center for independent experts (cie) independent peer ... for independent experts (cie) independent...

1

CenterforIndependentExperts(CIE)IndependentPeerReviewReportoftheUnderwaterCalculatorandAssociatedDocumentation

Dr.MichaelAAinslie

September2016

2

ExecutiveSummary

Theauthorofthisreportwasaskedtoreviewanexcelspreadsheetknownasthe“underwatercalculator”(UWC,referredtointhebodyofthisreportas“UWC2”becauseitisversion2ofthecalculator)forestimatingthestrengthoftheunderwatersoundfieldinthevicinityofanexplosionintheseabed,andassociateddocumentation.Clearterminologyisessentialforeffectivecommunicationandthisreviewfocusesontheterminologyused.TheUWCandtheassociatedfinalreportwerereviewed.

TheUWCwasdevelopedbyidentifyingandthenimplementingempiricalcorrelationsbetweenacousticparameters(metrics)characterisingthefieldstrengthandinputparameterssuchastheexplosivechargemassandburialdepth.Themetricsarethencomparedwithriskthresholdsintheformofcriteriaforhearingthresholdshift,disturbanceandinjury.Thefindingsofthisreviewerare

- thecorrelationmethodusedisthebestavailablescienceforthisdifficultproblem;itisapplicablewithinvaliditylimitsthatneedtobespecified;

- themeaningoftheUWCoutputsisunclearbecauseofunclearterminology;- themeaningofthecriteriaisunclearbecauseofunclearterminology;- thereisariskthattheUWCoutputsarenotdirectlycompatiblewiththecriteria,

especiallywithregardtouncertaintiesintheEFDintegrationwindowandthedefinitionofthepressureimpulse.

Therecommendationsofthisreviewerare:

- specifyvaliditylimitsfortheUWC;- clarifyterminologyofUWC,especiallywithregardtoEFDintegrationwindowand

pressureimpulsedefinition;- clarifyterminologyofcriteria,especiallywithregardtopressureimpulse;- adoptinternationalstandardterminologyandSIunitsforscientificwork;whereitis

necessarytoconverttounitsoutsidetheSI,adoptasuitablenationalorinternationalstandardforthisconversion.

3

Preface

Iwasinvitedtoreviewasetofreportsdescribinganunderwatercalculatorwhosepurposeistopredictacousticmetricsassociatedwiththeimpactofexplosions,andassociatedimpactranges.Muchofmyreviewefforthasgoneintounderstandingthequantitiescalculatedbytheunderwatercalculatorandcomparingthesequantitieswiththerequirementsoftheacousticcriteriausedtoassessimpact.Muchofthiseffort,inturn,hasgoneintounderstandingtheterminologyusedbytheunderwatercalculatorandthecriteria.Thisreviewservestodocumentmyunderstandingoftheterminologyused;Ihopeithelpsothers.

4

1. Introduction

Thereviewofmetricsandterminologytookasubstantialproportionofthetimeavailable,suchthatonlythecalculatoritselfandthemainreport(Dzwilewski,2014)werereviewed.Therewasinsufficienttimelefttoreviewtheotherreports.

Twodifferentversionsoftheunderwatercalculatoraredescribedinthereportsmadeavailableforreview.ThepresentreportreviewstheExcelspreadsheet‘UWCVersion2.0-3Jan2014.xlsx’(henceforthabbreviated‘UWC2’)andtheassociatedreport(Dzwilewski,2014).Specifically,itcontainsthefollowingsections:

- Generalremarksonterminology- ReviewoftheUnderwaterCalculator(UWC2)- ReviewoftheUWC2report(Dzwilewski,2014)- Conclusionsandrecommendations- TermsofReference- Acknowledgements- References- Appendix1:Bibliography- Appendix2:StatementofWork- Appendix3:citedcorrespondencewithDr.P.Dzwilewski

5

2. Generalremarksonterminology

Theterminologyusedinthereviewedreport(Dzwilewski,2014)appearstofollowcloselythatofCole(1948).TheterminologyofCole1948isdatedandnotconsistentwithmodernnational(ANSI,2013)orinternational(ISO2016)standards,norwithMorfey’sDictionaryofAcoustics(Morfey,2000).Theauthorofthisreviewhasdonehisbesttodocumenttheterminologyusedbytheunderwatercalculatorandaccompanyingreport.

Asanexample,considerthemeaningof“energyfluxdensity”(EFD):

- Cole(1948)usesthetermEFDasasynonymoftime-integratedsoundintensity.Ifthisreviewerhasunderstoodcorrectly,theunderwatercalculatordefinesitinaslightlydifferentway,namelyastheratioofthesoundexposuretothecharacteristicacousticimpedanceofseawater.Thetwoquantitiesarethesameforlowamplitudesoundinthefarfield.Inthenearfieldandforhighamplitudesoundtheydiffer.

- EFDisdefinedbyANSI(ANSI1994,2013)asthe(time-averaged)soundintensity,inconflictwithCole’sdefinitionastheintegralofthisquantity.

- theEFDintegrationtimeisunspecified.

Aclearreportrequiresaclearlanguageandaclearterminology,andtheabsenceofalistoftermsusedwiththeirdefinitionsprovidedachallengetothisreviewer.Hehasrespondedtothischallengebyprovidingadetaileddescriptionoftheterminologyusedtohisbestunderstandingatthetimeofwriting.Manyoftheproblemsoriginateneitherfromthecalculatororaccompanyingreport,butfromambiguitiesinthecriteriathecalculatorseekstoimplement,andinthelanguageusedtodescribethosecriteria.

6

3. ReviewofUWC2

InthissectiontheExcelspreadsheet‘UWCVersion2.0-3Jan2014.xlsx’(abbreviatedUWC2),isreviewed.Thespreadsheetcarriesouttwotypesofcalculation.Thefirsttypeisthecalculationofacousticfieldmetricsrelatedtoimpact,suchaspeaksoundpressure;thesecondtypeisthecalculationofadistancewithinwhichaspecifiedimpactisconsideredtooccur.

3.1. ForwardcalculationThreequantitiesarecalculated(Figure1),theseare“PeakPressure”,“PeakImpulse”and“PeakEFD”,where“EFD”isanabbreviationforenergyfluxdensity.Thedefinitionsofthesethreeterms,asunderstoodbythisreviewerareshowninTable1.

Figure1–ScreenshowingUWC2forwardcalculationresultsfor50lbchargeatadistanceof220ft(wellconductorscenario).Alsoshownaretheback-calculationoftheimpactdistancesforapeaksoundpressureof23lbf/in2andone-thirdoctavebandsoundexposurelevelof182dBre1mPa2s.

