AM 1 U L-TR-65-196

EFFECTS OF SONIC BOOM ON PEOPLE:ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, 1961-1962

CHARLES W. NIXON, PhD

AEROSPACE MEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES

PAUL N. BORSKY

NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER

MAY 1966 -

Distribution of this documentLisunimited

AEROSPACE MEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORIESAEROSPACE MEDICAL DIVISIONAIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND

WLIGHT.PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, 01110

v On

NOTICES

When US Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used for anypurpose other than a definitely related Government procurement operation, theGovernment thereby incurs no responsibility nor any obligation whatsoever,and the fact that the Government may have formulated, furnished, or in anyway supplied the said drawings, specifications, or other data, is not to beregarded by implication or otherwise, as in any manner licensing the holderor any other person or corporation, or conveying any rights or permission tomanufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any way berelated thereto.

Qualified requesters may obtain copies from the Defense DocumentationCenter (DDC), Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Orders willbe expedited if placed through the librarian or other person designated torequest documents from DDC (formerly ASTIA).

This report may be reproduced to satisfy needs of US Government agencies,No other reproduction is authorized except with permission of The journalof the Aco.stical Society of America, 335 E. 45 St., New York, N.Y. 10017.

100 - January 1967 - C0192-1&-364j - .1

Received 31 November 1965 S8 7.10

Effects of Sonic Boom on People: St. Louis, Missouri, 1961-1962*

CARALES W. NLxoN

Aerspace Medical Research Laborakories, Aerospace Medical Division, Air Force Systems Command,Wrighl-Paaierscn Air Force Base, Ohio

PAr. N. BORSKv

National Opinion Research Cenle, TAe Uniw'sily of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

rhe vicinity of St. Louis, Missouri, was exposed to approximately 150 sonic booms during a 10-monthperiod from July 1961 to April 1962. Ground overpreseures, ranging up to about 3 lb/sq ft, were carefullymeasured for a series of 17 of the supersonic flights. Data obtained from over 2300 direct interviews, analy-ses of complaints, and engineering evaluations of alleged damage were related to information on aircraftoperations and sonic-boom overpressure measurements. Most residents interviewed indicated some inter-ference with routine living activities, yet less than 1% filed formal complaints. Alleged building damagewas superficial in nature and consisted mostly of cracks in brittle surfaces. There were no reports of directadverse physiological effects.

INTRODUCTION missions over populated as well as unpopulated regions.

M YSTERIOUS "explosivelike" sounds experienced The impact of sonic boom wa demonstrated by growingin 1950 at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, numbers of complaints and by alleged damage claims

Ohio, and in neighboring communities were attributed that were being received by the U. S. Air Force. Even-* to aircraft (living at spedts that exceeded the speed of tually, individual and community reactions to measured

sotund. As aircraft capable of maintaining supersonic sonic booms were evaluated in a research program in thespeeds in level flight were developed, the problem of metropolitan area of St. Louis, Missouri.' This papersonic booms became a matter of more general public attempts to flash back to the years 1961 and early 1962concern. Numerous theoretical and operational research and to discuss the St. Louis community-response pro-

Sprograms investigating the nature of the sonic boom gram in terms of the background from which the studyhave been accomplished by various agencies since its emerged, its objectives, and its main findings. Since theaccidental discovery approximately 15 years ago. St. Louis study was the first of the population-response

The physical nature of sonic boom and its generation studies, the material contained herein may serve as art

and propagation were explained by the midfifties. This introduction for the other community-response experi-was followed by examination of its gross effects on struc- ences presented In the articles that follow.

* tures and on other aircraft. Maneuvers at supersonic The public-opinion polling method employed in thespeeds were studied and the "superboom" was de- St. Louis study was based upon, and was to a degree anscribed. Later, responses of specific test structures and extension of, earlier research on community reaction tobiological responses of humans to very intense booms aircraft noise.'were observed. During this period, military aircraft -

W~rc operating in increasing numbers on supersonic I C. W. Nixon and H. H. Hubbard, "Results of the USAF-NASA-FAA Flight Program to Study Community Responses toSonic Booms in the Greater St. Louis Area," NASA Tech. Note

This paper is identified as AMRL Tech. Rept. No. AMRL- No. D-2705 (May 1965).TR-65 196. Further reproduction is authorized to satisfy needs of I P. N. Borsky, "Community Reactions to Air Force Noise,"the U. S. Government. WADD Tech. Rept. No. 60-689 (1,11)(Mar. 1961).

