88
MULTIBURST FALLOUT MODEL FOR OPERATIONAL TYPE STUDIES. (U) MAR 81 J F CRANDLEY UNCLASSIFIED AFIT/6ST/PH/GM-1 NL IIuuuuuuuum MlEELhEEllIEE I.E.E.E."-'.l IIIIIIumIIIIIu IIIIIIIIIIII EKEli ..
MULTIBURST FALLOUT MODEL FOR OPERATIONAL TYPE STUDIES. (U)MAR 81 J F CRANDLEY
UNCLASSIFIED AFIT/6ST/PH/GM-1 NLIIuuuuuuuumMlEELhEEllIEEI.E.E.E."-'.lIIIIIIumIIIIIuIIIIIIIIIIII
EKEli ..
~W . .~-4 .~ .-
auf
AFIT/GST/PHi/81NI-l
NTIS 1,:F AIDTIC TAL$
JU * ~C: '.- --By-I
A MIJLTIBURST FALLCUT MODEL
FOR OPERATIONAL T1YPE SVJDIES
THESIS
John F. Crandley, Jr.AFIT/GST/PH-/81M-l Capt USAF
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimtited
AFIT/GST/PH/81M- 1
A MULTIBURST FALLOUT NODEL
FOR OPERATIONAL TYPE STUDIES*
I ~ THESISA
Presented to the Faculty of the School of Engineering
of the Air Force Institute of Technology
Air University
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
by
/6 John F./Crandley, Jr., B.S.
Capt USAF
Graduate Strategic and Tactical Sciences
) March 1981
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
Pre face
The study of radioact ive fallout from nuclear detonalio s
is of great interest in this t ifne of debate over the pcijo .cd
MX missile field. A counterforce attack against this complex
could consist of thousands of large yield nuclear weapons
detonated on or near the ground. Such aIn attack could have
more far-reaching consequences than most mi itary planers
consider. A highly survivable, mobile missile system would
have little value to the millions of people killed from the
fallout produced by such a counterforce attack.
Presented within is a simple, efficient procedure for
accurately determining this collateral damage of fallout for
any scenario involving many bursts. This method i- designed
for an operational planner to easily "scope thc oblem"
without utilizing much computer time.
I am grateful to Dr. Charles J. Bridg.nan for his guidance
in the development of this procedure, and to !.y lovely wife,
Michaela, for ter patience and support.
John F. Crandlev, Jr.
(This thesis wns typed by Sharon A. Gbriel)
ii
* ConteOnt S
Pa ge
Preface-------------------------------------------------- ii
List of Figures------------------------------------------ iv
Abstract------------------------------------------------- v
1. Introduction---------------------------------------1I
II. Calculation of the Multiburst Distribution --------- 4
f(y,t) for Multiple Bursts-------------------- 5
Il1. Validation of the Multiburst Distribution --------- 12
Scenario--------------------------------------- 12Description of Superpositioning Procedure 13Description of Multiburst Procedure ------------ 14Comparison of Multiburst to Superposition--- 14
IV. Employment of Multaburst Code ---------------------- 23
Scenarios------------------------------------- 23Results----------------------------------------25S
V. Conclusions and Recommendations-------------------5S9
Recommendations------------------------------- 60
Bibliography--------------------------------------------- 61
Appendix A: Fortran Code MULTI------------------------- 62
Vita----------------------------------------------------- 77
L.ist of Fic, r.i
Fi 'ure Page
1 Multiple Bursts -s Viewed ------- d-- ------- 7From Downwind
2 FY versus '- ------------------------------- 10
3 Cumulative Activity-Size DistributionCurves ------------------------------------ 15
4 WSEG Comparisons -------------------------- 16-18a thru c
S AFIT Comparisons -------------------------- 19-21a thru c
6 Average Summer Wind Contours -------------- 27-34a thru h
7 Average Winter Wind Contours -------------- 35-42a thru h
8 Scrong Swmimer Wind Contours --------------- 43-50a thru h
9 Strong Winter Wind Contours ---------------- 51-58a thru h
iv
AFIT/GST/PH/81MI
Abstract
A method is developed for calculating fallout deposition
downwind from a massive nuclear attack on a small target
area over a short time span. This is accomplished using
existing smear codes and replacing their existing horizontal
activity distribution with an approximating function. This
function is the difference between two cumulative normal
functions which are shown to result from superposition of
individual bursts. A comparison is made between the contours
predicted by this new code and contours predicted by the old,
time-consuming, iterative procedures. The new code has been
employed in several different scenarios involving the proposed
MX field to determine the resulting dose contours from a
massive attack against that field.
V
A MULTIBURST FALLOUT MODEL
FOR OPERATIONAL TYPE STUDIES
I. Introduction
A new Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBN) system
will be deployed in the Western United States within the
next several years. This new system, designated the MX,
will greatly enhance the survivability of the land-based
leg of the Triad. This survivability will be accomplished
through mobility; a single missile will be shuttled ran-
domly among 23 shelters on a racetrack. The current propo-
sal calls for 200 missiles to be purchased, with 200 race-
tracks to be built in Utah and Nevada (Ref 1:3).
This method of "hiding" the MX missiles creates tremen-
dous problems in targeting for any enemy. One possible
targeting option would be to attempt to destroy as many .X
shelters in as short a time as possible. This option would
have a high probability of destroying a large percentage of
the MX missile force, while interfering with the command,
control, and communication necessary to effect a retaliatory
strike. Also of great concern is the corresponding downwind
fallout effects from such a massive strike. There are several
single burst nuclear fallout models available which could
predict this collateral effect by superposition of individual
burst fallout patterns.
Presently there are many different individual burst
models being used by many different government agencies. Most
of these models have their analysis based on a study, done by
the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group (WSFG-10) in 1959.
However, Bridgman and Bigelow (Ref 2) have recently shown
that the heart of the WSEG calculations is in error. They
proposed an alternative method of calculation, which was
used by Colarco (Ref 3) to construct an improved single-
burst fallout code for operational type studies. Colarco's
code produces results which are closer approximations than
WSEG-10 to the Defense Land Fallout Prediction System
(DELFIC). DELFIC is considered by many to be the benchmark
of fallout computer codes..
One of the unfortunate aspects of these single-burst
codes is that they cannot easily compute the effects of
many bursts within a relatively small target area (such
as an MX field). Fallout analysis of a counterforce attack
on a missile field (or similarly distributed target) is now
done by superpositioning hundreds of individual bursts by
an iterative procedure. Because of the computer time needed
for these iterations, this is a slow and expensive process.
Also, because of computer limitations, this iaay not be a
completely accurate procedure.
In the following chapters, a method will be developed
to produce a fast-running computer code to accomplish multi-
burst calcualtions without the need for superpositioning.
2
This code will be designed for operational use; that is,
it will be a fast, inexpensive tool for operational analysts
to use in predicting a reasonably accurate fallout deposition.
This code will then be applied to a counterforce scenario
against the MX field in Utah/Nevada. The results from this
study will then be compared to the results obtained from
using WSEG-1O calculations in the same scenario.