7

Table1–Definitionsofcalculatoroutput,asunderstoodbythisrevieweratthetimeofwriting

term(andsynonyms)usedbyUWC2andDzwilewski(2014)

symbol definition notes

PeakPressurePm

𝑝!",! 𝑝!",! ≡ max𝑝 𝑡 ,where𝑝 𝑡 isthesoundpressure.

Theterm“peakpressure”isamisnomerforthisquantitybecauseitisnotequaltothepeakpressure.Amoreappropriateterm,usedthroughoutthisreport,is“peakoverpressure”.

PeakImpulseImpulse

𝐼!".! 𝐼!".! ≡ max 𝐼 𝜏 ,where

𝐼 𝜏 ≡ 𝑝 𝑡!

!

d𝑡

Strictlyspeakingthisquantityisthepeakpositiveimpulse,becausenegativesoundpressuresareexcludedfromtheintegral.Theterm“peakpositiveimpulse”isthereforeusedinthisreport.

PeakEFDEnergyFluxDensityEFD

𝐽!"! 𝐽!"! ≡lim 𝐽 𝜏!→! ,where𝐽 𝜏 ≡!

!!!!𝑝! 𝑡!

! d𝑡.

ThisdefinitionisfromDzwilewski&Fenton(2003).ItrepresentsadeparturefromthatofCole(1948),whichdefinesastime-integratedsoundintensity.Thetwoquantitiesareidenticalinthefarfieldandwhenamplitudesaresufficientlysmallfortheassumptionsoflinearacousticstohold.Theintegrationisassumedtotakeplaceovertheentirepulse.Theterm“energyfluxdensity”(abbreviatedEFD)isusedforthistermthroughoutthisreport.

Thecalculatorworksincustomaryinch-poundunits(IEEE,2004),henceforthabbreviated“CIPunits”.ConversionstoSIunitsareprovidedinTable2.TheequationsbelowareexpressedinCIPunitsforconsistencywiththecalculator.TheUWC2calculatorengineisimplementedinCIPunits,withconversionsprovidedtoSIunitsforsomeoutputs.

8

Table2–Conversionsbetweencustomaryinch-poundunitsandSIunits(source:IEEE,2004)

customaryinch-poundunit

conversiontoSIunit notes

poundforce,symbollbf

4.4482N unitofforceapproximateconversion

inch,symbolin 2.54cm unitofdistancedefinition(exact)

foot,symbolft 0.3048m unitofdistancedefinition(exact)

pound(avoirdupois),symbollb

0.45359237kg unitofmassdefinition(exact)

poundforcepersquareinch,symbollbf/in!

4.4482 N2.54 cm ! ≈ 6895 Pa unitofpressure,abbreviated

‘psi’poundforcesecondpersquareinch,symbol lbf /in! sorlbf s/in!

4.4482 Ns2.54 cm !

≈ 6895 Pa s

unitofimpulsederived

poundforceinchpersquareinch,symbollbf/in! in orlbf in/in!

4.4482 N2.54 cm≈ 214.5 Pa m

unitofenergyfluxdensityderived1Pam=1J/m2

Thepeakoverpressureatdistance𝑅!"feetiscalculatedbyUWC2as

𝑝!",! = 𝐾!𝑊!"

!!

𝑅!"

!!

lbf/in!,

where𝑊!" isthechargemassexpressedinpounds,and𝐾!,𝛼!arescenario-dependentconstants.Examplesareprovidedbelow,inTable3,forselectedscenarios.Thesymbollbf/in!representstheunitpound-forcepersquareinch(abbreviatedpsi),andisapproximatelyequalto6895Pa(seeTable2).

Table3–ValuesofKandausedbyUWC2forselectedscenarios

𝐾! 𝛼! 𝐾! 𝛼! 𝐾! 𝛼!openwater 23514 1.14 1.482 0.91 2659 2.04mainpile-TAR570 41976 1.836 1.622 1.292 3130.7 2.953wellconductor-TAR570

3221 1.339 1.3536 1.458 1004.6 3.082

9

Similarlythepeakpositiveimpulseandenergyfluxdensityarecalculatedusing

𝐼!".! = 𝑊!"!!𝐾!

𝑊!"!!

𝑅!"

!!

lbf/in! s

and

𝐽!"! =𝑊!"!!𝐾!

𝑊!"!!

𝑅!"

!!

lbf/in! in .

SeeTable2forexplanationsoftheCIPunitsusedintheaboveequations,andconversionstotheirSIcounterparts.Forexample,atdistance220ftfroma50lbchargemass(wellconductor–TAR570),theaboveequationsgive

𝑝!",! = 13.5 lbf/in!

𝐼!",! = 0.0128 lbf s/in!

𝐽!"! = 0.0124lbfin ,

consistentwithUWC2(seeFigure1).

3.2. Back-calculationInadditiontocalculatepeakoverpressure,peakpositiveimpulseandEFDforaspecifieddistance,thecalculatorprovidesacalculationoftheimpactdistancefortwoacousticcriteria:oneintermsofpeakoverpressure;theotherintermsofEFD.Theimplementedcriterionforpeakoverpressureis𝑝!",! > 23 lbf/in!,forwhichtheimpactdistanceis

𝑅! =𝑊!"!! 𝐾!𝑝!"#

!/!!

ft,

where

𝑝!"# = 23.

TheUWC2criterionforEFDis𝐿!/! > 182 dB,where𝐿!/!isthemaximumone-thirdoctavebandsoundexposurelevel.Thecorrespondingimpactdistanceiscalculatedas

10

𝑅! = 𝑊!"

!!!!! 𝐾!

𝐽!"#/!"

!!!

,

where

𝐽!"#/!" =𝐸!/ 𝜌!𝑐!lbf/in 10

!tot!" dB,

𝐸! = 1 µPa!s

𝑐! = 1500 m/s

𝜌! = 1025kgm!.

HereLtotisthetotal(broadband)soundexposurelevel.

𝐿!"! = 10 log!"𝐸𝐸!

dB,

whereEisthesoundexposure:

𝐸 = 𝜌!𝑐! 𝐽.

Itisconvertedtothecorresponding1/3octbandlevelbyanempiricalcorrelationfrom(Dzwilewski&Fenton,2003).Theresultofthecorrelation(seeFigure2)is

𝐿tot =𝐿!/! − 21.419 dB

0.8345 .

11

Figure2–Correlationbetweenmaximum1/3octaveSELandbroadbandSEL,fromDzwilewski&Fenton,2003.

Thiscorrelationseemstoprovideareasonablefittotheavailablemeasurements,butitsuseforextrapolationtoothercircumstancesisquestionable,asthespectrumingeneralwilldependonchargemass,distancefromtheexplosionandonscenario.However,thisreviewerunderstandsthatthe1/3octavecriterionisnolongerinusebyNMFS(personalcommunication,Scholik-Schomer,9August2014).