On Journal of the Acoustical Socdy of meeks S51

Preceding Page Blank

' *i! ~- *

SOIC1C0E SVLLINSVILLE

Ejo. ~ ~ RA 1.Mpc rae t. o ui ra ihgon tako ouarrftsiroeI hdngdntsubnae

1. BCKGOUN leis pesetedI~ysucha vntue. f th maor ech

In~~~~~ ~~~ /SSs 11 h ComrilSuproi rnpr ~cIosalsnt~ tta.tmtems motn

Aircraft~ ~~~~~~~~~~S ReotALhTST'leok"~ CCS~ praigpo~enON h uesnctasotwsC

joitlybytheU.S. eprtmntof efnsc te N- ideed o e asoiatd ithth efecs RIteVsEitionl Aronutis ad SaceAdm st rtio, ad te bom n te gnera poulaion Itwasessntil t

Federal 1 Ava JnAgIc.Ti ouetrpre it ko ht id fbo xoue ih eacpthe tlvljiin ofactueca uesni-rnpr ytephico owa xetw s rea Ianoane

CHT) AirRLE wS cniee ehial esbcad a~ oll~ ih egnrtd

that~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T a ainlpormo eerhaddvlpetAlgclapoChIToYh omnt-C9o~ uswoul evntullybe rquied o slvemanyof ~n.pro. tin ws arevew f al pror xpeiencs ivolingco%

14.1(; 1.atmn oal) dgfenter NSt.oion ara , woiathc grond track Air B onoarceaf sprecords of ~individule s com l~aint arelcais s

Adiioist ionandtihe- and Spac Admi nitation , 310c (Jun 194). of alle ed d ageneto propulrtyo. An iwtesiv esse tia-t

Fedra Avol ime 39 ccy Thise 5~~nin reprte 2ha knwwa19nso6oo6xoursmgtbeac

SO N IC-bOO NI SYVNI VOS I U M

tint1 Of 01Ms ecORds Wits 11CC~O1IinlShcd at IIUIIUCeIQUS 3 / /inlst all ations ams~s (lt: United Stfttcs of America. How-/ever, lack of ipecific informiationi relating sonic booms to /rth iiici'IeiiI, describedI il thle reportsz imiposed criticallimitationzi oin their usefulness for purposes of predliCtion /g 2or genecralization. lit most instances, anl aircraft respon- 4'sible for the sooic boom could n~ol l" idmi~tifid, ,;o that 5ifor ninny -,itltmions reported thle actual occurreuce of/7sonic booms wa8 not verified. Also, there was no means!of deternminhiix the exact location of identified supersonicaircraft at (lt-, 6~,4c oi 6i i~o4.ni; (t-tkcqtucnty, tilemiagnitude of the 1)0011 could not bc estimated. Actually,48 26correlation of time individual responises doctimcnted in 04 126the accuimulated records with the respective stimumlu, Miles fromi ground trackexposures wats not possible, except for a very few mIiusuciO Fmo. 2. Estimated nplEc- of llontc-Ioon overpreamnure. an a fure-incidents suich ats those that oc~currtd at air slmows and tion of distance from gr;ýund trrack for Blongo iUlght s.air races. Even for these incidents only rouigh estimatesof tile magnituxdes of tile booms were possible- lIn addi-tioll, remponlse behlavior consisted almlost, entirely of de- sidered iknupoltant_ for the study. lit particular, a U-58scriptions, of alleged damauge to property or statemients trAimming program of the Strategic Air Command (SAC)of objection to the boom experience. These data could had inl tile pitst, and would in thle fttture, gCnR~ate sonicnot be 115(51 to estimlate or predlict colmmunity reaction,; Iooniis inl thle !rea on a 8onmewham. regular basis. lit addi-to other sonic booms in other residentinl areas. tion, thc area had a history of previous sontic-boomn ex-The important question of public acceptance was perience, contained structures and buildings of variouswide open. Onl the basis of nll prior experience, it wits type-s of construction and ages, provided commercial ;etevident thatt few liked the sonic boom. There would be and propeller-d riven aircraft operations, gave acce em toVarying degrees of acceptance, depending primarily the required aircraft staging point, had no sharp or ir-utpon the magnituide of the stimulus and the time of day regular topographic features, and contained at popula-but also upon other factors such as economic involve- tion that represented a wide range of socioeconomicments, knowledge of the cause, effects, purpose, and the factors.

