Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November 2007 1 The Buncefield Explosion: A benchmark for infrasound analysis in Europe L. Ceranna, D. Green, A.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Microwave remote sensing applications and it’s use in Vietnam

Advertisements

13 Nov 2001Infrasound Workshop, Kona Array Geometry and Signal Observations David A McCormack Head of Monitoring and Analysis Geological Survey of Canada,

Waveform Modeling and Comparisons with Ground Truth Events David Norris BBN Technologies 1300 N. 17 th Street Arlington, VA

THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Infrasound Technology Workshop, November 2007, Tokyo, Japan OPTIMUM ARRAY DESIGN FOR THE DETECTION OF DISTANT.

Audiovisual Test in Progress. Milton Garcés 1, Claus Hetzer 1, Douglas Drob 2, Robert Woodward 3, Henry Bass 4, David McCormack 5, Läslo Evers 6, Michael.

Statistical detection of meteor showers using data from the Swedish infrasound network Ludwik Liszka Swedish Institute of Space Physics SLU Umea,

Seismo-Acoustic data analysis at I34MN Mongolia - Songino Seismo-Acoustic data analysis at I34MN Mongolia - Songino RESEARCH CENTRE OF ASTRONOMY AND GEOPHYSICS.

Characterization of explosion signals from Tungurahua Volcano, Ecuador David Fee and Milton Garces Infrasound Laboratory Univ. of Hawaii, Manoa

The Temporal Morphology of Infrasound Propagation Douglas P. Drob 1, Milton Garces 2, Michael Hedlin 3, and Nicolas Brachet 4 1)Space Science Division,

Page 1 British Crown Copyright 2007/MOD Modelling Earthquake Generated Infrasonic Waveforms using a Fraunhofer Approximation at the Ground-Atmosphere Interface.

THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Infrasound Technology Workshop, 3-7 November 2008, Bermuda WIND NOISE REDUCTION AT IMS INFRASOUND STATIONS Douglas R.

Radio Interference Calculations

Global Broadband Arrays – a View from NORSAR Johannes Schweitzer and NORSAR’s Array Seismology Group Workshop on Arrays in Global Seismology May 15 – 16,

October, 2002 Infrasonic Signal Detection Using The Hough Transform D. J. Brown, B.L.N. Kennett, C. Tarlowski Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian.

Teleseismic Location find direction of signals based on Array algorithms backtrace ray paths through the earth simplifications: flat earth, plane waves.

Infrasound Case Studies Paul Golden Southern Methodist University ITW 2008 With contributions from Eugene Herrin, Petru Negraru, David Anderson and Breanna.

Infrasound Signals from Repeating Detonations at the Utah Test and Training Range Recorded in North America J. Roger Bowman and Gordon Shields Science.

Infrasonic Observations of Some Atmospheric Phenomena Ludwik Liszka Swedish Institute of Space Physics, SE , Umeå, Sweden.

Elizabeth A. Silber, Douglas O. ReVelle, Wayne N. Edwards, Peter G. Brown The University of Western Ontario Presented at the Bermuda Infrasound Technology.

June, 2003EUMETSAT GRAS SAF 2nd User Workshop. 2 The EPS/METOP Satellite.

Statistics of broadband transmissions through a range-dependent fluctuating ocean waveguide Mark Andrews and Purnima Ratilal; Northeastern University,

D McCormack, CTBT Infvrasound, KNMI Netherlands 29 October 2002 Towards Characterization of Infrasound Signals David A McCormack CTBT Verification Office.

DAM-Île de France Département Analyse, Surveillance, Environnement Infrasound workshop - The Netherlands - October 28-31, 2002 Infrasounds generated by.

Modeling the upper ocean response to Hurricane Igor Zhimin Ma 1, Guoqi Han 2, Brad deYoung 1 1 Memorial University 2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Modeling of Infrasound from the Space Shuttle Columbia Reentry Robert Gibson and David Norris BBN Technologies Arlington, Virginia, USA Infrasound Technology.

Detection, Propagation, and Modeling Infrasound Technology Workshop Bermuda, 2008.

Joint International GRACE Science Team Meeting and DFG SPP 1257 Symposium, Oct. 2007, GFZ Potsdam Folie 1 Retrieval of electron density profiles.

THE ANALYSIS OF THE INFRASOUND SIGNALS FROM MAY 12 EARTHQUAKE WENCHUAN CHINA Wang Xiaohang Signal Processing Department North China Institute of Computing.

CTBTO/IDC Infrasound Technology Workshop in Bermuda, 3-7 November Preparing the Return of Infrasound Data Processing into IDC Operations Presented.

Adaphed from Rappaport’s Chapter 5

Changes in the Performance of the IMS Infrasound Network due to Seasonal Propagation Effects David Norris and Robert Gibson BBN Technologies 1300 N. 17.