3
II. Calculation of the Multiburst Distribution
WSEG-10 predicts fallout dose rates on the ground with
the following equation (Ref 4:17):
I1(x,y) = k f f(x,y,t ) g(t) dt (1)0
where k is a source normalization constant, g(t') is
the activity deposition rate, and f(x,y,t') is the
normalized horizontal activity function. This activity
function is a bivariate normal function with a time varying
standard deviation in the cross wind direction:
x-Vxtv
f(x,y,t) e . eV2-r a /'-r a (t)
(2)
where x is the downwind distance, y is the crosswind
distance, t is time and a is the standard deviation. VXx
is assumed to be a constant wind which rotates uniformly
with altitude. This results in a constant value of wind
shear for the determination of u (t)y
It can be seen that Eq (2) can be written as
f(x,y,t) f(x,t) - f(y,t) (3)
4
. ti. this .ubsI It 'it io: it ca ii s :.uon ( c I 1) f ,.
reduces to:
g(t )f(x,y ) k - (S)
x
where t is arrival tame of the cloud and
f~y~t)= ! e Yt
It is obvious from Eq (5) that f (y ,t is a norm:ial
function describing the crosswind spread of a single nuclear
cloud. If two or more clouds are in close proximity and
merge at some point to become one large cloud, a siingle
normal function will no longer account for horizontal
activity; there will be some cumulative effect from each
contributing single-burst cloud. The fallout on the ground
from this new, large cloud will still be described by
Eq (4), except that f (y,t) will no longer be Piven by
Eq (5).
f(y,t) for 1iilt ip] Bu-rsts
If an observer were standing some dist ance downwind
from a target complex (for example, a missile field) and
was able to observe a large-scale nuclear attack en that
complex, he would initially see many single nuclear clouds
rising from the surface. If this particular attack were
S
,,r ' r atonl dct I a t ion~s, a111 "C , cf I, t, I, :I xc r:
short t ime of one anot-er , and dist ribut ed ti iforml v a I on5
an 80 111 le line perpendicular to the wind direction, then
the observer would see 100 individual ovCerlappi ; cloud:s.
If the hoi izontal activity distribution within each cloud
along this line is given by Eq (S), then tie observor ,.,ould
see 100 normal functions, as in Figure 1. Nole thvt y is
now the crosswind distance as MCasured from the center of
the tarc;ct field.
It can be seen from Fi,.ure 1 th -at any point down,:Jnd
from this line of clouds will receive activity f-oi, not
only the single cloud directly up, ind from this point,
but also from adjoining clouds. This additional activity
becomes even more pronounced as the clouds begin drifting
with the wind as the horizontal activity standard devi at ion,
COy ,increases with time (as per the WSEG-10 analysis).
The total activity at any point downwind can be found 5;-
finding the contribution of each single cloud and addi:ng
all 100 contributions to.rether. If the standard deviation,
o , is large with respect to the intercloud distanco,
the addition operation can be replaced by an integral:
w/2 - -)
f (. t e dv (6)f -w/2 v2 ,1CY (t) o
6
C)LO
cms
CD
-6CD r
0
CD
LL-
LI-. K-
CE
Cr)
(10
::D 0~
LI
Ole 11 ol G ~ o 0
DA
7
where w/2 is the half-field wi dth (in the example, 40
miles) and N is the total number of bursts (here, 100).
This function can he easily evaluated if it is split into
two parts:
[Y-Yo 2
f (y,t) N e2 dy
2_ W
-w/2 1 0 2 dy (7)-O 'T-a (t) 10
yJ
which is easily transformed into
f(y, t)= I _v2 - dz
~12
(Y It !_ e 2. (8)
by letting
Y-Y
Z -- o (9)ayM
and- dy o
dz = d 0 (10)
yM
Thus, f ()', ) for ma n I r st s is thIC d if fe re , . ...1, e
the cumoulat ive nor, ml funct ions for two di f ferent ar umcn 1
When this funct ion is used in Eq (4) the total (lose rate
for any point down.ind can be found. A gr;:ph of this
function is presented in Figure 2, with the 100 single
cloud distributions added for comparison.
Computer solutions for dose rates from Eq (4) would be
quick and simple except for the integrals in the multi-
burst f(y,t) Therefore, the following approximation
was used for the integrals in Eq (8) (Ref 9:932):
1-2P(z) = 1 -(.1968S4z + .l194z
+ .0003-14z 3 1 .019527z4) - ' (11)
where z is the upper limit of each integral . The difference
between the two integrals was then multiplicd by the number
of detonations and divided by the field width to produce a
numerical answer for f(y,t) This number was then used
in Eq (4) to produce dose rates.
As will be seen in the next chapter, dose rates from
Eq (4) using this new f(y,t) agree very well with dose rates
derived by addition or superposition. Hlowever, several cau-
tions need to be mentioned. This f(') function is meant to
be used in situations where there are many hursts in a rela-
tively small physical area. Also, the individual bursts
positioned on the field width line cannot be more than one
9
LIT)
CD
0
100
standard deviation apart; that is, the number of bombs
detonated in a defined area (the bomb density) must be
large enough to allow the multiburst f(y) function to
approximate the cumulative effect. Smaller bomb densities
must be treated as an aggregation of single bursts.
11
III. Validation of the Multiburst Distribution
Any model must, by necessity, be shown to actually
conform to the reality it purports to represent. There are
several ways in which a model can be validated, with most
validation methods comparing model results to actual data.
As there is little data available on downwind fallout
dosages from multiple bursts, a different approach was
necessary. This involved a comparison between the results
of the new model and results derived from an iterative
superpositioning method of the same scenario.
Scenario
A scenario involving a counterforce attack against the
missile field at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri (Ref 7:32)
was used as a basis for comparison. This particular missile
field encloses 150 silos in an area roughly 90 miles on a
side. Two one-megaton devices were then simultaneously
detonated at each silo, for a total of 300 bursts. These
300 bursts were then distributed evenly on a 98 mile line
perpendicular to the average west wind of 20 miles per hour,
anci a shear of one per hour. Fifty percent of the yield of
each burst was from fission. The coordinates of the contour
lines of the following unit time reference dose rates were
then computed: 1000 roentgen/hour (r/hr), 500 r/hr, and
100 r/hr.
12
Description of Superpositioning Procedure
A single burst code similar to Colarco's model (Ref 3)
was used for the iterative procedure. A grid was established
with 2000 miles on the x (downwind) axis and 182 miles on
the y (crosswind) axis. The x axis was broken down into
201 increments, while the y axis was divided into 27.
For more efficient computer operation, the 150 silos were
broken down into 15 groups of 10 silos per group. These
15 groups were then placed on grid line x = 6 and on every
grid line between y = 7 and y = 21 , resulting in 15
silo groups evenly distributed on a north-south line 98
miles long. To simulate 20 bursts at each silo group, the
computed single-burst dose rate at each silo group was
multiplied by 20. The superpositioning method, then, was
accomplished by stepping from point-to-point on the grid
and calculating and adding the contribution of dose rate
from each silo group to that point.
