1.1-1991 stan-
dard is based on and nearly identical to the photon sets in ICRP-
51 [33]. This standard presents data recommended for computing
the biologically relevant dosimetric quantity in gamma-ray radia-
a) IP-2 type concrete container with drums
tion fields. Specifically, this standard is intended for calculating
effective dose equivalent by shielding. Gamma-ray energies from
0.01 to 15 MeV are taken into account for effective dose equivalent
per unit fluence. Meanwhile, in order to determine flux-to-dose
rate at any energy point between 0.01 and 15 MeV with respect
to the conversion factor of ASNI/ANS-6.1.1-1991, the photon
energy rage is divided into four energy groups, 0.01–0.03, 0.03–
0.5, 0.5–5.0, and 5.0–15.0 MeV. For each energy group, regression
fitting is conducted until meeting the goal coefficient of determina-
tion, R2 of 0.999. A quartic regression fit met the goal coefficient of
determination as can be seen in Table 16. The general form of the
analytic function is the following Eq. (6).
b) IP-2 type KHNP container with drums

Fig. 11. Scheme of concrete and KHNP IP-2 type containers. 4 þbx3 þcx2 þdxþC
CF n ¼ eax ð6Þ

where CFn is flux-to-dose rate factors in (rem/h)/(photon/cm2s) and

5.2.4. Flux-to-dose rate convert factors
From the point of view of environmental radiological assess-
ments, the most important problem in external dosimetry is to
estimate the dose to an individual or population due to exposure
to any radiations emitted by radionuclides. In general, it is difficult
to obtain realistic estimates of external dose from arbitrary distri-
butions of radionuclides in the environment. Therefore, it is often
assumed that exposure conditions are simplified and idealized;
namely, that the distribution of sources at any location in the envi-
ronment is effectively infinite or semi-infinite in extent and the
radionuclides concentrations or activities are uniform throughout
the source region [32], In addition, it is often assumed that the only
shielding between the radioactive sources and the body surface of
the exposed individuals is provided by the medium through which
the radiations are transmitted. Thus, no accounting is made for
shielding provided by buildings during indoor residence, by cloth-
ing, or by buildings and irregular terrain during outdoor exposures.
x is ln(E) (E: Gamma-ray energy in MeV). The coefficients (a, b, c,
and d) and constant number (C) obtained from the regression fitting
are shown in Table 16. Based on the above, the conversion factors
for photon energies between 0.01 and 15 MeV can be computed
using the analytic equation, Eq. (6). In addition, this analytic form
can be useful for the calculation of energy-averaged dose rates [38].
Finally, based on the values of the flux obtained from MCNP6
tally, flux-to-dose-rate above, and radioactivity shown in Table 12,
the surface dose rate of sixteen different concrete containers and
Table 15
Photon energies of the primary nuclides obtained from RPV of WWER-440 and AM
reactors and biological shielding concrete of WWER-440.
Principal nuclides Half-life (year) Photon energy (Gamma-ray)
[MeV (frequency %)]

In order to improve the conservative dose limitation systems, Mn-54 0.83 0.834 (99.9)
many studies have been conducted to improve the system in terms Fe-55 2.74 0.006 (16.6)
Co-60 5.30 1.173 (100), 1.332 (100)
of flux-to-dose conversion factors for gamma-rays. Fig. 13 shows Ni-59 7.60  104 0.007 (20)
the four different flux-to-dose conversion factors obtained from Ni-63 1.00  102 0 (0)
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and International Ca-41 1.00  105 0.003 (7.5)
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) [33–36]. Eu-152 13.50 1.408 (21)
Eu-154 8.60 1.274 (35)
Stankunas et al. assessed and benchmarked the impact on
Cs-134 2.50 0.6 (98), 0.796 (85)
gamma dose rate employing four different photon-to-dose

Table 14
Physical and chemical properties of carbon steel for drums.

Chemical compositions (wt%)

C Si Mn Cr Ni S P Cu Fe
0.40 0.25 0.60 0.15 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.18 Bal.
Density
7.820 g/cm3
134 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138

