Conducted in support of the U.S.

Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Final Report

Noise Source Level and Propagation Measurement of

Underwater Detonation Training at the Silver Strand
Training Complex, Naval Base Coronado, Coronado, CA

Prepared By:
Alexander G. Soloway
Submitted to: Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Washington,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest Seattle, Washington
under
HDR Environmental, Operations and Construction, Inc. Peter H. Dahl
Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, Task Order 31 Applied Physics Laboratory and
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington
dahl@apl.washington.edu
Phone: 206-543-2667

14 January 2015
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Suggested citation:

Soloway, A.G., and P.H. Dahl. 2015. Noise Source Level and Propagation Measurement of Underwater
Detonation Training at the Silver Strand Training Complex, Naval Base Coronado, Coronado, CA.
Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(NAVFAC) Southwest, San Diego, California, under Contract No. N62470-10-3011 Task Order CTO OE31,
issued to HDR Inc., San Diego, California. Prepared by Applied Physics Laboratory and Department of
Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 14 January 2015.
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Service, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports,
1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
14-01-2015 Monitoring report 01 July 2013 - 31 August 2014
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
NOISE SOURCE LEVEL AND PROPAGATION MEASUREMENT OF N62470-10-D-3011
UNDERWATER DETONATION TRAINING AT THE SILVER STRAND
TRAINING COMPLEX, NAVAL BASE CORONADO, CORONADO, CA. 5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Alexander G. Soloway CTO OE31
Peter H. Dahl
5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

Applied Physics Laboratory and Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of REPORT NUMBER
Washington, Seattle, WA

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

Commander, U.S.Pacific Fleet, 250 Makalapa Dr., Pearl Harbor, HI

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT
On 13 and 14 May 2014, a team from the University of Washington conducted a set of measurements of the underwater
sound generated by explosive charges as part of a naval training event conducted in the Silver Strand Training Complex
off San Diego. Environmental measurements to support the acoustic research included measurements of sound speed
versus depth showing a thermocline, and sea surface directional wave measurements. This team was joined by
personnel from U.S. Pacific Fleet and HDR Inc., who conducted simultaneous observations of marine mammals.
Two underwater explosive charges (each 10 pounds [4.54 kg], C-4 explosive) were detonated each day, separated
temporally by about 3 seconds, and spatially by about 450 m. These underwater detonations are referred to here and
elsewhere as UNDETs. The resulting underwater sound was measured simultaneously by instrumentation aboard two
vessels at differing locations. This arrangement provided a measurement range span of approximately 400 to 1,700 m,
designed to obtain the key sound metrics of peak pressure and sound exposure level (SEL).
A mitigation zone is defined by a radius of 700 yards (640 m) centered at the UNDET source detonation site. One
UNDET event was delayed owing to the presence of a California sea lion in the mitigation zone prior to detonation;
however, operations resumed after a mandatory 30-min wait period, after which the animal was confirmed to be at a safe
distance from the charge location.
Key finding emerging from this study are as follows:
1) Measurements of peak (absolute value) acoustic pressure ranged from a minimum of 209 dB re 1μPa recorded at
1,651 m to a maximum of 222 dB re 1 μPa recorded at 358 m.
2) Measurements of sound exposure level (SEL) ranged from a minimum of 184 dB re 1 μPa^2-s recorded at 1,651 m to
a maximum of 191 dB re 1 μPa^2-s recorded at 358 m.
3) Both peak pressure and SEL depend on range from source and the above results are in reasonable agreement with
levels predicted by Soloway and Dahl 2014b.
4) Measurements of peak pressure as a function of depth at fixed range show levels varying by up to 4 dB over a 6 m
depth span. This dependence on depth is likely associated with the observed thermocline, an effect that will undergo
further study.
5) In terms of frequency content, it was found that 90 percent of the UNDET energy is contained in the frequency range
from 50 to 2,500 Hz.
The May 2014 San Diego sound measurement trial measurements make an important contribution to the catalogue of
measurements of underwater sound from small-charge underwater explosions made in shallow water, with this particular
contribution also influenced by a thermocline. Future work on this dataset will include the analysis of the effects of the
thermocline on peak pressure and SEL.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Monitoring, marine mammal, adaptive management review, underwater sound, underwater detonation, sound
measurement trial, Southern California Range Complex

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
ABSTRACT OF PAGES Department of the Navy
UU 42
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 19b. TELEPONE NUMBER (Include area code)
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified 808-471-6391
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On 13 and 14 May 2014, a team from the University of Washington conducted a set of measurements of
the underwater sound generated by explosive charges as part of a naval training event conducted in the
Silver Strand Training Complex off San Diego. Environmental measurements to support the acoustic
research included measurements of sound speed versus depth showing a thermocline, and sea surface
directional wave measurements. This team was joined by personnel from Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet
and HDR Inc., who conducted simultaneous observations of marine mammals

Two underwater explosive charges (each 10 pounds [4.54 kg], C-4 explosive) were detonated each day,
separated temporally by about 3 seconds, and spatially by about 450 m. These underwater detonations
are referred to here and elsewhere as UNDETs. The resulting underwater sound was measured
simultaneously by instrumentation aboard two vessels at differing locations. This arrangement provided
a measurement range span of approximately 400 to 1,700 m, designed to obtain the key sound metrics
of peak pressure and sound exposure level (SEL).

A mitigation zone is defined by a radius of 700 yards (640 m) centered at the UNDET source detonation
site. One UNDET event was delayed owing to the presence of a California sea lion in the mitigation zone
prior to detonation; however, operations resumed after a mandatory 30-min wait period, after which
the animal was confirmed to be at a safe distance from the charge location.

Key finding emerging from this study are as follows:

1. Measurements of peak (absolute value) acoustic pressure ranged from a minimum of 209 dB re
1μPa recorded at 1,651 m to a maximum of 222 dB re 1 μPa recorded at 358 m.
2. Measurements of sound exposure level (SEL) ranged from a minimum of 184 dB re 1 μPa2 s
recorded at 1,651 m to a maximum of 191 dB re 1 μPa2 s recorded at 358 m.
3. Both peak pressure and SEL depend on range from source and the above results are in
reasonable agreement with levels predicted by Soloway and Dahl 2014b.
4. Measurements of peak pressure as a function of depth at fixed range show levels varying by up
to 4 dB over a 6 m depth span. This dependence on depth is likely associated with the observed
thermocline, an effect that will undergo further study.
5. In terms of frequency content, it was found that 90 percent of the UNDET energy is contained in
the frequency range from 50 to 2,500 Hz.

