General Report On Nuclear Weapons Tests - Sandia Labs (1998 Declassified) Ww

UNCLASSIFIED

AD NUMBER AD342207

CLASSIFICATION CHANGES TO:

unclassified

FROM:

secret

LIMITATION CHANGES TO: Approved for public release, unlimited

distribution

FROM: Notice: Only military offices may request from DDC. Not releasable to foreign nationals.

AUTHORITY DTRA ltr.,

24 Jun 98;

DTRA ltr.,

24 Jun 98

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

SECRET

RESTRICTED DATA

AD QAo°oA'L

DEFENSE DOCUMENTATION CENTER FOB

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CAMERON STATION. ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA

RESTRICTED DATA

SECRET

NOTICE: When government or other drawings, specifications or other data are used for any purpose other than in connection with a definitely related goJvCernm4- procurement't ope-L--ij thet U. S. Government thereby incurs no responsibility, nor any obligation whatsoever; and the fact that the Government may have formulated, furnished, or in any way supplied the said drawings, upecifications, or other data is not to be regarded by implication or otherwise as in any manner licensing the holder or any other person or c~r)ora;ton, or conveying any rights or permission to manufacture, use or sell any patented invention that may in any way be related thereto.

T-IES DOCUMENT CONTAINS INTORM4ATION A,-!FECTING TILE NAVIO[OJA

D.FENSE OF

THE UNITED STATES WrITIFN TI7'E MpEANING OF TIE ESPIONAGE LASTIE U.S.C.,

SECTIONS 793 a.

119 .

THY

TRANSMIISSION- OR T`TY REV
Tk

~

~

~ri

~~-

'AT--Jqi±TVT J -7Y . C_-1-'0 TN 19

BY LAW.

Al~r~l~'-'

f'iT

Ali? FfiWf.

RALISTIr(: 1JtSslt.- I)IVI'ilON

TECHNICAL LIBRARY

WT' 9003 ( opy No.

Doctimen No.~ii

I 1GENERAL REPORT Mv W VEAPONS iniS

4- 6 Cft

.- Now

1

^0&

P

O

rd

LONGJ-DISt'ANCE BIAST PREDICTIONS, MICR BARZ1METRIC MEASUREMENTS, AND UPPE -AhKOSPHERE MET]YOROIOGIC AL O~eqVA NS FOR OPERATIONS UPSHOT%L~ffHOLO ICASOTIFE AND TEPTA Isn~~~ peie

~

~

0,151..1it~

C-251

1)

--

1-Ji -

I

RESTRICTEED DATA This document contains i estr c ed daita as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Its transmittal or the disclosure of its o'ontents in any manner to an unauthorized person is prohibited.

ýAKJ)IA('n

PnRATION1

ALB10UQUEROQUE.

NEW -MEXICO

SECRFT

13

This report supersedes WT-9003(Prelim.), Series A. Holders of WT-9003(Preiim.) should destroy copies in acco-dance with existing security regulations. Destruction certificates should be forwarded to the Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

If WT-9003, Series B, is no longer needed, return it to AEC Technical Information Service Extension P. 0. Box 401 Oak Ridge, Tennessee

..":(

SECRET

OT 5T ThisWT-9003 This document consists of 90 pages No. of 4R3copies, Series B

LONG-DISTANCE BLAST PREDICTIONS, MICROBAROMETRIC MEASUREMENTS, AND UPPER-ATMOSPHERE METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS FOR OPERATIONS UPSHOT- KNOTHOLE, CASTLE, AND TEAPOT

I

By --

E. F. Cox

and J_ W. Reed,.

Sandia Corporattru Albuquerque, New Mexico October 1956

RESTRICTED DATA This document contains restricted data as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Its transmittal or the disclosure of its contents in any manner to an unauthorized person is prohibited.

S ECRE T

SECRET

SECRET it. ACT 195-41

ABSTRACT

A blast prediction and mrcrobarograph observation program was operated by Sandia Corporation du.-ing Operations Upshot-Knothole,

Castle, and Teapot.

Refined methods for

blast prediction have been derived which appear to predetermine adequately the possibility of blast damages occurring outside the Nevada Test Site during test operations.

In addi-

tion, sound recordings have been used for inverted geophysical seismic exploration of winds and temperatures in the ozonosphere, 30-60 km above the earth.

S•SECRET

SECRET

CONTENTS P age ABSTRACT

2

CHAPTER 1

THR 'PROHT.P.M OP" TONC,-fltTAC TEST' SITE

CHAPTER 2

INST'RUMENTATION

15

CHAPTER 3

PREDICTING SIGNAL PROPAGATION

23

3.1 3.2 3.3 3,4

General Considerations Propagation under an Inversion Propagation in Complexc Atmospheres Raypac Propagation Computations

CHAPTER 4 .4. 1 4.2 4.3

23 26 27 3.3

VERIFICATION OF PREDICTIONS

43

Accuracy of Predictions Prior to Operation Teapot Verification of Teapot Predictions Accuracy of Weather Predictions

CHAPTER 5 5. 1 5,2 5.3 5.4

I AST EF.FECTS AT NFV'V\l-)A

UPPER ATMOSPHERE (OZONOSPHERE,

IONOSPHERE) SIGNALS

Deducing Osonosphere Weather Conditionis Observations from Operation Upshot-Knothole Observations from Operation Castle Observations from Operation Teapot

43 46 52 59 59 62 69 72

CHAPTER 6

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE OPERATIONS

83

CHAPTER 7

SUMMARY

85

ILLUSTRATIONS

CHAPTER I

1.1 1.2 1.3

THE PROBLEM OF LONG-DISTANCE BLAST EFFECTS AT NEVADA TEST SITE

Departure of Mean Surface Temperature from Normal, March-May 195,3, Upshot-Knothole Peak Press.u.rs Measured at Las Vegas for All Tests Except Ranger Departure of Mean Surface Temperature from Normal, February-May 1955, Teapot

SECRET

8 9 12

3

SECRET ILLUSTRATIONS (cont) Page CHAPTER 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

Microbarograph Sensing Head on Glenn, Eniwetok Atoll, Castle Microbarograph Recording System, Eniwetok, Castle Microbarograph Sensing Head at Boulder City, Teapot Microbarograph Reornding Station, Boulder City, Teapot Microbarograph Stations and Nuclear and HE Shot Points at the N evada Test Site, Upshot-Knothole Microbarograph Recording Stations Used During 1953, Upshot-Knothole Microbarograph Recording Stations Used During 1955, Teapot Microbarograph Recording Stations Used During 1954, Castle

CHAPTER 3

3. 1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

INSTRUMENTATION

19 20 21 22

ING.3.....'SIGNAL FRfPAGAtfAitUN

Sound Ray Paths Under a Surface Temperature Inversion Sound Ray Paths for the Complex Atmospheric Case, with a Focus of Energy Peak Overpressure versus Distance from a Surface Explosion Under an Inversion Sound Signal Frequency versus Yield for Upshot-Knothole Tests Fraction of Initial Blast Energy Remaining in Shock or Sound Wave Raypac Computer for Plotting Sound Rays Raypac Plots for Open Shot, Teapot Peak Overpressure Computation Chart

CHAPTER 4

16 16 17 18

24 25 28 30 32 34 38 41

VERIFICATION OF PREDICTIONS

4. 1

Verification of Inversion-ducted Overpressures Predicted from Eq 3. 10, Teapot 4.2 Verification of Inversion-ducted Overpressures Predicted from Eq 3.11, Teapot 4.3 Verification u. Raypac -predicted Overpressures, Teapot 4.4 Verification of HE-scaled Overpressures, Teapot 4;5 Verification of W1/3 Scaled HE Overpressures, Teapot 4.6 Verification of Wl/2 Scaled HE Overpressures, Teapot 4.7 Errors in Predicting Sound Velocity, Upshot-Knothole 4.8 Errors in Predicting Sound Speed, Upshot-Knothole 4.9 Layer Character of Errors in Predicting Sound Velocity 4.10 Possible Sound Velocity Structures Caused by Forecasting Errors CHAPTER 5

Geometry of Dual Microbarograph Sound Recording

5. 2 5. 3

Two-gradient Solutions of Upper Atmosphere Sound Velocity Upper Air Sound Velocities from Upshot-Knothole Microbarograph Recordings Linearized Solution for Upper Air Sound Velocities, Upshot-Knothole Atmospheric Sound Velocity-Altitude Structures Used in Checking Empiric Height Equation

5.5

SECRET

48 50 51 53 54 55 56 57 58

IONOSPHERE) SIGNALS

5. i

5.4

4

UPPER ATMOSPHERE (OZONOSPHERE,

47

a

61 63 64 65

SECRET ILLUSTRATIONS (cont) Page 5.6 5.7 5. 8 5.9 5.10 5. 11 5.12 5.13 5.14

Computed Sound Travel Parameters from Assumed Atmospheric Structures Ozonosphere Sound Velocities, Upshot-Knothole Ozonosphere and Ionosphere Sound Velocities, Upshot-Knothole Resolution of Mean Sound Velocities to Wind and Temperature Means, Upshot-Knothole Mean Ozonosphere Sound Speeds and Winds, Upshot-Knothole Observed Upper Air Sound Velnoctie', Castll Sound Signal Recording, Bravo Shot, Castle Ozonosphere Temperatures Observed During Teapot Ozonosphere Winds Observed During Teapot

66 67 68 70 71 'i4 75 80 81

TABLES

PREDICTING SIGNAL PROPAGATION

CHAPTER 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Speed of Sound in Air Wind Resolution Coefficients Raypac Weather Data Input Computaiionsq Open Shot, Teapot Reflection Factors Used in Blast Prediction VERIFICATION OF PREDICTIONS

CHAPTER 4 4.1 4.2

44 45

P-ak-to-Peak Blast Pressures in Las Vegas Grade on Blast Prediction from Las Vegas UPPER ATMOSPHERE (OZONOSPHERE,

CHAPTER 5 5. 1

35 36 37 40

IONOSPHERE) SIGNALS

Ozonosphere Observation Program Results, Teapot

76

87

REFERENCES

SECRET

SF CAR 1"&

CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM OF LONG-DISTANCE BLAST EFFECTS AT THlE NEVADA TEST SITE

During Operatinn Ranger in 195! at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), shock wavc nuclear teCt shots can.eCd C:onsldcv-able daimage ini Las Vegas (uG Springs (24 miles away). plaster,

.fru 01

inles away) and indian

Although damage was confined to shattered windows and cracked

it was clear that continued damage could prohibit use of the continental test area.

In consequence,

Sandia Corporation Weapons Effects Department was assigned to provide

forecasts of long-distance blast effects prior to each shot of subsequent test operations. At the time of Operation Upshot-Knothole,

long-distance blast prediction had been de-

veloped only to a qualitative level-and predictions, based on scaling from pretest highexplosives (HE) shots, were not considered wholly adequate. Knothole, from nuclear and HE explosions, diction methods.

Data recorded during Upshot-

were carefully studied to derive quantitative pre-

Satisfactory solutions to the many facets of the problem finally were obtained

shortly before Operation Teapot began in the spring of 1955.

Reporting the Upshot-Knothole

program was therefore delayed to include refinements and verifications obtained in the 1955 program. Weather conditions at NTS during Operation Upshot-Knothole were unseasonable; ie, average Temperature for May was an all-time recorded low.-/ ture for March-May 1953 is shown in Fig. near the test area throughout the series.

1. 1.)

the

(Departure of mean tempera-

In addition, a jet stream hovered over or

Fortunately,

orientation of this high-speed air

stream on test dates did not support propagation of significantly damaging shocks into any nearby cities.

On several occasions,

overpressures

measured in Las Vegas, the nearest city, reach the minimum level for damn-

age.

conditions were borderline but,

luckily, only twice did

Peak overpressure measurements at Las Vegas for all tests except Operation Ranger

are plotted against shot yield in Fig. 1.2.

Note that Rlmnst d-anm-ina shocks were chuerv;-d

on several occasions and from shot yiebI:s as small as i kt.

Historical and theoretical details of the problem of observing and predicting air shocks at large distances from explosions have been published in earlier reports on Operations Buster-Janglel/ and Tumbler-Snapper2/ and, with minor theoretical changes and corrections, in Reference 3. To avord repetition, familiarity with these reports 's frequently assumed in this report.

SECREI" RESTRICTED DATA

SELNE 0_

.. - Q 70

p 1 I

1£

,C

x

4-0

Fig

til~

Daatle

o

~~e&TemTflperatur nath e 53

Match

pht

from

SECRET 0

_____

OME_.SMALL

____

L.ARGE MAY BE

WINDOWS DAMAGED

I 4

+Z

+ +

+

4-

BROKEN

WINDOWS

F

4.0

000+4-+ 4.

+

a

C

+

+

>

1

2

+

j -

00

+

04

00.0

0-

U)

oL 0

++ -tL UJ 0

ol

4co

0

o LL

o

0:

00

(ph) P12 !A IUrotufq3olpEwH

SE CRE T

i

SECRET As in previous test series in Nevada, several checks were made prior to earl shot to estimate magnitudes and destructive effects of pressure waves reachine inhabited repi'!s outside the test site.

On the basis of predictions of atmospheric temperature and wind struc-

ture provided by the Air Weather Service at staff briefinrs on evcnin'ts before shots, tlheorectical sound propagation patterns were developed.

These patterns were adjusted during the

night, as later measurements of atmospheric behavior were obtained.

Two hours before a

scheduled nuclear shot a 1. 2-ton TIE charge was detonated, and the sound was recorded at fifteen microbarograph stations circling the test area in Nevada,

Utah, and California.