the existing container are calculated using Eq. (7). Gamma rays of
Fe-55, Ni-59, Ni-63, and Ca-41 are not considered since
their energies are too low to be included in the range of the
flux-to-dose-rate conversion factors.
  ! 
mSv 1X n
mSv =h
Surface dose rate ¼ CF k  /mcnp  A  10
h n k¼1
where CFk is Flux-to-dose-rate conversion factors in (rem/h)/(pho-
ton/cm2s), Umcnp is Flux obtained from MCNP6 in #/cm2, and A is
Radioactivity in Bq (1Bq = 1 disintegration/s).
5.3. Results of surface dose rate
In order to determine surface dose rate of the existing KHNP IP-
2 type container and IP-2 type concrete containers designed in this
study with respect to three different types of radioactive waste
from decommissioned nuclear power plants MCNP6 numerical
simulation is firstly performed to determine the flux on the exter-
nal surfaces of the containers. Fig. 14 shows MCNP6 particle tracks
displayed on the surface and tallies. As can be seen in Fig. 14, for
the both existing KHNP and concrete containers the highest num-
ber of particles and their energy strength are shown in the middle
of drums on the surface of the X and Y-plane. In other words, the
maximum number of particles and energy are shown along the
center line of the radioactive sources. On the other hands, the max-
imum number of particles and energy on the Z-plane of both types
of containers are shown in the middle of the containers as can be
seen in e) and f) of Fig. 14.
In the same manner of the flux values obtained from MCNP6
numerical simulation, for both the existing KHNP and concrete
containers the maximum photon flux values are shown along
the center line of the radioactive sources on the surface of the
X and Y-plane. Meanwhile, the maximum photon flux values

on the Z-plane of both types of containers are shown in the
middle of the containers. Based on the photon flux values,
rem=h
radioactivities, and flux-to-dose conversion factors, surface dose
ð7Þ rates of the both types of containers containing three different
types of radioactive wastes, respectively are calculated using
Eq. (7) above. Table 17 shows the maximum surface dose rates
on the X, Y, and Z-plane of the both existing KHNP and concrete
containers with three different types of radioactive waste. As can
be seen in Table 17, the maximum surface dose rate of the KHNP
container loaded with AM RPV exceeds 2 mSv/h which is the sur-
face dose rate limit regulated by IAEA. On the other hand, the
maximum surface dose rates of all concrete containers with
AM RPV which is classified as intermediate level radioactive
waste are less than the surface dose rate limit. For both
WWER-440 RPV and WWER-440 bioshielding concrete which
are classified as low and intermediate level radioactive waste
respectively, the maximum surface dose rates of KHNP and all
concrete containers are significantly less than the surface dose
rate limit.
Fig. 15 compares the maximum surface dose rate ratio of all
concrete containers to KHNP container. As seen in Fig. 15, for AM
RPV the maximum surface dose rate ratios of concrete containers
to KHNP container ranged from 28.0 to 29.7% on the X-plane with
an average of 28.8%, 26.4 to 31.3% on the Y-plane with an average
of 28.9%, and 3.2 to 6.7% on the Z-plane with an average of 4.9%. For
WWER-440 RPV, the ratios are ranged from 36.4 to 40.0% on the

3304

27 50
27

50

1504
Z

X ZY
Y

ZX

1504 3304

27 50 23 50
23
27

895

895
50
50

YZ
Y XZ

a) IP-2 type KHNP container

Fig. 12. All points for measuring flux.
 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138 135

3020

150
150 50

50

1600
Z

Y X
ZY

ZX

1600 3020
180
180

150 50 150 50
1200

1200
YZ
50

Y XZ X

b) IP-2 type concrete container

Fig. 12 (continued)

1.E-04
Conversion factors [(rem/hr)/(p/cm2·Sec)]

1.E-05

1.E-06

ANSI/ANS-6.1.1-1977
1.E-07
ICRP-21
ANSI/ANS-6.1.1-1991
ICRP-74
1.E-08
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Photon energy (MeV)
Fig. 13. Four different versions of dose conversion factors for photon.

Table 16
Polynomial coefficients for gamma-ray Flux-to-dose-rate conversion factors.

Photon Energy (MeV) a b c d C R2

0.01–0.03 – 3.3310E1 3.0043 9.3754 5.6393 1
0.03–0.5 8.740E2 7.6370E1 2.1450 1.3725 1.4082E1 0.9996
0.5–5.0 1.310E1 3.3690E1 2.1780E1 6.6820E1 1.3157E1 0.9995
5.0–15.0 – 1.200E2 1.7870E1 1.5300 1.2766E1 1
136 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138

a) X plane of KHNP container

b) X-plane of concrete container

c) Y-plane of KHNP container d) Y-plane of concrete containers

e) Z-plane of KHNP container

f) Z-plane of concrete containers

Fig. 14. MCNP6 particle tracks.

X-plane with an average of 38.2%, 42.5 to 45.1% on the Y-plane ratios are ranged from 10.0 to 15.8% on the X-plane with an aver-
with an average of 44.1%, and 2.4 to 5.4% on the Z-plane with an age of 12.8%, 8.8 to 15.6% on the Y-plane with an average of 12.1%,
average of 3.8%. Finally, for WWER-440 bioshielding concrete the and 11.8 to 12.1% on the Z-plane with an average of 12%.
 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138 137

Table 17
The maximum surface dose rate of KHNP and concrete containers.