Machine limitations dictated the coarseness of the grid.
Consequently, there was a reduction in accuracy. A summation
of all grid points did not total up to the entire activity
produced by the detonations; approximately five percent of
the activity was missing. This missing activity was not
deemed important to the comparisons, and is believed to be
the result of the coarse grid at the extreme downwind limits
of the fallout field.
13
Descript ion of '.:ult iburst Procedure
Results using the new model were obtained using the
multiburst code shown in Appendix A. The required inputs
were inserted, and the coordinates for the desired contours
produced. No machine limitations were encountered using
this model.
Comparison of ..' ultiburst to Superpos it ion
The comparison was made using the same inputs: 300
one-megaton bursts, each with SO percent of its yieid-1
from fission; wind of 270/20 with a shear of one hr
field width of 98 miles. The contours obtained were for
doses of 100, 500, and 1000 r/hr.
Two different sets of contours were dra-,n far two
different particle size-activity distribution curves. The
WSEG contours use a size-activity curve with paramc-ters of
a = 44 and Zn = .690 A second set of contours was
generated using size-activity curve parameters of a - 37
and kn = 1.528 These parameters more closely resemble
those used by the DELFIC model (see Figure 3S. All calcu-
lations using these parameters and the Bridgmn,'Bi..eluw
procedure for activity deposition rate (Ref 2:29-,) ,ill
be termed AFIT calculations.
Figures 4 a through 4c show the three desired contour
comparisons using the WStG formulation for activity depo-
sition rate, while Figures Sa through Sc show the same
14
//
/
1000
100 _ _ _ _
.r-I0 =44
U ZO .6
10DEF 1C
/AFIT
a = 37Zn = I .52S
Percentage
Figure 3. Cumulative Activity-Size Pistrilntion Curves
is
CD
V)
CD 0ICD.
z 0
P-4
LI0CfC)
C.9)
30UOI CNN)SO
C516
Q
zcCD (,r) o
D
LO~
CD L
ci:(.D'
Li] 0Mz
(f)C)
00Goo Q.QG 010 O- 01001-
17
c:3 n o
Z C) ZD
U7
CDC
CD1
Ul C
IDCD)
C9
OO&SE Gloat GIGS 010 olOs- OG001-0si-3NYIS1O GN1NSSOK
18
CDV),
zC )-Dc cn~
I IC30
0 0CDCD L
ci::
ELI
CDCD
0S~ 013 L' OOrz01 00- 01001-
T'NUIU 6IKO
C)
C)
Lj CL M
LJ Lit F
crr
CD LIf)
z0
V)4
C:
(f* CD
cD7
0
WC.
0400t 0O esO 0OQ001- 0,001-DrO-N IS1O ONNSSMOdO
20o
M D
',
[LIO
c-f)- c~ct
CD
0
OOsz 010 olsz- olos1-30NUISIO ONINGSOK
21
comparison using the AFIT activity depos i tioni foriulat ion
As can be seen, these conparisons of superpositioning and
the multiburst code are in good agreerment. For the s:maller
dose rates there is a difference in the crossw,'ind deposition
of activity as downwind distance increases from ground zero.
This discrepancy is due to the wy the 300 bursts are distri-
buted in the superpositioning procedure; that is, the 15
groups of 20 detonations more closely resemble fifteen
20-megaton detonations. This aggregate cloud will taper off
much more than an aggregate cloud of 300 one-megaton bursts,
as shown by Figure Sc. Consequently, the multiburst contours
are considered to be more accurate.
22
IV. Emplovment of the Moulti Coi
To demonstrate the ease with which this new mode] can
be used, the fallout patterns from a counterforce attack on
an NIX field were generated. Several different scen.:rios
were devised, and the appropriate inputs made to the code
MULTI, which is listed in Appendix A. MULTI incoiporates
the multiburst f(y,t) distribution developed in Chapter
II. An interesting feature of this code is the abi1itv to
use either the WSEG g(t) (activity deposition rate) or
the AFIT g(t) in dose/dose rate computations. Therefore,
for all scenarios, a comparison study was made of contours
generated using the two different g(t)'s
Scenarios
The MIX field, consisting of 4600 shelters, is proposed
to be situated in the states of Utah and Nevada. Several
different scenarios were created around these shelters,
based on several parameters. These parameters i-clude th
number of attacking reentry vehicles (R%), the yield and
fission fraction of each RV, and the average continental
winds. Two different dose contours were generated for each
dose using the two different g(t)'s Based on all these
variables, a total of 64 plots (or 32 comparisons) were
created.
2 3
To simulate a full, counterforce attack, 4600 RV's
were targeted against the MX field. The crosswind width of
this field was estimated at 190 miles. The yield of each RV
was allowed to be one of two values: either one megaton or
500 kilotons. These yields are commensurate with the war-
head yields of Soviet ICBM's. A 50 percent yield due to
fission was assumed for each warhead. As another comparison,
the number of RV's was decreased to 2300 with warhead yields
remaining the same.
Several average winds were obtained (Ref 8) for the
continental United States as a whole at an altitude of
40,000 feet. All winds were from the west (2700) and had
different velocities based on the season. An average summer
wind had a velocity of 35 miles per hour (or written as
270/35), while an average winter wind was given as 270/77.
Strong seasonal winds were derived by adding one standard
deviation to the average winds. This resulted in a strong
summer wind of 270/70 and a strong winter wind of 270/119.
These winds were then applied to each scenario.
Two different dose contours were generated for each
scenario, the doses being 1500 and 500 rems. Since most
single story residences above ground have a protection factor
of three (Ref 7:33), the 1500 rem contour represents 500 rems
indoors. Five hundred rems is considered to be the dosage
necessary to produce 50 percent fatalities in 30 days
(Ref 7:32).
24
Fatalities will not be estimated in the following
comparisons. However, the contour lines do enclose the
areas of high fatalities from fallout. Major cities down-
wind from the bursts are delineated on the figures for
easier reference. It will be obvious that the WSEG formu-
lation significantly underestimates these areas of high
fatalities.
Results
Sixty-four computer runs were made interactively
using a CDC 6600 computer. Average compilation time was
1.8 seconds with average execution time of 1.5 seconds.
The 64 runs were then combined into 32 comparative graphs.
These 3K figures were arranged in four groups according
to wind velocity. Figures 6a through 6h have a common wind
of 270/35 (average summer). The second group, Figures 7a
through 7h, has a wind of 270/77 (average winter), while
Figures 8a through 8h have a slightly lower wind of 270/70
(strong summer). The strong winter wind group, Figures 9a
through 9h, is last with a wind of 270/119. All winds have
a shear of 1/hr.
It is obvious from all comparisons that the WSEG
contour lines encompass much less area than the AFIT contour
lines. This is a direct result of the Bridgman/Bigelow
method of computing g(t) and of the parameters used for
25
the particle size-activity distribution curva. Colarco
showed the same kind of result, only for a single-burst
model.