The May 2014 San Diego sound measurement trial measurements make an important contribution to
the catalogue of measurements of underwater sound from small-charge underwater explosions made in
shallow water, with this particular contribution also influenced by a thermocline. Future work on this
dataset will include the analysis of the effects of the thermocline on peak pressure and SEL.

ES-1
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

This page intentionally left blank.

ES-2
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... iv
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1
2. BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................3
2.1 Peak Pressure ............................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Bubble Pulse Period................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Sound Exposure Level and Energy Flux Density ........................................................................ 5
3. MEASUREMENTS ......................................................................................................................7
3.1 UNDET Test Description and Acoustic Measurements ............................................................. 7
3.2 Environmental Conditions and Measurements ...................................................................... 11
3.3 Marine Mammal Monitoring................................................................................................... 13
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................17
4.1 Energy Spectral Density ........................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Peak Pressure .......................................................................................................................... 17
4.3 Experimental Errors ................................................................................................................. 21
4.4 Bubble Pulse Period................................................................................................................. 23
4.5 Sound Exposure Level.............................................................................................................. 23
5. SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................25
6. REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................27
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................29

List of Figures
Figure 1. Notional pressure-time history for an underwater explosion with the size of the gas
sphere is shown in relation to the explosion waveform (Figure adapted from Gaspin et al.
1979). .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. (a) Time history of an explosion and (b) the resulting time history of its cumulative
energy. Red lines indicated the start and end times of the window containing 90 percent of
the waveform energy. In the above (b) the first pulse at time 0 is from the direct water
arrival, while the other two pulses are a results of the bubble pulses. Data shown here are
from Soloway and Dahl 2014a. ........................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Map of test site for 13 May 2014, with the locations of Alexes and El Gato Dos (green,
labeled) in relation to the two UNDETs (red, numbered). A large-scale view is shown in the
top panel. ............................................................................................................................................ 8

i
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Figure 4. Map of test site for 14 May 2014, with the locations of Alexes and El Gato Dos (green,
labeled) in relation to the two UNDETs (red, numbered). A large-scale view is shown in the
top panel. ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 5. Time series of the two detonations on 14 May, separated by approximately 3 seconds, as
measured by the USLM hydrophone system on the El Gato Dos. .................................................... 10
Figure 6. Measurement instrument geometries for the Alexes and El Gato Dos. ...................................... 10
Figure 7. Sound-speed profiles collected from the Alexes 13 and 14 May, corresponding to the
times of the acoustic measurements on these days......................................................................... 11
Figure 8. Surface wave conditions during the 13 May 13 tests (at 1030 local time). Left panel:
directional wave spectrum showing the peak in the spectrum at 0.15–0.30 Hz originating
from 270°. Right panel: directionally-averaged spectral density. The RMS wave height is 0.19
meters. .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 9. Surface wave conditions in effect during the 14 May tests (at 10:30 local time): (left side)
directional wave spectrum showing the peak in the spectrum at frequency of approximately
0.1 Hz originating from 𝟐𝟓𝟎𝐨, (right side) directionally-averaged spectral density. The RMS
wave height is 0.16 meter. ................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 10. Summary of marine mammal observations on 13 May. A 600-meter mitigation zone
(red line) was maintained around the detonation locations to ensure no marine mammals or
sea turtles were present in this zone 30 minutes before each UNDET event. ................................. 14
Figure 11. Summary of marine mammal observations on 14 May. A 600-meter mitigation zone
(red line) was maintained around the detonation locations to ensure no marine mammals or
sea turtles were present in this zone 30 minutes before each UNDET event. ................................. 15
Figure 12. Energy spectral density for 13 and 14 May calculated from the Loggerhead system on
Alexes and El Gato Dos. Spectral resolution is 1 Hz. ......................................................................... 19
Figure 13. Peak pressure measurements plotted against scaled range (R /W1/3) for UNDETs
recorded from Alexes and El Gato Dos are shown with the predicted peak pressures from
Equation 1 (black line). ...................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 14. Peak pressures from May 2014 San Diego measurements (SD UNDET), September 2012
Virginia Beach MINEX Sound Measurement Trial (Soloway and Dahl 2014a), and previous
measurements of Arons 1954, Cole (data presented in Temkin 1988), and Murata,
Takahashi, and Kato 2002 with predicted peak pressure from Equation 1 (black line). .................. 21
Figure 15. Depth dependence of the peak pressure measured on 14 May from Alexes on the
Loggerhead system (blue circle) and the 9 hydrophones of the VLA (red x). ................................... 22
Figure 16. SEL measurements from the 2014 UNDET test (SD) and the 2012 Virginia Beach MINEX
trial plotted against the energy scaling parameter W1/3 R/W1/3 -2.12, compared with the
levels predicted by Equation (7) (black line). Measurements from VLA are not included
because of signal interference recorded on the VLA associated with the generator on the
vessel Alexes. .................................................................................................................................... 24

ii
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

List of Tables
Table 1: Marine mammal sightings in conjunction with UNDET monitoring, 13-14 May off San
Diego, California. ............................................................................................................................... 13
Table 2: Measurement range and depth summary for acoustic measurements from two vessels on
13 and 14 May 2014 off San Diego, California, along with summary of acoustic
measurements expressed in peak pressure and SEL. SEL not currently estimated from the
VLA on 14 May 2014 until a noise interference issue can be resolved. ........................................... 18
Table 3: Lower and upper frequencies (fL and fU respectively) within which 90% of the UNDET
energy is contained. .......................................................................................................................... 20
Table 4: Predicted and measured bubble pulse period. ............................................................................ 23

