TABLE 4,1 - Comparison of BRL and SC Date
Distaneé
poy
f
peteta
‘,“Secgeemmtelecont,
seer,
4
ot
PRL Peak
(te)
3
e.
8.1 *
8,800
3.5%
10,900
12,200
2.36 #
1.8 #
2.2
2.0
14,300
1.3
1.7
11,460
13,310
13,396
14,500
15,900
30.5 #8
27s
20.0
ff
4.6 *
17,000
Pr
6
id
/ oy
AR
|
.
20.4 +H
16.8 #H
13.9 +
4,200
120.0 #H
5,200
5,270
59.5 +
5,900
7,620
958
8.0
1.02 **
4,18
fh \
pug
Sandia Peak
5,600
1,400
&
=|
tat)|red)
On
43.5 ##
|
22.5 #
i.o*
4.8
3d
92
16.6
14.0
75.0
50.0
43.0
23.0
13.6
(Uy # singlegage reading
oie of tvo gages
rage of three gages
of the agencies attempting tio]measure various paremeters.,
It was,
nevertheless, an ideal experjiment for checking present-day theory on
the attenuation of blast prdsbure to be expected from various yields
due to the Jiquid water conteht present in the air. The knowparameters are the peak overpressure +
s distance along a clear blast
line and rain blast line and the Jipta associated with the cleur blest
line.
The unknown “quantity being [the
in the air ag the shock vave passddj
in the air is expressed in terms of"
amount of liquid water present
through it.
Liquid water content
er
per cubic meter and the
symbol "c" is used to designate it in the}/equation to follow.
The approach used by Hartman, Pe
and Gauvin (References 5,
6, and 7) is based on the amount of ene
Jt takes to completely
evaporate the water present in the air,
redius of complete evaporation is defined in
iven radius. The
igrence 5 ag that
distance at which a shock having trevelled oid
usual fashion in
clear air will completely evaporate a drop of Never placed in itg
path.
The radius of complete evaporation does not mean the radius
within which all water would be evaporated if the char 3 were flred
in rain or fog. That radius is less than Ri since hep in or fog
the shock appears to come from a progressively smalle charge es it
moves out evaporating the water that is engulfed,
45
An empirical equa-