DOE OSTI2013
Underground nuclear events result in electromagnetic signals near the event location. Of particular interest, because its signal can be potentially enhanced by the use of large cavities to decouple the seismic signal, is the generation of an EMP signal within the nuclear detonation (NUDET) cavity, from the formation of a bubble in the local magnetic field. This mechanism is equivalent to a buried time varying magnetic dipole. In order to model such signals Los Alamos National Laboratory is developing a detailed model for the propagation of RF signals from buried sources to nearby sensors, with a focus on sources that are magnetic dipole in character. In order to validate this code, models for simple geometries involving magnetic dipole sources have been implemented. These models represent the fields from vertical and horizontal dipoles in cylindrical coordinates, either in a uniform linear isotropic electrical medium, or in a space consisting of two half spaces interfacing at the plane z=0, with the upper half space having the electrical properties of free space and the lower half space having arbitrary linear conductivity and electrical permittivity. While primarily intended for the validation of the more detailed model, the shorter turnaround time of these models facilitates the study of the general properties of geomagnetic bubble signals. This report summarizes the theory and example results for those models. The use of the model for model validation is illustrated with the near and surface fields for dipoles with Gaussian time dependence. Also examined are the surface fields expected for the geomagnetic bubble predicted by the numerical model of Kovalenko et al for a 1 kt nuclear detonation. The model of Kovalenko et al was also rescaled to allow comparison with Zablocki’s electric field observations for Bilby, Event III, and Event V. While the rescaled Kovalenko et al model had approximately the right time scale for the duration of the main peak, and a slower fall than rise also in qualitative agreement with the observations, the predicted signals had very different polarizations, were too low by more than an order of magnitude, and had less temporal structure. A simple comparison with the vertical B field data of Sweeney, where the detailed event geometries and yields are classified, but the sensor range and bounds on the yields are given, suggest that the scaled Kovalenko et al model gives too small a peak field compared to observations for that data set as well, except perhaps for the Borate event. A companion report will give a detailed discussion of the implementation and code.