Examplesofselectedimpactranges,calculatedusingtheaboveequationsfor 𝑅!and𝑅!,areshowninTable4.SeealsoFigure3.

Table4–Tableoftestvaluesforback-calculationofRpandRJ.

chargemass

peakoverpressurepressure

1/3octbandSEL

scenario 𝑅!

𝑅!

50lb 23 lbf/in! wellconductor–TAR570

147.64ft

50lb 182dB wellconductor–TAR570

128.64ft

12

200lb 23 lbf/in! wellconductor–TAR570

234.37ft

200lb 182dB wellconductor–TAR570

237.24ft

50lb 23 lbf/in! openwater 1608.1ft

50lb 182dB openwater 1272.8ft

Figure3–ScreenshowingUWC2back-calculationresultsfor200lbcharge.Theriskthresholdsare23lbf/in2forpeakoverpressureand182dBre1mPa2sfor1/3-OctaveBandSEL.

13

4. ReviewofDzwilewski2014

4.1. Reportoverview

ThereviewedreportdescribestheimplementationandperformanceofthecalculatorUWC2,basedonempiricalcorrelationsbetweenchargemass,distancefromtheexplosionandseveralacousticmetrics.Theapplicationisexplosiveremovalofunderwaterstructures(piles).Thesepileshavediameterintherange36-48inandwallthickness1.0-1.5in.

Resultsarepresentedforexplosivechargemassintherange25-145lbandfordetonationsatdepthsbetween15-30ftbelowthewater-mudboundary,expressedas15-30“ftBML”whereBMLisanabbreviationof”belowthemudline”.

ThemeasurementsarefromPoeetal.(2009).

Thisreviewerfoundnoclearstatementdefiningtheterminologyused,whichmakesthereportdifficulttofollow.ThesamecriticismappliestotheacousticcriteriaimplementedbyUWC2,inthatthephysicalquantitiescorrespondingtothespecifiedthresholdsforimpactarenotdefined.

4.2. Selectedexamples

SomeexamplesofcorrelationsusedareshowninFigure4.InthesegraphsthestraightlinescorrespondtotheequationsinSec3.1forpeakoverpressure,peakpositiveimpulseandEFD.Formostcasesshownthecorrelationillustrateasatisfactoryfit.Asforanyempiricalcorrelation,thevalidityoftheresultingdatafitislimitedbytherangeofvaluesusedtodeterminethecorrelationcoefficients.SomeexampleswheretheempiricalcorrelationworkslesswellareillustratedbyFigure5.TheseexamplesarealltakendirectlyfromDzwilewski(2014),sothereaderofthatreportisadequatelyinformedofthesedepartures.Nevertheless,whatismissingisacleardescriptionofthelimitationsinthesenseofupperandlowerboundsforrange,scaledrangeandchargemass,withinwhichUWC2isdeemedtobevalid.

14

Figure4–Upperleft:peakoverpressurevsscaledrange𝑹𝐟𝐭/𝑾𝐥𝐛

𝟏𝟑 ;upperright:Scaledpeak

positiveimpulse𝑰𝐩𝐤.𝐜/𝑾𝐥𝐛

𝟏𝟑 vsscaledrange𝑹𝐟𝐭/𝑾𝐥𝐛

𝟏𝟑 ;lowerleft:ScaledEFD𝑱𝐭𝐨𝐭/𝑾𝐥𝐛

𝟏𝟑 vs

scaledrange𝑹𝐟𝐭/𝑾𝐥𝐛

𝟏𝟑 .

15

Figure5–Left:ThecalculatoroverestimatespeakoverpressureforABtests(50lbcharge,especially30ftBML)andunderestimatesforAtests(50lbcharge,15ftBML).Right:Thecalculator(magentaline)overestimatespeakoverpressureforwellconductor3(145lbcharge,30ftBML)andunderestimatesforwellconductor1(145lbcharge,25ftBML).

4.3. Criteria

Relevantacousticcriteriaarelistedinthereportonp30asFigure24,reproducedasFigure6below.

Thesecriteriaspecifythresholdsofphysicalquantities.Inordertoaddressthequestion“doesUWC2calculateappropriatephysicalquantities?”itisfirstnecessarytoknowthenatureofthephysicalquantityinvolveineachofthecriteria,butthisinformationisnotspecifiedinthecriterialisted(seeFigure6).Inordertoimprovehisunderstandingofthecriteria,thisreviewerenteredintodiscussionwithDr.A.Scholik-Schomer,andhisunderstandingofthesecriteriaafterthisdiscussionisdescribedinTable5.

16

Figure6–CriteriaattributedtoNMFS,aslistedbyDzwilewski(2014).

Table5–DefinitionsofthequantitiesusedintheNMFScriteria(Figure6),asunderstoodbythisrevieweratthetimeofwriting.Allstatementsinthistablearetentativeandinneedofconfirmationbytherelevantauthorities.

CriterionDefinition(verbatimfromFigure6)

quantity(symbol) CriterionasunderstoodbyMAAattimeofwriting

notes

Onsetofseverelunginjury(massofdolphincalf)

peakpressureimpulse=largerofpeakpositiveimpulseandpeaknegativeimpulse(𝐼!"):𝐼!"= max 𝐼!",!, 𝐼!",! Theintegrationwindowisthatwindowwhichmaximisesthemagnitudeoftheimpulse

𝐼!"> 31 lbf /in! ms

Thisinterpretationiscontradictedbythedefinitionof“impulse”onp3.0-46of(USN,2012)asthe“timeintegralofthe[firstandlargestpressurepeakabovestaticpressure]”,whichexcludesthepossibilityofrarefactionalpressures(negativesoundpressure)contributingtotheimpulse.Inaddition,inshallowwater,anddistancesexceedingafewwaterdepths,thefirstpeakisusuallynotalsothelargestone,makingtheUSN2012definitioninapplicableinthescenariosofrelevancetoUWC2.Seealsoarelatedstatementonp23ofAinslie(2012,p23).Theimpulseiscalculatedforbroadbandsoundpressure(unweighted).

50%animalswouldexperienceeardrumrupture

broadbandsoundexposurelevel(𝐿!"!)Theintegrationwindowisovertheentirepulse

𝐿!"! > 205 dBdBre1mPa2s

Thesoundexposureiscalculatedforbroadbandsoundpressure(unweighted).

17

Onsetofslightlunginjury(massofdolphincalf)

peakpressureimpulse

𝐼!"> 13 lbf /in! ms

TTSandassociatedbehavioraldisruption(dualcriteria)

zerotopeaksoundpressure,definedasthelargerofthepeakcompressionalpressureandpeakrarefactionalpressure𝑝!"= max 𝑝!",!,𝑝!",!

Forchargemasslessthan2000lb:𝑝!"> 23 lbf/in!