It is interesting to note that the WSEG contours are
probably close approximations to the contours generated by
the Department of Defense (DoD) in their predictions of
fatalities from an MX field attack; the same basic WSEG
formulation is used. Consequently, the estimation of
resulting fatalities is not as high as it would be if the
AFIT contours were used, especially in the low wind situa-
tions. As the wind increases and the WSEG contours finally
stretch into the Atlantic Ocean, the number of fatalities
predicted by WSEG and AFIT will be about the same as the
enclosed population is equal.
26
AFIT DOS-E
za-
L
ME-
12E--~WI3NSS~N -
LONG ITUDE
SO RiICOTOR.WN-20/G 460DO"8RSS
Piuc6.AcLcSumriinCnor
L27
AFT DOS"E __
I 2S w l1Gw iOSlaw sw 85 0w 7S w G'w
LONG ITUDE
NSEG DOE ___ __
Ln
12SHw 115 w 105 w 65 w 75N 65 W
LONGITUDE
500 REMh CONTOUR. NINLI-270/35. 2300 fliT 5kLP\ST'S.
Figure 6b. Average Summer Windh Cont ours
28
L
0=37
Ln
12S __i D w9 sw s: bi
LONG ITUDE
500RE COTOR.WN-20/G 460SE BFSS
Fiue6.AeaeSmezil1Cnor
dL29
AFIT DOSE'
z
"12S W I~ I "w isw q s s w 6!!w
LONGDI TUDE
NSEG [JOSE-
0
cI
I f)
Tsc , w] 25° W US5 H 1O5 W S3£IW 65 W 7' 6
LONGITUDE
500 REMI CONTOUR. NIN-270/35. 2300 .SrL- r"'NST5,
Figure 6d. Average Summer Wind Cont our.;
30
AFIT- DCSZ)L
Ln
LONGI TUDE
zi
Li
k-4
125 N 91s w IO5Y 9 0 w5 GS' W
LONG ITULD E
1500 REM CONTOUR. WIN-270/35. 4600 ItIT TFSTS,
FiIgurc 6e. Ave'rage surnnicr windl Canit t;
31
0z
0
12SW 11G lira w~ 850 q; sw 7S w ^S
LONGITUDE
NSEG DJO"F
zV
125 14 11 N 105 N 9S5'N wA
LONGITUDE
1500 REM CONTOUR. WINO-270/35. 2-300 1K" Z -. TS.
Figure 6f. AvcraV SSrn P1JCot(!
32
C)
E-4
CIS
12S~ W 31s w os W 9s w 85w
LONG IT UDUE
Lo
LI
CIOLON I TUDLZ
1500 K ~i? K~i)IO3.40 SS
CO 11 (a t LOUI
12S 11 lis w IO~ BSW q
__W [S EG DG0SE
z
L _
CD
125 14 11$ w 105 w 95~ w5 85WI w 65
LONGITUDE
1500 REMI CONTOUR. WIND-270/38. 2700 .5;'IT BURSTS.
Figure 6h. A\verage Summer wind Contours
34
H9lT T051
Li
12S 11 W 1S0WLONGITUDE7S W
____ SEO DOSE___
CD)
12S w 115 VN 1OS w 9s0 W 65 w 75 W 65qr
LONGITUDE
500 REM CONTOUR. NIND-270/77. 4600 1MT BURSTS.
Figure 7a. Average Winteor Ifinc Contours
3S
________I AFT [Dh T
L 0 NO a 7 1G
_______ WSEG DOSE
do
I-4,
125 w lis ic' H 95w 65vi w65,1
LONGI1TUDE
500 REM1 CONTOUR. NINI-270/77. 2300 1111[2~TS
Figure 7b. Average Wljintoir W1ind (:anltOwI
36
AHF'IT C OSE ___
L1)
L)
Z
" 2S 0 W 115 a w os 0w 9s, w W 5b 7S ww
LONGITUDE
NSEG DOSE____
Ln
eU-
CD
:
125 w w 10,5, w S f~w 6
LONG ITUDE
S00 REM CONTOUR. W-UND-2/?/77. 4600C J iOSS
Figure 7c. Avera e Wi ntI or W inrd Cmit
37
AFIT DSE
E--4
z
12S w 11GW w 050 w 9s W BS J, s
LO0NG I TUD E
500RE COTOR.WNSE0/7 230OSE L~3S
Fiue7 vracW:to Wn oti.
L38
AFJTG OSE
z
4 -
m 2S w 1~ IOS as 7S w GSLONG~ITUDE
NSEG DOSE-__
0
LONG ITUDE
1500 REM CONTOUR. WINO'-270/77. '600 1MT E3UFnSTS.
Figure 7c. Average, wintrer wind Contours
39
A FIT BoSE
L)
44
12S W 115 w ID 25 9W 85 w 75W G5 W
LONG ITUDE
NSEG 9\
z
L)
-4
LONG ITUDE
1500 REM CONTOUR. WlNO-270/77. 2300 1I' [i'bi'STS.
Figure 7f. Average Vint ir Wind Conitour.-
40
AFIT LOSEL7
z
-4
12s W 1s1w losw 9s w Bs8w 7S w w
LONGITUDE_SEG DOSE
z
Ln
C
1-4k-4
'In14 a
12 0 W 9 5N w 5b7w
LONGITUDE
1500 REM CONTOUR. WIND'270/77. 4600 .Si'I 6USTS.
Figure 7g. Average Winter Wind Contours
41
AF ITP "
11 1
12S w ls w 105w 9S w 85,w 7S w CS, w
LONGITUDE
WNSEG DOSE
zao
ini125 N I1 is 1050 w 9S" 65 w 65~ w
LONGITUDE
1500 REM CONTOUR. WIND-270/77. 2300 D5)U i3UTS.
Figure 7h. Average Wiuter Wini Coll olrs
42
PL F _I___Dn
S -4
12S0 w I1row IO DS w 2s s w 7S w sw
LONG ITUDE
NSEG DOSE
LI
LONG ITUDE
SOO REM1 CONTOUR. NIN-270/70. 4660 1li LATS
F i gtirc a. St rong Suirmer Wind Cont olnr
43
PF'TTr D2C'-'
F__ Fil D, LLo
126 W I I N los 0 90 w 8s W 7S w G w
LONGITUDE
- SEG DOSE
z
.1-4
1 I25° ]Iw 11 I05 w 95N 65N w: 5I 6 ii
LONGI'rUDE
SOO REM CONTOUR. WIND-270/70. 2300 1HlT El2S."