iii
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ao charge radius of explosive with spherical geometry
C-4 composition 4 explosive
c water sound speed (m/s)
dB decibel(s) upper cutoff frequency for type II functional hearing group
E energy flux density (Watt/m2 )
ESD energy spectral density
f frequency (Hz)
fL lower bound of frequency window containing 90% of the UNDET energy (Hz)
fU upper bound of frequency window containing 90% of the UNDET energy (Hz)
HOBO water-depth data-logger
Hz Hertz
kg kilogram(s)
MINEX Mine Neutralization Exercise
MMO marine mammal observer
m meter(s)
NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Ppeak peak pressure (Pa)
Pa Pascal(s)
R measurement range in meter(s)
rms root mean square
SEL sound exposure level (dB re 1 µPa2 s)
SOCAL Southern California
T integration period for sound exposure level (s)
TNT Trinitrotoluene explosive
UNDET underwater detonation
USLM underwater sound-level meter
VLA vertical line array
W charge weight (kg)
Z detonation depth (m)
Zo hydrostatic depth (m)
ρ material density (kg/m3 )
σP𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 standard deviation of the peak pressure
σR standard deviation of range
τ bubble pulse period (s)

iv
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

1. INTRODUCTION
Naval activities such as ordnance disposal, demolition, and a variety of training exercises can involve
detonation of small explosive charges in shallow water (herein, underwater detonations [UNDETs]). On
13 and 14 May 2014, a team from the University of Washington, along with experienced field biologists
from the Navy and HDR Inc., conducted a set of measurements of the underwater sound generated by
sub-surface explosions during a naval training exercise. The measurement site was located in the near-
shore waters of the Navy’s Silver Strand Training Complex portion of the Southern California (SOCAL)
Range Complex, off San Diego, California. SOCAL marine mammal observations were conducted
simultaneously with the sound measurements.

The goals of this work are to measure and quantify the underwater sound produced during this UNDET
training exercise; these measurements will in turn provide accurate ground-truth data to improve the
modeling of such sound for assessing potential impacts on marine life. To meet these goals, underwater
sound measurements of the UNDET events are presented with a focus on peak pressures, sound
exposure levels (SEL), and how these metrics compare with empirical models. A summary of marine
mammal observations during the UNDET events is also included.

A similar experiment was conducted on 11 September 2012 off the coast of Virginia Beach, Virginia
(Mine Neutralization Exercise Sound Measurement Trial conducted off the coast of Virginia Beach,
Virginia on 11 September 2012 [MINEX]). Results of this experiment are summarized in a report by
Soloway and Dahl (2014a), and for the purposes of consistency across Navy training ranges, portions of
that report are also presented here.

This report is organized into five sections. Section 2 presents a brief overview of underwater explosion
research, including semi-empirical equations for peak pressure from explosions, the calculation of the
SEL, and the calculation of the bubble pulse period. Section 3 presents a description of the UNDET
events involved in this study, acoustic measurement and marine mammal monitoring methods. Section
4 contains results, relevant discussion and application of these results (in a theoretical context) in terms
of Navy criteria for acoustic effects on marine mammals. A summary of the work is in Section 5.

1
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

This page intentionally left blank.

2
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

2. BACKGROUND
Portions of the following section originally appeared in the report, “Mine Neutralization Exercise
(MINEX) Sound Measurement Trial” Soloway and Dahl 2014a.

Chapman (Chapman 1985) provided a review and discussion of the general characteristics of
underwater explosions. During the detonation of an underwater charge, the explosive material is
transformed into a small sphere of gas at high temperature and pressure. As a result of the pressure
differential between the gas sphere and the hydrostatic pressure in the water, a shock wave is radiated
into the water. Following detonation, the gas sphere begins to expand outward resulting in a pressure
tail behind the shockwave that exponentially decreases in magnitude. As the bubble expands, the
pressure inside begins to decrease. When the pressure inside the bubble reaches the hydrostatic
pressure of the water, the inertia of the moving gas causes the bubble to continue to expand. This
continued expansion of the gas results in the pressure within the gas sphere falling below the
hydrostatic pressure. Eventually the gas sphere ceases to expand. With the pressure inside the gas
sphere now below the hydrostatic pressure, the bubble begins to contract thereby increasing the
internal pressure. Similar to the expansion process, the inertia of the gas bubble causes the pressure
within the sphere to increase past the hydrostatic pressure. This process of expansion and contraction,
collectively referred to as the bubble pulse, continues until the energy within the gas sphere has been
radiated into the water. A notional pressure history of the explosive waveform as it relates to the size of
the gas sphere is shown in Figure 1. The time between the shock arrival, Ppeak , and the peak pressure of
the bubble pulse P1 , is referred to as the bubble pulse period, τ.

Figure 1. Notional pressure-time history for an underwater explosion with the size of the gas sphere is
shown in relation to the explosion waveform (Figure adapted from Gaspin et al. 1979).

3
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

2.1 Peak Pressure

Peak pressure is a value indicative of the highest amplitude of a given sound and is a commonly used
metric to quantify underwater noise. Using experimental measurements of UNDETs collected during and
after World War II, a semi-empirical equation was developed for predicting the peak pressure from
underwater explosions as a function of range (R) and charge weight (W) to the one-third power, or
R/W1/3 (herein referred to as scaled range). Historically, the term “semi-empirical” has been used to
describe this peak pressure equation owing to the origins of this parameter in Kirkwood-Bethe
propagation theory (Kirkwood and Wood 1968) and geometric similarity (Cole 1948). The peak pressure
(Arons 1954) is given by

R -1.13 (1)
Ppeak = 52.4×106 � 1/3 �
W

where Ppeak is the peak pressure in Pascal (Pa), R the measurement range in meters (m), and W is the
charge weight in kilograms (kg) of 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT). It is important to note that this equation
was developed for TNT, due to its historical and continued use as the standard high explosive, and
assumes a spherical TNT charge of density 1,520 kg/m3 (Cole 1948). Using this equation, the peak
pressure for other high explosives can be predicted through the use of TNT-equivalent weight. While
originally formulated for spherical charges, the equation has been successfully employed for a wide
array of charge geometries (Wakeley 1977; Chapman 1985; Murata et al. 2002; Santos et al. 2010).

Note that as applied in environmental statuary regulations established by the National Marine Fisheries
Service, peak pressure is expressed in dB re 1 µPa. Therefore this conversion is carried out by
20log 10 (Ppeak ) + 120 dB, where Ppeak (in Pa) is taken directly from Equation (1).