At

minus one hour another 1.2-ton tIE shot was fired, and the records were checked for any late indication of serious consequences to be expected from detonation of the nuclear shot. when these multiple checks were made,

Even

predicted pressures were often considerably in error

but, as previously indicated, no heavy damage occurred. On Upshot-Knothole,

hcwever,

98 claims for blast damage were received by the Las

Vegas Branch Office of the Atomic Energy Commission,

some from points as remote as

Modesto and Visalia, California, although the majority were from Las Vegas. to be compared with 27 on Ranger,

294 on Buster-Jangle,

This total is

and 132 on Tumbler-Snapper.

but one of the 98 were clearly insupportable and were denied.-5/

All

The one claim which received

some consideration was from Las Vegas and was for a plate-glass window, possibly broken during a borderline peak-to-peak pressure condition of about 3.5 mb, but it was denied on the basis of faulty installation of the glass. At Groom Mine,

about forty miles northeast of the test area, a number of small windows

were broken on Shots 8 and 10.

On Shot 8,

no actual pressure measurements were made at

that point, but on Shot 10 a mobile microbarograph recorded a peak-to-peak surge of 15 mrb. On both occasions, a strong shock had been predicted, and necessary precautions were taken to protect local inhabitants from injury.

Damages were repaired by informal arrangement

with the AEC test manager. The strongest shock felt by observers at the Control Point during the entire series was on Shot 7. nf 28.

Although a microbarograph was not operated at the Control Point, an overpressure u eXp ei-iiji ia di-t iŽ1idl i a ucu tra nsducur. 6/

Eleven millibars were recorded at the Transmitter Farm, less than half those at the Control -oint. than Shot 11,

where overpressures are usually

This shot caused noticeably higher overpressures

which struck the Control Point with about 22. 8 mb.

On Shot 8,

at Frenchman Flat, peak-to-peak pressure measured at Camp Mercury

(Quonset 28) was 20. 6 mb, and a number of small windows were broken there.

t0

SECRET

SECRET From data such as these examples, we infer that large plate-glass windows are damaged by peak-to-peak pressure pulses of about 3 mb; damaee gradually increases with Dressnre level until at 15-20 mb small window panes are broken. During Ope ration Teapot, weather coLdiliona but no month was so anomalous as May 1953. February-May 1955 is shown in Fig. 1.3. observed in Southern Nevada.

tcU U aga~i

lol 1- C

an 'mouta 101

ny

utruei,

The departure of mean temperatures for

Itigh-speed jet stream winds were only occasionally

The operational program was changed by a greater emphasis on

safety from radioactive fallout: thus- the apparent impnrtnnce of a blast nrndietinn was reduced, although it certainly could not be overlooked.

rnrornm

In general, high wind conditions,

which could have caused serious blast propagation, were deemed too risky because they would have carried fallout in narrow intense bands to relatively great distances.

However, on some

occasions, when fallout patterns were forecast to lie toward the uninhabited "slot" to the southeast, tests were considered which might, disturbance in the Las Vegas area.

if carried out, have created considerable blast

Whenever winds were high enough to give strong tropo-

spheric blast propagation, wind direction changes during the night prior to the planned shot caused cancellation. The three air bursts of Teapot were small-yield weapons, minor importance.

so fallout was of relatively

Upper winds for these three shot dates did not support damaging shock

propagation. The blast prediction program was operated as in earlier test operations, and weather forecasts provided by Air Weather Service personnel were used to compute predictions of sound propagation patterns.

However, Raypac* 7-/was used for pattern prediction and made

computation much simpler than before.

In earlier tests, great masses of hand computation.s

were required for even a rough quantitative estimate of the situation.

Raypac,

in about an

hour of operating time, could produce a complete picture of the pattern in adequate detail for confident predictions.

It became possible to make repeated checks based on actual upper air

weather observations made at frequent intervals during the early morning hours before a test. Use of the analogue computer system is described in detail in Section 3.4. Preliminary 1.2-ton HE shots were continued at 1 and 2 hours before full-scale teats. However, when complex propagation conditions existed, the Raypac-computed blast prediction was usually superior to predictions made by scaling HE results, because a complete pattern was available and probable weather variations for the last hour or two before shot time could be considered.

Also, the possibilities for additive interference af signals of long duration,

Ray Path Analogue Computer (developed at Sandia Corporation by Division 54 13).

SECRET

SECRET

'

AAc '

41.--

16

0

4-i- ---O

O

0--

~ ~

I*

Fi~~~

~~

~

~ 9g

.3*eatreo en

0erar-a

12

SECRE

0P

ufceT

195

meatr

Tao

rm

o

ml

SECRET associated with large-scale blasts,

could be included.

Nevertheless,

for ozonosphere signals,

HE. qoeline terhinlope ,-nmpirntl the nnlv nrnrlt-f,.A

In summary, blast protection for the surrounding regions wau well provided.

At Las

Vegas, the maximum overpressure observed from a Teapot test was from Moth shot and was 1.55 mb (about 20 per cent below the minimum level for damage).

Informal reports of minor

damage to plaster were received, but there were no significant damage claims from the Las Vegas al ea. Ozonosphere signals above damaging minimums were observed at St. George, Utah. Turk shot caused 3.4 mb overpressure, Bee gave 1.9 mb, and Met gave 4.0 mb.

There was

a report of a previously cracked window being knocked out, but no claims wvole made.

Evi-

dently the slower pressure rise rate of these particular ozonosphere signals may have allowed larger peak pressures without the damaging effects found with waves ducted through the troposphere. The only significant blast-damage claims from the operation were from turkey farmers in the region of Fresno and Bakersfield, California.

One,

living near Bakersfield, claimed

that noise from Apple II shot stampeded his 5000 turkeys into the pen fences, suffocating and killing 600 and causing the feeding schedule of the others to be disrupted.

After Zucchini shot,

a similar occurrence was not so disastrous because the farmer had had prior news of the planned test and had alerted help to break up the stampede when the blast noise arrived.

A

settlement of this claim may have led a Fresno claimant to file similar charges, but on the dates be claimed damages were sustained, Inyokern and Bishop microbarographs recorded only 10-20 per cent of the noise levels measured from Apple II and Zucchini shots. An abnormally strong shock, ducted beneath a strong surface-temperature inversion from Turk shot toward the open shot area, demonstrated the effects of 0.5 psi, or 35 mb, overpressure on housing.

In the FCDA houses most windows were shattered, doors were

torn off, and other damages were sustained.

Surprisingly, only a few panes side-on to the

blast and lee side from the blast were broken, but nearly all front windows were broken out, with fragments blown through rooms and embedded in the far walls.

Obviously, considerable

injuries to personnel would have been sustained under these conditions if no precautiens had been taken.

This pressure level could be expected 45 miles from a 20-mt burst.

Experiments conducted with dwelling-size panes of glass mounted under the HA (HighAltitude) shot showed that, at least at 9 mb overpressure, windows up to 2 feet square were not broken.

However, under actual conditions found in a city, many such panes are held in

place by old dried putty or less secure frame fasteners and would be shattered by this blast

SECRET

13

SECRET pressure.

Further, in one case of atmospheric focusing,

for Las Vegas at a preliminary briefing session.

9 mb overpressure wa. predicted

This particular test aDoroach was fin-Uli

canceled because of fallout hazard but, from the point of view of blast damage, this was an example of the kind of prediction the Weapons Effects Department was prepared to make. In addition to their primary use in blast prediction, microbarograph observations of blast pressure signals provide data on sounds refracted to the ground from the ozonosphere. This information is used to operate the blast preditlion system in reverse, providing obser vations of atmospheric conditions in the 100, 000- to 150, 000-foot leveli.

D11r'nq Oner.-It...

Castle, where long-distance blast prediction is of little interest, microbarographs were operated primarily to obtain data on ozonosphere conditions.

Derivations and results of

sound probing of the ozonosphere for all three operations are detailed in Chapter 5.

14

SECRET

SECRET

CHAPTER 2 INSTRUMENTATION

Mierobnrngrnphs used by Sandia Corporation in Operations Busier-Jangle and TumblerSnapper were borrowed from the U. S. Navai Electronics Laboratory. 2

later operations, new Wiancko-type 3-PBM-2 microbarographsmentation setups for Castle and Teapot are shown in Figs.

In Upshot-Knothole and

were used.

stepped for several values of peak amplitude ranging from ±4 tib to ±12 mb. had a quarter-scale output.

(Typical instru-

2.1-2.4. ) Their sensitivities were Each range also

Recordings were made on Brush two-channel recorders.

Pres-

sure records were thus available for scales ranging from 0. 2 tpb/mm to 2400 pb/mm.

Meas-

urement was theoretically possible for signal amplitudes of from 0. 2 Mb to 96 mb but, since ambient wind noise gives pressure waves of 10- to i00-pb amplitude, only under absolutely calm conditions could signals of below 10 pb be detected. however,

At 0445 PST, February 22, 1955,

a discernible signal from an HE shot was recorded at Boulder City, with only

0.48-pb peak-to-peak amplitude. At the other extreme, UK-7 shot gave recordings of 22. 8 mb at the control point, and Apple II shot of Teapot gave peak-to-peak pressure of 21.3 mb.

Teapot Turk shot records

show pressure amplitude of only 15 mb, but the building wh-ch housed the recording system was so shaken that the record was cut off.

When checked against other Sandia Corporation

pressure measurements on Teapot HA shot, microbarograph amplitudes were in agreement 9/ within 20 per cent. Eighteen microbarograph units were installed and operated during Upshot-Knothole (in addition to a development model set up at Albuquerque and production spares operated by Wiancko Engineering, Inc.,

at Pasadena,

California).

Some changes in operating location

were made during the test series, and a mobile unit-Skippy-was available for on-call operation at points determined from preliminary forecasts.

In an attempt to establish char-

acteristics of signals refracted to earth from the ozonosphere (30-60 ki) (above 90 ki),

dual installations were made at six points.

area are presented (Figs.

and ionosphere

Maps of NTS and the surrounding

2.5 and 2. 6) to indicate operating locations of the various micro-

barograph installations and shot points for HE and nuclear test shots. For Operation Teapot, the eighteen units were rearranged to improve the collection of ozonosphere signal data.

Figure 2. 7 shows map locations of regularly operated recorders.

SECRET

15

2

~Jc ~

*~--

Fig.

16

0lealenn, 9brO ýa

BniteCtIj AtS

Castle

SECRET

Fig.

2. 3

--

Microbarograph Sensing Head at Boulder City, Teapot

SECRET

17

SECRET

U

0

0

g. bf

0

.0 0 IV

SECRET

SECRET

*c

Z

V:

0

0

-0 C,

00

cr

CZ

O*d

f

co

SECRET

09

SECRET

N

E

V_ A

U

DEA NEVADA TEST SITE

BISHOP

GOLDFIELD

CEDAR CIT

CALIENTE S

GROOM

*MINE

ST GEORGE

BEATTY BINDIAN

PRINGS

ALBUQUER'U 'So Mou ""

LAS VEGAS

"HENDERSON

}-eSINGLE

LOS ANGELES

BOULDER CITY

A

SCALE

STATONS i R

ODUAL STATIONS

STATUTE MILES 0

.6 ..- 50, , . -.100

Fig.

20

2. 6 --

200

Microbarograph Recording Stations Used During 1953, Upshot-Knothole

SECRET

i

SECRET

WoU

0O

z

Ir

0

Ld

f(

N

00Q

+I

A

~

>a

0

0w 0 Dm(P

D 4-I

+In.Z

~bf

I

09

oj 00

00 0z

SECRET

21

SECRET As before, one unit was equipped for mobile operations and, at various times, recorded at locations indicated on the map. Only one equipment modification was tried during Teapot.

An experimental 50-kc

broad-band radio receiver was connected to the recorder to give an automatic zero-time 101 Iiýiu•Liu. - It U1 u1 lecLIuiuaglIVlc ti'aiUsleiit 01 tiLe uumb burst.-' Ihis scheme worked with only fair reliability, but proved in principle that an automatic zero-time indication was possible for most types of atomic bomb tests.

In future programs, a refined automatic zero-

time indication will be used to aid in communicating the occurrence or cancellation of a test to distant operators,

since WWV-based time indications are not always received.

Microbarographs were operated on Operation Castle to record pressures at observer areas and measure ozonosphere signals.!ll

12°

Station locations are shown in Fig. 2.8.

I

-

ENIWETOK

o

SNORTH

BIKINI -205__ M__

PACIFIC

OCEAN

SI(~o

40 -o

SPONAPE

I•58

160°

162'

1640

1660

EAST LONGITUDE Fig. 2.8 --

22

Microbarograph Recording Stations Used During 1954 Operation Castle

SECRET

1680

SECRET

CHAPTER 3 PREDICTING SIGNAL PROPArGATTO_)

3. 1

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Atmospheric signal ducts are essentially of three types.

First, and in some respects

simplest for sound-propagation analysis, are signals ducted under a surface temperature inversion, as in Fig. 3. 1.

Next, the so-called complex case,

where sound velocity decreases

with height above ground level, then increases to a value above that at ground, as shown in Fig. 3. 2.

On occasion, further zigzags of the velocity-height structure occur.

Finally,

there are signals refracted from the ozonosphere and ionosphere, essentially complex cases, which preclude analytical prediction because they travel unknown regions of the atmosphere. However,

these may be scaled, with reasonable success, for pressures from smaller pretest

high-explosives shots. Peak overpressure,

P, for continuous sinusoidal acoustic waves may be expressed byl/ P = (2epV/¶)

1/2

(3.1)

,

where p is the air density, V is the velocity of propagation, s is the surface density of direct energy, and r is the duration of the constant amplitude signal. We

dO

In turn, 9 is defined by

o

(3.2)

,

=R cot go d-

where W is the total blast energy, R is the distance from the explosion, and 0° is the initial latitude angle on the sphere of the explosion of a ray returned to earth at distance,

R; e is the

fraction of released energy which remains as acoustical energy after the blast wave has 12

traversed the horizontal distance to R.