Figure 8b. Strong Summer 1i,'nd Cant ou s
.14
n'IT DOUSE
zLn~
Lo
12S aw 1is w tos 0w g9 w 85 w 7.'-)w Gsw
LONGITUDE
1WSJEG DOSE _
1z
Li
LONGITUDE
500 REM CONTOUR. WIND-27O/70. 4600 .51FH§TS
Filgure 8c. St rong summor windl con or v-
4S
RHiFTIT DJJ E____
JL)
12S w 1w I DS W 9OSs 14 85w 7S W
LONGITUDE
____WSEGOSE
64
Ln
z
125 w 115 N 105 0 9s W 850 N~r
LONG ITUDE
500 REM CONTOUR. WINU-270/70. 2300 r-M'F BIUPSTS.
Figure 8d. St rong Summer Wind Contours
46
rF _ _ _ _ _ r- , :I ;" '-, f-
' I
~44
: L
Ej-4
(No a D 0 a12S W II W IcS w es W 8S? 7S w 1
LON9 I TUDE
NSEG DOSE
dd
LONG I TU0
1500 REIM CONTCUF. NIND-270/70. 4600 iMY {YK!STS.Figure Be. Strong Wuninr Wind Cont ours
47
-)
Li
a:
( 0 0 ISr12-5 w 11S wC~ 950W 85 gs w B wWcwLONGITUDE
1500~~~W G'M COTOD WD200 S~C E MUSS
Fi ur 4f tr ng S m e W c oi-o v
0048
AfI DO(SE1
z0
LONG ITUDE
NlSEO DOSE
0n
125w 15 lUS w S 95w5os
LONG ITUDE
1500 REt1 CONTOUR~. WINE-270/70. 4600CO 2SS
Figure 8g. Strong Suner Wind Cont our.-
Lgo
12S D 6 3 1F w IDS 0 9&w UsW B Sb
LONG ITUflE
W S E ® 05E
n
225 0 110U Oj S'
LONGITUDE
1500 REMI CONTOUR,. WIND-270/70. 2300 SPT iT.
Figure 811. st rong Sunu11re r Wid out ou-
5o
P1F IT lOSE
L
12S W is w 105 w 9SW 6w 85 N1
LONG ITUDE
NOEG DOSE
0
J--4 - - -
0
LONGITUDE
500 REh CONTOUR. WINO-270/119. 4600 INT 6LIRSTS.
Fi guirc 9a. St rong Win tcr Winjjd Contours,
51
zLn
32 W 11 w 105 w 9sw 5wLONGITUDE
_00 REM CONTOUR DOSE20/9 2300 _1__BUSTS
Fiue9.zrn ine idCnor
ISn
IV I
0z
LA
12S W Ils w 105 W 9S w 8,; w 7S W 65 w
LONG ITUDE
__W kS EG DOSErE_
..r1
LONG ITUDE
500 REMh CONTOUR. WINO-270!119. 460 .CI 'STS.
Figure 9c Strong Winter Wind Conto(ur.
53
FIT DOSEL
f-4
za
V.
12S~ I1w l0 0 w 95 wS- es 6'
LONGITUDE
SOORE CNTUR WNSEG0/1 DOSE -M B, SS
Fiue9. Srnzine idCnnr
aS
F T-'i
tJ
04
12 w 11Gw rns W 8 , Sw 7S W G! ,wLONG ITUDE
NSEG DOSE_
iiiz- _ _
LONG ITUDE
1500 RMCONTOUR. i4IND-270/1)9. 4.600 12T E3UiJ- %STLS-
l'i glrc 9c. Strom,' V'intc'r Windk Cait oiiis
S S
AFIT 50,)L
"- _ _
11
a7
12S W It 114 Wo 0 0w 9S~ w asw 7S'4 w s 0 w
LONGITUDE
___ ___ __ SEG DOSE
0
LOGTD
1500~~ RELOTU.W~J-7/19 301T~USS
Fig-r 4f trn ito idCnor
cc 56
RAFP.!"I DOL 0__c5-
lun, 'IX
4
LJ
LONG ITUDE
ISORE ONOR.WNSEG0119 DOSE___M" EU S T
Fiur 9g/too1.norWn otu
LjS7
L]
12S W 11G w lnS w gs w 85 w 7S W GS W
LONGITUDE
NSEG DOSE -_
Ln
125 w 115 N 1050 N 9w 350 N 850 N
LONGITUDE
1500 REM CONTOUR. NIND-270/119. 2300 .h 5T5
Fi gure 9h. St rong Wintor Wind C7ontou r
58
V CorcI ls i onl CCC:k onv <.tOl
fhlis paper ha s p !cC'L :1- C2 1:1('t CVh 1() 2 l 05 1- I rOU i C t i 11iP
the (lownw i ad fa)I ot klU'l C A, Y:~ c 1 a iOin
many det 01,dt iwifl 02.I 7 t ~ 2 : iC.,
which m~ust e t 'I
tact ic; I ] na -t
d~ t rI-u
pros enlt
rt n )i
t: I I I
and (I
of t i i~ ~
Vjr i ow, .
and Ith -i r (,Ir&
t ion ; wind xe Co- it l. ' 1 1
widt, ;,he I i ne o I' hurst I'S t
cular to the winad. ParTu I- I x7. (, c 1- 1, t C it v
curve mus t he entecried i f anj A F' cai uI is ; th
WSIEG parameteors are hu i I I i nt o t he c le
59J
Recommendations
The presented code will give realistic approximations
of the downwind deposition of fallout with great speed and
ease. This is exactly what operational planners need to
make timely decisions. However, several enhancements could
be made to the program to increase its accuracy.
The first enhancement involves wind. The use of a
single, constant wind from the surface to 40,000 feet and
across the countryside is a notoriously bad approximation.
Some way must be devised to incorporate several different
winds into the model.
60
2.Korh , Lawrence J. 'The Case for tile "'IX A> H, i2csiev ixo,351 : 2-10 (JulIy - Au ,u t I1>6S)
2. rid,,-nan, C.J. and W. S. "Aei ".- 1' ii utPrediction Mlodel for Use in Operaitiona~l Typ stl( , ,tUnp ubIi sh11e d 11raf1-t 1% Wr i~ "' t ci PI i XIrs! Al Oil: i ,Iof Engineering, Air Force 1It utc, of *Iechnolco -
3. Colair c o ,Rijc ha rd F. A Comp ei ci- F- II ut \' o d c1 1ioOperat ional. Tvpe StiudT-77,-iL-r'n i;t1ro
NFB O: ScIoo oti-I,±ee lit, Air 1'aice Insttilt oflechnology, ,IMarchi 1"80.
4 . Pugh , Gceo r~e 1- and Rober t .7 Ca I i anc A 1) n t *IC LI
Model of Close-ini I)epo.;i tcion !7a 'al iut 7i'l-ise in'7
Opera c lon ~F Fv -t u ic Cc salrC~h2 n1o. Ca 1epolln ~Vt 1 lI s I~yv at ion C' roup , I e Pen1t !u;I On
Was hi ngt on 1)C , 13 0c toh1)er 1 f9. (AD 2 .617 2)
5. Bridgman , C.j. Class lecture, 27 Maty 1980. 1v.right -Patterson AFB O1!: School of Ynineerin4g, A ir For ceInstitute of 'lechniolo>;,.