like, It became clear that at special operational program Supersonic flights associated with thle SAC trainingwvould be required inl whichx variouN levels of community program occurredl in the St. Louis area front July 1961reaction to measured sonic boomis could be evaluated, to April 1962. Prior to the first sonic boom, a public-informnation program wats initiated with a dininer pres-

11. OBJCTIVESentatiorm to civic leader,-, members of the news mnedia,II. BJECIVESand the like, of populated areas to be affected by theThe fundamental objective of the St. Louis com- training programs. Information was presen ted about themutmity-response study was to obtain for the first time SAC, thle B3-58, the training activities, and the sonicwell-documnented (data onl public reaction to sonic boomls, boomt. Ani informiational program, which p~rovided peni-A

.pN(kifit ati, restiuis obtained trout (!!rcct personal inter- odic news releasecs, fillms, and frequemit lectures to colill-views and engineering evaluations of alleged (alanage to mnunity organizations, was maintained b~y person~nel ofproperty were t~o be correlated with information on air- Scott Air Force Base during thle entire 10-monlth trainl-craft operations and son ic-boom pressure marexit. ing progrank.T'he influenice upon reaction to the. boom of other factors About 40 sonic boomis were generated by 11-58 air -in th's psychological stimulums-responlse %sitiuationk-such craft over the initial 4-month period. Following theseat; soioecollnoic factors, tendency to complain about exIerinienlts, 1 diinlfihswr aeoe hthing-, inl general, nighttime boomis, and knowledge of samne area at various times of day and night during at 6.thle nature of sonic boom-would also be evaluiatedl. in day period, beginning 6 November. Four other flights,tile final analysis, thle well -documlcn tcd data regarding with boomis at higher overpressures than those experi-effects of sonic boomls w~ere to be utilized to formiulate -need earlier, occurred on 3 and 6 January 1962, Aboutguidelines and criteria for scientists, enigineers, and WXX residents wero interviewed twice during the studyimanagemuent personnel involved inl an SSi' development ti learn about their reactions to the boomns, once imiprogram. ntiediately following the first special flights and a second

time following the special flights in January. All sortiesIII. APPROACH were flown over the samre predetermined, supersonic cor-

ridor, which passed along the edge of the main urbanThe metropolitan area of St. Louis, with a population area of greater St. Louis (Fig. 1). Data-collection areasof about 2600 000, demonstrated many features con- were. (designated at various lateral distances frontl ground

the jourall of the Acoustial $cI4ti of Amok*lc S53

SON C_ DO ()M SYM POS I V M

TAWAL t. FAtinuatrnti mf)4 oom ground ovviniuimS " a 11Ic aRm sown in FiK. 2. Fromt thewc ovcwrmiurc dat*, the~tkn f isuc rw t ~on4 t .f. I- *M - - wilcI~ C-xutc of any population subsa"11JC CMld

DiWrA~ne -"MOto be estimated for cortilation with the ruspixtivr intirr-(lfmq it) for view rinxpomie.

It 50 ot oni Altitodead F-t06 6t ft IReAetion' of loWa rt'aidets to the soak.' boofus aq iii,.altut&I ot dutiucce by their attitudes, opiions, %ocitleonowic fiw'.

(mike 46 W 41 JLO .toow W the news media, reported damage to 1wnatual(m~~~~ke)~4 46XP410O .6o j I prolmi-ty. mid the like, were ovaluatod by a carefully

6-2 116 1.8 2-1 2.7 1.4 (Imigited andI exenuto persnonl-intcrvitw survey.' Ajp-2-4 1.5 1.7 2.1 2A 1.2 proximately 1000 houscholds in the various sampling

44 1.3 1,6 1.8 2.1 .1 areas participated in a 1- to 11-h persmiai interview6-$ 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.6 L.0 .