Near an explosion, nonadiabatic processes

13/

'.

I-- of

shock wave propagation leave behind, in the form of heat, much of the originally released An experimentally determined value14/' of E, satisfactory for ratios of R/W1/ 1/3 Nu meanir.g nuclear, is 0. 128 ft/(kt Nu11, energy.

c = 4.7 x 10-i

2

+ 5.7 x 10-4 (W,

3

>

kg HE)'/3/(R km) (3.3)

= 4.7 x 10-2+

2.7 x 10-2 (W,

kt Nu) I3/(R miles).

SECRET

23

SECRET

/r EO

a7

04 0

I,

ii

•

I 01 0

2 00

24

SECRET

SECRET

(V., hhd

(V

d'

h) d

V

Silence Noise(a)

h

(V

hd' h)d V

Silence -Noise(h}

Fig. 3.2 -

Sound Ray Paths for the Complex Atmospheric Case, with a Focus of Energy

SECRET

25

SECRET Thus, except for places close by large explosions,

this "efficiency" factor is 4.7 per cent.

At successive skip distances outward along its path, the energy of an acoustic wave will be further reduced by absorption and dispersion.

Equations 3. 1 and 3. 2 show that after n

cycles through the atmosphere, overpressure due to a single incremental initial solid angle, UL Ied

1y L

u•

p2

may oe expressed by

ieiiecuLon,

ratio,

j

2 00o V Wcfn-l(I + f)

P=

do cot 0

7rTR

(3.4)

0

(3.4

The fraction of incoming acoustic energy reflected from the ground surface into the atmosphere at each strike is indicated by f. 3.2

PROPAGATION UNDER AN INVERSION When sound velocity increases linearly with altitude to the top of the inversion at height,

and decreases thereafter, the limiting ray, starting at 9 horizontal at hi, strikes the earth at a distance1/

= arc Cos Vo /V- and becoming

hi,

R =21 j max

[

V.i + V

V

0

n~

2bi2V.V i 0

-V° -0v

Jv

(•. 5)

Furthermore, under the inversion, at R - R max, dR

R

0

(3.6) 0

Total incident sound intensity at a point on the ground consists of that coming directly from the source, plus that received after one reflection from an area one-fourth as large at half the distance, plus that received after two reflections from an area one-ninth as large at one-third the distance, etc.

If it is assumed that all impulses arrive at R at about the same

time, then overpressure may be expressed by

2 - POVoWE IR

cos

n:

fn

n=N

0 VWE 02 c+f)j Oo /14f\ Cos I---jJ irR 0

fN f

(3.7)

where N is the whole number of times R mnax divides into R, or the number nf cnmpleted cycles over [lie atmospheric path touching the top of the inversion. Little experimental and no known theoretical effort has been directed toward determining effective signal duration.

26

Reasonable values of

T,

as observed at nverpressures less than

SECRET

SECRET five per cent of a standard atmosphere, appear to lie, for the linear inversion situation, between two limiting equations, 15/

=

T,

kg HE)1

(W,

3.3 x 10

see

= 2.54 (W, kt Nu)o W" sec , and

aT= 9.3 x 10 2 (W,

kg HE)1/6 (Ra,

2

kin) 4.2 (R,

km)l /2 see

Rmax = 1.4 x 103 (W,

kt Nu)1/6 (Rmax,

(3.9) ni.)-4.2 (RF mi.)1/2 see

For more complex situations, a slightly different coefficient for Eq 3.8 is used and will be discussed later. Similarly, little effort has been devoted to determining the energy reflection factor, f, over real terrain.

Reflection from a smooth air-to-topsoil surface density discontinuity

should be 99.7 per cent.i1/

Destructive interference apparently reduces f significantly below

this ideal value, and in experiments under surface inversions at NTS, the value of f appears to lie between 60 and 75 per cent. By joining these not-very-well-determined

empirical values, and considering nuclear

blast yield to be one-half the blast yield of an equivalent tonnage of high explosives, two expressions are obtained for predicting peak overpressure for the linear inversion situation: P1

= 40.3(W,

P=

1. 2(W,

kt Nu)l/3 (0.75)N/

2

/(R,

mi.) mb

(3. 10)

and 0

kt Nu) .

4 15

(Rmax

m i.)2.1 (0.6)N/2/(R, mi.)

1

Graphs of these two equations for a typical HE explosion are shown in Fig.

25 mb . 3.3.

(3.11) Observed

peak pressures lie between these limiting graphs. 3.3

PROPAGATION IN COMPLEX ATMOSPHERES A satisfactory system was also derived for predicting sound propagation under more

complex atmospheric conditions,

with minor changes in constants and assumptions from those

used in developing the inversion case.

Previously, it had been assumed that differences in

arrival times of sound signals arriving by various paths were insignificant compared to other

Reproduced from Reference 15.

SECRET

SECRET

10

L

1

Slope

-

1.0

S--

0.75_

I-

0.01

13

6

10

30

50

100

Distance (km) Fig. 3. 3 - - Peak Overpressure versus Distance from a Surface Explosion Under an Inversion

28

SECRET

SECRET errors in determining paths and chara-teristics of atmospheric sound patterns.

Considerable

difficulty had always been encountered in predicting exact (±1 second) arrival limes ol sihock signals at large distances.

Consequently, it had been assumed-

that impulses arriving at a and it had been deduced from

point by various paths will undergo direct additive interference,

the appearance of recordings that single impulses of explosive shocks

-,.,nk dHwn

,t--

pressure wave trains. More detailed investigation of the situation has

revealed 0ita

relative arrival times of

impulses following different paths through the atmosphere may be determined successfully. Separation time between arriving signals was often found to be appreciable when compared with the fundamental period of the initiation explosion.

arrival times of signals

In fact,

reaching Las Vegas by different routes through the lcwer (25, 000 feet) troposphere may differ by 10 to 15 seconds.

Under a surface inversion, arrivals by different oaths will be spread

over not more than 5 seconds.

Only when distance traveled is

less than twenty miles for

nuclear tests may time separation be comnpletely ignored and the cumulative effect procedurce be applied without question.

On the other hand,

treatment of overpressures as separate im-

pulses requires more detailed consideration of the estimated reflection and period terms in a peak overpressure equation similar to Eq 3. 4. A Fourier analysis of some Upshot-Knothole microbarograph records was performed by REAC to determine maximum energy frequency components of individual records.

Spectral

curves of relative occurrence versus frequency were averaged for several stations on each of several shots of different yields in the Upshot-Knothole series.

Results are shown in

Fig. 3. 4,

with an RIVS fitted line for all shots analyzed, following the relation that period,

r = 2. 836 (W, kt Nu)1/3 Reasonable agreement with Cowan's 16/

Energy flux,

Eq 3.2;

(3. 12)

results is shown6

is proportional to d0o/dl,

which requires systematic evaluation as

a function of the various atmospheric layers the signal has passed through. the ground, n

0; this rate may be found in inverse form,

1/0

dR/doe,

At first

return to

by differentiating the ray-

path equation, I.

h R

i-I1

R

i

-

h,

LI

i+l i+ V+ -V D

2v

p

-

2

.

, 2

jV

+l

-

3.3

SECRET

H

29

-

--------

M-

SECRET

J *0/

o 0-I

w

t

4

0/0

0d .40

U)) Za

-

0

0

cr 0

0

-1 (rd

10

rb

1

mY.

to~s/s3-oAo)

30

AowO

384l0'

SECRET

0

SECRET When multiplied by soine of the other atmcsplhcric variabl•s in Eq 3..4,

thc contribution to

divergence of energy due to passing twice through each layer, hi+I - I,

once upward and

then downward, when V

1 V°

• V

is

diR

-. 0 1+1

.=ts oai.

,,,2"l

-d pkp

oI

*•y2

1

dO°

({v2

'I

3

i

Ir'~

"'i+l (v(3. FVp 2

2 snc•2 SAn indeterminate form is not reached when Vi 1 l= ative, as shown here, is also zero,

not infinity.

The case where Vi = V

-

(R

-

V

-V2

since

is zero, and its derivs a s

i+

Instead, when Vi+! = V V p) Vp 3 -1 P1 V

)

d(R - I 1 -- tan0 P d~o o Vo

_

p

14)

V-7 i l)

p V2

V-2

V 2 p - V2 0 p p-i

(3.15)

is not special, as it is in ray tracing, but here

tan 1_-_tn V°

d(R ~-H) d o

0

=(v -l

d

=

__

R RR

-(Ri

-

d

i

i V2P (V p2p 3 2

0

V

2

)

(3. 16)

2

V i )

V0(

Thus, for a complete path through the atmosphere and back to ground (3.17)

R

tanO---i=p-2 Vo

ndR d~ o

V3 0

Fa-V i-O

"2

R 2

i-p

V V2 I-

V

(R-2p

P

Rpl p-l

V 2 _-V2

p

p

1-

This equation may be evaluated from many of the bame terms used in computing ray-path distances.

In this manner, microbarograph observations of overpressures at ranges from the

NTS control point to Boulder City were analyzed for two cases of complex atmospheric conditions encountered during Operation Upshot-Knothole.

Eighteen station measurements were

found to yield RMS values for f = 0. 936 and for E = 0. 0281.

This value for reflection coefficient

is considerably nearer to a theoretical topsoil reflection factor than was derived for inversion conditions in Section 3. 1, but data scatter and the predominant effect of varying the E term do not allow strong confidence in the result.

The E factor, however,

falls reasonably close to

an extrapolation from the 100- to I-psi pressure levels for nuclear blast curves. 17/ Various soures3, 17, 18/ show considerable disagreement cuncerning the form of the adiabatic transmission coefficient (iý ig. s, !).

However, sound waves, being adiabatic processes, should

eventually acquire a constant energy level.

SECRET

31

SECRET

'/7

/

/ A

I./,

/

°

;.

/ I >I

,2SCE

.0.

'IFig. 3. 5

Fato

Iw~•

ofIiilBatEeg

Re

ann

inSokoSudWa .9--

ve

o:j•.ol

-0i

Co

Fig

32

3.

--

rcino

nta

BlstEnrg

Reann

SECRET

nSoc

rSudWv

SECRET 3.4

RAYPAC PROPAGATION COMPUTATIONS The Raypac computer, shown in Fig. 3. 6, was being developed simultaneously with

studies of Upshot-Knothole data, so the tremendous advantage of rapid pattern calculation was not available for determining the nonatmospheric quantities, E and f.

Construction of the ma-

chine was completed only shortly betore the start of Operation Teapot and was not available for further research computations. The computer is designed to take, as input data, the sound velocity versus altitude structure in a direction from a sound source. ent.

Hand calculations are not entirely eliminated at pres-

Rawinsonde weather observations and weather forecasts provide (at specified levelq in

the atmosphere) temperature, wind direction, and wind speed, plus other atmospheric parameters of no interest in sound propagation.

For sound-ray plotting, therefore, temperature

must be converted to sound speed, and the wind component in the direction of interest must be extracted from the total wind vector. terms.

Tables 3. 1 and 3.2 are for calculating these necessary

Actually, the input is not sound velocity but, rather, the ratio of sound velocity at an

altitude to sound velocity at burst height.

This allows genet-"li~tinn to any burst height and

simplifies the analogue function generator.

Table 3. 3 is an example of computations nprc-R-

sary to prepare actual inputs for the machine.

After atmospheric data have been fed to the

machine, paths of prescribed sets of rays may be plotted automatically. tional rays may be drawn by manual entry of initial angle cosines.

For filling in, addi-

A new vertical-structure

input and ray-path plot are necessary for each direction of interest, generally toward populated localities around the test site.

Usually from 3 to 5 separate plots similar to Fig. 3. 7

are adequate for a briefing forecast, and they are made only for directions in which upper-air sound velocity exceeds the surface value. At first glance, a plot shows where sound will strike the ground and whether a blast will be heard.

However, since each ray path is for a known initial elevation angle, thp arrival

spacing of successively inclined rays provides a dR/d9° measurement, 6R/Ago, for calculating overpressure.

Experience has shown that even at distances nearly 100 miles from a large ex-

plosion, b'ast wave overpressure-time curves maintain an N-wave shape, similar to the closein wave, rather than degenerate to sinusoidal form.

In this case, the coefficient of Eq 3.

i

changed so that P N-wave

=

( 3 pV/r)/2 1

SECRET

(3. 18)

33

SECRET

iii

co

34

SECRET

SECRET

10 ']'

mO

c

O

0

C'] ý

clO

'r

wO 0 U)

L-* tl

I]

1'

U 0o 0

2' I)

0)

lo)

U')0

C]

]

aO

~o C-

to

r-

4~

U)

In

0ý

m'

E'

'

)

0

02

o)

]0

'

.

U)

5

.

C

c aU

0

wC -

C

'

CO

o)

-

C]

C

oo

m

CO

CO

Lo

C-

C'

m)

c-

C')

U)

-

0

0

C

cO )

U6

O

t-o U

c

.

-

O

C

w-

CO

C']

"1'

U)

0

CO

Co

C)

CO

0D

a')

CO

o)

'

]

)

U

U

uCOC) oO.4

w' a)

U) C

U) '

U-

Co)

]

)

(6 C

CO

CO

C,

Co

CO.

CO

Co

CO

0

oo

r

o

L

'

O

ýc

CO

to

C'o

'

0

COý

-'

M)

0L

)

I

0)

-1) I'

o;

m.

u)

)

c'

CO0lC

'o

cý

C']

CO m

o

CO O

O

C

C-; 0

C]

a3 ''

U w) U

D

E

SERE

3

SECRET

0

0

0101000000-------

..

~

C '

..

w

,1

.

0

0-0 '-~

.0000000I

..

..

,11

Q 2

11 0.

6C;C to000

o

.......... ........ ..

1 .

-

:------

.......................-

.........