While a full derivation of the Kirkwood-Bethe theory is outside the scope of this report, it has been
shown that the pressure in the water decays exponentially with time, and is dependent only on the
explosive material and the ratio of the range to the charge radius, R/ao (Cole 1948). The peak-pressure
4
equation assumes a spherical charge geometry where the charge weight is given by W=ρ πa3o where 𝜌
3
denotes the density of the explosive material. With this in mind, the ratio R/ao can be reformulated as

R R 4 1/3
= 1/3 × �ρ π� (2)
ao W 3
4 1/3
In the peak-pressure equation �ρ π� is absorbed into the 52.4×106 factor. Additionally, the Kirkwood-
3
Bethe theory supports the R-1.13 decay of the peak pressure with range, which is a somewhat greater
decay rate than the R-1 decay expected for spherical spreading of an acoustic wave (Cole 1948).

2.2 Bubble Pulse Period

Following the development of the peak-pressure equations, an analogous equation for the bubble pulse
period as a function of charge weight and explosion depth was developed. Specifically, this equation
predicts the time delay between the arrival of the shock wave and the first bubble pulse peak. Although
originally formulated using measurements of deep underwater explosions (Slifko 1967), this equation
has previously been applied successfully to shallow charges (Chapman 1985). The bubble pulse period is
given by

4
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

τ = 2.11×W1/3 Z-5/6
o (3)

where τ is the bubble pulse period in seconds (s) (Figure 1), and Zo is the hydrostatic depth in meters
(given by Zo = Z+10.1 m where Z is the detonation depth measured from the water surface). Unlike the
peak pressure equation, which is a function of scaled range, the bubble pulse period is a function of
charge weight and detonation depth, and should be consistent for measurements collected
simultaneously at multiple ranges.

2.3 Sound Exposure Level and Energy Flux Density

Sound exposure level is a measure of the sound energy accumulated over time, and is defined as the
time integral of the squared acoustic pressure:
T
SEL = 10 log10 �� P2 (t)dt� (4)
0

Where SEL is in units of dB referenced to 1 μPa2 s. SEL has become a useful metric to assess cumulative
noise exposure as it gives an indication of the total acoustic energy received by an organism and allows
for the comparison of sounds with varying durations (Southall et al. 2009).

A common approach to calculating the SEL is the 90 percent energy approach. Using this methodology,
the integration period, T, is the sample interval that includes 90 percent of the energy of the explosion’s
waveform. An example of this calculation is illustrated in Figure 2. When calculating the SEL in this
report, the 90 percent energy approach is used exclusively.

Closely related to SEL is the energy flux density, E, which is defined as the time integral of the squared
acoustic pressure divided by the density of the medium, ρ, and the sound speed in the water, c;
T
1
E= � P2 (t)dt
ρc 0 (5)

where E is in units of Watts/m2 , ρ is in units of kg/m3 , c is in units of m/s, and P has units of Pa. Similar
to the peak pressure, a semi-empirical equation has been developed for computing the energy flux
density of the explosive shockwave as a function of R and W (Cole 1948):
-2.12
R
E ∝ W1/3 � 1/3
�
W (6)

Given the similarity of Equations (4) and (5), an empirical equation for SEL has been developed as a
function of R and W using Equation (6) (Soloway and Dahl 2014b)
-2.12
1/3 R
SEL = 6.14 log10 �W � 1/3 � � + 219
W (7)

where SEL is expressed in dB re 1 µPa2 s. Additional information on Equation (7) can be found in Soloway
and Dahl 2014b.

5
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

(a)

(b)

Figure 2. (a) Time history of an explosion and (b) the resulting time history of its cumulative energy.
Red lines indicated the start and end times of the window containing 90 percent of the waveform
energy. In the above (b) the first pulse at time 0 is from the direct water arrival, while the other two
pulses are a results of the bubble pulses. Data shown here are from Soloway and Dahl 2014a.

6
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

3. MEASUREMENTS
3.1 UNDET Test Description and Acoustic Measurements
Measurements were conducted on 13 and 14 May 2014, at a site located two (2) kilometers from the
beach in the Silver Strand Training Complex part of the U.S. Navy’s SOCAL Range Complex. On each day,
two UNDET events occurred in rapid succession, with a delay of approximately 3 seconds between
detonations.

Acoustic measurements associated with these UNDETs were collected from two study vessels; the F/V
Alexes and El Gato Dos, both chartered sport-fishing boats of length approximately 11 meters. Alexes
was designated as the near vessel, positioned closer to the detonations (400–800 meters), and the
El Gato Dos was designated as the far vessel, positioned 1,300–1,700 meters from the detonations. The
Alexes was positioned approximately at the 22-meter isobath (notional depth from nautical charts) on
both days, and the exact water depth was determined to be 23.7 meters using the depth sounder on
Alexes. The El Gato Dos was also positioned on the same 22-meter isobath on 13 May, and on 14 May, it
was positioned farther offshore on the 26-meter isobath. The detonation sites and vessel locations for
13 and 14 May are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively.

All four explosive charges detonated underwater consisted of 4.54 kg of composition 4 (C-4) explosive.
The TNT-equivalence of C-4 is 1.34, thus each charge had an explosive equivalence of 6.08 kg of TNT.
The delay between detonations on 14 May is readily seen in the data measured from the El Gato Dos
using one of the acoustic measurement systems (the underwater sound-level meter [USLM]) that will
be described shortly (Figure 5). This example clearly shows the time delay between the two UNDETs
recorded that day with a similar relation applying to the measurements on 13 May.

Acoustic measurement systems deployed from the near vessel Alexes consisted of a vertical line array
(VLA), and a Loggerhead autonomous hydrophone recording device. The VLA elements consisted of nine
hydrophones (ITC 1032), spaced 0.7 m apart, with receiving voltage sensitivity ranging from -204 to -208
dB re V/μPa depending on the position of the hydrophone. Data from the VLA were recorded on a
multi-channel coherent data acquisition system (Astro-Med DASH-20) with each channel sampled at
62,500 samples per second. The autonomous Loggerhead system consisted of a self-contained data
acquisition and storage system (Loggerhead Instruments DSG) and a single hydrophone (HTI-96-min)
recording at 100,000 samples per second with a receiving voltage sensitivity of -220 dB re V/μPa.
Additionally, a 3-channel geophone system was attached to the bottom of the VLA. This instrument was
not part of the formal measurement plan and data from the geophone system are not included in this
report, as they require further analysis and interpretation. The long-term goal of the geophone system is
to examine acoustic particle velocity associated with UNDETs. Finally, the depths of the hydrophones
were monitored continually using two HOBO® data loggers.

