Summary Report of the Technical Director, Operation Upshot-Knothole, Nevada Proving Grounds, March - June 1953, Programs 1-9

Page 2

Report to t h e Test Director SUMMARY REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL DIRECTOR Armed Forces Special Wrap ma Pri,]eci

Page 3

This report has been pre par ? d from an evaluation 01 the military significance of the 7 9 indivi dud project reports of rhe ml lita ry elf ect s tests portion of Operation UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE. An ha tract of each report,ui th the exception of rhuse in Prograni 7 , is pre sen ltd in AppenArmed Forces Spt cia l Weapons Project (AFSWP), AFSWP consultants, and the Technical DP rector. No attempt is made to give credit lor specific report sectlon5, except to state that the lollowing persons have made significanr contribulions to the material included herein: Thi5report has been prepared by the program directors,representatives of Headquarters, Jack Kelsu, AFSWP California Radiation Labdratory E. A. Martell, Inslllute of Nuclear Sludies, University of Chicago Lt Col D. 1. Prick ett, USAF Ben Sussholz. University JI California

Page 4

1.2 Technical Prog rl ni. 1.3 Test of the 280-mm Gun. 2.4 Air Blast Phenom ei u 2.4.3 Surface and Thermal Effects . 2.5 Air Over pressure. 2.5.3 Positive Phase Duration and Impulse and Arrir'al Tinie . 2.7.3Precursor Over pressure and Dynaniir Pressure. 2.7.4 Precursor Prediction Criteria. 2.7.5 Smoke Experiment Precursor Eflects .

Page 5

3 . 3 Results and Discussion . 3 . 3 . 6 Eiwrgv Nornial to the Ground. . 4.4 Radioaclive Particles Inside Aircraft 4.5 Itrsidual Ga~iiiii3-radialiun Depth Dose in Unit) Densiiy Material 5.3 Conlnlenls un Inter l ~ ret a tio n0 1Results. Drag. Dilfraciiun. aiid Precursor Phr mn ien a

Page 6

CHAPTER 7 THERMAL EFFECTS.. Fabric Damage and Mechanisms oi Heat Transfer Through 8.1 Atoniic Cloud Hazards.. 139 10.1 Radiac Equlpment Tests.. 10.2 Tests and Development of Operational Techniques APFENDLX A SHOT PARTICIPATION ... 148 B.1.1 Projects1.la and 1.2: Air Blast Med sure ment s..

Page 7

and Pezh Pressure Recorders lor Atomic Blast Measurements Hills and Dzles . 0.1.4 Project I.lb. Bssic Air Blast Measurements. B.1.7 Project 1.16. Basic Air Blast Supporting hleasurements . . 6.1.9 Projecl 1.4: Earth Measurements.. 8.1.10 Project 1.5: Test Procedures and Instrumentation for B.2.1 Project 2.1: Studies of Airborne Particulate Material . . B.3.1 Project 3.1: T e 5 t s on the Loading of Building and 8.3.2 Project 3.1~: Shock Diffraction Study . B.3.3 Project 3.3: Tests on Horizontal Cylindrical Shapes . 8 . 3 . 5 Project 3.5; Tests of Wall and Roof Panels . . 8.3.6Project 3.6; Tests of Railroad Equipment . 8.3.7 Project 3.7: Effectiveness of Blast Baflles at Shelter B.3.10 Prolect 3.11: Pro tec live Measures for Exikling Consrructional Light Beel Frame Srruclures . 8.3.11 Pro je cl 3.12: Pro tec live Measures for Existing Consirqction; En rrna l Protective Measures . B.3.15 Project 3.15: Armco Steel Magazine . B.3.16 Prolect 3.16: Tests 01 Glazing and Window Construction 8.3.17 Project 3.18: Minefield Clearance.. 8.3.18 Project 3.10: Effects of an Alomic Explosion on T r e e s B.3.19 Project 3.20: Vulnerability 01 a Typical Tactical B.3.20 Project 3.21: Statistical Determination 01 Damage Criteria Pro je cl 2.2a: Measurement of Gamma Radiation of Pro lect 2.20: Residual Gamma Depth Dose Measurements in Unit Density Material . Pro)ect 3.4: Tests ol Truss Systems Common to OpenEntrances. Air Intakes, and Outlets Project 3.8. Ef lects 01 Air Blast on Buried Structures. in a Foresl Sand.. Communications System to Atomic Attack lor Critical lt ems 01 Military Equipment and Supplies . .