Concrete type AM RPV WWER-440 RPV WWER-440 concrete

X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z
KHNP Container 6.48 5.34 3.30 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.019 0.016 0.017
40NCA 1.897 1.408 0.220 0.042 0.036 0.0038 0.0027 0.0017 0.00018
40RCA 1.911 1.480 0.190 0.042 0.034 0.0033 0.0030 0.0016 0.00020
70NCA 1.817 1.619 0.107 0.044 0.036 0.0018 0.0021 0.0024 0.00020
70RCA 1.819 1.674 0.136 0.040 0.035 0.0017 0.0019 0.0023 0.00020

AM RPV WWER-440 RPV WWER-440 concrete results. Therefore, it is plausible to state that the numerical simu-
60% lation code has high reliability to evaluate radiation shielding per-
50% formance of concrete in comparison to an experimental method
40% and could be employed to predict radiation shielding properties
Ratio

of concrete. Meanwhile, the linear attenuation coefficients of RCA

30%
for 40 MPa are not significantly different when compared to NCA.
20% However, for the concrete samples with 70 MPa of compressive
10% strength, the RCA samples show slightly lower linear attenuation
0% coefficients than NCA. This might be due to lower density of RCA
40NCA 40RCA 70NCA 70RCA Average when compared to NCA.
Concrete type Finally, it has been found that the maximum surface dose rates
a) X-plane of the all concrete containers for both intermediate and low level of
radioactive waste in terms of gamma rays were turned out below
AM RPV WWER-440 RPV WWER-440 concrete the surface dose rate limit, 2 mSv/h, showing significantly less sur-
60%
face dose rates than the existing KHNP container. Based on these
50%
studies it can be concluded that concrete containing any virgin or
40% recycled coarse aggregate shows favorable properties as a shield-
Ratio

30% ing material; therefore it can be a useful material as transportable

20% packaging for radioactive waste.
10%
0% Acknowledgments
40NCA 40RCA 70NCA 70RCA Average
Concrete type This research project was funded by POSCO E&C R&D center in
b) Y-plane Korea. The authors acknowledge Ryan Schow and Steve Burnham
in UNEP for their contributions to establishing the test setups of
AM RPV WWER-440 RPV WWER-440 concrete radiation shielding.
10%