6. Drell, S.D. and F. vonilippel. "Limited Nuc cr Wvar,"Scient ific Ame rican, -2351: 27-36 (Noveimber 1970).
7. SACM 105-2, Vol. II. CInmatc)oociI Jn.VcosOm ahIia NE: St rate gic Ai~mad,3anna 1-- -1 160
8. Glasst one. S amuel and Phil in J. Dolan . The EfFects ofNucl ear Wea,:pons-, tU. S. Cove rilmcnt Print il' C cc,
-I1TJ) -, nI jr 7,4 dt ion , 1977
9.- -- - --- andboolK of :>ithc, imtc Fulic-t ions .C-di ted hv N
Print ing Of fice ,Wash Ii i1! 0AO I)', anneI 1 '4
Apped i .\ A
I:ort r : I., C' '
This appendix Co"Itails _ h I.l o.:I PIi.,il"
-- a cop)- of t lie c ode MU LT I which ,: oiput cs
fallout contour-, d a '/ossary of the
terms used j \IPLT I;
-- A user's guide to runnin-., the compl] ed version
of tire MULTI iror.
-- a sample of output from .,>JTI and an explan-
ation of how to intcpret the output.
MULTI Code
MULTI is a derivative of SMIEAlR, a single-burst fallout
code written by Dr. Charles J. Dridgman of the Air Force
Institute of Technology. Several changes were incorporated
into SMEAR to produce MULTI, most notably the multiburst
f(y) distribution developed in Chapter II. MULTI was also
designed to be run interactively, with inputs comino,' fro:..
both the user and an attached data tape (TAPF4). The user
inputs are the parameters of the particular problem to be
studied, while the data tape consists of a table of coef-
ficients supplied by Colarco (Ref 3:67-71). The table of
coefficients is required in the AFIT calculation of g (t)
The operation of MULTI is straightforward, with all
dose/dose rate quantities being calculated as described in
62
Chapter 11. The contour coordinates are iven in terms of
x (dowu,,m.ind distance from ]ir.e of bursts) and v (cross -
wind distince from center of field). These contour ccordi-
nates are displayed with the Output at the ter!mina;,l, and are
also written on a data tape (TAPF6). This data tape can
then be used as the input for contour dra%.-ing rout ines.
The generation of contour coordinates :s an iterative
procedure. The downwind distance x is increased by a small
amount , and the dose (or dose rate) at that x cordi mate
and the center of the field (or y 0) is then computed
and compared to the desired dose. If the computed dose is
equal to or less than this desired dose, we are either on
or outside of the desired dose contour and the v coordinate
is assigned a value of zero. If the computec dos,e is greatcr
than the desired dose, we are with-n the desired contour and
the y coordinate is increased by a small amount. A new
dose is computed for this new (x,y) position. If this
computed dose is still greater than the desired dose, the
y coordinate is again increased. This procedure continues
until the computed dose equals the desired dose; lie v
coordinate is then the total distance incremental ,, t"wiveled
from the center of the field to this equality po]-at. The
downwind distance x is increased again, and a nn, v
coordinate is determined using the same procedure. T .enty -
six pairs of (x,y) coordinates are generated to define a
desired dose contour.
63
A glossary of terms used within the code is providCd
in Table A-1. These terms arc presented in order of
appearance within the prodrali.
User's Guhic to II]JI,11
Table A-2 shows how the parameters of a problem are
entered. The first directive sets up the internal switches
for the program:
-- M determines the type of g(t) calculation
(0 = WSJ-G; I = AFIT) ;
-- MD determines the type of output desired
(0 = dose rate; I = dose);
-- N determines the number of contours to be
generated.
The parameters of the scenario are entered next, with
the desired contour values entered first. The yield of the
attacking weapons (in megatons) and their fission fraction
are then requested, as are the average wind velocity (in
miles per hour) and crosswind shear. The number of bursts
must be entered next, along with the crosswind widIth of
the field (in miles).
If the desired contours are to be coiputed i- ter, uF
dose (that is, MD = 1), the total number of hours c, wlich
the dose is to be integrated is entered next . 1 11. i rra -
tion over time is the Way-Wign-lr approx imat ion , S'391].
If a time of infinity is desiredl, zero is the rcw:i I J input
64
Finally, if all calculations ai'e to be made using the
AFIT g(t) (that is, "I = 1) , the parameters of the activity
size distribution curve must fe enteed. To approximate the
DEILFIC default , the parameters given in Chapter III should
be used.
Interpretation of Output from MULTI
Table A-3 is the output of the scenario entered in
Table A-2. A short summary of some of the input data is
first given. "AFIT CALCULATION" means the program ,.il1
utilize the AFIT g(t) in its computations. The yield,
fission fraction, wind and wind shear are printed out, as
is the desired dose contour. The 26 pairs of coordinate-,
for the contour are then listed. Note that this listing
is just "half" a contour; due to the symmetry of the cloud,
the other "half" of the contour has the same x coordinates
but the negative of the y coordinates.
65
C0,11 _U- C )41 '
C~oMIlJ]' , CODEI
C TA PEC I U UR I i I.4 , VALJ S.C
CO" 4,Ck4 0 j) D ( II A; ), L n
C C i. V. 04 T:-,I 3 1 s C I: C- H - 9 C:, V×t j i T:' TF P K, M,
CO' CMO4 N'WTDCC INTE"'4AL SVITH--SC M= F : 'G, w= I ;)R tiT
C Mo=t FOF 333 - T-_± ), I FC" OOSE(R)C N IS THE NU13ER OF CJNTOJU - T) 3F CO'1PUT:DC
PRiNTf"T/E R P(;. OI I) MD( CI& 1) ,AN) N( 9 CDNTOJ7k13READ ' 9I",1,)
C READ 4 VILIJ.L' F C kTf1s 'I3 ,UESTED IN R/HR 0 .