Page 8

8.3.23 Project 3.26.1: Test of the Eflects on POL Installations 8.3.24 Project 3.26.2: Ell r cls 01 Atomic Weapons on a POL B . 3 . 2 5 Project 3.26.3: Effects 01 an Atomic Explosion upon an 0.3.26 Project 3.27: Effects of Atomic Weapons on Field Medical 0.3.21 Project 3.28.1: Structures Instrumentation . 8.3.29 Project 3.28.3: Structures Instrumentation . 6.3.30 Pruject 3.29. T e s t s of Four FCDA Curtain Wall and B.3.31 Project 3.30: Air Blast Gage Studies . 0 . 4 . 1 Project 4 . 1 : Eva!uation of the Hazard 01 Flying Through 8.4.3 Project 4 . 5 : Flash Blindness 0 . 4 . 4 Project 4.7: Measurement of Beta Hazard i n Bomb 0.4.5 Proiect 4.8: Biological Effects of Neutrons . . 0.5.1 Projcct 5.1 : Naval Aircraft Structures B.5.2 Project 5.2: Blasl, Thermal, and Gust Effects on Air cr alt 0 . 5 . 3 Project 5.3 Blasl and Gust Effects on 8 - 3 6 in Flight . Program6 - Tests of Service Equipment and Operations B.6.1 Project 6.2: Test of Radar Techniques for Accomplishing 0 . 6 . 2 Project 6.3: Field Test of IBDA . 0.6.3Project 6.4: Evaluation of the Chemical Dosimeter. 0 . 6 . 4 Prolect 6.7: Electromagnetic Radiation over the Radio Equipment, and Operational Techniques . 8.6.7 Pro lect 6.9: Evaluation of Airborne Radiac Equipment . 8.6.8 Project 6.10: Rapid Aerial Radiological Survey . 0.6.9 Project 6.11: Operational Training for TAC Crews . B.6.10 Project 6.12: Determination of Height of Burst and Ground 0.6.11 Project 6.13: Efferliveness of Fast Scan Radar. 0.1 Pr wran i8 - Thermal Measurements and Ef lects. 0.7.1 Pro i ect & l a : Aircrall Structures Tests. 8.1.2 Project 8.lb. Alrcrait Structures Tests. 0.7.3 Project 8.2: Measurements 01 Thermal Radiation by Means Amphibious Assault Fue! Handling System (Shore Phase) of Radiation Pressure Phenomenon , Pro)ect 8.4-1: Attenuatron of Thermal Radiation by White

Page 9

B.7.G Project 6.5 : Degree and tx tent oi Burns Under Service 8.7.8 Project 8.9: Elfects of Thermal Radiation on Materials, B.S.9 Project 8.10, Measurement 01 Basic Characteristics of 9.7.10 Prolect 8.lla : Initiation and Resistance of Primary Fires (Structures and Interior of Structures).. 0.7.11 Project 8.llb : Initiation and Persistence of Primary Fires B.i.14 Project 8.13 : A Study of Fire Retardant Paints . 9.8.1 Project 9.1: Technical Photography . 1.1 Organization, Planning Phase... 19 CHAPTER 2 BLAST MEASUREMENTS 2.1 Cunipusiie UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE-TUMBLER-IVY Time - o f - arrival Curve 2.2 Propused Standard Free Air Peak Over pressure Curve . 2.9 ldral Peak Dynamic Pressure Height-of-burst Curves . 2 . 1 0 Pholugraph 01 Preshock Popcorning, Operation TUMBER-SNAPPER 2.11 Schematic Diagrams of Precursor Formation . 2.12 Gi-ound-level Peak Over pressure, Shot 9, with Ideal Curve 2.13 Gruund-let'el Peak Over pressure, Shot 10, with Ideal Curve 2.15 Saniple Shot I O Ground-level Over pressure Vs Time Records 2.15 Ground-level Peak Over pressure, Shots 1 and 11. with Ideal Curves 2.16 Sanjple Shot 1 and Shut 1 1 Ground-level Over pressure Vs Time Records 2.17 Shoi 9 and TUMBLER Shot 1 Gi-ound-level Peak Over pressure Fi-ee Air Pea!6 Over pressure and Peak Dynamic Pressure for TNT Ellicienry Vs Free Air Peak Over pressure, Using KirkwoodFi-ee Air Peak Dynamic Pressure Vs Free Air Peak Over pressure for