0. 0

-

-''-

,-. c..

10 ,

,

1,

. . ..

..

1+ + + + + + +w++

. . . .

+ + +

... 2• .

+ +I

+

,

0~ 0 woo

'---

(

0

-i

¶

C ;0 0 0 0 01 0-1C 0000000-------000000-------J2

u

0 •I

m

m0

0

0

0

0

0

6000

0 +

0

c0

-0-0-0--- 7 0 . 0 0 .04

0 0 . . . . 7. . 700 ..

4

0

0

..

0E

1,

0

1 1 4 4 40. . 0 . . . 0 . 0. . . 0 . .

-. w

• 0 0

00

0

+0

0

.. . . .0., 0

0

0

0

0

00

. .++ 0

,

0

, 0

,

, 0

,

,

, 0

,

,

,

,

,

0

00

SECR22222d

36

•

- •1

1.

-

3•

+ I+ 4+ + + +-+ + + + + + +

++++++++++++++

SECRET

I~

L

-

-

255d5555CA22222E . . .+. ++ . . .

,

,,

.

. ..

,

..

,,

++

++

+

+

SECRET -

=-

0-

~

c

cu

_

~c

001

to

ro-to

N

-

CO

0,

ON N t,

Cti

C CO'

C

,.

Cý Ný `4 CCO C

I.

4,'

C' '* C CC

ar-,

--

CVw cý

~

t

N

"

c4"

Nl

"

'0.

C'

-

C,-

C.

C'

'-

cN

'04 '

c",

c '-

-

-

r-

("N C

'"

Z

mC 11,C

0

4"'C I%--' 4*'C

" .

o

C--7 ::I

N

4C",4 'D'

C*'

r

C

C,

c

OO'C Nt

.- '

Ct"--.-14* c4 c

4,4*"+

0:0toI

±

c_

C,2'?' c- c

C

C

4,

o- I ± C+.0,

'01

n

"'-.

C%'

N

c~ ,

"1.

c;

'' r0

*4C

cCl % -4

~0-C

0'

t-

Iý

'C-

0

N'

0

cc ±L.L

(

N,I

4'

0-

+ c:

O[4

a

z

,

44'

0 Z

ujOOO~~~c

<

0-X c-

"w4

<

-.

j

CCc 'Dr

C"

1

I-

WI

N

C-. 4'

C. 4"

o"

wC

I

C' ,

( C:

0N

I 0

a '.m N.

rCCT O'

4N

a..


C Vl, c "c:

0'c-.

cC

0~

>.

N4

c-

-

IC'-

C.C-. ý

t-

-40

Nc .-

,-4

I.

E41 a'

"'

c. 0

U0t

C1

cN >-'

z04

a-

F -

00 ON CO

t

to-

CC 0y

Iý

-,

C'Cj c-

+ CCN

+'4

LNC'

2'4-

r

" .'-

4

I

0f0ýfl

f

NýC

SERE

3

SECRET 8

8

0.0 0 z 0

4

-j

4c

I

0

(14

40

8

-8 0

38

SECRE

0

SECRET Combining Eqs 3. 2 and 3.18 with the positive-phase duration (one-half the period determined by Eq 3. 12), and both nearly doubling wave energy by reflection at R and diminishing its energy through each previous ground reflection by f, a relation is obtained that

2

3(l+ f)fn-i 418)27t

-I.

W2/3 cot90 R

'o'0&

Substitution of the previously determined value for e, (1 + f) Z 2, p 0

10-

g/cc, and Vo

A0

AR

)

and the approximate relations

1100 fps (with necessary conversions for dimensional

consistency), shows that overpressure, P W2

13

P=_133j

fn-1

R tan 0

AG

"

_n0

0 mb

In this relation, R and AR are expressed in miles, W in kilotons, degrees.

This equation is graphed,

in Fig. 3. 8,

(3.20) (.0

AR

nuclear yield, and 0 0 in

for W = 1 kt, n = 1, and R = 10 miles.

An overpressure computation is thus performed from measured AR/Ag 0 and indicated 00 at R on a Raypac ray plot.

Figure 3. 8 gives the overpressure for these values at the first

ground strike, if at R = 10 miles. of reflections,

True overpressure may be scaled for observed R,

number

and predicted weapon yield by 1 n-1 true P = (graphic P) •

W1f

/ rmb 2

.

(3.21)

n-I Table 3.4 lists values for f

for integral values of n which might be found in practicn-.

SECRET

39

SECRET TABLE 3.4 Reflection Factors Used in Blast Prediction n-1 n1

n-I (0. 75 ) 2

n-i (0. 936) 2

n-i (0.9097)2

1

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2

0.775

0.866

0.,967

0.999

3

0.600

0.750

0.936

0.997

4

0.465

0.650

0.906

0.996

5

0.360

0.563

0.876

0.994

6

0.279

0.487

0.847

0.993

7

0.216

0.422

0.820

0.991

8

0. 167

0.365

0. 793

0.990

9

0.130

0.317

0.767

0.988

10

0.100

0.275

0.742

0.987

11

0.0778

0.237

0.718

0.985

12

0.0602

0.206

0.695

0.984

13

0.0467

0. 178

0. 672

0.982

14

0.0361

0. 155

0. 650

0.981

15

0.0280

0. 134

0. 629

0.979

16

0.0217

0.116

0.609

0.978

17

0.0168

0.100

0.589

0. 976

18

0.0130

0.0867

0.570

0. 975

19

0.0101

0.0751

0.551

0.973

20

0.00781

0.0650

0. 533

0. 972

f2

40

(0. 60) 2-

(n is the number Of cycles traversed through the atmosphere)

SECRET

SECRET

i -il \II4 I

I r:: ::

.

kt

I

......

..

.X

VA

l~F .........

.....

'

'

... .. . .. .. . ..

'

.II .......

1.fl' - .

Lfli,

I~

. ..

...... .......

.. ....

i 1.

Fig

. ...

3.

... ... .. . .

ck

O eprs

ue

(o

SEC.RET

puai~ . ...

h

SECRET

.

.. ....

.

.....

:0

.

Scaled for: Surface Burst (1 kt)

First Strike (n =1 10t-mile distance

50

w

3

5

f

7f

... .... . ss oI

A.

e .... (.... 5

.. ............ '.. 30.

35.... .0...... .. 40.5....

~~~~~ il~~~tO1(

Fig. 1~'~

SECRE

8..

t

FT o''

.cs . ...

~

kOe

~

~

M

6 ..

... .

41E4

SECRET

CHAPTER 4 VERIFICATION OF PREDICTIONS

4.1

ACCURACY OF PREDICTIONS PRIOR TO OPERATION TEAPOTlI9/ The degree to which blast prediction, as used during 1951,

1952, and 1953 operations

at NTS, was successful has been studied for the city of Las Vegas.

Results are summarized

in Table 4.1. On the evening before each test, the USAF Air Weather Service issued a foree-st for atmospheric conditions expected to exist at shot time.--/

Using these data-temperatures

and winds as a function of altitude--as well as the predicted yield and burst altitude, the blastprediction group computed the peak-to-peak blast pressures that would strike Las Vegas if the weather forecast and the predicted yield and burst altitude were true at shot time.

These

forecast pressures are listed in Table 4. 1. Predicted yield of the atomic device and a "scaling factor" equal to the square root of the yield ratio (nuclear-to-HE) were used to predict pressures from those observed on the HE shots fired at H-2 and H-1 hours before the test detonation (Table 4. 1).

While the weather

forecast covers no more than the lower 50, 000 feet of the atmosphere, HE shots and associated microbarograph measurements give information on shocks returned from the ozonosphere as well as the troposphere. Only once, on Upshot-Knothole Shot b, did the predicted pressures based on the previous evening's weather forecast call for damage (Table 4. 1). reflect the interesting situations that arise.

However,

this does not in any sense

For instance, on a number of occasions a sharp

focus of blast was predicted a certain number of miles from the test site in the direction of Las Vegas; had this distance been close to a submultiple of the distance from the shot point to Las Vegas, this focus could have struck close to Las Vegas after a small number of reflections. Moreover,

although literal use of the weather-yield forecast might call for small or

zero pressures in Las Vegas, a slight change from the forecast weather conditions could change pressures in Las Vegas tremcndously. Table 4. 2 is an attempt to assign a "grade" to each of the two or three blast predictions for Las Vegas on each nuclear shot of Operations Buster-Jangle, Tumbler-Snapper, anc

SECRET

43

SECRE'i

W~51

sa -

cl~a

4444110$

-~~~~~~~~~ -----------------~

~ ~~

S

----- ------ ------

SECRET

cr

x x

0,x

E 0

x

poon

44

xx'4x

P009~

~~

cqX X

,X

~

xX

~

c4

~

X "I

4x

w.1

C,1

SECRE

L

~~

~

~

~

~~~5 mmnw ----

ý0.

------

45

SECRET Upshot-KnntholP.

Weather In Ncvada was reimarkably stabli

dur-ing the Tu,,hblei-Snapper

series, and blast predictions based on weather forecasts of the previous evening were all fair or good.

On Buster-Jangle and Upshot-Knothole, because the weather was variable, essen-

tially half of the advance blast forecasts were fair or good, half poor or bad. 28 shots.

ýn which hlpýq

nrecictin'

--nr

H" i'cr

"n-'l"

.i

t,-

frvC-

An average for 'eh?

e

ous evening, was 69 per cent fair or good, 31 per cent poor or bad. Predictions based on scaling of data from Hie high-explosives shots were remarkably good for both Buster-Jangle and Tumbler-Snapper. Shots 1,

In three instances (Upshot-Knothole

8, and 9), weather changes in the final hour before the nuclear shot caused consider-

able embarrassment to the blast-prediction group.

On two of these occasions the 11-1-hour

predictions called for near-damaging blast to strike Las Vegas; the actual blast pressure was anything but damaging.

On another occasion (Upshot-Knothole Shot 9), there was no prior

indication that damaging blast would strike Las Vegas, but recorded pr essures from the nuclear shot were very near damaging.

Thus, although the record for predictions from the

H-l-hour shot stands at 88 per cent fair or good, 12 per cent poor or bad, "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. " Microbarograph measurements on high-explosives shots at H-2 and H-1 hours have an outstanding advantage in that they alone supply a means of predicting blast refraction to earth from the ozonosphere.

But they also have an outstanding weakness as far as both troposphere

and ozonosphere shocks are concerned; they come close to being "yes-no" -type tests.

When

there is a blast focus, microbarograph measurements by a small number of instruments at preselected locations cannot tell us the extent of the focal "point"; worse, how near the city the focus may be.

they cannot say

To improve accuracy in forecasting blast pressures

transmitted through the troposphere, we need improved weather forecasts. 4.2

VERIFICATION OF TEAPOT PREDICTIONS A summary of predictions actually presented at Teapot briefings has not been made

because the main source of inaccuracy in these calculations was in the weather forecast. Consequently, to check objectively the actual blast-prediction system,

shot-time weather

records have been used to provide after-the-fact pressure-wave amplitude estimates for each microbarograph recording site. Signal amplitudes expected to propagate under surface inversions were estimated from the limiting equations presented in Section 3. 2.

A scatter diagram of computed versus ob-

served overpressures from Eq 3. 10 is shown in Fig. 4. 1, and from Eq 3. 11 is shown in Fig. 4. 2.

From this comparison it appears that Eq 3. 10 is satisfactory for nuclear shots,

SECRET

46

___

i

-

I

SECRET

/

0

0

1'

o

o

0,

'C

0

S__j I'

Fig. 4. 1 --

Verification of Invcrsion-d ucted Overpressures Pred~etrd from Eq 3. 10, Teapot

SECRET

SECRET

vrrsue rdce dce neso . eiiaino Fi.4 frmE

48

3

SERE

1

Tao

SECRET but generally overestimates pressures from lIE prcliihinaIr

blasts.

On the other hand,

Eq 3. 11 generally underestirmates overpressures except in a few of the TIE cases. 3. 11 would probably be im.proved by using f = 0.75, as used in Eq 3. 10.

Equation

Scatter in verifi-

cation is still not altogether satisfactory, and it is difficult to convince test site personnel that the Blast Prediction Unit verified much hettpr at

.i

rnnrn. of 100 mil-

tý,-

f

10

-o

-',

Since signal ducts under an inversion give signal intensities which decrease rapidly with distance, no damaging conditions would be forecast for or observed at surrounding Cities from this type of signal propagation, so prediction errors observed within xrS would never have serious consequences outside. Verification of pred.ctions for complex atmospheres has also been computed for Operation Teapot.

Where foci appear, large gradients of overpressure with distance would be

predicted, although sufficient observations have never been obtained actually showing such narrow intense sound hands as theory indicates.

Thus, a large error in predicting over-

pressure could have been a small error in predicting focal distance.

This factor has been

considered by forecasting a range of overpressures for distances within 5 miles of the recording site.

These ranges are plotted against observed overpressures in Fig. 4. 3.

Most

cases verified showed quiet zones falling within 5 miles of the recorder, and this is indicated by a dashed extension down from the range line.

A similar verification, but for distances

within 10 miles, increased the computed ranges only slightly and allowed sound at the three stations otherwise predicted to have silence. could be hoped for.

It appears that verification is about as good as

A further check of complex cases was prepared,

comparing observed

overpressures with prediction scaled from H1-1-hour HE preliminary shots.

Results for both

W1/3 and W 1/2 scaling are shown in Fig. 4.4. According to Eq 3. 19, overpressures should 1/3. 1/2 ryrpent be proportional to W Yet it appears that W proportionality more nearly represents the true condition.

Under a given atmospheric condition, the probability of constructive inter-

ference increases with increased yield, since the positive-phase duration is increased.

Thus,

wl/3 scaling would provide a minimum estimate of larger yield effects, and W 1/2 scaling includes empirically the additive effects of interference.