Forchargemassgreaterthan2000lb:𝑝!"> 12 lbf/in!

broadband(unweighted)soundpressure

TTSandassociatedbehavioraldisruption(dualcriteria)

one-thirdoctavebandsoundexposurelevel(𝐿!/!)

𝐿!/! > 182 dBre1mPa2s

The1/3octbandistheonethatresultsinthelargestvalueofSELforfrequenciesabove:10Hzformysticetes;100Hzforodontecetes.Wheninuse,thisthresholdwasforunweightedSEL,butithasbeensupersededbytheNOAA2016guidanceforwhichSELthresholdsareallweighted.

Sub-TTSbehavioral(formultipledetonationsonly)

one-thirdoctavebandsoundexposurelevel(𝐿!/!)

𝐿!/! > 177 dBre1mPa2s

Forbehaviourtheriskthresholdis5dBdownfromtheTTSthreshold–this5dBdifferencestillapplies,butnowfortheNOAA2016guidance.

18

ThepeaksoundpressureusedinthecriteriacouldbelargerthanpeakoverpressurecalculatedbyUWC2,leadingtounderestimateofimpactrange.Thiseffectisunlikelytobelarge.

ThepeakpressureimpulseusedinthecriteriacouldbelargerthanpeakpositiveimpulsecalculatedbyUWC2,leadingtounderestimateofimpactrange.

IftheintegrationwindowforEFDislessthantheentirepulse,thesoundexposureusedinthecriteriacouldbelargerthantheEFDcalculatedbyUWC2,leadingtounderestimateofimpactrange.

Considertheriskofunderestimatingthepeakimpulseinparticular.TheperceivedriskisaconsequenceofUWC2(tothebestofthisreviewer’sunderstanding–seeTable1)neglectingnegativesoundpressuresinitscalculationofpeakimpulse,whilethecorrespondingcriteria(again,tothebestofthisreviewer’sunderstanding)wouldrequirelargenegativesoundpressurestobeconsidered.ThebluecurveinFigure7illustratesthisriskbecausethemagnitudeoftheareaintheregionofnegativesoundpressure(38-41ms)seemsfromthisgraphtobegreaterthanthemagnitudeoftheareaintheregionofpositivesoundpressure(36-38ms).Onemightimaginebecausethebluecurveisweakerthantheredorblackones,thatitissomehowlessimportant.Infactthemagnitudeoftheimpulseinquestion,dependingonpreciselyhowitiscalculated,isontheorderofafewtensofpsi,preciselyintheregionrelevanttoinjury(forwhichthestatedriskthresholdis13 lbf /in! ms)andmortality(threshold31 lbf /in! ms).

Figure7–Timeseriesofthreeselectedshots(personalcommunication,Dr.P.Dzwilewski,20July2016).

Recallthatthecriteriathemselvesareunclear,andtheaboveconclusionisbasedonthisreviewer’sinterpretation,whichmighteasilybeincorrect.Further,theauthorofthe

19

reviewedreportwasprovidedprocesseddata,forwhichthischoicehasalreadybeenmade(personalcommunication–seeAppendix3).Theuncertaintyinthesuitabilityoftheimpulsemetricispartlyaconsequenceoftheuncertaintyinthecriteriaandpartlyaconsequenceoftheuncertaintyintheprocessingoftheinputdatadescribedby(Poeetal.,2009).

4.4. Unitsandtheirsymbols

ThereportandthecalculatoruseCIPunits,butdonotfollowinternationalstandardsymbolsfortheseunits(IEEE,2004).Examplesofnon-standardsymbolsinclude”lbs”(notlb)forpound,“’”and“””(notftandin)forfootandinch,respectively,“psi”or“Psi”(notlbf/in2)forpound-forcepersquareinch(psi)and“psi-msec”(notlbf/in2ms)forpsimillisecond.

20

5. Conclusions5.1. Limitsofvalidity

Thevaliditylimitsforinputvariablesarenotspecified,leadingtothepotentialforerrorifthemodelisusedoutsidetheselimits.

5.2. Presentation

Non-standarduseismadeofcustomaryinch-pound(CIP)units,requiringthereadertoguesstheintendedmeaning.(Inmostcasestheintendedmeaningisneverthelessclear).

5.3. Metricsandcriteria

Thedefinitionsofthemetricsusedareunclear,forboththecalculatorandtheNMFScriteria.Forexample,thetimeintegrationwindowsforimpulseandEFDarenotspecified.Theresultinguncertaintyleadstoapotentialriskofover-orunder-estimatingimpact.

TerminologyusedisnotconsistentwiththeAmericannationalstandardANSIS1.1-1994AcousticalTerminology,norisitconsistentwithanyinternationalstandardthisreviewerisawareof.

Theterminologyusedisdated,andnolongerusedinmainstreamscientificliterature,makingthereportsdifficulttofollow.Itwouldhelpthereaderifdefinitionswereprovidedofthetermsused,preferablymakinguseofamodernterminologystandard.

Lackofclarityinthecriteria,andspecificallytheabsenceofcleardefinitionsofthequantitiestobecomparedwiththevariousthresholdsstatedinthecriteria,leadstotheriskofover-orunder-estimatingtheimpactregion.Theresultinguncertaintyleadstoapotentialriskofover-orunder-estimatingimpact.

21

5.4. TermsofReference

Table6–UWCmodelimplementation

Termsofreference reviewerreply1. AssesswhetherornottheUWCmodelsufficientlyconsidersallrelevantbiological(e.g.,animaldistributionandmovement)andphysicalvariables(e.g.,factorsaffectingsoundspropagation)fordecommissioningactivities.

NobiologicalinputsareusedbyUWC2otherthanthecriteria.Iamnotqualifiedtojudgethecriteria.Thephysicalvariablesaresufficientlyconsidered,themostimportantonesbeingchargemassanddetonationdepthbelowthemudline.

2. Assesstheunderlyingassumptionsresultingfromscientificuncertaintyinestimatingacousticexposureforanimals(withanemphasisonseaturtles,butalsoodontocetes)withintheUWCmodel.

Themethodispurelyempiricalsotheonlyassumptionsarerelatedtothephysicalvariableschosenascorrelates,whicharesufficient.SeeToR#1.

3. AssessthemodelvalidityinrelationtofielddatacollectedbythePROPprogramforseaturtlesandrelevantscientificliterature.

ThoughnotavailableatthetimetheUWC2reportwaspublished,onehighlyrelevantpublicationthatshouldbetakenintoaccountforanyfutureworkisSoloway&Dahl2014.IamnotfamiliarwiththePROPprogram.ItcouldbethatitwasdescribedinoneofthereportsIdidnotreview.