Page 10

2.18 Shot 1 ami GREENHOUSE Dog and Easy Peak over pressure L.?U Shut $4 Aboveground Peak Over pressure. 2.21 Shot I @ Abo\,eground Peak Over pressure.. 2.22 Fosilive Phase Duration Vb PeW Over pressure, All Available Shots 2.23 Fositive Phase Impulse V s Peak Over pressure, All Available Shots 2.24 Positive Phase Duration and Arrival Time, Shot 9 . 2.25 Positive Phase Duration and Arrival Time, Shot 10 . . 2.26 Measured Dynamic Pressure, Shot 9, Compared to Ideal and to Dynamic Pressure Computed Irom Measured Peak Over pressure.. 2.27 Sample Dynamic Pressure Vs Time Records, Shats 1, 10, and 1,l . 2.28 Measured Dynamic Pressure, Shots 1, 10, and 11, Compared to Ideal 2.29 Precursor Development, Shot 11 . 2.30 Precursor Shock Contours. Shot 1 . 2.31 Precursor Shock Contours, Shot 10 . . 2.32 Photograph 01 Dust Pedestal. Shol 11 . 2.33 Pre shock Air Temperature, Shot 10.. 2.34 Preshock Air Temperature, Shot 11 and TUMBLER 4 . 2.35 A-scaled Over pressure Vs Time Records, Shots 10 and 11 2.36 A-scaled Over pressure Vs Time Records, Shots 11 and TUMBLER 4 2.37 Dynamic Pressure and Static Over pressure Vs Time, 2000 FI, Shol 1 0 2.38 Comparison 01 Precursor Criteria.. 2.39 Over pressure Vs Time Records Along Main Blasf Line and Smoke Line and Smoke Line. Shoi 10 . 2.41 Arrival Time of Initial Disturbance Along Main Blast Line and Smoke Line. Shot 10 . 2 . 4 2 Photographs of Popcorning Phenomenon in the Laboratory . 2.43 Preshock Pressure Vs Time Records, Shots 8 and 10 . 2.44 Mach Stem Height V s Ground Range. Shot 9 2 . 4 5 A-scaled Mach .%em Height, Comparison of Shot 9 and TUMBLER 1 2 . 4 6 Mach Stem Height V s Ground Range, Shots I and 10 . 2 . 4 1 Comparison of Scaled Nuclear and HE Data l o r Mach Stem Height . 2.48 Ground-level Peak Over pressure Vs Ground Range, Shots 1, 3, 4, 9, 2.49 Comparison of Ideal Peak Over pressure Height-ol-bursJ Curves 2.50 Cornparison 01 Ideal Peak Dynamic Pressure Height-of-burst ardd i o Dynamic Pressure Computed from Measured Peak Over pressure., 3.3 Time 01 Minimum Vs Total Weapon Yield . 3 . 4 Time of Second Maximum V 5 Total Weapon Yield . 3.5 Percentage of Total Thermal Energy Vs Time. Shots 4 and 9.. 3.6 Percentage of Total Thermal Energy Vs Time, Shots 10 and 11 . 3.1 Thermal Energy Normal to Ground Vs Ground Range, BUSTERTotal Incident Thermal Energy Vs Ground Distance (NRDL Data) Thermal Yield as a Function 01 Total Weapon Yield

Page 11

I11USTR AT IONS (Co n t inued) 4.4Gama Data, Shot 1 0 for Air Densify = 1.0 x lO-'g/cm' ... 119 4.7 Shot 8 Gold and Tantalum Data . 122 4.8 Shot 9 Gold and Tantalum Data . 123 /'4.9 Shot 10 Gold and Tantalum Data . . 124 B.1 Instrumentation Chart, Shots 9 and IO. 8.2 Instrumentation Chart, Shots 1, 3 , 4, 7, and 11. 8.3 Cubicles on Arc at 4900-it Radius . 8.7 Typical Roof Panels in Reinforced Concrete Cell St ruc iure, 8.8 Structure3.5 ~Wall Panels in Place Prior t o Shot 9 B.9 Structure 3.7 i n the Process oi Construction . B.11 View ui some Typical Emplacements Prior to Shot 9 8.12 Foxhole Lined with Aluminum Sheeting Prior to Shot 9 0.14 Structure 3.12 x'ith Door Renioved Prior to Shot 9 B.17 Aerial Vie x of Structure3.14 Alter Shot 10 . B.18 Corrugated Steel Shelter Bei ore Placement of Earth Cover B.19 Structure 3.162 Altrr Shot 10.. 8.20 Tree Stand Prior to Shot 9 . 8.22 Radial Pole Line with Aluminum Towers tn the Distance . 8.23 Bailey Bridge at 4100 Ft Prlcr to Shot 9.. B.24 Bailey Bridge at 2100 Ft Uter Shot 10 B.27 Typical Quartermaster Corps POL Station Prior l o Shot 9 B.28 Typical Marine Corps Assault Type POL System Prior to Shot 9 €3.29 Medical Installation Bei ore Shot 9.. B.32 Structure 3.29d Showing Curtain Walls with Window Openings . B.33 Nylon Thread and Carbon Paper Initiator on a Spring-wound Pressure -