Acoustic measurement systems deployed from the far vessel the El Gato Dos consisted of an identical
Loggerhead device, and a second single-hydrophone device that was assembled at the University of
Washington, referred to here as the USLM. It consisted of a single HTI-96-minute hydrophone recording
50,000 samples per second, with receiving voltage sensitivity of -205 dB re V/μPa. The vertical
measurement geometries associated with the Alexes and El Gato Dos are shown in Figure 6.

7
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Figure 3. Map of test site for 13 May 2014, with the locations of Alexes and El Gato Dos (green,
labeled) in relation to the two UNDETs (red, numbered). A large-scale view is shown in the top panel.

8
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Figure 4. Map of test site for 14 May 2014, with the locations of Alexes and El Gato Dos (green,
labeled) in relation to the two UNDETs (red, numbered). A large-scale view is shown in the top panel.

9
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Figure 5. Time series of the two detonations on 14 May, separated by approximately 3 seconds, as
measured by the USLM hydrophone system on the El Gato Dos.

Figure 6. Measurement instrument geometries for the Alexes and El Gato Dos.

10
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

3.2 Environmental Conditions and Measurements

The seabed in the immediate vicinity of the measurements is composed of unconsolidated, sandy
sediments (Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2013). Profiles of sound speed versus depth in the water column
were recorded from Alexes using a YSI CastAway Conductivity, Temperature, and Depth instrument,
which computes the sound-speed profile from direct measurements of conductivity (a surrogate for
salinity) and temperature as a function of pressure (a surrogate for depth). The water column at the
time of these measurements was characterized by a thermocline between the surface and
approximately 15 m, resulting in a sound speed that varied from 1,510 m/s near the sea surface to
1,492 m/s near the seabed, with sound speed in the bottom 10 meters of the water column being
approximately constant (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Sound-speed profiles collected from the Alexes 13 and 14 May, corresponding to the times of
the acoustic measurements on these days.

Sea surface conditions were measured using a Datawell Directional Wave Buoy deployed each day from
the El Gato Dos. Both days were generally characterized by relatively calm conditions, during which the
root mean square (RMS) wave heights were 0.19 meter (13 May) and 0.16 meter (14 May). Directional
wave measurements indicated that the dominant (low frequency) wave field originated from an
offshore direction, approximately from the W to WNW. The sea-surface wave measurements are
summarized in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively, and may be used in conjunction with more refined
acoustic modeling efforts in the future.

11
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Figure 8. Surface wave conditions during the 13 May 13 tests (at 1030 local time). Left panel:
directional wave spectrum showing the peak in the spectrum at 0.15–0.30 Hz originating from 270°.
Right panel: directionally-averaged spectral density. The RMS wave height is 0.19 meters.

Figure 9. Surface wave conditions in effect during the 14 May tests (at 10:30 local time): (left side)
directional wave spectrum showing the peak in the spectrum at frequency of approximately 0.1 Hz
originating from 𝟐𝟓𝟎𝐨 , (right side) directionally-averaged spectral density. The RMS wave height is
0.16 meter.

12
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

3.3 Marine Mammal Monitoring

Marine mammal observers (MMOs) were positioned on each acoustic monitoring vessel and conducted
visual monitoring for marine mammals and sea turtles during all four UNDET events on 13 and 14 May.
The MMOs monitored a 640-meter mitigation zone around the detonation locations to ensure that no
marine mammals or sea turtles were present in this zone 30 minutes before each UNDET event (Figure
10 and Figure 11). Four California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) were observed over the course of
both days, one on 13 May and three on 14 May (Table 1). The UNDET events on 14 May were delayed
by the presence of a California sea lion in the mitigation zone prior to detonation (Figure 10). Operations
resumed after a mandatory 30-minute wait period, after which the animal was confirmed to be at a safe
distance from the charge location. Two gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) sightings were made, one on
the 13th and another on the 14th. It is unknown if these were two different animals, or the same animal
both days. Given the very nearshore location, and the relatively small-sized individual observed during
each sighting, it is suspected that the sightings represented a single juvenile gray whale both days. The
gray whale sightings were approximately 5-7 km north of the UNDET locations. Common dolphins, most
likely long-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus capensis), were also sighted both days near Point Loma
and Coronado. A small sub-pod of common dolphins transited the mitigation zone on 14 May, but this
event occurred two hours prior to the UNDET that day.

Table 1: Marine mammal sightings in conjunction with UNDET monitoring, 13-14 May off San Diego,
California.

Date Time Common Name Scientific Name Number of Animals

5/13/2014 0904 Gray whale Eschrichtius robustus 1
5/13/2014 0920 California sea lion Zalophus californianus 1
5/13/2014 1110 Unidentified common dolphin Delphinus spp. 26
5/14/2014 0835 Gray whale Eschrichtius robustus 1
†
5/14/2014 0903 Unidentified common dolphin Delphinus spp. 32
5/14/2014 0930 California sea lion Zalophus californianus 2
5/14/2014 1030 California sea lion* Zalophus californianus 1
5/14/2014 11:32 Unidentified common dolphin Delphinus spp. 15
† Sighting occurred in the mitigation zone but nearly 2 hours before the UNDET events occurred
*Animal initially sighted in mitigation zone, operations delayed by 30 mins

13
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Figure 10. Summary of marine mammal observations on 13 May. A 600-meter mitigation zone (red
line) was maintained around the detonation locations to ensure no marine mammals or sea turtles
were present in this zone 30 minutes before each UNDET event.

14
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Figure 11. Summary of marine mammal observations on 14 May. A 600-meter mitigation zone (red
line) was maintained around the detonation locations to ensure no marine mammals or sea turtles
were present in this zone 30 minutes before each UNDET event.

15
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

This page intentionally left blank.