6-10 1.1 1. 1.2 1.2 08 iimmedtiately following the first series of Bongo flights.10-12 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0. 6 Thc purpose of the study was not revealed in the inter-J2-14 0.0 0. * O.V 6.4 0.4 view. which was described as a broad contiouinity survey14-16 0.8 0.6 0A4 01 013 how Itcople felt about the colittminnmitics in wuinctheluy

-lived. Respondents were told that tie sur-vey wouldi cim-tattoo for several wecls and the interviewer mtight call

rAnMz 1j. Pnýuu~topw(dl 14s iiterviawknd ilk 1-he St. Louki area back to obtAin ad.ditional inftorrution.who regiotted vatio.us itii atmemm due to gonic loiom a .nd remit. A second scries of special supersonic flights wix; made

'~ ~ over the smilre ground track about 2 weeks followingcoinpli.tion of the initial interview,%. Tlhese flights were

NArivnx or ]PzAM.uNrTAC OW sediedulcil to providt; fewer but intore-intoiise boomis than

IN~C~flU~i~Woo Ravorw wg. tlit fiest series. Aftcr tile %ccoad flight wr24c:-, callbackherwil AMOV. interviews were begun with respondents who succes-

VMeAKC AVmC fully completed the initile interview. A total of 104.3rvipotnidents coinpletedA both the interview aind timehoue saft n 93 38 reinterview.

Startle 74 31Skeip interrupted 42 22 The vast majority of formial comrantjluts to the (3OV-Rest and ithkaistior intemrupted 24 16 ermient. about sonic boom prior to 1961 referredl toConversation intorruptod 22 to alleged damage to personal property. It appeared thatR&&andi 1 television lntcrnjpted I4 6 'omnties might loleratc sonic booms so long as, theit

property was not damaged. Conversely, tile overpmts-trac torepeset eposresto iffren soic-oom sure threshold of dlamalge wouldl seemi to be an exxftirtrac torepeset eposresto iffren soic-oom level clearly unacceptable to the population. Corase-

intensities. All flights relating to thio study were as- qucntly, architectural and engineering investigationssigned the code name "Hongo." . were made of all reports of alleged (ltt-tages to property

In order to assure that the sonic boomns to be exflwi attributedl to tile study flight-s. Inspections were ar-ececd by local residents were well controlled anti defined, complished by contractor personnel immediately follow-provisions were made to monitor both the supersonic ing tile boomus with the cooperation and support offlights by the aircraft and the magnitude of the sonic experienced U. S. Air Force investigation teamsq.booms on the sirround. 'I'he aircraft were ji~r#,-tiJ (r# itb Wearthter illiorilatawt wws acculnufated to amaizit. inarn area north 4f 1he city so that steady, level supiers~onic estimbatinig psbkinfluences of var Ious atmnosphkericflight was in a southerly dlirection ac~ross the target areat. co'iitsontesncbom ete nesnnetA radar-coiitrol procedure w~as formiulated whlereby onl the ground anid at various altitudes were imade asliongo aircraft were corltinuotisly guided #long the flight close w% possible to the times of the Pongo flights.corridor and a jNernumlent record was made of the planixi~sition and groundl spm-d of the aircraft for each super-.sonic pass. Observation of these records revealedi no IV. RESULTSmaneuvers or quick deviations fronm the flightpaith dur- lThe programi was initiated in early November 1961ing the supersonic flights. Maximumn lateral deviation dwscoptebyltjamry%.Alphc fof the aircraft froul the flight track wasolw j s thd fligh progrmplte bylaeJanurement . All soni-boo ovfra deviation considered negligible for purposes of tilie tefih rgan esrmn fsncbo v

comuniy-racton rogam.prmsmurtes, p~ersonal interviews, amid investigations ofconuun~y-racton rogam.alleged t~unage were accomnitiished without incidlent and

Scmiicirooni pres-sure mcastmrtnents were miad ilt re- in accordance with the study design. Thie 4,jectivm, -,fcording stations located on the ground track anmd at the programn were adequnately satisfictd, although nolateral distances from it of about 4.5 and 9 miks. 'hetestimiated ranges of sonic-bmiu overpivmume as a func- 'P. N. Rornky, "Cominuunity Rniwtion to Soinic Dvooms," N&tI.tion of distancec fromi the grounid track for Hogop flights 00"io Res. Otr., Chkago. RqA. No. 87 (Aug. 1962).