4. AssesswhetherornottheUWCmeetstheEnvironmentalprotectionAgency’sCouncilforRegulatoryMonitoring(CREM)guidelinesformodeldevelopment.1. UWCModelImplementation• DoestheUWCmodelsufficientlyconsiderallrelevantphysicalvariablesinestimatingacousticexposure?Specifically,doesthemodel:

Seeindividualrepliesbelow.

i.Integratethenewinsitudatacorrectly?

Thenewinsitudatacomprisemeasurementsof“PeakPressure”,“PeakImpulse”and“PeakEFD”.Empiricalcorrelationsareobtainedthatenableestimationofthevariationofthesemetricswith

22

distancefromtheexplosionandchargemass.Thesecorrelationsareobtainedcorrectly.TotheextentIcanjudge,themeasurementsarecorrectlyintegratedinUWC2.

ii.Accuratelyrepresenttheacousticimpactzonesfromexplosiveuse?

Ifinditdifficulttoanswerthisquestion.Themainreasonforthisdifficultyisthepoorlydefinedterminology,bothforthemeasuredquantities“PeakPressure”,“PeakImpulse”and“PeakEFD”andforthecorresponding(unspecified)quantitiesusedinthecriteria.Myinterpretationsofthemeasuredquantitiesandthoseusedinthecriteriaareprovided,respectively,inTable1andTable5,bothtothebestofmyunderstandingatthetimeofwriting.Thequantitieslistedinthesetwotablesareverysimilarbutnotidentical.Themaindifferencesarisefromthetreatmentofnegative(rarefactional)soundpressures.Asageneralrule,themeasuredmetricsconsideronlypositive(compressional)valuesofsoundpressure,whereasthecriteriaapplytobothpositiveandnegativesoundpressure.Theneglectofnegativesoundpressuresleadstoariskofunderestimatingtheriskmetric,whichinturnrisksunderestimatingtheimpactvolume,especiallytheriskassociatedwithpeakimpulse.TheintegrationtimewindowforEFDisunspecified.Ifthechosenwindowdoesnotincludealltheenergyinthepulse,theEFDwouldbeunderestimated.

• Does(orcan)theUWCmodelcorrectlyconsiderthenecessaryparameterstoestimateeffectsonseaturtles(andmarinemammals)fromexposuretoexplosivesbasedoncurrentscientificknowledge,suchas:i. Water,depth,sizeoftarget,sizeofexplosives,locationofcharge(AML/BML)

Waterdepthisnotconsideredexplicitly,butiscoveredimplicitlybyuseofadifferentcorrelationforeachscenario.Idon’tunderstandtheuseof“target”in“sizeoftarget”.Ifitreferstotheunderwaterstructure,itssizeisnotaninputtoUWC2,norneeditbe.Thesizeoftheexplosivesiscorrectlycharacterised,intermsofthechargemass(althoughthequantityisincorrectlyreferredtoas“weight”).

23

Thelocationofthechargeischaracterisedintermsofdistancebelowthemudline(BML).

ii. Habitatuseandmovementofspecies(e.g.onsurfaceversusinwatercolumn)

Iamnotqualifiedtocommentonhabitatuseormovementofspecies.

• HowdotheUWCmodelresultscomparetobothfieldobservationsandthescientificliteratureintermsofzonesofinfluence?

Theempiricalcorrelationsderivedtofittheinsitumeasurementsprovideagoodmatch(withinquantifiablelimitsthatneedtobespecified)withintherangeofvaluesconsideredforwaterdepth,depthBML,chargemass,anddistancefromexplosion.Aswithanyempiricalcorrelation,theyshouldnotbeusedoutsidetherangeofparametervaluesusedtodeterminingthecorrelation.

• DoestheUWCmodelconsidertheappropriateacousticexposuremetrics?HowdothepredictiveoutputsoftheUWCmodelcomparewiththenoiseexposureguidelinesdevelopedbyNMFS?

ItishardtojudgethisbecauseneithertheoutputsofUWC2northequantitiesinvolvedintheNMFScriteriaareclearlyspecified.

• CommentonthestrengthsandweaknessesoftheUWCmodelingapproach,andsuggestpossibleimprovements(boththosethatcanbeaccomplishedbyimplementingthecurrentmodeldifferentlyandthosethatnecessitatechangesinthemodel)

Themainstrengthofthecorrelationmethodisitsrobustnesswhenusedforinterpolatingbetweenmeasurements.Themainweaknessisitsunreliabilityforextrapolationoutsidetherangeofvalidityoftheinputparametersvaluesthatneedtobespecified.Itcanbeimprovedbyspecifyingthisrange.Specificrecommendationsare:#1Specifythelimitsofvalidity:maximumandminimumwaterdepth;maximumandminimumdepthBML;maximumandminimumchargemass;maximumandminimumdistancefromexplosion.#2checkandclarifydefinitionsofmetrics“PeakPressure”,“PeakImpulse”and“PeakEFD”usedbyUWC2(seeTable1)andcorrespondingcriteria

24

(Table5).#3adoptSIunitsandISOstandardterminologyforscientificwork;whereitisnecessarytoconverttounitsoutsidetheSI,adoptasuitablenational(NIST,2006)orinternationalstandard(IEEE,2004).

• CommentonwhetheranyweaknessesintheUWCmodelwouldlikelyresultinover/underestimatesoftake(andthedegree,ifpossible)

SeethetextfollowingTable5inSec.4.3

25

Table7–CREMGuidelines

Termsofreference reviewerreplyThereviewersshallassesswhetherornottheUWCmodelmeetstheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency’sCREMguidelinesformodelevaluation,whicharesummarizedbelow.SomeofthepointslistedbelowwillhavebeenaddressedbythereviewersaspartoftheircommentsonTermsofReference1and2above.EachreviewershallensurethatclearanswersareprovidedfortheCREMguidelines,thoughextensiverepetitionoftechnicalcommentsisnotrequired.• Havetheprinciplesofcrediblesciencebeenaddressedduringmodeldevelopment?

Tomyunderstanding,thecornerstoneofcrediblescienceisthepeerreviewprocess,whichiswhatwearecarryingoutnow.Itcouldbethatpeerreviewtookplaceduringtheproject,andthisisaquestionforthosemoredirectlyinvolvedintheproject.PerhapsIhavemisunderstoodthequestion?

• Isthechoiceofmodelsupportedgiventhequantityandqualityofavailabledata?

yes

• Howcloselydoesthemodelsimulatethesystem(e.g.,ecosystemandsoundfield)ofinterest?

Thesimulationprovidesasufficient(fitforpurpose)representationofthemeasuredsoundfieldinwithinthelimitsofvalidity,whichneedtobespecified.

• Howwelldoesthemodelperform?

Seemyreplytothepreviousquestion.