16
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results and discussion relating to the measurements of energy spectral density (Section 4.1), peak
pressure (Section 4.2), Experiment and Measurement Error (Section 4.3), bubble pulse period
(Section 4.4) and SEL (Section 4.5) will be presented with comparisons to predicted values discussed in
Section 2.

Note that the peak pressure and SEL (Table 2) from the VLA are currently not available for
measurements made 13 May, because of signal interference recorded on the VLA associated with the
generator on the vessel Alexes. This effect was reduced on 14 May by using an AC to DC power inverter
(Kisae Technology) connected to the engine battery that was purchased on the evening of 13 May. The
peak pressures from the VLA on 14 May were recovered and are presented in this report; however,
additional work needs to be done to recover the SEL. The 13 May data may be recoverable; however,
not before this report is finalized. The temporary absence of the peak pressure and SEL on 13 May and
the SEL on 14 May made from the VLA does not alter any conclusions due to redundancy in the data
from other recording systems operating simultaneously.

4.1 Energy Spectral Density

Given the transient nature of the explosion pressure signal, the signal’s spectral content is appropriately
conveyed by an ESD. Figure 12 shows the ESD for measurements made on 13 and 14 May using the
Loggerhead systems on Alexes and El Gato Dos.

The narrow spectral peaks revealed in the narrow band estimates (spectral resolution of 1 Hz) are
related to the time interference of the bubble pulses, and the overall ESD levels are highly dependent on
explosive charge weight and measurement range (Weston 1960; Kibblewhite and Denham 1970). An
analysis based upon the cumulative integration of each ESD over frequency shows that 90 percent of the
UNDET energy is contained within the approximate frequency range 50 to 2,500 Hz (Table 3).

4.2 Peak Pressure

Measurements of peak (absolute value) acoustic pressure ranged from a minimum of 209 dB re 1μPa
recorded at 1,651 m to a maximum of 222 dB re 1μPa recorded at 358 m. A measurement uncertainty of
+/- 3 dB has been estimated for peak pressure values, the derivation of which is discussed in the next
section. These results are compared with those predicted by Equation (1) in Figure 13 and are found to
have an RMS deviation of 3.4 dB. For additional context, data from the MINEX Sound Measurement Trial
are also included for comparison.

To better illustrate how the measured data compare to predictions, the SOCAL data can also be
considered in the context of historical measurements (Figure 14) including experimental results from
studies by Arons (1954), Cole (data presented in Temkin 1988), Murata et al. 2002, as well as the more
recent MINEX measurements (Soloway and Dahl 2014a). While the measurements from previous studies
correspond to varying charge weights, explosive materials, and measurement ranges, there is good
agreement between results from the various studies and the levels predicted by the peak pressure
equation. The historical data, not including the MINEX or SOCAL results, has an RMS deviation of 2.4 dB
with respect to Equation (1). Although the value is slightly lower than that originating from the SOCAL
measurements, in part due to sample size, overall, there is generally good agreement between the
levels from both the new and historical studies and the levels predicted by the peak pressure equation.

17
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 2: Measurement range and depth summary for acoustic measurements from two vessels on
13 and 14 May 2014 off San Diego, California, along with summary of acoustic measurements
expressed in peak pressure and SEL. SEL not currently estimated from the VLA on 14 May 2014 until a
noise interference issue can be resolved.

Test Measurement Depth Range Peak Pressure SEL

Date Vessel
Charge System (m) (m) (dB re 1 μPa) (dB re 1 μPa2 s)
1 Loggerhead* 12.3 512 216 189
Alexes
2 Loggerhead* 12.3 784 218 188
Loggerhead* 15.7 1255 215 186
13-May-14 1
USLM** 7.0 1255 215 187
El Gato Dos
Loggerhead* 15.7 1499 212 185
2
USLM* 7.0 1499 212 186
Loggerhead* 11.6 685 215 187
13.1 218 -
13.8 218 -
14.5 218 -
15.2 218 -
1
VLA*** 15.9 685 219 -
16.6 219 -
17.3 219 -
18.0 219 -
18.7 220 -
Alexes
Loggerhead* 11.6 358 218 191
13.1 217 -
14-May-14
13.8 218 -
14.5 219 -
15.2 219 -
2
VLA* 15.9 358 219 -
16.6 219 -
17.3 220 -
18.0 220 -
18.7 222 -
Loggerhead* 19.9 1651 213 184
1
USLM** 7.0 1651 209 184
El Gato Dos
Loggerhead* 19.9 1353 215 185
2
USLM** 7.0 1353 214 187
* Self-contained data acquisition and storage system (Loggerhead Instruments DSG)
** Universal Sound Level Meter
*** 9-hydrophone vertical line array

18
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Figure 12. Energy spectral density for 13 and 14 May calculated from the Loggerhead system on Alexes
and El Gato Dos. Spectral resolution is 1 Hz.

19
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Table 3: Lower and upper frequencies (fL and fU respectively) within which 90% of the UNDET energy
is contained.

90% Energy Range

Test and Vessel FL (Hz) FU (Hz)
13 May, Test 1 Alexes 69 2192
13 May, Test 2 Alexes 70 1251
13 May, Test 1 El Gato Dos 70 2087
13 May, Test 2 El Gato Dos 57 1963
13 May, Test 1 Alexes 74 1296
13 May, Test 2 Alexes 74 1421
13 May, Test 1 El Gato Dos 59 1842
13 May, Test 2 El Gato Dos 53 2563

Figure 13. Peak pressure measurements plotted against scaled range (R /W1/3 ) for UNDETs recorded
from Alexes and El Gato Dos are shown with the predicted peak pressures from Equation 1 (black
line).

20
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Figure 14. Peak pressures from May 2014 San Diego measurements (SD UNDET), September 2012
Virginia Beach MINEX Sound Measurement Trial (Soloway and Dahl 2014a), and previous
measurements of Arons 1954, Cole (data presented in Temkin 1988), and Murata, Takahashi, and Kato
2002 with predicted peak pressure from Equation 1 (black line).