$5 mhm39 .meow $ r2 1964

SONIC-BIOOM SYMPOSIUM

IM

FiuJ. 3. Sketch of (cater St. Tmis area, Show. V \I k.ng aircraft ground track with kwaltions of re,-Parted dana upwpeowd. Data. imintsto Btig'o flights and indiclate loaations wat oil_

rzoneem arg evad uations of" relxWcd damiage we~re Jf

I \

~A

\ \

i .su3S were t(mpletely resolved. The major findings of below which no responses at all can be assured. Whenthe prograft arn stated llow. More-complete discus sonic-boom exposure occurs in populated areas, somesionm may he fou d in the basic docun cnts, which are reaction may be expected. The concept of a single over-listed a- references. presure value as the sole criterion for community ac-

nAigi bourin evalarop fressoresrred inathagre were ~~

in-oo oeq .suertoreinteaeweeceptance of sonic booms should perhaps be abandoned.consistent with theory and with the results of earlier Furthermore, overpesr alone does not define sonic-studies involving the same type aircraft. Ile estimated boomn exposure; it must be considered in terms of fre-values obtained appear as a function of distance from quency of occurrence, intermittency, time of day orground track in Table 1. Measulred values at a lateral night, duration of the program, and the particular signs-position 5 miles from the flight7 track were sometimes ture of the sonic boom.higher than thosL directly under the aircraft. However, Although millions of people were repea~tedly exposedanalysi of weather information obtained during Bongo to sonic booms over & period of several months, noflights revealed in the atmosphere above the city a local- direct adverse physiological effects occurred and noneized warm-air region to which the lateral shift in maxi- was expected on the basi of existing knowledge.mum overpressure was attributed. Humnan response or the psychological reaction to sonic

Sonic-boomn exposures measured outdoors in an open boom was shown to be very complex and highly vari-area were very different from exposures inside buildings. able, perhaps more so than initially predficted. This re-For a particular sonic boom, inside exposures were lower spns was not a futnction of ovepesre alone butin intensity, existed for a longer period of time, and instead involved other elements of the stimuluswere generally more complex in nature thin the outside exposure as well as a wide range of sociopsych6logicalexposures. Subjectively, sonic booms experienced inside variablis.were tess acceptable than those experienced outside, Almost all local residents experienced interferencespresumably because of such factors as the longer dura- with ordinary living activities, yet feelings of annoyanceLion, the rattling and shaking of items within the were relatively low. Table IU sunwi these findings.structure, and the actual vibration of the structure Interferences included such observations as shaking ofitself. the house, individuals being startled, disturbances to

Community acceptance or tolerance of sonic booms sdeep, rest, conversation, and radio or television listeningcannot be defined in terms of a single level of overpres- that people reported as interruptions to ordinary livingsure. For practical purposes, there is no overpressure be- activities. Annoyances, on the other hand, were classifiedlow which all sonic booms will be acceptable nor one as subjective responses dependent not only upon the

dw1 o oAnia elyo wd 5

SONIC-BOOM SYMPOSIUM

PLASTER CRACKS

BROKENWINDOW GLASS

WALL AND Fio. 4. Types of dam-

FOUI(DATION CRACKS ed and inves-__ti__t__d__n tb, St. Louis

BROKEN TILE area__ __ -. alek• ea: Per-centage values based on

Arwu MIHKHj, a total of 3114 com-plaints for which datawere available. SlippledBROKEN Aarea: Percentage vaslues

BRIC-A-BRAC Jbased on a total 165"complaints investigatedas a result of the BongoBROKEN APPLIANCES flights.