Probably a better scaled prediction

could be made if the number of cycles of signal observed from the HE in one positive-phase duration period for the atom test were multiplied by the W 1/3 scaled amplitude.

SFC R FT

4

SECRET

mox-

Du lo

~

~.

L

cia as!d~

500

S

AEC-

RSI

90

-

CA.

SECRET

I

-___ -

\

•i -]

•,

0. 1

--

SEC

•

ii

_' 2

•

ET

|i

i

i i•

i10

SECRET Ozonosphere signals are generally observed 30 to 60 seconds after troposphere silznals, so they are easy to recognize on recordings.

Thus, a separate verification of HE-scaled

ozonosphere signals was made as shown in Fig. 4. 5, using W1/2 scaling.

improvement over w\'

usingW1/3 scaling, and in Fig. 4. 6,

Again the W 1/2 scaling appears to give the best results, but the relative

scaling is tess tnan

[oi" complex

dI

1 upUapnc1Ic

It is likely that errors in prediction either from computation or scaling could be explained qualitatively by consideration of time and space variations of the weather. 4.3

ACCURACY OF WEATHER PREDICTIONS A summary of vector errors in predicting velocity of sound in the southeast direction 1952, and 1953 series of tests.

for the evening briefing has been prepared for the 1951,

Fig. 4.7, average and standard errors are plotted against altitude, MSL. result from inaccuracy of wind prediction.

In

Most of these errors

Mean errors and magnitudes of errors in speed of

sound, a function of temperature, are plotted against altitude in Fig. 4. 8.

Temperature fore-

cast errors are relatively small, but it is noticeable that velocity errors are comparatively large; so large, in fact, that a detailed pattern for sound propagation, derived from forecast data, may be changed considerably.

IHowever, prediction errors are not disproportionate

when compared with errors which would result from assuming that 0100 PST upper-air observations persisted until shot time.

Standard error for all point-level forecast:i

whereas that for 0100 PST data persistence is ±18 fps.

is ±26 fps,

Assuming persistence of the atmos-

phere for even 1-hour periods gives errors in sound propagation intensity which are occasionally large, as may be noted by comparing the F-2-hour and H-1-hour tIE predictions in Table 4. 1.

In particular,

note Upshot-Knothole Shots 3,

6,

8,

and 9.

Hourly variability of the wind at any level less than 30, 000 feet MSL has a standard deviation near ±6 fps. 21/

It is believed that at altitudes greater than 30, 000 feet and in jet

stream regions this variability becomes much larger. 22/

The Meteorology Section of Sandia

Corporation's Field Test Organization operated Project Rawijet to measure this high-level variability, but the necessary statistical analysis is not yet complete.

At present, it seems

reasonable to conclude that prediction of blast-pressure patterns and magnitudes will be subject to frequent errors in verification whether based on weather forecasts or on pretest HE shot results.

52

SECRET

SECRET

8

9t

0

; W

00

m

0.

0 0

w00 0

0

\T

Lo

0

W

0

it~

-.

> x

0

Q Ln

0

W 24 MU a

0

LU 0f

00

(40f

ii

0

>00 1 q

&z~-)~

jAUb(

SERE U)

W

SECRET

00

1C

0 000

E

w

00

0

0\

0E)

0

CL

0 0

-

00 VD -

0~

0 00

8 2

54

w

l)SfS3J

-i)~

J~3P

SECRE

0

SECRET

_j

Z

+1

_jQ

'4.

0

-

(f x(rlD

I.

u

Wnj a:

%

-J

*

W

%-

w

i

(im -i

SECRET

>.

~

r

-onun

55

SECRET

2

~0

S

-,

I

\I

L

50

I

I

0

I

RE 0SEC

li~

-_

C

SECRET As might hr' expected, orrnorsc

in predicted winds are not reand emly v a iblt-

wiIih •i-c-

For the three test series, mean thickness of atmospheric layers having

cessive heights.

errors of the same sign was found to be 6000 feet. 16 fps (Fig. 4. 9).

The mean error within such layers was

From these values, general classes of likely sound-propagation patterns

iiiay ue derived irom a meteorological-forecast condition.

i

I

FORECAST-_

.

However, application as shown

OBSERVED

W

d6OO FT

0

"O~d 25,O0O -

SOUND VELOGITY Fig. 4.9 --

FT

15.6 FPS

-

Layer Character of Errors in Predicting Sound Velocity

in Fig. 4. 10 emphasizes the fact that adding possible errors to any forecast structure may change sound intensity expected at a point location from zero to many times the level predicted by literal application of the forecast sound velocity-height relation. To summarize, more accurate wind forecasts would be helpful in predicting shock intensities for inhabited localities around the NTS, but even forecasts as reliable as I-hour persistence could conceivably allow amplitude prediction errors large enough to cover the range from insignificance to damage near focal points. A theoretically developed function relating the probability of damaging shocks to atmospheric structure has been suggested, but the complexity of the sound path and energy equations has discouraged the attempt thus far.

On the other hand, as more data on these relations ac-

cumulate, an empirical function may be found that will work reasonably well.

SECRET

SECRET I

1--•0

i Ii' / l

II |

I

lI

/\\

U]

S

Ifl-

I|

/I I

(I) 0

L..I

I

ito

lI

II

l•JI

>

_-

vs Ho

SI

0

/ ,I

/

I

o -

/'' ' \

I

I

I

I 0

I

10

'I \

Io

I1

V0

(41 )

58

3Gf1i17"

SECRET

SECRET

CHAr PTER 5

HIGH-ATMOSPHERE (OZONOSPHERE,

5. I

IONOSPHERE) SIGNALS

DEDUCING OZONOSPHERE WEA [HER CONDITIONS Although we have distinct evidence-I

under certain circumstances,

that sound signals from nuclear explosions do,

travel at least part of their paths to remote distances through

the higher-level atmospheric regions known as the ozonosphere and ionosphere, established meteorological procedures do nol as yet permit us to make measurements in these regions. However,

Johnson--

and Crary24/

have described methods for deducing atmospheric condi-

tions at these higher levels from distances,

arrival times, and characteristic velocities of

sounds measured at three or more azimuths from a shot point. In an attempt to measure the characteristic velocities of some of the 'anomalous" signals that had been returned from the ozonosphere and ionosphere,

dual microbarograph

stations wcre operated at several outlying locations (Fig. 2. 6) during the Upshot-Knothole series of nuclear test shots.

The characteristic velocity of a signal,

which represents the

velocity of sound at the level where the ray became horizontal, is the apparent velocity of travel between the dual stations (Fig. 5. 1).

(If the two stations are at different elevations,

minor modifications in the computation procedure outlined below are necessary,)

STA I

APPARENT VELOCITY

station

STA 2

spacing

Fig. 5. 1 -- Geometry of Dual Microbarograph Sound Record'ng

SECRET

59

SECRET Cox et ala- have given the distance traveled by a signal through the lower atumospheric levols (in which measurement is possible) as

-hg

i=m-1•, h

(rV2_l, I~

Dif

vi

_ 2v Vi 1).

(5.1)

i=O The time required for this travel is Tm=~~~V.i0

"i

~E

o~p•

V2

i=mn 1V

~

, V•-2p

V

-

_

VV2

V1

l

__

p

_

+

1=0

V2 V

i7

i,2

i+l..

2 V2

(Values to the maximum meteorologically observed level are denoted by m.) values of D

(5.2)

Subtracting these

and Tm from the total recorded distance and time traveled by a given signal

gives D' and T', the distance and time of travel in the unknown atmosphere. Various postulations have been made concerning atmospheric structures that satisfy these conditions. 23-30/

In general, it has been found that differences in the postulated inter-

mediate structures do net appreciably change the estimated heights at which the rays become 29/ horizontal. _9 For convenience,

the unknown region was taken to extend from that altitude at which

meteorological observations stopped to that where the velocity of sound was equal to V . An P evaluation procedure which assumed this region to consist of two layers, each having linear velocity-altitude gradients, could be used to determine a family of solutions saiisfying the (T', D',

Vp) conditions (Fig. 5. 2).

When 9 is taken to be the inclination angle of the ray in

question to the horizontal (V/cos 9 = V ), the family of solutions may be described by the p 23f following relations.-' (The primes and double primes indicate the two limiting structures of the family; gd-

0 is the anti-Gudermanian of 0. ) sin 9' = (D'/T'V ) gd-1' V' = V cos O' P

(5.4)

hl = D' (I - cos @1)/sin 9' .

(5.5)

sin 9"

60

(5.3)

,

sin 0m + (D'/,'Vp)(gd- 9" - gd-l0m) j

(5.6)

Vn

V P cos 9,

(5.7)

h-

(V"

- Vm) T'/2(gd-

m - gd- 10") .

SECRET

(5.8)

SECRET The points at which changes in the intern,, diate gradients take

lu-1.

-

, a p'rO

•',ite*'

straight line, dashed fron (nm, V') to (in:, VP) iL Fig. 5. 2, for all solutions of a faioi.y.

V"

unknown atmosphere

h

"

/t

family

Itwo- gradient

solutions height h

hm

V

m

Rowinsonde

V sound velocity

VP characteristic velocity

Fig. 5.2 -- Two-gradient Solutions of Upper Atmosphere Sound Velocity

If the earliest signal of an ozonosphere set is used to determine a family, succeeding signals having higher characteristic velocities may, in turn, be evaluated, using- as new val ucs of h m,

Vm, Tm, and D

the range of values just determined.

While this method iias been

used successfully by other investigators dealing with smaller numbers of weaker signals, on nuclear tests as many as 25-30 distinct ozonosphere return pulses may be received over a period as long as 100 seconds.

Successive application of the two-gradient solution was found

to give reasonable intermediate conditions for only two or three successive signals.

Further

successive solutions would have entailed zero or negative sound velocities in intermediate regions,

an obvious impossibility.

Determination of a mrltiple-parameter structure that

could be evaluated as an approximation toward satisfying a complete set of data would indeed be a formidable task.

Consequently,

only the strongest signal in each set was evaluated by

use ai the two-gradient method, the mean value of hI and hi" being taken as the height of the ray crest.

Hlowever,

successive solutions were used ta compute crest heights for ionosphere

SECRET

61

SECRET '-eturns arrivin,, considerably later than those of the ozonosphere set; here the two-gradient oterme,';-

•

.

appearpe

reasonable.

!:;ults of this analysis of teI Upshot-Knothole data are plotted in Fig. 5. 3.

Exami-

nation of the" grouping of points b3 stations led to the discovery that, when plotted as D/Vp T vs h/D, +hese points fell very ne;irly on a straight line even when the four ionosphere signals Niere included (Fig. 5.4).

The RMS line computed for these variables is h/D = 0. 865 - 0. 789 D/V pT .

(5.9)

When h, the height of the crest, is computed from Eq 5. 9 without regard for known meteorological conditions or the azimuth from the shot point, computed crest heights vary only by the amounts indicated by the vertical line segments in Fig. 5. 3.

In several instances,

these

changes were small enough tn be negligibe on the scale of this plot; in nearly every instance, the change was less than h" - h',

the range of uncertainty for the two-gradient solution.

No

analytical proof for the validity of this simplified empirical relation has yet been developed. A check was made of the generality of Eq 5. 9, for height finding, by computing ray paths and arrival times for signals traveling a broad range of possible atmospheric structures. various str -,turesused for the check computation are shown in Fig. 5.5.

The

In Fig. 5.6, com-

puted parameters are plotted with the line described by Eq 5. 9 for comparison.

These points

fall below the Upshot-Knothole data line because the irregularities of a true atmospheric structure have been smoothed out with lines in Fig. 5. 5.

This serves to increase V and so decrease

h'D bel'w a true value for atmospheric transmission.

Thus, the approximation is entirely

adequate for height finding and may be used to replace laborious solution methods which have been previously derived, 23, 26, 29/ with no loss of accuracy. 5.2

OBSERVATIONS FROM OPERATION UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE Values of T and V P for all anomalous signals strong enough to be identified on both

recordings from a dual station were then determined from microbarograph records.

Altitude-

velocity points for individual observations were computed from Eq 5.9 and plotted in Figs. 5.7 and 5.8.

All points have been coded in accordance with the relative peak-to-peak pressures of

the signals and weighting factors assigned to each amplitude, A, curve adopted by the Rocket Panel31/

range.

The speed-of-sound

has been superimposed on each plot for refcrence,

as

have the observed meteorological data for lower atmospheric levels obtained by the Air Weather Service.About 60 points were plotted for each of three altitude levels: 120-140 kft (Zone II),

62

and 140-180 kft (Zone III).

80-I120 kft (Zone I),

Thus, enough data points were obtained to

SECRET

SECRE t

350h FROMn, p.665, - 0.,9 W.ERt-ci 0 z DISTANCE (FT) T zARRIVAL TIME (SEC) 3OO

3

-/

A

1

Vp =CHARACTERISTIC IT• (FPS) VE.-LOC

1-

5

'" A

LAS VEGAS! I

GOLDFIELD ST GEORGE I CITY CEDAR 61BSt-OP

iI

-I

25 0o [--

.~I..

-!

T!.

ROCKET PANEL ATMOSPHERE'

S200I=2O0-

'

--

i

-

LU\ y

150 I-1.6I J II-

re

I

I

(00-

i

r

I

SO 50-

I

0 600

0oo

000

,200

,o,00 1400

SOUND VELOCITY, V(fps)

Fig. 5. 3 -- Upper Air Sound Velocities from Upshot-Knothole M'crobarograph Recordings

SECRET

63

SECRET

0.

--

.....-

-

-

A CEDAR 0

CITY

13 ST. GEORGE GOLDFIELD

-Ii

IDLAS VEGAS BISHOP

0.8

!

0:

>

I

-

0.3

.5

0.OI020.3

0.4..