It is also of interest to determine how the peak pressure varies with depth in the water column. The
peak pressure data (expressed in dB re 1μPa) recorded on the Loggerhead and VLA from the Alexes on
14 May are shown with respect to depth in Figure 15 For both tests 1 and 2, the peak pressure appears
to increase with depth. The variation between the highest and lowest recorded peak pressure for tests 1
and 2 is 4 dB, exceeding what is expected to be variation owing to hydrophone calibration (discussed in
the next section). We thus postulate that this variation is a result of the effects of the waveguide and in
particular, the sound velocity gradient associated with the thermocline (Figure 7). This effect was
identified in a previous study by Brockhurst et al. (1961). A future analysis of the data will involve a
detailed study of the acoustic propagation conditions in order to quantify this effect.

4.3 Experimental Errors

We identify two types of errors that establish error bars or the degree of uncertainty in our results when
expressed in decibels. The first (or component of variance) is the basic uncertainty associated with the
hydrophone calibration. Although all our systems are calibrated multiple times, this error must still be
assumed for any underwater acoustic measurement that depends on calibration. Using the
9-hydrophone VLA as test data for purposes of an in-situ evaluation this error we assume that
nearest-neighbor hydrophones are sufficiently co-located such that they effectively receive the same
signal and we can eliminate propagation effects. We find that the standard deviation of the difference of
measurements made from the set of paired-hydrophones is approximately 1 dB and take this value as
our estimate of this component of variation.

21
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Figure 15. Depth dependence of the peak pressure measured on 14 May from Alexes on the
Loggerhead system (blue circle) and the 9 hydrophones of the VLA (red x).

The second component of variance arises from the case of repeated measurements (of peak pressure
and SEL) from what we presume are identical explosive charges that detonate with equal efficiency. The
detonations in this case all arose from 4.54 kg charges; however, all from different ranges. By way of
Equation (1) we can scale measurements made at these different ranges to a constant reference range.
For this purpose, we use a reference range of 1,000 meters, and find a standard deviation of about 3 dB
using the results from the El Gato Dos, which was positioned closer to this reference range. Note that
scaling to another range using Equation (1) introduces additional uncertainty. This effect is evaluated
using standard techniques based on functions of random variables which in this case requires the partial
derivative of Equation (1) with respect to the variable range (R), taking absolute value, and multiplying
result by an expected standard deviation for R or σR which we take as 20 m, gives

6
𝑅 −2.13 1
σPpeak =1.13 �52.4 × 10 � 1/3 � � 1/3 �� 𝜎𝑅 (8)
𝑊 𝑊

where σPpeak is the standard deviation in peak pressure in Pascals. This uncertainty (which assumes no
variation in weight, W) translates to about 0.5 dB near range 1,000 meters and increases with
decreasing range. Thus, we view the estimate of 3 dB obtained from the range-scaling approach as an
upper bound to be associated with component of variance linked to detonation efficiency, and weight,
of presumably identical charges.

22
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

These two components of variance are clearly independent and thus combined by summing their
squared values and taking square root of the result yielding a value of 3.16 dB for which we settle on
3 dB in view of the upper bound nature of the second component.

Thus, error bars corresponding to +/- 3 dB are used for the measurements of peak pressure that are
expressed in dB in this report. Furthermore, a similar error analysis on the SEL data, and corresponding
Equation (7) for purposes of scaling, also yielded a final estimate close to 3 dB; therefore error bars of
+/- 3 dB will be applied to the SEL measurements.

4.4 Bubble Pulse Period

The bubble pulse period was determined from the auto-correlation of the measurement time series,
where the bubble pulse period was the time between the first and second peak values of the
auto-correlation function. The measured and predicted bubble pulse periods (from Equation 3) are
compared in Table 4. The results indicate good agreement between the measured and predicted bubble
pulse periods, with errors lower than four percent.

Table 4: Predicted and measured bubble pulse period.

Bubble Pulse Period (s)

Test and Vessel Range Error (%)
Predicted* Actual
13 May, Test 1 Alexes 512 0.2093 0.2076 0.81%
13 May, Test 2 Alexes 784 0.2093 0.2055 1.80%
13 May, Test 1 El Gato Dos 1255 0.2093 0.2076 0.81%
13 May, Test 2 El Gato Dos 1499 0.2093 0.2055 1.84%
13 May, Test 1 Alexes 685 0.2093 0.2089 0.22%
13 May, Test 2 Alexes 358 0.2093 0.2019 3.52%
13 May, Test 1 El Gato Dos 1651 0.2093 0.2082 0.54%
13 May, Test 2 El Gato Dos 1353 0.2093 0.2018 3.61%
*Predicted from Equation (3)

The bubble pulse period has been used in previous studies to estimate the detonation depth for a given
charge of known weight using Equation (3) (Chapman 1988). Applying this approach to the measured
bubble pulse periods, the calculated detonation depths are in excellent agreement with the 23.7-meter
water depth measured from the Alexes, and have a standard deviation of 0.5 meter.

4.5 Sound Exposure Level

The SEL measured from this experiment ranged from a minimum of 184 dB re 1 μPa2 s recorded at
1,651 m to a maximum of 191 dB re 1 μPa2 s recorded at 358 m. These results are compared with those
predicted by Equation (7) in Figure 16. For additional context, data from the MINEX Sound
Measurement Trial at Virginia Beach have also been included. Comparing the measured (SOCAL) data
and predicted values gives an RMS error of 2.3 dB. Overall, we believe that Equation (7) is an effective
tool for predicting the SEL. Furthermore, the predictive capability of Equation (7), a result of an empirical
fit to MINEX data, can be possibly be improved upon incorporating the SOCAL data set provided that
propagation effects (such as suggested in Figure 16) can be quantified.

23
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Figure 16. SEL measurements from the 2014 UNDET test (SD) and the 2012 Virginia Beach MINEX trial
-2.12
plotted against the energy scaling parameter W1/3 �R/W1/3 � , compared with the levels predicted
by Equation (7) (black line). Measurements from VLA are not included because of signal interference
recorded on the VLA associated with the generator on the vessel Alexes.

24
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

5. SUMMARY
On 13 and 14 May 2014, a team from the University of Washington conducted a set of measurements of
the underwater sound and key environmental parameters as part of Navy underwater detonation
training in the Silver Strand Training Complex portion of the SOCAL Range Complex.