PICCELLANEOUS

I I I I I

0 10 20 306 40 soPERCENT OF TOTAL REPORTS

intensity of the disturbance but also upon a wide range submission of formal claims to the Government forof attitudinal variables. Some of the variables found to compensation.be significant in this study were familiarity and under- In 1961-1962, few people in the St. Louis area feltstanding of the stimulus phenomenon, necessity and im- that a commercial supersonic transport was very im-portance of the mission, considerateness and attitude portant. Only one-fourth of all persons said it was veryof the aircraft operator, intensity of disturbance and important, while almost half said it waw not important.possibility for reducing it, attitude toward neighbor- Local residentn, expressed more willingness to accepthood, general readiness to complain, and damage be- sonic booms generated by military aircraft than thoselieved to have occurred to property. Each of these generated by commercial aircraft. Acceptance of sonicfactors may have a positive or negative influence upon booms during the night was somewhat lower than ac-the attitude of the respondent. The manner in which ceptance of booms during the day. Further definitionthe community is predisposed regarding these factors of the nighttime sonic boom was not possible with themay largely influence "the amount of annoyance with data available.the sonic boom that is reported. Reports of alleged damage identified with the Bongo

Approximately 1000 families had participated in the flights were carefully inspected and evaluated.' In mostpersonal interviews. About 90% of this sample experi- cases, these investigations were accomplished withinenced some interference with ordinary living activities a few hours of the time of the flight. The objectives ofas a result of sonic booms, about 35% were annoyed by such prompt investigation were to evaluate the reported

them, less than 10% contemplated complaint action, incident, to determine its nature, and to establish its

and only a fraction of 1% had actually filed a formal validity as near to the time of actual occurrence as

complaint, possible. Validity, as used here and elsewhere in this

Complaint activity reflected by the exposed popula- paper, implies that damage to property was caused byCt families was manfepsted bytle- sonic booms. Damage to property due to factors other

tion of about 500 000 families was manifested by tele- than sonic boom, or for which a clear contribution byphone calls, letters, and an occasional personal visit to sonic boom was not established, was considered notthe complaint center at Scott Air Force Base. The cumu- valid in this sense.lative total of complaints recorded at any time was ap- Approximately 165 on-site investigations were madeproximately proportional to the total number of super- at the locations shown in Fig. 3. The range of overpres-sonic missions completed at that time. AboUt 90% of sure (Fig. 2) was essentially the same within the regionsthe complaints about a particular sonic boom were re- 0-8 miles from the flight track and became lower be.ceived within 2 weeks of the incident. A large numberof the complaints alleged damage to property. Approxi- ' Anon., "Studies of Sonic Boom induced Damage," Clark,mately 20%0 of the recorded complaints resulted in the Buhr and Nexsen, Norfolk, Va., NASA CR-227 (May 1965).

s56 volma 39 amber 5 pert 2 196

'10 N I C -tt 10 () h S Y hl *Q~2 S tI ht

T1Avi.IA 11 1ctiriated Ct.eCtl of &OnIC boonm 0n PtrJCttttC&A and 011 ilhe Im-41% of (Pn.iv tlto rwoksihi vidii (Inin~lIote inct-______ ___________ (l~lti~ thse rfered I assi 'ld l in natur, the

~ nthimatc'I oc.currenve of dininape hi id~th~~ per (light jwlSourm 0yaritgmrukmfu P&MACtTED ErrACjrn rlOi~llt IMI~tl(l %Vlkt ted ttlatd. I(11 tile range of oxV

(/')(41yat/eot) ---- Immure~ 41.4--2.3 lb/ia1 ft, Whichl approxinuitvo -tile rainge

0-1 0-418 No dimininge to ground strmeturv; of atverprms'we c"aiied for hv q~ miprmrluinr trannport

iauy orvafC~ 1 eig t,hr*Atan flight Ir miion, NILS cnaximuino .la anll. C incidentst per

1.-15 78-717 No tJAmnagv to firoutid structutot, A p1.rtin of the population interivewed wats goo-probable public teictlai. graphically located near thet Conmilercla.1l irponrt -Ind Wmq

1.5-1.75 717-R37 No danaa~c to Kt-wird &troctutcAje primIicnhily poweu itn jet-rdrcrift n Ite I ft fo-oldeigiftuifc~ft public reoction that esseiliAlIv all respondepits who reported that thteirpmarticularly at nlight. act ivities were greatly disturbed by divil jet-aircraft

1.75-2.0 837-937 No dourage to Kv~tand atructums. imtIw~t reported relatively greater interferenice nutodlin-