PRIN1 , '..: CNTrO11. VALUES=
C 1-EAD YIEL (rN T)FR ,TION OF YIFLO AS fISSION,
C WIN) (IN H' 4R)q ,D WT'Jr SHEA-' (C!, H--)PRIN1 -74E- YT cL R A CTICN 't Wl.' 7 L7 Li AND .;N? -i? "
PPINT' AEE # CF Jrs "
RE AD t,P T NT' , TE? N-S wIDTH OF F:ELF=R; 01, ,W=W/ 2.IF(M ..E1.) r'1T'"E1 - TIlE OF OUiATION=IF( ?A .C, .c r 9 ft T-)
C SC (SJUIC:'. A ,L _ ISTANT) YIELDS R OXR /H,I F( . , M E SS 2, + F F I Y 4
CC YI L D .E-'A. , = CU L !C H3 i." iL <'t -:-C SIGH ,-1 f, ; A ' ] ., "t 3T rj : 'Z
C TC I: i , 4C 'j' .-3I+,HC= I,.+I,,._-t L ' ( ') , y " ;;L ( f,-(yl' , 2 -,q:( _ SS +2,-2
SIGH! =j . H'4fr ,sIsr. y'(,* - rv', /3° - L .,+c:jL?' Y") -t Y")
C TC = 1. 7T(1?. C/ .- ' ,."Li. I .,)-(1.-. 'X-'
C SET -PFA P.'43 9:TA FQ 0Cr, C-LCU1. tTIONSAL=BT =
C IF THIS IS * ,SEG 1A02L-IC,,,SK 1 0 T .IF (ME-) re
PF 1T""F ,TE- ALP P AND 2ETAPEA3 ,9A.3
66
C 2O?'VcrT <I- OF: 'T 'LC ET":
C D E IVE "DNS T 7S rO C (T)00 ?5 J=2, ~
25 c c r rNU E
C (J- ?) = C C F(<,J26 rc ,4 r iN i
55 F0--4T ( FT :, LCULAT7GN-C V: THIS IS A JSFC- -L'IL'A1L77t T, PFIINT THAT
E.c IF ( 4En..) :1T 365 FORMAT 0 4ES- CtL LC'ILTT CN
P, NT .Ul T H - tuI:PRI' T 7., Y% P=
75 F (,-. 114 ~ 1- 1 N3~ *~r *~
P-, 4 2, L L, T82 FO 07 (1Y,, Y w % ~ 1': 4 AN; 'T~
$: NI D T VA I T I' D ~T Ai"~ C,(T) AN' CLL 17 **T?"8C6 CfLL GmtY
C FIN~D UC3L~t'tE I.T?2T' FY C-ILLIW; "UPHILL"CALL JPHILL
C RETURt' 4Ir-i V' UZ FPj T"!IF (E1O- .) 1070 12,
C FIND n04NSLCPF ITEFF-rTION BY VALLING ODWHILL"CALL OV-iILL
C RETUM4 AITH V LUZ F' TF*C DIVIT F 43T L1'4 1'4J) 2r-' IINURVALS
OT =(TF-TE)-,*+cC PRINT )%DLZ TITL'- F-) AFpPCf-;IT C, iL0JLATIOC4
IF I'M4 .)~'IJT?
I F ( 11~ .) , 7. TN 14- , - (K)F OF M IT( C: ;-i1 N ' F C ,7 . 1 , 13S9R L I''
C 1,OLPUT K &NI P;T P1<,y 'JAL IJ-, THI.S r.C X IS f!)WNW11.) OTTAIr Fitl-P 9(STSC Y IS OSW\C SYEF ,CM wJTLI':E
T FL Clr(1-11)"OT + T3Y(I) =v"
C =I ND r~3;7 T HE Hor L It. 1-U E AC14 STE:3 X(I)Y ( I) =7=A8S( ('(T)-W) /SlGY (XCI)))
67
c C U Me t2'RA4 L FJ NZ'rT 11V S 1 VE N ry.c Anx~r !F-, trEKJ.,1;. 2
F~i .1/( 24- (1*+ o' 9 5. 11 'Z I S~1jE- 7 - 7
FY= NfI/ (2 4)D=PC (T) /VX^ FY
IF( Mr's h E. I) T = >E )o F 90F7 3 N T H F 7 L 1 W I S G,'F TE T HA1 --- )FS D JC SCGO OC-J3WIt .n UNTIL ' "Zj-IU £jCSE-' TS IIT ERS:O T='.,
IF (r, C-T.9M< ) GO31, 1,Y(I)= .SOTO I1'5
C )ETE-t4lf01I Ct COF 3 -'W ' D I C ~E N EED EDC TO IftTRSECT 1)=-S I~ R ,CSE
41A)W=( W 43t9((T 3 ~
7=4 FE. ( (4-14) ZS% XI)
0=SCs G MT /P<' cy
y ( I) =
GO TIO il-
WRITA F(VIt?) y )Y()
C ORINT T47 FItL POTNT
12U c cNql 4u ESTOP
SUFC',JT~ s c I TTX
C 4XIt'UM G(T) 13 FOUND '1 T P.CIr.G GU)C TO ITS PEP< IN *I WO'J ECY O
DO 4 J=~~ IT = F - AT (J-i1 1Om (i) =5 (HIF (J.FC.1 ) r,)T3 4~I F ( D 1.J) LT ,l (J -1) ) GOCTO5
4 ecC"I INU E5 T",T-. I
RE T U F N
SUVRCJTI' JE JOHILL
CO-.MON Tr, S IS CE-ZI G;, Sq-SC VXtTTT,'ITFK, M, MrCO' CN NWW,TO
C TAIS iurROumrE FI'!E7S TH7 rOltT CN THF HOTLINEC CLOS--ST TC THE 9U: TS WETH-- O5SIDED CONTOURC DOSE' INTERPSECTS.CC TS= -1-9. IS~ &a LG TO IN3TCAT:: iHAT J=ii), IS LES3 TH~q ri
T8 = -SC TO=INITIAL TEMEE
TO = -3tT0)VIF (M.NE..) TO =3.
C SET DT FOR *4SEG (F,'4I T < '?SIGMJA)DT 1 1 133 (T C)Oh (i) = ,
DO 2 J=4,I.C SET OIT ZjR AFI- 09 RESET IT FOR WSEG
T r + DT
x =r~vx
FA=-Zo -F
I F ( ) ( J)..() .T
2 CONTIN4JER--TURN
C IVflEiPOLATE3 OLT =TC9J.V)/>()C(~)
TB=- -LTRET URNEND
69
CC -M.C~ V , T( f )f -1 r
C04 CN f. ,,W 1TC THIS --Ue: t~ 'M4- FL S 7H~ CIT 1, T(N 'T H ; H -oT LI4c FARTIEST Fk-)'A T HF rIJ ZT S WH E:. 7H-- DHS1- E[ 00- INTERS-,TS.C
JL =T4/.5 + 2,DO 4 J =J L '
T = -LOtl ( J -1 5
7 =,fSIGYK
FA=1 -F
FY=i q/ (2. W)W " 7DM (J) =SC C, GCT) / VX FY
IF ((K)*C-T.oo,( J) ) GOTO 0
C INTE -- OL -7 E
TF T -)LTRETURNEND
FWMCIUN ;(5)
C0O414ON TZp E~, sc, vXT~,Tl-1,Fj,KHM4
C THIS SUnFROUTIE"E CC,-PtJT:* G (T) FOF rIT OR WSE:G,
IF (SeLT..i) GCTC 3
C VFIT 'OMPUT'JIGNS
C P IS PAit1CLE R A j S T('N A ES)
* R=3if(~ +C( 2) fCzz* WL +(7M)&'~ 3)
C 0 CN V FRT H.57T E S T 0 '1 f,) 4S
C A IS ACTIVITf-5'i7E FJfTIDS
P ( A L C( ALOZ..A E xP(-5 spvrF /($: Rr 17,2 3) ~T R
70
CC OW/OT IS 0-t~VATI/- Or7
DFJ'DT 4 2 C 3F+'
RE T U NC
3 G='RET URN
cC WSEG ^:OhPUT-,rro,?,s
PHt=1, -1/(2 H"IF (X oLT2. FPR i .-0HT
RET URN
END
FUNI C TI1ON 3 1 3)
COwMOCN N, W -, 7 TQt
C THIS FUM,CTIAjs )t-WEFTS 91S7 R4-T TO 003EC USINS THE WY-WIGNLP AD-'XMATOIiC
TA=SIF(TA9LT. * ) 14=. iTE=TA+T[O
RET U'RN
FU CTION 31GYMXCOMMON V(.),9L ), 7 ),"f,,'?T
C THIS rUNCTI> 1 zJ 0tPJ~t-- SI , Yt tS p .c 3E,
TS= X/VXIF ( 7S.o5T . 3. ) T S=3 aTP=i,*+8.'r S/I CSIGY = SrRT(SIG) 2$1TR 4 (SIGSPRHY/'HP)
71
DIHE SICN, (2. A()C T-4IS --UNCTI J 'J S- T-' D 7 TA PF AND I NTERPOLATESC FO!, THE CC--'Fl"!E TS NI*--DED FO;. THE GIV:-N ALTITUDE 7<G
REWIrID N .O If TrI,251
nE ( ., 91. L) (A (I, J) J='Sj 0)
i F 'M T (F" 1i '. E 11 .')