0.4

0--

0.5

0.8

h/0

Fig. 5.4

64

--

Linearized Solution for Upper Air Sound Velocities, Upshot-Knothole

SECRET

SECRET 160

[C

/4

j

"

,5K/

I00 -

7

/

122

j °

I

/0

7

IA

y

5

/ I

5

,

I

,

II,

/

201-

800

900

IC0

1100

12X00

130

14X00

Sound Velocity, V (fps)

Fig. 5.5 --

Atmospheric Sound Velocitv-Altitude Structures Used 'n Checking Emp'ric Height Equation

SECRET

SECRET 1.0

0 UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE EQUATION FITTING

DATA POINTS U-K DATA:

_h = 0.865-0.789 -I-

D WHERE

5A 0.9

• * a

Vp

voo

0 B-STRUCTURES 0 C-STRUCTURES 3+ D-STRUCTURES

0

A

8

CALCULATED POINTS FOR ATMOSPHERES A A-STRUCTURES

sASSUMED 1

%B

,, \

Vp h =CREST HEIGHT D DISTANCE TO OBSERVING STATION V MEAN WAVE VELOCITY Vp= WAVE CHARACTERISTIC VELOCITY

\

A, \\06

0.6

\

N

Fig. 5. 6

66

--Computed So-,mid Travell Iarameters

froir Ass-,rnedl Atr~osrl!iprlic Struc-turej

SECRET

SECRET (-)i) apnill-V

Iw

I

.00

I

I0

4$

0

00 0

wI

w 4

a0

c

o -

0

-ow

.

00 0e

0

0

d

<

0

13

00

0

0l

000

0

00

a-

4

0

Id

~

0

W

0

I-

0

00

0

68

0

0

SECRET

01

SECRET .er.n.•t

statistical evaluation for the ozonosphere rcgion, ast

ihc weighting fatiors were ap-

plied to determine a mean value of V for each altitude range at each station.

No attempt has

been made here to evaluate the meager ionosphere data statistically. If sound and wind speeds arc directly additive, as has been assumed, these parameters may be separated when measurements at three or more azimuths :ire obtained.

For Zones I

and II, mean values of V were found for only three stations, Las Vegas, Goldfield, and Si. George, and the sound and wind speeds could be separated directly.

For Zone Il1, data

points were obtained for five stations and an RMS fitted solution was possible.

Strictly speaking,

the relative amplitude weighting procedure for a given azimuth should take into account the differences in yield for different shots; for simplicity, however, the mean values of V were weighted in accordance with the number of records contributing to the mean. values of V are plottpd aeainst azimuth in Fig. separated mean wind and sound speeds.

These mean

9t, As are thp direction cosine curves and the

In Fig. 5. 10, the three mean sound speeds are con-

pared with the Rocket Panel Atmosphere, 31/

the NACA Atmosphere,

-2/ and Cox's lI-t!goland

data. 27/ 0

These data indicate temperatures in the ozonosphere region to be about 60 C higher than those estimated in the Rocket Panel Atmosphere and more in line with earlier NACA data. However, the deviation may be attributable to the peculiar geographic location, to marked variations from normal of the entire atmosphere during this test period, or to correlation with specific atmospheric patterns required for safe nuclear testing. Actually, the data used in this analysis represent probably no more than half the anomalous signals received at the six dual stations during Upshot-Knothole.

Some dual stations were

nout operated during several test shots, and equipment failure and procedural uncertainties took further toll of potentially usable data.

Nevertheless, the experience gained on this operation

established greater confidence that significant results were possible from this type of instrumentation, so later tests could be instrumented with much greater efficiency. 5.3

OBSERVATIONS FROM OPERATION CASTLE Microbarograph operations for Castle were begun before Upshot-Knothole data on the

ozonosphere had been analyzed.

Thus, instrumentation was not set up to give optimum results.

In fa-t, inadequaie time synchronization of the various records at an abh.Qolte minimum number (3) of distant recording stations, shown in Fig. 2. 8,

made resolution of signal data into

temperature and wind observations impossible for most shots.

The great distance to the

Ponape recording site made the exact number of reflected cycles traversed through the atmosphere indeterminate.

From 2 to 5 cycles seemed to be required for most signals, but the

SEC RET

6I

SECRET 0

I

2m

2

Z0

0 C, mC

cd

bi

M

u0

00

0

SECRET

a0

SECRET

60 4AAAMSHR

PANEL\ATMOSPHERE

20 -ROCKET

WINDS

ON

UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE

/

150H

\ 230; 82FPS

I

/ V

•

40

1240; 'SOUNO

)

100

VEL/OITY

RANGE!

I

--

100 FPS

12

0

; 75 FPS

0

AVERAGE SOUND SPEED, UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE

3_.

4-J

COX

S~r

POINTS

HELGOLAN~D

02

C 800

1200

1000 SOUND

Fig. 5. 10 --

I

I

I

VELOCITY,

V

_ 1400

(FPS)

Mean Ozonosphere Sound Speeds and Winds, Upshot-Knothole

SECRET

71

SECRET exact number is needed for a confidnrit estimate of maximum height of path.

However, what

appeared to be the best estimate of sound velocity-altitude data points for each Castle shot of mt range is shown in Fig. 5.11.

The apparent mean for all the observations,

which may be

close to the mean sound speed, is very close to the mean for NTS sound ranging observations This causes further concern over at-

of high level conditions made during Upshot-Knothole.

tributing the large discrepancy between rocket observation data and data found by other methods to the difference in observing points. A most interesting feature of records of megaton shots, shown in Fig. 5. 12, is the appearance of nonacoustic waves.

Dispersive gravity waves, similar to shallow water oscil-

lations, which indicate oscillation of most of the depth of the atmosphere, are observed to arrive somewhat before ozonospheric sound signals.

Sharp shocks are also observed,

in

Fig. 5.12, to arrive at very high incidence angles, up to 45 degrees, which, according to Eq 5.9, would have required 2000-3000 fps ambient velocities in the 300,000- to 400,000-foot lViu1 £Lu aouubLiCUi i'eiraction

.ack

to grouno.

-1ne strengtn o0 these cracks suggests that

these waves were propagated as shock waves in accordance with the Rankine Hugoniot relations rather than as sound waves,

and ray tracing for shock waves to large distances requires

further theoretical study for explanation. OBSERVATIONS FROM OPERATION TEAPOT

5.4

The full benefit of experience from Upshot-Knothole and Castle was applied in operating microbarographs on Teapot.

The need for exact time synchronization between stations of a

pair was stressed, and precise surveys for relative spacing and orientation of the pairs were obtained.

Six dual stations were operated, completely circling the test site as shown in

Fig. 2. 7, for confident resolution of wind and temperature components of the deduced highaltitude sound velocities. The results of the ozonosphere observation program are listed in Table 5. 1, giving winds and temperatures observed for each shot.

Temperature-height curves observed during

1955 are shown in Fig. 5. 13 with the Rocket Panel Atmosphere curve for reference.

In

Fig. 5. 14, the chronological sequence of upper wind observations for the entire operation is shown.

From this figure, it appears that the seasonal change from winter westerlies to sum-

mer season easterlies, reported by other observers and summarized by Gerson, L3-/3may be better expressed as a shift from winter northwesterlies to summer northeasterlies. In a few instances during this operation, some uncertainty prevailed as to whether certain recorded signals had traveled one atmospheric cycle to 150, 000-200, 000 feet or two cycles to half that altitude.

72

Often these signals had characteristic velocities of 1300- 1600 fps

SECRET

SECRET which could not very well be placed below 100, 000 feet. temperature -h

However, with fhe oostulated

ght decrpase above about 160, 000 feet, extremely high wind speeds would

be necessary to explain these signals by acoustic refraction.

When an adequate shock re-

fraction theory has been derived, these signals may possibly be interpreted as refracted shock waves.

However, Some observations at a different distance along the radial to a sta-

tion observing these peculiar signals would greatly aid in identifying the layer responsible for refracting these sounds to earth.

SECRET

73

SECRET apninuV

(Lunj)

0 .

w 0.

%

-

0

z

:.it

w

0 0,

(L w

2

,

I

00

c

> 0

0

0

V

z-

c

0)C

C)

Q4

C)

C

.to

I:

c:)~~U Ln

C

CD

C

I0

C

)Q0

0

CD

cc

1

C.

cq

cc (1plic

74

0):

0

In

CD

o

2

II'

SECRE

'

apj-j

04

SECRET

0

J

(w

:3

tl

0 0.U

0

j

2

m

to)

0w

It
1.1

>

0

).-

0

0

-

-U

,

m (1)

z

00 0-0 0

(00

(0

0 1

a

IDWa

a.

0

0

0~

l

L)

01

0.

W 1u

(MC

3'

-

cc

SE RE

0

75

SECRET TABLE 5.1 Ozonosphere Observation Program Results Alt (ft, MSL)

Wind (fps)

Sound Speed (fps)

Moth Summary 2/22/55, 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 160,000 170,000 180,000

3390/62 3360/56 3260/48 3340/58 332'/60 3280/59 3210/58 3100 /58 309 /77

1058.5 1091.8 1115.0 1137.6 1161.7 1182.9 1208.8 1218.5 1232.1

Temp (0C)

Number of Stations

0545 PST -14.6 +1.9 +13.7 +25.4 +38.2 +48.5 +62.7 +68.2 +75.8

5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 4

Hornet Summary 3/12/55, 0520 PST 70, 000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000

2770/29 0340J42 0330/36 004o/25 0090/28 0100/24 0100/25 013'/39

100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150, 000 160,000

3230/46 0080/20 359'/14 3230/21 3080/38 2960/48 3240/64

1023.32 1092.49 1100.88 1102.48 1120.87 1132.36 1148.61 1161.77

-22.4 +1.2 +5.5 +6.3 +15.7 +21.6 +30.2 +37.1

5 (+1 extrap) 5 6 4 4 4 4 4

Turk Summary 3/7/55, 0520 PST 1064.45 1108.61 1120.00 1128.96 1133.58 1143.85 1152.95

Wasp Suif.mary 2/18/55, inn, o00 110,000 120,000 130,000

76

013'/64 007'/67 346 /62 3340/76

1073.1 1096.0 1110.0 1127.4

SECRET

-12.6 +9.4 +15.2 +19.9 +22.3 +27.6 +32.4

6 6 5 5 4 4 4

1200 PST -7. +4.0 +11. 1 +20.1

4 4 4 3

SECRET TABLE 5. 1 (cont) Alt (ft, MSL)

Wind (fps)

Sound Speed (fps)

Temp (°C)

Number of Stations

qmmary 3/22/55. 0505 PST q• 90, 000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140.U000 150,000

008 /31

1091.6

+0.8

5

3570/28 009°/39 001°/39 344 /3 i

1099.7 1122.3 1136.0 1150.3

+4.9 +16.4 +23.5 +31.0 r4 , +56.4

F9 4 4 4 " 3

3340i43 3230/43

14-.4

1197.2

Ess Sumimiry 3/23/55. 100,000 110,0(0 120, 000 1o0, Po0 140,000 150,000

0060/33 0410/41 0399 /39 0270/32 n01o 9

006

/16

1230 PSST

, It',.2 1134. 1151. 1 16b.'

+31.9 +J .

I-

+7.9

120-.9

+:G.2

Tesla Summary 3/1/55,

J-'-

7

z

4

0530 PST

100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000

290 /54 287°/31 303 /20 288 /30 274 /40

1049.8 1096.4 1130.8 1144.3 1158.8

-19.8 4-3.2 +20.8 +27.9 +35.5

4 4 4 4 4

150,000

2540/72

1161.0

+36.7

3

Apple Sumr-ary 3/29/55, 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000

028 /20 0600/21 052°/32 043 /47 036 /18 0320/27 0270/32

0455 PST

1099.4 1119.9 1137.7 1159.9 1161.5 1184.2 1198.6

SECRET

+4.7 +15.2 +24.4 +36.2 +37.0 +49.3 +57.1

6 6 5 5 4 4 4

77

SECRET TABLE 5. 1 (cont)

Alt (ft, MSL)

Wind (fps)

Sound Speed (fps)

Wasp' Summary 3/29/55, 100,000 110,000 120,000 130, 000 140,000 i50, 000

0350/18 0520/29 347'/15 3430/12 3250/12 300'/21

1117.7 1139.4 1143.8 1159.3 1174.7 1183.8

0

Temp ( C)

Number of Stations

1000 PST +14.1 +25.3 +27.6 +35.8 444.1 +49.0

6 5 3 3 4 4

Post Summary 4/9/55, 0430 PST c; ,

c

-to

90,000

0G5-/40

iU~asuu•

OU /'JU

10 83.b 1086.9 Il

- I Yu7"

-1.5

J f. a

+J.U•

110,000 I zUsUUU

0

036°/26 03i -oi3

1111.8 .