• Isthemodelcapableofbeingupdatedwithnewdataasitbecomesavailable?

yes

26

6. Acknowledgements

IthankDrA.Scholik-Schlomer,DrD.Ketten,DrP.DahlandDrP.Dzwilewskiforvaluableandconstructiveexchanges.

27

7. References

Ainslie(2012)CurrentUSNationalMarin1eFisheriesServicecriteriaforassessingtheeffectsofunderwatersoundonmarinelife,TNOmemoNO-060-DHW-2012-04396,7December2012.

ANSI(1994)ANSIS1.1-1994AcousticalTerminology2

ANSI(2013)ANSIS1.1-2013AcousticalTerminology3

Cole(1948)UnderwaterExplosions,PrincetonUniversityPress,1948.

Dzwilewski,PeterT.(2014).ARAFinalreport–WaterShockPredictionforExplosiveremovalofOffshoreStructures:UnderwaterCalculator(UWC)Version2.0UpdatebasedonFieldData

Dzwilewski&Fenton(2003).ShockWave/SoundPropagationModelingResultsforCalculatingMarineProtectedSpeciesImpactZonesDuringExplosiveRemovalofOffshoreStructures,OCSStudy,MMS2003-059.

Finneran,J.J.,Schlundt,C.E.,Dear,R.,Carder,D.A.,&Ridgway,S.H.(2002).Temporaryshiftinmaskedhearingthresholdsinodontocetesafterexposuretosingleunderwaterimpulsesfromaseismicwatergun.TheJournaloftheAcousticalSocietyofAmerica,111(6),2929-2940.

IEEE(2004),IEEEStd260.1-2004IEEEStandardLetterSymbolsforUnitsofMeasurement(SIUnits,CustomaryInch-PoundUnits,andCertainOtherUnits),24September2004.

ISO(2016),ISO/DIS18405.2UnderwaterAcoustics–Terminology

Morfey,C.L.(2000).Dictionaryofacoustics.Academicpress.

NIST(2006)NISTSpecialPublication811,2008Edition,GuidefortheUseoftheInternationalSystemofUnits(SI),NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology,Gaithersburg,MD20899(SupersedesNISTSpecialPublication811,1995Edition,April1995)March2008

NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration(NOAA)2016,TechnicalGuidanceforAssessingtheEffectsofAnthropogenicSoundonMarineMammalHearingUnderwaterAcousticThresholdsforOnsetofPermanentandTemporaryThresholdShifts,NOAATechnicalMemorandumNMFS-OPR-55,July2016.1ThememoNO-060-DHW-2012-04396,writtenbythisreviewertoMrR.P.A.DekelingoftheNetherlandsMinistryofInfrastructure,summariseshisunderstandingofNMFScriteriaforassessingtheeffectsofunderwatersoundonmarinelife..2ANSIstandardcurrentatthetimeoftheworkbeingreviewed3ANSIstandardcurrentatthetimeofthereview

28

Poeetal(2009)EffectofDepthBelowMudlineofChargePlacementDuringExplosiveRemovalofOffshoreStructures(EROS),FinalReport,July,2009,WilliamT.Poe(ESI),CraigF.Adams(Consultant),

Soloway,A.G.,&Dahl,P.H.(2014).Peaksoundpressureandsoundexposurelevelfromunderwaterexplosionsinshallowwater.TheJournaloftheAcousticalSocietyofAmerica,136(3),EL218-EL223.

USN(2012)USNAtlanticFleetTrainingandTesting,draftEnvironmentalImpactStatement/OverseasEnvironmentalImpactStatement,4May2012.

29

8. Appendix1:Bibliographyofmaterialsprovidedforreview

9. PrimaryReviewDocumentTitles1.ARAFinalreport–WaterShockPredictionforExplosiveremovalofOffshoreStructures:UnderwaterCalculator(UWC)Version2.0UpdatebasedonFieldData

2.UnderwaterCalculatorVersion2

3.EffectofDepthBelowMudlineofChargePlacementDuringExplosiveRemovalofOffshoreStructures(EROS)

4.ShockWave/SoundPropagationModelingResultsforCalculatingMarineProtectedSpeciesImpactZonesDuringExplosiveRemovalofOffshoreStructures(OCSStudy2003-059)

5.PressureWaveandAcousticPropertiesGeneratedbytheExplosiveRemovalofOffshoreStructuresintheGulfofMexico

SecondaryBackgroundDocumentTitles

6.ImpactsoftheExplosiveRemovalofOffshorePetroleumPlatformsonSeaTurtlesandDolphins

7.UnderwaterBlastEffectsfromExplosiveSeveranceofOffshorePlatformLegsandWellConductors

8.UnderwaterBlastPressuresfromaConfinedRockRemovalduringtheMiamiHarborDeepeningProject

9.DeterminationofAcousticEffectsonMarineMammalsandSeaTurtlesfortheAtlanticFleetTrainingandTestingEnvironmentalImpactStatement/OverseasEnvironmentalImpactStatement

10.TheEnvironmentalEffectsofUnderwaterExplosionswithMethodstoMitigateImpacts

11.NMFSPROPReportsandNecropsyReports

Document DocumentType NumberofPages

30


1.ARAFinalreport–WaterShockPredictionforExplosiveremovalofOffshoreStructures:UnderwaterCalculator(UWC)Version2.0UpdatebasedonFieldData

PDF 35pp

2.UnderwaterCalculatorVersion2.0 ExcelSpreadsheet 1spreadsheet


PDF 71pp


PDF 41pp


PDF 72pp


PDF 10pp


PDF 147pp

8.UnderwaterBlastPressuresfromaConfindedRockRemovalduringtheMiamiHarborDeepeningProject

PDF 12pp


PDF 109pp

10.TheEnvironmentalEffectsofUnderwaterExplosionswithMethodsto

PDF 54pp

31


MitigateImpacts

11.NMFSPROPReportsandNecropsyReports(7incidents)

ExcelSpreadsheets(7),Word(2),andPDF

(2)

10pp+7spreadsheets

32

9. Appendix2:StatementofWork

StatementofWorkNationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration(NOAA)

NationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS)CenterforIndependentExperts(CIE)Program

ExternalIndependentPeerReview

UnderwaterCalculator(UWC)version2.0.