IF(7K.LE. (Iti))GO TJ 1i10 CCTINUELi X?:A(I i)
X=A (-i ,L)YZ:A (I-, ?
COE F F (Y 'Y I X2^-Y )) 47K+((X 20Y i - :Y 2) (X2 -Xi))
RET URNEND
72
TABLE A. l
Glos;,irv of "'1Crm:s V;it!.V >111"I
INPUT PARAXIITERS
D (I) Contour value in close or dose rate
YM Yield of the weapons (in megatons)
FF Fraction of yield due to fission
VX Velocity of the wind (in miles per hour)
SHR Crosswind shear (in hours - 1 )
NN Number of bursts
W Width of the field (in miles)
TD Time of duration for dose computations
(in hours)
AL Alpha parameter from activity-size
distribution curve
BT Beta parameter from activity-size
distribution curve
WSEG-10 PARAMETERS
HtC Nuclear cloud height (in kilofeet]
SIGH Cloud thickness parameter
SIGO Initial cloud radius parameter
TC Time constant
SC Source normalization constant
73
_o i
T.\DLU_: .\ - I ((ott 0.)
CO 'U TAT I ON l'.," ',T
ZK Nuclear cloud height (in hilwiieters)
C(J) Coefficients for AFIT &t) conputation
DT Interval along hot line
TM Time of maximum g(t)
TB First time of occurrence of desired
dose on hot line
TF Final time of occurrence of desired
dose on hot line
T Time (in hours)
X Downwind distance (in miles)
Y Crosswind distance (in miles)
F Cumulative normal function
FY Crosswind distribution of activity
Q Dose or dose rate
A Crosswind mileage counter
MAXW Crosswind limit of computation
FUNCTION G(S) PAI',.T'T'RS
R Particle radius (in meters)
A Activity-size function
DRDT Change in particle radius with rcs,,-:'ct
to time
Pill Cumulative normal function
74
TABLtE A-2
Interactive InpIts
ENTER M (0 or 1), MD (0 or 1), AND N ( i CONTOURS) 1,1
ENTER CONTOUR VALUES = 1500
ENTER YIELD, FRACTION, WN'IN) LIVEL, AN) ,,IND S1 = 1 ,.5,35.1
ENTER # OF BURSTS = 4600
ENTLR N-S WIDTH OF FIELD = 190
ENTER TIME OF DURATION = 0
ENTER ALPHA AND BET.A 7,1.928
75
TALI 1: A 3
SapeOutput
Ii76
Vit a
John 1. Crand~c'v, Jr. was born on 25 Novcmlber 1951 in
Pitt sbuorigh , Pennsylvonia. fie g raduJat ed from M ilford Hi ;h
School in M',ilford, Connecticut in 1969, and attended the
U. S. Air Foxce Academy where he received the degrce of
Bachelor of Science (Chemistry) in June 1973. After grad-
uation, he attended Undergraduate Navigaitor Training at
Mather Ai~r Force Base, California, which no completed in
.May 197-1. lie then attended B-52 Bombing/Navigation School.
Ile was assignedl as a B-52G Nav-igator and Radar Navigator
between January 1975 and August 1979 at Gri-Ffiss Air Force
Base, New York. lie entered the Strategic arO Tactical
Sc iences pro~gram, School of Engineering, Ai-r Forc e Institlute
of Technolovgy, in August 1978.
Permanent Address: 350 Wolf 1Iarb'~r Road1
M~ilford CT 06460
77
UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATICN OF THIS PAE 'I$her, t tm I. r..p
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BRE CIL'TINCF
I. REPORT NUMBER .1 2. GOVT ACCESSION No. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATAL©G NUMtER
AFIT/GST/PH!81NI-1 IA
4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COvERED
A M4ultiburst Fallout ModelMSTeiMS Thesis
For Operational Type Studies 6. PERFORMING ORG, REPORT NUMBER
7. AUTHOR(s) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s)
John F. Crandley, Jr.
Capt USAF9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADRESS ID. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK
AF Institute of Technology (AFIT-EN) AREA & WORK UNIT NJMBERS
Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433
II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME: AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE
I March 198113. NUMBER OF PAGES
8314. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if different from Controlling Olffce) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report.
UNCLASSIFIED
1S. DECLASSIFICATION DOWNGRADINGSCHEDULE
16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, if different from Report)
18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Approved for Public Release; IAW AFR 190-17
21MAY 1981FREDERICK C. LYNC, Major, USAFTirertnr of PklIc Affairs
19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary ,d identifv by block nlumber)
Fallout MX
Multiple Bursts
20. ABS)IRACT (Continue on reverse ,tde :: nt-vce ,erv arid identify by olock number)
A method is devcloped for calculating fallout deposition down-
wind from a massive nuclear attack on a small target area over a
short time span. This is accomplished using existing smear codes
and replacing their exist.ng horizontal activity distribution with
an approximating function. This function is the difference between
two cumulative normal functions which arc shown to result from
superposition of individual bursts. A comrarison is made between(Continued on Reverse)
DD I JAN 7 1473 ED1ON OF I NOV 6S IS OBSOLETc UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF '.'IS PAGE Ihe,. Dlat f.,,te.ef
UNCLASSIFIEDER I-Y Cu ASSiFrCATION OF THIS PAGE(47,n Data Entered)
BLOCK 20: ABSTRACT (Cont'd)
the contours predicted by this new code and contours predicted bythe old, time-consuming, iterative procedures. The new code hasbeen emnloyed in several different scenarios involving theproposed MX field to determine the resulting dose contours from amassive attack against that field.
UNCLASSIFIEDSECURIT'Y CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGFI?,n Dar Fnfeed)
-.
. I
DATE
ILMED