+11.0 •t l•

5

130,000 140,000 150,000

039°/51 038'/53 030'/86

1163.9 1188.2 1234.4

+38.3 +51.4 +77.1

4 4 3

Met Summary 4/15/55, 1115 PST 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000

0210/46 0260/45 3530/38 3400/45 3510/57

1107.8 1129.1 1133.3 1146.3 1175.8

+10.0 +21.0 +23.2 +30.0 +45.8

6 5 4 4 5

Apple II Summary 5/5/55, 0510 PDST 90, 000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150, 000 160,000 170,000

78

1060/33 107'/16 0160/4 1370/3 1430/13 133°/11 060'/4 0710/10 0730/19

1086.8 1100.9 1116.9 1123.7 1127.3 1136.1 1136.2 1142.2 1149.5

SECRET

-0.6 +6.5 +14.7 +18.2 +20.0 +24.6 +24.7 +27.8 +31.7

6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5

SECRET TABLE 5. 1 (cont) Alt (ft, MSL)

Wind (fps)

Sound Speed (fps)

Temp (°C)

Number of Stations

Zucchini Summary 5/15/55, 0500 PDST 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 126, -30 130,000

0610/55 0530/56 0430/60 0390/68 043 /90 0370°62 0320/58

1044.3 1069.0 1091.0 1124.9 1142.1 1141.6 1148.5

SECRET

-21.5 -9.5 +4.5 +18.8 +27.8 +27.5 +31.2

5 5 5 5 4 3 3

79

SECRET

18 0

L

1701

160

14II

150-1

1 5

140 -"

/

130ROCKET PANEL ATMOSPHERE

120

/

/12

,i'//12

/

L I,

V

,/

I I•

,

/

// /

110

'

10( -

90--,1

12

80NOTE:

70

/5

Shots numbered as in Fig. 5.14

014 -60

-60

-40

-20

0

+20

+40

+60

+80

Temperature (°C) Fig. 5. 13 --

80

Ozonosphere Temperatures Observed During Teapot

SECRET

SECRET 50 FT/SEC 10 FT/SEC 5 FT/SEC NUMBER OF STAT IONS USED IN WIND RESOLUTIONS

I

8'i4i I

,,,F

150

,y!

17k'°

5N

90[O

ig45

•

!

I4

4

"i i

'K

.i

I6oi

5

I

I

14 6.

o

ooIo•.•o• 5 "5

5h~ P

80[.

"

;66$ R4 E 5,5

SO

4 5

I

5'

4

6

6.I

70[-I RAIONDEi OBSERVAIONS

-30'4W 20.

\ r.d

10, 010

20 FEB

r~~

678

II

NSI UBER

3

--Y

.

SHOTSTIME -

1

Fig. 5. 14

10

--

201f MARCH

I 10 20 SODAE APRIL

1

10 MAY

20

Ozonosphere Winds Observed During Teapot

SECRET

81-82

SECRET

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDA TIONS FOR FUTURE OPERATIONS

An attempt should be made to observe overpressure-distance gradients near focal point ranges.

This could probably be done with reasonable success by four recording stations oper-

ating near and just beyond Indian Springs for one or two special HE shots at times of strong complex atmospheric ducts.

Although these conditions would not be suitable for nuclear testing,

a temporary station change could be made without losing nuclear test data. Microbarograph recording systems should be re-engineered to develop a more portablc and reliable instrument.

Today,

greatly improved stable amplifier systems are available

which could be used to reduce package size, decrease maintenance time and skill requirements, and reduce operator qualification levels. With a simplified measurement system, remote location recorders should be operated by local contract personnel at considerable financial and manpower saving.

If very stable

equipment is developed, remote-controlled operation could even be considered. Further development of a reliable zero-time indicator should be supported. An attempt should be made to derive a simplified method for ray-path calculations for low-energy shock propagation at very low ambient pressures to explain certain signals recorded both in the Pacific and in Nevada. The program for observing ozonosphere weather conditions from sound propagotion should be continued, at least until adequate rocket sounding techniques and capabilities have been demonstrated.

In particular, these observations should be made during the International

Geophysical Year (IGY) 1956-1958.

Statements of at least moral support from athcr agencies

interested in high-altitude research are solicited to help justify this continued program. A system for rapidly reducing ozonosphere signal data should be developed so that wind and temperature observations could be made available on a synoptic basis. The Raypac computer should be modified so that input data on winds and tcmperatures may be programmed to the computer as received from the weather station. t1igh-explosive preliminary shots could be eliminated with only a small measure of risk that

-ond;tionsexisting in the ozonosphere would refract damaging signals into St. George,

SECRET

83

SECRET Las Vegas, aPid Boulder City.

For predicting signals propagated through lower layers,

Raypac computations are more economical and provide equal or superior verifications than scaling from HE detonations. To reduce uncertainties in prediction for the test site area, further stud), of relatively short range propagation (to 0. 1 psi) under inversions should be made.

It was difficult to

convince test operations personnel of the fact that the prediction unit verified much better at a range of 100 miles than of 10 miles.

Also, the light structural damages due to a tactical

shot made under an inversion should be made more predictable.

84

SECRET

SECRET

CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY

MICicObai Oglraphic observation and blast prediction systems used during tuperations Upshot-Knothole,

Castle, and Teapot were reasonably successful.

During this 2-year iperiod,

techniques were introduced which allowed rapid prediction of possible damaging blast pronagation to large distances,

wih adequate accuracy which was largely limited by the uncertainties

of predicting the weather.

No serious incidents of !ong-range physical damage occurrcd,

un-

favorable public reactions were confined to irritations caused by audible noises. A method has been derived for observing ozonosphere signals so that conditions of tenrperature and wind in the ozonosphere may be deduced with reasonable confidence and a limited number of calculations.

Unless adequate and accurate rocket-borne sounding techniques arc

attained, the method appears to be, at present, the most feasible and economical for obtaining data on this region of the atmosphere for the IGY. Planning and development is under way for continuing the program,

at least through

foreseeable test operations.

SECRET

85-86

SECRET

REFER.ENCES

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 310. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Cox, E. F., Plagge, I1. J., and Reed, J. W., Damaging Air Shocks at Large Distances fr-om Explosions, Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, WT-303, April 24, 1952 (SRD). Uux, E. F., Ai- Sihocks at Large Distances from Atomic Exploslons, Operation TUMBLEH-SNAPI'NE, WT-504, January 5, 195:3 (SRD). Cox, E. F., Plagge, H. J., and Reed, J. W., "Meteorology Directs Where Blast Will Strike," Bull Am Met Soc 35 (3) 95 (March 1954), "Departul-es of Monthly Average Temperatures from Normal, Map Chart," Monthly Weather Review 81 (5) May 1953. Blast Damage Summary, private Communication from General Adjustment Bureau, Inc., San Francisco. California, to Las Vegas Field Office, AEC, no date (Unc). Church, P1. K., Sandia Diaphragm-Type Pressure Transducer for Shock Wave Measurements, Sandia Corporation, SC-3305(TR), January 6, 1954 (Unc). Durham, H. B., Rapac--A Special Purpose Analog C.rfputcr, Sandia Corporation TM-46-55-54, March 24, 1955 (Une). Microbarograph Evaluation Report, Sandia Curpora'ion, SC-2990(TR), September 18, 1953. Reed, J. W., et aS, Ground-Level Microbarographic Pressure Measurements from a ttigh-Altitude Shot, Operation TEAPOT, WT-1103, December 1955 (SRD). Sander, H. H., Automatic Zero-Time Mark for Microbarograph Records, Sandia Corporation, TM-146-55-51, May 10, 1955 (Confidential). Thompson, R. H., On Instrumentation and Operation of the Microbarograph Stations, Sandia Corporation, TM-245-54-52, January 5, 1955 (Confidential). DuMound, J. W. M., et al, "A Determination of the Wave Forms and Laws of Propagation and Dissipation of Ballistic Shock Waves," J. Acoust. Soc. of Amer. 18, No. 1, p. 97, July 1946. Kirkwood, J. G., and Brinkley, S. R., Jr., Theory of the Propagation of Shock Waves from Explosive Source in Air and Water, OSRD 4814 (1945). Curtiss, W., Free Air Blast Measurement on Spherical Pentolite, Ballistic Research Research Laboratory Memorandum Report 544 (1951). Cox, E. F., "Sound Propagation in Air, " Encyclopedia of Physics (itandhuch der Physik), Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Vol. 48, Ch 22, 1957. Cowan, MI., Negative-Phase Duration as a Measure of Blast Yield, Sandia Corporation, SC-3170(TR), September 1, 1953 (SRD). Betbe, IHans A., (ed), Blast Wave, Vol. VII, Part II, Chapter 7, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, LA-1021, August 13, i947 (SRD). IBM Problem M (performed at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory), original data tabuattions. Letter, Cox, F. F., to Distribul:on, Ref. Sym: 5110(132), Subj: "Predicting Blast Preassnres in L.as Vegas," November 20, 1953. Morgan, Lt, Col. D. N., and Wyatt, Lt. Col. W. 11., Air Weather Service Participation, Operalion UPSHOT-KNOTIIOLE, WT-703, July 1953 (Confidenial Reed, J. WV., "The Reprcsenitativencss of Winds Aloft Observations," Bull Am Met Soc 35 (6) 253 (June 1954). Operational Research into tlhe Detailed Structure of the Jet Stream, U. S. Navy Bureau of Aermnaut-cs Technical Report No. 1 of Project AROWA, Task 15, nd.

SECRET

87

SECRET REFERENCES (cont)

23.

24. 25. 26.

27. 28.

29.

30. 31. 32. 33.

88

Johnson, C. T., et al, Experimental Study of Explosion-Generated Acoustic Waves Propagated in the Atmosphere, U. S. Naval Electronics Laboratory Report 290, May 1, 1952. Crary, A. P., "Stratosphere Winds and Tertmperatures from Acoustical Propagation Studies, H J Meteor Vol. 7, No. 3, 1950. Crary, A. P., "Stratosphere Winds and Termperatures in Low Latitudes from Acoustical Propagation Studies," J Meteor Vol. 9, No. 2, 1952. Crary, A. P., and Bushnell, V. C., "Determination af Iligh AILtude Winds and Temperatures in the Rocky Mountain Area by Acoustic Soundings, October 1951" J Met Vol. 12, No. 5, October 1955. Cox, E. F., et al, "Upper-Atmosphere Temperatures from Helgoland Big Bang, H J Meteor, Vol. 6, No. 5, 1949. Berndes, A. E., Jr., et al, Propagation of Acoustic Waves in Air to a Distance of 300 Miles, Final report of AFOAT-1 Project Authorization B/10A/ON.T"RThNEL, February 15, 1954 (Confidential). Kennedy, W. B., and Brogan, L., Determination of Atmospheric Winds and Temperature in the 30-60 Km Region by Acoustic Means, Denver Research Institute Final Report on Contract AF 19(122)-252, June 30, !954. Kennedy, W. B., et al, "Further Acoustical Studies of Atmospheric Winds and Temperatures at Elevations of 30 to 60 Milometers, n J Met, Vol. 12, No. 6, December 1955. The Rocket Panel. "Pressures, Densities, and Temperatures in the Upper Atmosphere," Phys Rev 88 (5), December 1952. Warfield, C. N., "Tentative Tables for the Properties of the Upper Atmosphere," National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Technical Note 1200, January 1947. Gerson, N. C., "Seasonal Variations in Wind Velocity, " Proceedings of Conference on Motions in the Upper Atmosphere, Albuquerque, New Mexico, September 7-9, 1953, National Science Foundation.

SECRET

SECRET

DISTRIBUTION Miflitary Distribution Category 5-21

a'e4

ACTIVITrES

DPA, flo. op. Chief of Scoff for Molitery Oer-tV!on, Washington. 25. D.C. /,211: Asia. Exeoutive (R&SW) 2Ch-ef of Research mnd Develepment, fl/A, Waehiington 25, D.C. A"-: Atomic Division Waeb-tonmi 25, D.C. AT17h: 3 Chief of Ordnance, fl/A, CR111-E ch-hIf Signal Officer, li/A, P0/S Divisieon, Washington

h2

Comasndlrg Officer,

;1

Direrctor, Toc-'- 'leIDc-oer aoC--r, ihcec-,V~n

-aeepor-nt~u-

202 Stat~on,Ft Sn-oe51c-n

4

irct~or,W t'io. ANNb 1. 5Acee uloigDt -y~~~ 1.1.5fro A1r4tor r iof SFocLI RodAryIoiiCVo-,( .1 h tet 8l. Sonhigtor medc, Centr 2lc Neh~ f,0 2p",tlm D oo.C. tor, 45 ltro _j CDrcoOoe~-Rsacofc,ýj !o ;y--y Cteo, Md1. Crlvornity, 7100 Come lot D.C Wsiootlgo c5 Doeco-nt Qoertoreoe-ao Researchc-cc Conernod, ýA-ootrm7

~

25, D.C. A-.=l: 522ND-B The Surgeon Geoeral, D/A, Washinegtoo 25, DC. An?;: Chief, RAD Division 6- 7 Chief Chemical Off~aer, fl/A, iiaehirngtoc-. 25, D.C. 7 he Q-uartereaeter General, fl/A, Washiegton 25, D.C.AflB.: Researeh sod! Development 9- 2 hof of Enginoesr, fl/A, Washin-gton 25, D.C. ATTN:CaeolcIfleDarndO-ere IOGN. 53- 54 13Ch~ef of fe-anepoctatlnn Ml-i~tary Planeisng seed Intelllgerce Div., Washington.25, D.C. 14- 16C C-uendlg Geeoral, Headquartors,U. S. Contimnanal Army Ceneod, ft. ile-.o, Va. 5:-5 1' reedont, heard #1, Headquarters,* Contlce-tal Aroy Cnzeemsd, F-t. Siifl, Okla.57 57 SPreeldent, Boarod #2, Ree/qeac-tere, Cootireotal Aumy.

c-icO I - -outOr

i-~ Ntck

I ae

-.. : CRo LAinin -o

Offloor nnc-t-ln

Wohingtoo, 25, El. C. foechxnial :ofornmtloo Servios VFeterelon, Oak Rldgo, NAVYACfTi-21:1ES he fNvlOeainDWsigo ATTN CSC~e f-tnt36 rtomE/,ioinio2 CclfoNealprtinei/,Waecgeo2,SC /, us -ce aa CifOf

Term.