Two underwater explosive charges were detonated (UNDETs) each day, both consisting of 4.54 kg of C-4
explosive. Measurements of the four UNDETs were collected at ranges between 360 and 1,650 m from
two vessels, Alexes (positioned closer to the detonations) and El Gato Dos (positioned farther from the
detonations), giving a total of eight locations (two locations for each UNDET).

Acoustic data were recorded from the Alexes using a 9-hydrophone VLA and a single-hydrophone
autonomous recording device, and from El Gato Dos using an identical single-hydrophone autonomous
device as well as a second single-hydrophone device, referred to as the USLM, that was assembled at
the University of Washington. Sound speed profiles of the water column were collected from Alexes on
13 and 14 May during the measurement period. The water column was characterized by a thermocline
resulting in a sound speed that varied from approximately 1,510 m/s near the sea surface to 1,492 m/s
near the seabed. Sea surface directional wave measurements were also collected (RMS wave heights
between 0.16 and 0.19 m) and will be employed for future modeling efforts.

The peak pressures measured during this experiment ranged from a minimum of 209 dB re 1μPa
recorded at 1,651 m to a maximum of 222 dB re 1 μPa recorded at 358 m. The SEL ranged from a
minimum of 184 dB re 1 μPa2 s recorded at 1,651 m to a maximum of 191 dB re 1 μPa2 s recorded at 358
m. These results are in reasonable agreement with the levels predicted by Soloway and Dahl 2014b.
Measurements from VLA show the peak pressure increases with depth and varies by up to 4 dB for
approximately 6 m depth span of the VLA. This depth dependence is likely an effect of the waveguide
and in particular, the sound velocity gradient associated with the thermocline. Additionally, analysis of
the energy spectral density of the measurements shows that 90 percent of the UNDET energy is
contained within the approximate frequency range of 50 to 2,500 Hz. During and immediately prior to
all UNDET events on 13 and 14 May, no marine mammals were observed within the mitigation zone,
defined by a radius of 640 m centered at the UNDET source detonation site.

25
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

This page intentionally left blank.

26
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

6. REFERENCES
Arons, A. B. 1954. “Underwater Explosion Shock Wave Parameters at Large Distances from the
Charge.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 26 (3): 343–46.
doi:10.1121/1.1907339.

Brockhurst, R. R., J. G. Bruce, and A. B. Arons. 1961. “Refraction of Underwater Explosion Shock
Waves by a Strong Velocity Gradient.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
33 (4): 452–56. doi:10.1121/1.1908689.

Chapman, N. R. 1985. “Measurement of the Waveform Parameters of Shallow Explosive

Charges.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 78 (2): 672–81.
doi:10.1121/1.392436.

Chapman, N. R. 1988. “Source Levels of Shallow Explosive Charges.” The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 84 (2): 697–702. doi:10.1121/1.396849.

Cole, R. H. 1948. Underwater Explosions. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.

Department of the Navy (Navy). 2013. 2012 Expanded Benthic Habitat Mapping for the U.S.
Navy’s Silver Strand Training Complex (SSTC) Boat Lanes, Coronado, California. Prepared
for: U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor, HI. Prepared by: Merkel & Associates, Inc., San
Diego, CA. Under Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest Contract Number:
N62473-10-D-0805 Contract Delivery Order: 26. February 2013.

Gaspin, Joel B., Jean A. Goertner, and Ira M. Blatstein. 1979. “The Determination of Acoustic
Source Levels for Shallow Underwater Explosions.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America 66 (5): 1453–62. doi:10.1121/1.383539.

Kibblewhite, A. C., and R. N. Denham. 1970. “Measurements of Acoustic Energy from

Underwater Explosions.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 48 (1B): 346–
51. doi:10.1121/1.1912134.

Kirkwood, John Gamble, and William W Wood. 1968. Shock and Detonation Waves. New York:
Gordon and Breach.

Murata, Kenji, Katsuhiko Takahashi, and Yulio Kato. 2002. “Measurements of Underwater
Explosion Performances by Pressure Guage Using Fluoropolymer.” Journal of Material
Processing Technology 85 (1-3): 0924–0136.

Santos, Manuel E. dos, Miguel N. Couchinho, Ana Rita Luis, and Emanuel J. Goncalves. 2010.
“Monitoring Underwater Explosions in the Habitat of Resident Bottlenose Dolphins.”
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128 (6): 3805–8.
doi:10.1121/1.3506378.

Slifko, John F. 1967. Pressure-Pulse Characteristics of Deep Explosions as Functions of Depth and
Range. NOLTR 67-87. United States Naval Ordnance Laboratory.

27
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

Soloway, A.G., and P.H. Dahl. 2014a. Mine Neutralization Exercise (MINEX) Sound Measurement
Trial. under Contract No. N62470-10-3011, Task Order CTO 03, issued to HDR Inc.
Norfolk, Virginia: Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic.

Soloway, A.G., and P.H. Dahl. 2014b. “Peak Sound Pressure and Sound Exposure Level (SEL)
from Underwater Explosions in Shallow Water.” Accepted to J. Acoustical Soc. America
Express Letters

Southall, Brandon L., Ann E. Bowles, William T. Ellison, James J. Finneran, Roger L. Gentry,
Charles R. Greene Jr, David Kastak, et al. 2009. “Marine Mammal Noise Exposure
Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 125 (4): 2517–2517. doi:10.1121/1.4783461.

Temkin, S. 1988. A Review of the Propagation of Pressure Pulses Produced by Small Underwater
Explosive Charges. Memorandum NRL-MR-6181. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

Wakeley, Joseph. 1977. “Pressure-Signature Model for an Underwater Explosive Charge” 27 (2):
445–49.

Weston, D. E. 1960. “Underwater Explosions as Acoustic Sources.” Proceedings of the Physical

Society 76 (2): 233. doi:10.1088/0370-1328/76/2/307.

28
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding and project management support for this study was provided by Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet ,
and NAVFAC Southwest. Valuable contributions to the preparation and field effort were made by Brian
A. Dickinson from the University of Washington, Thomas Jefferson of HDR, and Chip Johnson
(Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet). The assistance of the captains of the Alexes and El Gato Dos is also
acknowledged.

29
Conducted in support of the U.S. Navy's Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 2014 Annual Monitoring Report

This page intentionally left blank.

30