Background

TheNationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS)ismandatedbytheMagnuson-StevensFishery ConservationandManagementAct,EndangeredSpeciesAct,andMarineMammalProtection Acttoconserve,protect,andmanageournation’smarinelivingresourcesbaseduponthebest scientificinformationavailable(BSIA).NMFSscienceproducts,includingscientificadvice,areoftencontroversialandmayrequiretimelyscientificpeerreviewsthatarestrictlyindependentofalloutsideinfluences.Aformalexternalprocessfor independentexpertreviewsoftheagency'sscientificproductsandprogramsensurestheircredibility. Therefore, externalscientificpeerreviewshavebeenandcontinuetobeessentialtostrengtheningscientificqualityassuranceforfisheryconservationandmanagementactions.Scientificpeerreviewisdefinedastheorganizedreviewprocesswhereoneormorequalifiedexpertsreviewscientificinformationtoensurequalityand credibility.Theseexpert(s)mustconducttheirpeer reviewimpartially,objectively,andwithoutconflictsofinterest.Eachreviewermustalsobeindependentfromthedevelopmentofthescience,withoutinfluencefromanypositionthattheagencyorconstituentgroupsmayhave.Furthermore,theOfficeof ManagementandBudget(OMB),authorizedbytheInformationQualityAct,requiresall federalagenciestoconductpeerreviewsofhighlyinfluentialandcontroversial sciencebeforedissemination,andthatpeerreviewersmustbedeemedqualifiedbasedontheOMB PeerReviewBulletinstandards.(http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/pdfs/OMB_Peer_Review_Bulletin_m05-03.pdf).FurtherinformationontheCIEprogrammaybeobtainedfromwww.ciereviews.org.

Scope

TheBureauofSafetyandEnvironmentalEnforcementhavedevelopedatoolbasedonamodeltopredicttheeffectsofunderwaterexplosionsusedfortheremovalofoilandgasstructures.ThemodelingtooliscalledtheUnderwaterCalculatorVersion2.0(UWC).TheUWCwasdevelopedthroughafederally-sponsoredenvironmentalstudytomeasuresoundpressuresduringexplosiveuseanddevelopamathematicalmodel.ThedevelopmentoftheUWCwassponsoredbytheBureauofSafetyandEnvironmentalEnforcement(MMS

33

Contract0302P057572)whichresultedinthereporttitled“ShockWave/SoundPropagationModelingResultsforCalculatingMarineProtectedSpeciesImpactZonesDuringExplosiveRemovalofOffshoreStructures”(OCSStudy2003-059).Thestudyusedfieldmeasurementstoconductnumericalsimulationsofvariousexplosive,target,sediment,andmarineenvironmentsdeterminingthelevelofenergycoupledintothewater.Inaddition,aseparatefederal-sponsoredstudycalculatedtheexposuresofmarinemammalstoexplosivesusedfordecommissioningintheGulfofMexicowhicharefoundinthereport“ExplosiveRemovalScenarioSimulationResults–FinalReport”(MMSOCSstudy2004-064).

ThepurposeoftheUWCistoconductassessmentsofprojectsusingexplosivestoremoveoilandgasstructuresandtopredicttheeffectsandmitigationneedsforprotectedmarinespecies,primarilymarinemammalsandseaturtles.TheUWCneedstobebasedonsoundscientificprincipalsnecessarytoconductenvironmentalassessmentsunderfederalrequirements(e.g.,theEndangeredSpeciesAct,MarineMammalProtectionAct,andNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct).TheNMFSrequiresanindependentpeerreviewoftheUWCtoensurethatthedatacollectionmethods,analysis,principalsofacoustics,andnecessaryphysicalandbiologicalfactorshavebeenconsideredtoprovideasoundscientificmodel.TheTermsofReference(TORs)arebelow.

Requirements

NMFSrequiresthreereviewerstoconductanimpartialandindependentpeerreviewinaccordancewiththeSOW,OMBGuidelines,andTORsbelow.Thereviewersshallhavethecombinedworkingknowledgeandrecentexperienceintheapplicationofunderwateracoustics(especiallyexplosives),acousticmodeling,andseaturtlebiology.

Theunderwateracousticianorphysicistreviewer(s):

• shallhaveexpertiseandworkingexperiencewiththephysicsandprincipalsofthemodelingofunderwaterexplosives

• shallhaverelevantexperienceinthecalculationandrelationshipsofpeakpressure,impulse,andenergyfluxdensity(EFD)asitrelatestounderwatershockwavescausedbyexplosiveuse

Themathematicalmodelingreviewer(s):

• shallhaveexpertisewithunderwaterpropagationofacousticwavesandmodelingacousticexposuresofanimals

• ExperiencewithrelevantacousticmodelingeffortsdealingwithimpactstomarineprotectedspeciesandNMFSacousticcriteriaisdesirable.

Theseaturtlebiologistandmarinemammalreviewer(s):

• shallhaveexperiencewithseaturtles(primarily)andmarinemammal(secondarily)physiologyandtheeffectsofshockwaveinjuryinmarineanimals

34

• shallhaveexperienceinseaturtle(primarily)andmarinemammal(secondarily)habitatusageandbehavioralecology

Tasksforreviewers

• Reviewthefollowingbackgroundmaterialsandreportspriortoconductingthereview:

PrimaryReviewDocumentTitles


2.UnderwaterCalculatorVersion2




SecondaryBackgroundDocumentTitles



8.UnderwaterBlastPressuresfromaConfinedRockRemovalduringtheMiamiHarborDeepeningProject


10.TheEnvironmentalEffectsofUnderwaterExplosionswithMethodstoMitigateImpacts

11.NMFSPROPReportsandNecropsyReports

35



PDF 35pp

2.UnderwaterCalculatorVersion2.0 ExcelSpreadsheet 1spreadsheet


PDF 71pp


PDF 41pp


PDF 72pp


PDF 10pp


PDF 147pp

8.UnderwaterBlastPressuresfromaConfindedRockRemovalduringtheMiamiHarborDeepeningProject

PDF 12pp


PDF 109pp

10.TheEnvironmentalEffectsofUnderwaterExplosionswithMethodsto

PDF 54pp

36


MitigateImpacts

11.NMFSPROPReportsandNecropsyReports(7incidents)

ExcelSpreadsheets(7),Word(2),andPDF

(2)

10pp+7spreadsheets

• Participateintwo,half-daywebinarswithNOAA,BSEE,andotherpersonneltodiscussthetechnicalaspectsoftheUWC,termsofreference,andrelatedquestions

• ConductanindependentpeerreviewinaccordancewiththerequirementsspecifiedinthisSOW,OMBguidelines,andTORs,inadherencewiththerequiredformattingandcontentguidelines

PlaceofPerformance

Theplaceofperformanceshallbeatthecontractor’sfacilities.

PeriodofPerformance

TheperiodofperformanceshallbefromthetimeofawardthroughAugust31,2016.Eachreviewer’sdutiesshallnotexceed12daystocompleteallrequiredtasks.

ScheduleofMilestonesandDeliverables:Thecontractorshallcompletethetasksanddeliverablesinaccordancewiththefollowingschedule.