.C . ahngo

5,B

58

Director of Niaval Inete~llgence, fl/N Wcaehington 25, D.C. Afflil OF 920V -otrntlA Chief, Bureau of Medicirne sod Surgery, D/N, iaehirngtoc 25, D.C. ATTN: Special Weaporoe Defenes Dim. ahuetn2,tC Chief, Bureau ef Or/eases, flI Che of Naa errszl /,Whigton 25, D.C. Chief, Burea of Shipe, D/I, Washingtone 25, DC. AT S: Code 348 62 Chief, Burea of Yarde snd Dooke, fl/N, Weehiraten 25, D.C. AT.ic D-lLa 63 Chief, Bu,-eau of Supplies sod Accunoote, il/N, foehlignor. 25), C.C. 64- 6Sy Cief, Bureau.of Aororo-*.ut, fl/N, W-iuhngton 25, D.C. Che I6 of R01Nesearch,Departmeont or the Navy Waehlegtea. 25, D.C. AIfN: Cede 611 6' Comodec--i-Chf, 1-seýr71U.S. Pacific Fleet, Cl.eeu Feet iffine, San Freoien, Calif. 3 Cmrvadec--tn-Chlof, U.S. Atlentic leet, U.i. lNaval Bane, Nor-folk U, Va. 672 Censatident, U.S. Mac-lee Corpe, Weohlintoc 25, D.C. AIDS: Cede A031 73ý Freeldeot, U.S. Nav-al WarcCollege, Nsvyoc-t, NR.7 Suiper-intendent, U.S. Naval Pootograduats School. Moenterey, Celif. 7.5 Ceeeadlng Officer, U.S. Naeai Schumlo Cooc-and, C.S. lNeval itation, Trcereblncd, SounF-.raoecz, Calif. 76 Ceeom ndlug Off'cer, U.S. Fleet fc-altni Center. Nayal Bsne, Nlorfolk 1., Va. A=.!N: Speoial Ideapmoe School 77-5BCccoiu Gffocr, U.S. Fleet TranlncCenter, Dc-ulStat~on, See Dieog 36, Callf. 0721I:(SIVPc Sehoel) 79 Cowaondlc~g officer, Air Dec-olopreet Soudrnio. 5, YX-5, U.S. Decal Aic- Statle, Neffett Ffeld, Cal1f. G Counnenelc- [Ifflnec, 3..'<- Xw i l coo Cour~tol Traftr!ng Ceater, Soc-Ie..oo, Philoml-ptln, P.. A"., i Defonn Ceurue iv 91 Coceeder, 1.S. Nov.' OcL--dsco Labc-ator-, Spring 19, Id-id.005: CS Scunl Coovede, uorir, ivc

FtoLad 13HaquresCn.-a Pesiento, C oteenlAm .3s.aquctee nidentn, Necd ocAlo, Gea.~ires CoPrec-dend,ft.r otretlky2 r, Prelen, Notc-Blis, HTdeax. CoI ed Ft. i60,Te.S -1Cm-di~ng Gaeneral, U.S. Army Caribbean, Ft. eamder, C~l. A~N: Cml.Off.61 .2e3-ýsandtcrg uorl S.Ac-m Euroep, AP-O 403, V-e uorN, N.Y. A7.-Ne SF2 ]Div., Comhat Thy. Bc-. ruc-tt onnoedad Genorai Staff College, Ft. amnntV-an. ATTN: A:ISCAc-) výC-c--ncda-t, Plc- ic-tlo'ry sod Guided S.selounool, F.-A!1I, Gele t,-eir TeC S. S2-c A-Et .. 'r fecee Sotuui, F . ,e c-,e 5122: .14,, -aD-gg Di. Droltegar, Cpt-o -an eelCom-trd SA-8 xii C-nec dxr~gGenrm-i, Ac-c I~loclua 3er-1.e sai=' Bc-cole ic-Vy Mmmýcal Center, Ft. Sc-sn Onoutor, To. 29Direetec-, Spacial icupere Iiooeio;oc.L If flee, Kccq-ectceO RSC, Ft. Rhlne, Yo- A,71`: S. E. ln-e oPt. 3D Cemc-JEout, Wolno- tced S-.r= Irutit-ito of Rosearc-h, Woltc-c Veer Ac-s 'Ic-Sem Fec-bc-, Waoelc-tgc-r 25ý, D.. 5 31 -aporinnndnrt, U. S. 41ilery omiomy, We:z Font, N. Y. A-CD: Procf. of Crdýanon 3 tCh-lec' tCe~~,-o Corps Seheol, Ce n Co-po =ulcc -ne-1l Ft. Dincilieln, S-n. 3' oennnlx Deo-el, Bonouc- nec- 3e-.glnceriog Ce-eucd, ocr-, a 'c Center, Nd. AND: Deputy for NW a-nd ,-x- lc-.~~er~ P.- 3 Dcaorl Abohrdoce, Froveic- Geunedo, Md. -7:Cýzo.Bl-intine Resenurch tsolcretnc-y -- i-c e-el c-.n Ge lg-raec- Cenero, Ft. Vol-ccIc-, 71i ,n-aunt, -a ODgoch Seno :nnc-orElocc-e e~dTh-olpne V.elm" a. ATM -e, ohi icii rc-a cln:ca-c-.roen, ,7 ae, !1.Dnu:.enn

~al

"c-Ie

cYca--- e ''a-e -telca %-2sCc-pc iemn and Bc-ir:eRc-oI 2cc-c-tc-c-f, Ac~.-c-ICo--aai Ce !r, 0 O -~~~~~~ occ-c-Cira.

c3 5,1

89

SECRET

Concnerninc-, U.S. -voal Ordnance laborator~y, Silveroc ic-c-lg 19 , l11d. 502: P Cemnric, A.) .DeoiIrdoc-ee -.et Statior, Ecychern, Laie, Color.

".:SECRET iqI-iS Sandia Corporation, CAlabeifie, N.ooent DivisIon,

85

Officer-in-Charge, U.S. Naval Civil fryinaering Rao. and ival-atlon Lab., U.S. Naval Cocstruction Battalien Center, Port unenee, Calif. ATIN;: Code 753 86 Conmanding Officer, U.S. Naval Medical Research Inst., NatIonal Naval Medical Center, Bethesde V., M. 87 Director, Naval Air Experianotel Station, Air Material Center, U.S. Naval Base, Philadelphla, Pe88- 92 Chief, Bureau of Aeromuutics, D/N, Washingco 25, D.C. ATTN: AEf-AD-i1/20 93 Director, U.S. Naval Research LAboratory, Waahington 25, D.C. AW7N: Mrsa. Kaherine H. Case 91. Com.arding Officer ad Director, U.S. Navy klectronics laboratory, San Diego 52, Calif. 95- 96 Comar.dcng officer, U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, Ban Francisco, Calif. A,..I: Technical Infofation Dlvieion 97- 98 Commanding Officer and Dira-or, Davil W. Taylor MviAi Bas.,., Washengtor. 7, D.C. ATTN: Library 99 Conacder, U.S. Naval Air Development Center, Johnsvilla, Pa. 300 CINCPAC, Pearl Harbor, T9 101 Commander, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmeuth 8, Va. ATWN: Code 270 102-106 Technical Infofartion Service Extension, Oak Ridge, Ie,., (Surplun)

199-201 202 1203-?i5 122 123 12-u-125 126-133 134 135-136 137-142 143-144 115-117 i4q

107 1o0 109 110

111-112 113 -i4

115 '16 117

118 119 120-121

191-185

AIR FORCE ATTI~iTIRS Asst. for Atomic Ensrig Readqvnrtero, USA•?, Washirgton 25, D.C. A-S2N: DCS/O Director of Operationc, Raadqaartare, USAF, Wahshigton 25, D.C. ATWN: Operations Analysia Director of Plans, Headquarters, USAF, Washington 25, D.C. AIN: War Plane Div. Director of Research and Devalapoeet, DOS/D, Headquartere, USAF, Washington 25, D.C. ATV,: Comat Conponente Div. Director of Intelligence, Headquarters, 5SF, Wachington 25, D.C. KAlN: AFOiN-IRB The Surgeon General, Headquarters, USAF, Weshingeon 25, D.C. AWTN: Rio. Def. Nr., Ire. Med. Div. Aset. Chief of Staff, Intelligence, Headquarters, U.S. Air Forces-Europe, AnO 633, New York, N.Y. AS.N: Directorate of Air Targets Colnandar, 497th Reconnaissance Technical Squadron (Augmantcd), APeC633, New York, N.Y. Cann6er, Far FEet Air Pcrceo, AFO 925, San Frascieco, Calif. AIN: Special Asst. for Damage Control Coenander-in-Chief, Strategic Air Comeand, Offutt Air Fbrce ase, Omeeha, Nebraska. ATIT: Special Weapons Branch, Inspector D!v., Insnpctor Generel Co .nder, Tactical AIr Conoend, Langley AFB, Va. ATTN: Docusenta Security Brauch Coander, AIr Defense Comand, iat AFBR, Ito. Research Directorate, Headquartere, Air Force Special Weapons Center, Fir-tlnn Air Force Race, No. Manic, AWN: Blast Effecta Reo. Technical Infornotlon Service Extension, Oak Ridge, Tean. (Surplus)

119

150-151 152 15s. 15i 155 1 i6-160

OITER CEFARIVY- OF DEFNSE A-ITIVZIIF

Ž6i Sent. Secretary of Defense, Mesearch and Developuact, 162

163 i16

169 166

"67

ATOMIC ENERGYCOMMISSIONACTIVITIES 168-169

i86-188 U.S. Atomic Energy Ceamiccion, Classified Technical Library, 1901 Constitution Ave., Waching-on 25. D.C ATT,: Mrs. J. M. O'Leary (For DIA) 183-193 LaO Alveocf Scientific laboratory, Report Library, PO Bo 1663, Ioc Alaens, N. MAX.ATTN:Helen Redman

Sardia Rae, Albuquerque, N. Ma. ANON: B. J. S~h1 Jr. Ur~veraity of Cailfon,1a iid!al'.c: laboratory, Pi Pmo 808, Livor•oro, Calif. A2CN: Clov-i G. Craig Weapon Dat. Section, Technical Informat!on Se.-ico FotensIon, Cal Ridge, Tero. Tc -Ical ir-for-.tio: Service Extension, Oak Ridge, Tenn. lSrplus) Comaander, AIr Research and Develop-ent Cancd, PO Boa 1395, Baltinore, Md. ATTN: RDDN Cod-vaner, Air Proving Groand Cosciand, Eglin AFB, Fla. AWIN: AdJ./Tach. Report Branch Director, AMr Unico-sity Library, Maxwell AFP, Ala. Comeander, Plyircg Trainirg Air Force, Waco, Yex. ATIN: Director of Observer Training Coacarder, Crew Trainirg Air Force, Randolph Field, fri/p Tex. ATTN: 'S, Coanandart, Air Force School of Aviation Medicine, Randolph AIB, Tex. Coaandeir, Wright Air Developwent Center, WrightPhteran SF8, Nylon, 0. A UCOSI1N: Coanader, Air Force Cambridge Research Center, Id anescom Field, Bedford, Mane. ATTN: CRQSY-2 Comnander, AIr Force Special Weapone Center, Kirtleand AIB, N. Me.. ATTN: LIbrary Coanander, low-y A•B, Denver, Colo. ATN: Department of Special Weapons Training Corander, 1009th Special Weapons Squadron, UTnd quarters, T'IdF, Waehington 25, D.C. The RANDCorporation, 1700 Main Street, Santa Monica, Calif. SAP.N: Nuclear F.erAy Division Commender, Second Air Force, Barkbdale AFB, LoulearS. AWN: Operations Analyol.e 1ffice CcAT'nder, Eighth Air Porce, Westover ARB, Maca. ATN: Operatione Analynis Office Connder, Fifteenth Air Force, March AFB, Cal.f. ATlP: Operatlona ASmlynla Cffice ART), Ran 262, 20 Comaander, Western Iavelo."uinn. nglawoad, Calif. ATS.P: WDSIT, Mr. N. G. Wait, Technical Infornation Service iUtenelon, Oak Ridge, Tenn. (Sarpluc)

170-I80

,71

D/D, Waehinrtoa 25, D.C. ATN: Tech. Libray U.S. Doc•uments Officer, Off'ce of the U.S. Sat!onol Military Represor:tetive, SHAPE, ASF 55, New York, N.Y. DIrector, Weapons Sysptec Fvaluation Gro-p, OSI, Rm 2-'t06, Pentagon Wasnington It, t.C. Arned Services Explasaves 3afety Board, D/D, Building 7-7, GrvavllyfPott, Wanh.ntgon 2§, D.C. Cocoandent, Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk fl, VY. ATN: Secret-y Comoander, Field Concand, Armed Porcec Special Weapons Project, 1-) Box 5100, Albuquerque, N. Max. Conoder, Field Command, Armed Forces Special Weapone Pro.ect, PC Box 5100, Albuquerque, N. Max. ATTN: TOchncal Training Group Arm-iedForceo Special Coanier, Plad Tosuni,

Ueapons Project, F.O. Ron 5100, Albuquerque, N. ilx. A5T1: Deputy Chief of Staff, Weapons Effects Test Chief, Armed Forces Special Weapons Pro/act, Washington 25, D.C. ATTN:Dcouments Library Branch

90

SECRET RESTRICTED DATA

SECRET

RESTRICTED DATA

RESTRICTED DATA

SECRETI

Defense Special Weapons Agency 6801 Telegraph Road Alexandria, Virginia 22310-3398

24 June 1998

TRC

MEMORANDUM TO DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER ATTENTION: OCQ/Mr. William Bush

SUBJECT: Declassification of AD-342207 "

5;")

The Defense Special Weapons Agency Security Office has reviewed and declassified the following document: AD-342207 WT-9003 General Report on Weapons Tests, Long-Distance Blast Predictions, Microbarometric Measurements, and Upper-Atmosphere Meteorological Observations For Operations Upshot-Knothole, Castle, and Teapot, by E. F. Cox and J. W. Reed, Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Issuance Date: September 29, 1957. Distribution statement "A" (approved for public release) now applies.

ARDITH JARkETT Chief, Technical Resource Center