8% References

6%
Ratio

[1] IAEA, Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Waste Material IAEA
Safety Standards Series No.TS-R-2009, IAEA Safety Standards Series No.TS-R-1.
4% _ Türkmen et al., Calculation of radiation attenuation coefficients in Portland
[2] I.
cements mixed with silica fume, blast furnace slag and natural zeolite, Ann.
2% Nucl. Energy 35 (10) (2008) 1937–1943.
[3] K. Singh, S. Singh, G. Singh, Effect of flyash addition on mechanical and gamma
0% radiation shielding properties of concrete, J. Energy 2014 (2014).
40NCA 40RCA 70NCA 70RCA Average [4] V.P. Singh, N.M. Badiger, Investigation on radiation shielding parameters of
Concrete type ordinary, heavy and super heavy concretes, Nucl. Technol. Radiat. Protect. 29
c) Z-plane (2) (2014) 149–156.
[5] I. Akkurt et al., Photon attenuation coefficients of concrete includes barite in
different rate, Ann. Nucl. Energy 37 (7) (2010) 910–914.
Fig. 15. Maximum surface dose rate ratio of concrete containers to KHNP container.
[6] S. Shirmardi, M. Shamsaei, M. Naserpour, Comparison of photon attenuation
coefficients of various barite concretes and lead by MCNP code, XCOM and
experimental data, Ann. Nucl. Energy 55 (2013) 288–291.
[7] I. Akkurt et al., Radiation shielding of concretes containing different
6. Conclusion aggregates, Cem. Concr. Compos. 28 (2) (2006) 153–157.
[8] S. Nagataki, et al., Properties of recycled aggregate and recycled aggregate
concrete, in International workshop on recycled concrete, 2000.
This study provides physical and gamma radiation shielding [9] T.C. Hansen, E. Boegh, Elasticity and drying shrinkage concrete of recycled-
characteristics of concrete, containing virgin and recycled coarse aggregate, in Journal Proceedings, 1985.
aggregates (RCA) to be used for a transportable concrete container [10] T.C. Hansen, Recycled aggregates and recycled aggregate concrete second
state-of-the-art report developments 1945–1985, Mater. Struct. 19 (3) (1986)
for radioactive waste. The following conclusions can be drawn 201–246.
from this study. [11] T.C. Hansen, H. Narud, Strength of recycled concrete made from crushed
It has been found that the physical properties of concrete con- concrete coarse aggregate, Concr. Int. 5 (01) (1983) 79–83.
[12] M. Tavakoli, P. Soroushian, Strengths of recycled aggregate concrete made
taining RCA showed less favorable results than concrete used with
using field-demolished concrete as aggregate, ACI Mater. J. 93 (2) (1996) 182–
NCA, showing a good agreement with other studies on the physical 190.
properties of concrete used with RCA. [13] C.S. Poon, Z. Shui, L. Lam, Effect of microstructure of ITZ on compressive
The linear attenuation coefficients obtained from the numerical strength of concrete prepared with recycled aggregates, Constr. Build. Mater.
18 (6) (2004) 461–468.
simulation code for all concrete samples were ranged within 5% [14] S.-W. Kim, H.-D. Yun, Evaluation of the bond behavior of steel reinforcing bars
error amounts when comparing to the experimentally determined in recycled fine aggregate concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 46 (2014) 8–18.
138 D. Han et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 122–138
[15] L. Aashto, Bridge Design Specifications, AASHTO Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
[16] Korea Agency for Technology and Standards. Korean industrial standards,
Seoul, K., Korea Agency for Technology and Standards, 2005. <http://www.
kssn.net/english>.
[17] C. Astm, 192, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test
Specimens in the Laboratory, Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2006 (2004) 4.
[18] C469, A., Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s
Ratio of Concrete in Compression, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 2002, 4.
[19] S. Ismail, M. Ramli, Mechanical strength and drying shrinkage properties of
concrete containing treated coarse recycled concrete aggregates, Constr. Build.
Mater. 68 (2014) 726–739.
[20] L. Butler, J.S. West, S.L. Tighe, Effect of recycled concrete coarse aggregate from
multiple sources on the hardened properties of concrete with equivalent
compressive strength, Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 1292–1301.
[21] Ö. Çakır, Experimental analysis of properties of recycled coarse aggregate
(RCA) concrete with mineral additives, Constr. Build. Mater. 68 (2014) 17–25.
[22] B.D. Milbrath et al., Comparison of LaBr 3: Ce and NaI (Tl) scintillators for
radio-isotope identification devices, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A
572 (2) (2007) 774–784.
[23] M.F. Kaplan, Concrete Radiation Shielding, 1989.
[24] RSICC, Computer Code Collection CCC-810, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA, 2013.
[25] M. Medhat, S. Shirmardi, V. Singh, Comparison of Geant 4, MCNP simulation
codes of studying attenuation of gamma rays through biological materials
with XCOM and experimental data, J. Appl. Computat. Math. 3 (2014).
[26] M.J. Berger, et al., XCOM: Photon cross section database (version 1.2), 1999.
<http://physics. nist. gov/xcom>.
[27] J.M. Kirkpatrick, B.M. Young, Poisson statistical methods for the analysis of
low-count gamma spectra, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 56 (3) (2009) 1278–1282.
[28] M. Medhat, Y. Wang, Geant4 code for simulation attenuation of gamma rays
through scintillation detectors, Ann. Nucl. Energy 62 (2013) 316–320.
[29] M.-C. Kim et al., Radiation shielding evaluation of IP-2 packages for low-and
intermediate-level radioactive waste, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 40 (6) (2008) 511–
516.
[30] S. Czifrus, S. Fehér, B. Babcsány, Determination of the Activity of the
SteelComponents and Shielding Concrete Structures of the Armenian Nuclear
Power Plant, Report BME-NTI-609/2013, Budapest, 2013.
[31] A. Suvorov, R. Mukhamadeev, Decommissioning strategy for reactor AM,
Russian Federation, Decommissioning techniques for research reactors, 2002,
p. 193.
[32] D.C. Kocher, Dose-rate conversion factors for external exposure to photons and
electrons, Health Phys. 45 (3) (1983) 665–686.
[33] ICRP, Data for protection against ionizing from external sources: supplement
to ICRP publication 15, ICRP Publication 21, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1973 .
[34] ICRP, Conversion coefficients for use in radiological protection against external
radiation, 1996, ICRP Publication 74. Ann. ICRP 26(3/4).
[35] M. Battat, et al., American national standard neutron and gamma-ray flux-to-
dose rate factors, ANSI/ANS, 1977.
[36] ANSI/ANS, Neutron and gamma-ray flux-to-dose-rate factors, ANSI/ANS-6.1.1-
1991, 1991, American Nuclear Society.
[37] G. Stankunas, R. Pabarcius, A. Tonkunas, Assessment and benchmarking of the
impact to gamma dose rate employing different photon-to-dose conversion
factors using MCNPX code at the decommissioning stage of Ignalina Nuclear
Power Plant, Radiat. Protect. Dosimetry 162 (1–2) (2014) 68–72.
[38] S.-G. Kwon et al., Calculation of neutron and gamma-ray flux-to-dose-rate
conversion factors, J. Korean Nucl. Soc 12 (3) (1980) 171–179.