6/10/2016 Contractorselectsandconfirmsreviewers

Nolaterthan6/17/2016 Contractorprovidesthereviewdocumentstothereviewers

6/124–9/12/16 Eachreviewerconductsanindependentpeerreviewasadeskreview,includingparticipatingintwo,half-dayseminars

9/12/16 Contractorreceivesdraftreports

9/14/2016 ContractorsubmitsfinalreportstotheGovernment

37

ApplicablePerformanceStandards

Theacceptanceofthecontractdeliverablesshallbebasedonthreeperformancestandards:

(1)Thereportsshallbecompletedinaccordancewiththerequiredformattingandcontent(2)ThereportsshalladdresseachTORasspecified(3)Thereportsshallbedeliveredasspecifiedinthescheduleofmilestonesanddeliverables.

Travel

Sincethisisadeskreviewtravelisneitherrequirednorauthorizedforthiscontract.ODCsarenottoexceed$500.00.

RestrictedorLimitedUseofDataThecontractorsmayberequiredtosignandadheretoanon-disclosureagreement.

38

PeerReviewReportRequirements

1.ThereportmustbeprefacedwithanExecutiveSummaryprovidingaconcisesummaryofthefindingsandrecommendations,andspecifywhetherornotthesciencereviewedisthebestscientificinformationavailable.

2.Thereportmustcontainabackgroundsection,descriptionoftheindividualreviewers’rolesinthereviewactivities,summaryoffindingsforeachTORinwhichtheweaknessesandstrengthsaredescribed,andconclusionsandrecommendationsinaccordancewiththeTORs.

3.Thereportshallincludethefollowingappendices:

Appendix1:Bibliographyofmaterialsprovidedforreview

Appendix2:AcopyofthisStatementofWork

39

TermsofReferenceforthePeerReview

UnderwaterCalculator(UWC)version2.0.

1. AssesswhetherornottheUWCmodelsufficientlyconsidersallrelevantbiological(e.g.,animaldistributionandmovement)andphysicalvariables(e.g.,factorsaffectingsoundspropagation)fordecommissioningactivities.

2. Assesstheunderlyingassumptionsresultingfromscientificuncertaintyinestimatingacousticexposureforanimals(withanemphasisonseaturtles,butalsoodontocetes)withintheUWCmodel.

3. AssessthemodelvalidityinrelationtofielddatacollectedbythePROPprogramforseaturtlesandrelevantscientificliterature.

4. AssesswhetherornottheUWCmeetstheEnvironmentalprotectionAgency’sCouncilforRegulatoryMonitoring(CREM)guidelinesformodeldevelopment.

1. UWCModelImplementation

• DoestheUWCmodelsufficientlyconsiderallrelevantphysicalvariablesinestimatingacousticexposure?Specifically,doesthemodel:

i.Integratethenewinsitudatacorrectly?ii.Accuratelyrepresenttheacousticimpactzonesfromexplosiveuse?

• Does(orcan)theUWCmodelcorrectlyconsiderthenecessaryparameterstoestimateeffectsonseaturtles(andmarinemammals)fromexposuretoexplosivesbasedoncurrentscientificknowledge,suchas:

i. Water,depth,sizeoftarget,sizeofexplosives,locationofcharge(AML/BML)

ii. Habitatuseandmovementofspecies(e.g.onsurfaceversusinwatercolumn)

• HowdotheUWCmodelresultscomparetobothfieldobservationsandthescientificliteratureintermsofzonesofinfluence?

• DoestheUWCmodelconsidertheappropriateacousticexposuremetrics?HowdothepredictiveoutputsoftheUWCmodelcomparewiththenoiseexposureguidelinesdevelopedbyNMFS?

• CommentonthestrengthsandweaknessesoftheUWCmodelingapproach,andsuggestpossibleimprovements(boththosethatcanbeaccomplishedbyimplementingthecurrentmodeldifferentlyandthosethatnecessitatechangesinthemodel)

• CommentonwhetheranyweaknessesintheUWCmodelwouldlikelyresultinover/underestimatesoftake(andthedegree,ifpossible)

2. CREMGuidelinesThereviewersshallassesswhetherornottheUWCmodelmeetstheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency’sCREMguidelinesformodelevaluation,whicharesummarizedbelow.

40

SomeofthepointslistedbelowwillhavebeenaddressedbythereviewersaspartoftheircommentsonTermsofReference1and2above.EachreviewershallensurethatclearanswersareprovidedfortheCREMguidelines,thoughextensiverepetitionoftechnicalcommentsisnotrequired.

• Havetheprinciplesofcrediblesciencebeenaddressedduringmodeldevelopment?• Isthechoiceofmodelsupportedgiventhequantityandqualityofavailabledata?• Howcloselydoesthemodelsimulatethesystem(e.g.,ecosystemandsoundfield)of

interest?• Howwelldoesthemodelperform?• Isthemodelcapableofbeingupdatedwithnewdataasitbecomesavailable?

41

10. Appendix3:CitedcorrespondencewithDr.P.Dzwilewskiemail2016-07-20fromP.Dzwilewskitoall:“TogiveyouanideaofthecharacterofthemeasuredpressuretimehistoriesfromTAR570(thedatausedforUnderwaterCalculator2),Iattachedaplotthathasthreerawrecords(3slantranges).Thepeakpressuresfromtheseplotsare3ofthe10datapointsplottedinFigure3ofmyUnderwaterCalculator2report.Thespecificsofthetestare:36-InchDiameter,1-inchWallThicknessPile,80Lb.CompBExplosive,5mbelowmudline.WestillneedtofindouthowtheauthorsofthereportcalculatedtheimpulseandEFDvaluesthattheyreported.Jonathanvolunteeredtotrackthisdownforus.IcouldtrysomethingsbutIdecidedagainstthisapproachasIwouldonlybeguessing.”

42

email2016-07-22fromP.DzwilewskitoP.Dahl(ccall):“Ididnotdomuchwiththepressuretimehistories.Ijustusedthetabulatedpeaks.Therewasnotimetostudythedata.Thiswasaverysmallproject:Iplottedthedata,didtheanalysis,developedtheUnderwaterCalculator,andwrotethefinalreportin60hours.AsIremember,Ionlyplotteddatafromthe2008file.Atthetopofthefile,thereisarecordingintervaltimegiven,labeledHResolution,withavalueof2e-6seconds.Hoffestisprobablyamisspelling,couldbeHoffset,Ibelieve.Idonotknowwhatthatmeans.Couldbeapretriggertimeandmayhavebeenusedtodefinethetimezeroforthedetonationevent.Ithinkthatyouarecorrectinyourinterpretationof"A_R25D10",whichisthegaugedesignation.Ineverlookedatthe2003file,sonotsurehow"time"washandled.ThespreadsheetIemailedearliertodaygivesexplosiveweight,detonationlocationbelowthemudline,andslantrangesforthevariousgaugesforeachtestforthe2007and2008tests.”

center for independent experts (cie) independent peer ... for independent experts (cie) independent...

Documents