Gravity waves generated by thunderstorms E. Blanc 1, T. Farges 1, J. Marty 1, A. Le Pichon 1, P. Herry 1 1 Commissariat Energie Atomique DASE/LDG Bruyères.

Page 1 British Crown Copyright 2008/MOD Assessing the detection capability of the International Monitoring System infrasound network David Green and David.

Recent Applications of the Time-Domain Parabolic Equation (TDPE) Model to Ground Truth Events Robert Gibson and David Norris BBN Technologies Arlington,

Acoustic-gravity wave monitoring for global atmospheric studies Elisabeth Blanc 1 Alexis Le Pichon 1 Lars Ceranna 2 Thomas Farges 1 2- BGR / B3.11, Hannover,

Effective drift velocity and initiation times of interplanetary type-III radio bursts Dennis K. Haggerty and Edmond C. Roelof The Johns Hopkins University.

Infrasounds and Background Free Oscillations Naoki Kobayashi [1] T. Kusumi and N. Suda [2] [1] Tokyo Tech [2] Hiroshima Univ.

Systems Check. Milton Garces and Claus Hetzer Infrasound Laboratory, University of Hawaii, Manoa PMCC analyses of signals from the North American and.

1 Location and Characterization of Infrasonic Events Roger Bowman 1, Greg Beall 1, Doug Drob 2, Milton Garces 3, Claus Hetzer 3, Michael O’Brien 1, Gordon.

Infrasound from lightning Jelle Assink and Läslo Evers Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Seismology Division ITW 2007, Tokyo, Japan.

October The Woomera Infrasound and Seismic Experiment David Brown 1 ; Clive Collins 1 ; Brian Kennett 2 1. Geoscience Australia 2. Australian National.

Infrasound Technology WS – Bermuda, November 6 th, Microbarom signals recorded in Antarctica - a measure for sudden stratospheric warming? L. Ceranna,

ON EXPERIENCE IN USING THE PSEUDODIFFERENTIAL PARABOLIC EQUATION METHOD TO STUDY THE PROBLEMS OF LONG-RANGE INFRASOUND PROPAGATION IN THE ATMOSPHERE Sergey.

Atmospheric phase correction at the Plateau de Bure interferometer IRAM interferometry school 2006 Aris Karastergiou.

1 Description and Analysis of Infrasound Signals Recorded from the North Pacific Event of February 22, 2003 Joydeep Bhattacharyya 1, Claus Hetzer 2,Milton.

A Study on Characteristics of Seasonally Dependent Infrasound Propagation Based on the Ground-Truth Events from a Long- Term Experiment at a Quarry mine.

Toward Improved Infrasound Events Location Michael O’Brien 1, Doug Drob 2 and Roger Bowman 1 1 – Science Applications International Corporation 2 – Naval.

Analysis of regional infrasound signals at IMS infrasound array in Mongolia a RCAG/MAS P.O.B-152, Ulaanbaatar-51Mongolia b CEA/DASE BP12, Bruyeres-le-Chatel,

November, 2008 Bermuda ITW Numerical Simulation of Infrasound Propagation, including Wind, Attenuation, Gravity and Non-linearity Catherine de Groot-Hedlin.

Real-time infrasound localization on active Italian volcanoes E. Marchetti, M. Ripepe, G.Ulivieri and G. Lacanna Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università.

Validation of Satellite-derived Clear-sky Atmospheric Temperature Inversions in the Arctic Yinghui Liu 1, Jeffrey R. Key 2, Axel Schweiger 3, Jennifer.

1 Rosalia Daví 1 Václav Vavryčuk 2 Elli-Maria Charalampidou 2 Grzegorz Kwiatek 1 Institute of Geophysics, Academy of Sciences, Praha 2 GFZ German Research.

November 2007Infrasound Technology Workshop, Tokyo, JapanPage 1 Presented to: Infrasound Technology Workshop Tokyo, Japan PTS Experimental Infrasound Array.

Estimates of a relative delay time of signals through analysis of their forms Sergey Kulichkov, Aleksey Chulichkov Dmitrii Demin A.M.Oboukhov Institute.

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Listen to the Sounds of the Antarctic Atmosphere L. Ceranna, A. Le Pichon & E. Blanc BGR / B3.11,

Session 2 Summary Infrasound from Anthropogenic Sources S. Kulichkov & C. Szuberla Infrasound Technology Workshop Hamilton Parish, Bermuda 3 November 2008.

Milton Garces, Claus Hetzer, and Mark Willis University of Hawaii, Manoa Source modeling of microbarom signals generated by nonlinear ocean surface wave.