Page 12

2.1 UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE Shot Summary and Scaling Factors. 2.4 Comparison of hleasured and Calculated Dynamic Pressures in. Chara cl eris tics of Nuclear Detonations at Intermediate Height over Burst Heights, UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE Shot 1, GREENHOUSE Dog 3.1 Total Thermal Energy and Air Trans miss iv it y, All Shots . 3.2 Times to First Minimum and Second Maximum, All Shots . CHAPTER 4 NUCLEAR RADMTION MEASUREMENTS 4.2 Field Measurement Locations.. ,d 4.3Sum marl of Sulfur and Gold Neutron Data . B.2 Summary of Test Data, Roof Panels..

Page 13

I NTRO DU CTl ON Military weapons effects tests in the past have been conducted either in conjunction with thr Aloniic Energy Commission (AECI development tests or for the purpose 01 studying certain basic phenomena. The AEC development tests are frequently unsuitable for effects studies because oi the experimental nature of the devices being tesied. There have been two effects phenomena tests, the sur lace and the underground detonations (Operation JANGLE) in the fall 01 1951. and the air - burst detonations (Operation TUMBLER) in the spring of 1952. Operation JANGLE was not entirely suitable for general air blast effects studies because of the small size of the weapons and the peculiar nature of the detonations. Operation TUMBLER was conceived and executed ina period of less than six months in order to provide height-oi-burst blast data which were urgently required f o r operational planning. T h i s precluded the inclusion of weapons ef lects studies other than those directly related t o the basic oblective 01 the lest. to the Chiefs of the services that a large - scale military weapons effects test be held i n the spring of 1953 at the Nevada Proving Grounds (NE). The objective of sucha test was to provide the services with an opportunity t o obtain general effects information, Although a conside r able amount 01 effects data was obtained ai Operation GREENHOUSE, it was fell that a large - scale lest for the sole purpose of we aw nse fi ect s studies was required in order lo ex - tend the GREENHOUSE results. which indicated serious gaps in the over-all knowledge of weapons effects. The logistical problems inherent i n an oversea6 operation plus the proved ieasibllity of continental atomic tests resulted in the decision t o recommend atest at the NPG. Specilically i t was hoped that this test would permit the exposure of many critical items 01 military equipment as well as idealized structures and other targets of military sign if i cm ce. In reconimending the test it was pointed out that the majority of the military requirements for eflects informaiion could probably be met by utilizing one nominalsyield air - burst weapon, detonated at an operational height, but that additional weapons, not to exceed the total of t h r e e , might be required. In December 1951, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)approved the re com men - dations ol the Chief, AFSWP, subject lo a further recommendation at a later date as t o the exact nature and number 01 the weapons to be fired.The code name KNOTHOLE was assigned to the operalion. which they f e l t should be conducted, and in addition solicited recommendations as to the type Of burst or bursts which they considered necessary. Replies for the most part indicated a desire for an a i r - b u r s t weapon of approximately 30 KT at a height of approximately 2000 It. The sub- )ect of another underground burst, utilizing a much larger weapon than was used i n Operation JAXCLE, was discussed. However, it was finally agreed that, due to the uncertainties concerning In October 1951, the Chief. Armed Forces Special Weapons Project (AFSWP), recommended On receipt of JCS approval, the AF SWP queried the services as to the specific t ~ s tp ro j ect s

Page 14

the significanl effects parameters of an underground ehol. no further conaideralion ehould be given t o scheduling a second underground shot i n the spring of 1953. were scheduled for the spring 01 1953. There lore it was tentatively planned to conduct the operation in a suitable area ni Yucca F!at where certain …