Detection of slow magnetoacoustic waves in open field regions on the Sun Dr. Eoghan O’Shea¹ Dr. Dipankar Banerjee², Prof. Gerry Doyle¹ 1. Armagh Observatory,

Seismic phases and earthquake location

Susan L. Beck George Zandt Kevin M. Ward Jonathan R. Delph.

Robert Gibson1, Douglas Drob2 and David Norris1 1BBN Technologies

Infrasound Technology Workshop, Bermuda Section 6

Refinement of Bolide Characteristics from Infrasound measurements

Fast Infrasonic Arrivals at the Long Distances from Explosions

Infrasonic detection of meteoroid entries

Supported by RFBR, project No

Preliminary Results of Localization and Characterization of Steady Infrasound Source as Detected by I31KZ A. Smirnov1, V. Kunakov1, A. Le Pichon2, J.

Summary of 2003 Infrasound Technology Workshop

Infrasonic observations of chemical explosions

Presentation transcript:

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November The Buncefield Explosion: A benchmark for infrasound analysis in Europe L. Ceranna, D. Green, A. Le Pichon & P. Mialle BGR / B3.11, Hannover, Germany CEA/DASE, Bruyères-le-Châtel, France AWE, Blacknest, United Kingdom

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Content   Infrasound recordings  Propagation modeling  Objectives  Conclusions PMCC analysis in the frequency range between 0.1 and 4 Hz Extraction of mean features: signal and wave parameters Empirical wind model HWM-93 Semi-empirical wind model NRL-G2S 1-D / 3-D ray tracing – propagation tables Comparing atmospheric models and propagation tools Explain multiple arrivals and lack of detection at some stations Source location with / without wind corrections Single station location Yield estimate Explaining fast arrivals

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November The Buncefield Explosion 11-Dec :01:32 (UTC) 51.78° N / 0.43° W (source: BGS) Hemel Hempstead, 40 km north of London vapor cloud blew up (~80,000 m 2 and 1 to 7 m thick, ~300 t) ‘only‘ 43 people injured further explosions at 06:26 & 06:27 generated infrasound recorded all over central Europe

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Recordings of Infrasonic Arrivals

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Infrasound recordings at Flers: 334 km ▼ microbarometer seismometer duration: 310 seconds, number of phases: 4

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Infrasound recordings at IGADE: 641 km ▼ duration: 397 seconds, number of phases: 5

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Infrasound recordings at I26DE: 1057 km duration: 644 seconds, number of phases: 6 ▼ microbarometer seismometer

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Infrasound recordings at UPPSALA: 1438 km ▼ duration: 454 seconds, number of phases: 5

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Infrasound recordings at LYCKSELE: 1806 km ▼ NO DETECTION

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Infrasound recordings at JAMTON: 2033 km ▼ NO DETECTION

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Infrasound recordings at KIRUNA: 2114 km ▼ NO DETECTION

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November HWM-93 wind model, 11-December :00 (UTC) radial wind 10 kmradial wind 40 km -20 m/s +20 m/s -50 m/s +60 m/s m/s 25°

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November NRL-G2S wind model, 11-December :00 UTC radial wind 10 kmradial wind 40 km m/s 30 m/s -30 m/s -130 m/s +90 m/s ▲ ▲

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Differences caused by the extreme wind conditions large differences in wind speed between HWM-93/NRL-G2S (20-70 m/s) tropospheric winds blow in different direction reception of Iw/Is to the SW/SE of London, predicted for NRL-G2S maximum differences in wind speed between individual receivers: ~20 10 km; ~60 40 km  Need for 3-D propagation simulations

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Phase Identification, e.g., Flers ray tracing (1-D τ -p) & WASP-3D phase identification using travel-time curves … and time-frequency analysis

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Interpretation / Extracting main features – HWM-93 δβ=-0.5° δβ=-1.6° δβ=-2.1° δβ=2.5° δβ=1.2° δβ=1.3°

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Interpretation / Extracting mean signatures – NRL-G2S δβ=0.5° δβ=-5.0° δβ=-13.5° δβ=0.2° δβ=5.5° δβ=12° δβ=-3.5° δβ=0° δβ=-0.4° δβ=-0.5° δβ=-0.2° δβ=0.5° δβ=7.5° δβ=5.8° δβ=7.5° δβ=0.8° δβ=2.5° δβ=6.5°

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Location Results (I) Location ConfigurationLatitudeLongitudeOrigin time 11/12/05 Δd [km] Δt [s] ground truth51.78° N0.43° W06:01:31 Infrasound Array Data Only βno model1st51.24°N1.72°E-161- multiple51.00°N1.54°E-162- HWM-931st51.61°N1.75°E-152- multiple51.40°N1.64°E-149- NRL-G2S1st51.65°N0.94°E-96- multiple51.89°N0.96°W-38- β & T I HWM-931st51.15°N0.71°E06:07: multiple51.05°N0.33°E06:05: NRL-G2S1st51.81°N0.96°W05:59: multiple51.80°N0.24°W06:01:

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Location Results (II) Location ConfigurationLatitudeLongitudeOrigin time 11/12/05 Δd [km] Δt [s] ground truth51.78° N0.43° W06:01:31 Coupled Seismic Arrivals Only T DS no model1st51.74°N0.41°W06:01:285-3 T DS & T SS no model1st51.68°N0.41°W06:01: Combined Infrasound Array Data & Coupled Seismic Arrivals β & T DS no model1st51.70°N0.95°W06:02: β & T I & T DS & T SS NRL-G2S1st51.70°N0.35°W06:01: multiple51.67°N0.40°W06:01: Single Infrasound Array Data: Flers β & T I NRL-G2Smultiple51.72°N0.58°W06:01:33122 Single Infrasound Array Data: I26DE β & T I NRL-G2Smultiple51.97°N0.68°W06:00:

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Single Station Location, Flers average 1-D profile (d ~ number of Is phases * 200 km) along average β 1-D travel-time curves 2-D grid-search (celerity and Δ), calculating T rms → [Δ, t orig, δβ] next iteration …..

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Single Station Location, I26DE N observations M travel-time curves at Δ origin time:

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Yield estimate StationFlersIGADEI26DE V D [m/s] A [Pa] max min P WCA [Pa] max min Y [t]max min median--33 [Whitaker et al., 2003; Evers et al. 2007] yield varies between 19 and 153 t HE 300 t vapor cloud → ~30 t HE

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Is (Is) 2 It Iw (Is) 4 (Is) 3 (Is) 6 (Is) 5 (Is) 11 (Is) 7 Iw Is (Is) 2 (Is) 3 (Is) 4 (Is) 5 (Is) 6 (Is) 10 (Is) 8 (Is) 9 Is Δ=5.8° IGADE Δ=9.5° I26DE Δ=3.0° Flers 2-D effective sound speed profiles Synthetic barograms – CPSM, NRL-G2S

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November Δ=5.8° IGADE 45 min Δ=9.5° I26DE 78 min Δ=3.0° Flers 25 min [km] 2-D effective sound speed profiles Acoustic wave propagation, CPSM

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November  The Buncefield Explosion was detected at almost all infrasound stations in central Europe  Signals from this explosion were also detected at 49 seismic stations as air- to-ground coupled waves.  All recordings are multi-phase signals (e.g. 6 phases at I26DE !!)  Data analysis and interpretation are demanding due to interfering signals with almost identical back-azimuths (Δβ < 7°)  microbaroms from the North Atlantic at German station I26DE  unknown arrivals directing to the English Channel  No signal detected in northern Sweden (Lycksele, Jämtön, Kiruna) although Is phases are predicted by HWM-93  Propagation simulations and ray tracing based on HWM-93 provide an extremely poor correlation between recorded and theoretical data, therefore, the obtained localization results show a large deviation from the ground truth Conclusions I

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November  Comparison between HWM-93 and NRL-G2S reveals large differences in the wind field with respect to speed (up to ± 80 m/s) as well as lateral heterogeneity (~60 m/s max)  Turning heights of It phases directed to station east of the source are >140 km, therefore, these phases are unlikely at I26DE, IGADE and Uppsala  Unusual atmospheric conditions: wide ranges of celerity for Is ( m/s); up to 300 m/s for It  3-D propagation tools are essential to solve problem of phase identification and calculate propagation tables  WASP 3-D ray tracer, Chebyshev pseudo-spectral wave propagation simulations, and NRL-G2S profiles, allowed to identify and label all recorded phases Conclusions II

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November  wealth of data (infrasound arrivals at both seismic and dedicated infrasound arrays) was used to analyze systematically location accuracy  set of parameter: back-azimuth, travel-time, propagation path  station distribution  homogeneous azimuthal distribution of recording receivers is dominant pre- requisite for highly accurate location results, irrespective of the model  single station location was also performed achieving reasonable results  Chebyshev pseudo-spectral wave propagation simulations using NRL-G2S profiles allowed to identify and label all recorded phases, even the fast arrivals at IGADE and Flers  due to the extreme wind conditions and the strength of the source double branching of Is phases was observed  yield estimate was performed showing a large variation between 19 and 153 t TNT-equivalent Conclusions III

Infrasound Technology Workshop – Tokyo, November We thank: IRF, the Swedish Institute Space Physics for providing the infrasound waveform data from the stations in Uppsala, Lycksele, Jämtön, and Kiruna D. Drob for providing NRL-G2S profiles C. Millet (CEA/DASE) for simulations L. Evers (KNMI) and R. Whitaker (LANL) for discussions Acknowledgement