.(ltifieet public t"Umlt. ti'ytimco with sonic boorm. Hkewiko ;at those who were.0-.3O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 16 93A45 icpto aae o limuct-4rl 1 Iky im a p Wie. re nit.o not disailrlbcd byv

sonic boom.~ ltiniicd fi:cets oil structure:; rindl pople of expo.-

stile to tqpeciic i'tngw4 of vonic-boorn overpressure, tolyond 8 mitiles, Thle relative concentration of alleged darn- shown in Table IIl, were used as interint gitidelincs In'Ige occurrenices will muchi greater withintht ani beyond planrtinug this study. Although only a limited numbertile 0- to 8-mile distantce; however. there was little of siturations were observcd ill which structures AndIlille-3viktimiuml butw~Ce tile 0- to 4- and ltue 4- to 8-suite people resporntes were cbi-rdiatted with Sonic boovil, the,zones. The types of alleged danmage attribuitedl to tile general predictions of the 'Fable were not contradicted.flights fot which ovcl'presssure wats measured and which Findings were consistent. with lthe inforination contaluiedwere investigated by contiractor effort ate swrintarii',ed therein, which wats considered the best basis for interinmfit Fig. 4. Typci of dant~ag rorported in Ulus complaivit guidelines or enitiatioris available lit that time.rile at Scott Air Force Itas-e dluring the entire. 1-58program are included for comnparisoni. fit teiseral, ilre V. 6UMMARYnient was good between the alleged dam~lage data tic-cumulated dhiring lthe 10-month SAC trldning aind dur- Effects of repeated exposurcm to sonic booms fin thoing the 2-tionth study cffort. range of overpr.(smume up to 3.1 lb/sq ft on the populu.

Investigatiolls anid determinaiiuons in alleged dfamage tion fuid structurtz of it large city were evaluated. Dataincidents were somewhat difficult. Architectural &nd were obtailied from personal interviews, -malysis ofengineering criteria upon which to base lnvemstigtloitisl of comoplaints, and investigations of alleged damnage, andsonlic-booml ditmalge htad not been v-stablshed. Comte- were related to aircraft operations anid sonic-boom pres-(Juenth', evaluat~ions were hased upon tilt technictl ture iemiet-tnreunts.knowledge, past experience, and best judgment. of the Results indicated that, when sonic boomis occur re-investigators. About 35% of thle alleged damage irici- poatedly voer populated areas, sonic reActiorl may be,deniti rep~ortced were obviotisly (false; tile sonic 1oomit expecte. 'rthe nature of this reaction is mvnivirm anldcoma1 !lot tmive nelti itic vium Aboum t 45""C IM jtgcý highly vral ~lw uhdvantln s'fj ia

(pleit loll able because of til presenice of other contribut. predictive .seliesnes nor inflexible exposure criteria. Al-ing fact4 is; Such :1% aging of ,siatterialfl. settling of tile leged building damun1go was supciahcdli ill fiilt ir ansd conl-buiilding, poor workmtaliship, and the, likeo. lit only about simcd mostly of cracks in brittle surfaces. T[here were20% of the easeso investigated wasi the repoted damage no reports of direc advmw. physiologicul effects.corrsid'ýrcd possibly valid; not visible corittfbibauting fac-tors to thle alleged daitinage existiA. Vt. RUECOMPAENDATIONS

Thle engineering findings and the complaint-file anafly-tsis indicated that damuage to structures call occur ats a On the basis of thle Prece'ding informaa ion, it was re-result of sonic-boom exposures within the range Px- commecnded that.-perienced andttihat such diminae is an important factor 1. Additiowda community reaictioll Studies of it Similarill Commnunity atccep~tance. ))atage was superficild il nature In conduictd utilhizing larger samplem of respond-nature, with plaster and glass cracks being maost 11u1viter- entit rrprefwniog vartioý, Ammer across the countrv.[)Its, and was uslially aemaocimted Witlli vs coucenttra-tionls ill the structurc. Contributing factors other than 2. Reaction to zstimulus exposure bit further definedl insonlic boolls were uitown ill most cases and a large por- terms of (a) nighttinie sonic booms, 0o) freqtuency oftion of the reporte,1 al ia.'ge incident,, were considered occurrencc of sontic booms, (0) day-to-d-ay regularity,probably not valid. (d) ltrige supfersonic aircraft such ms B-70.

th. journal of the Acommklco Socisty of Americo S57

SONIC-BOOM SYMPOSIUM

3. Itspows of structures be further examined (a) as the art regarding sonic boWAs • of the year 1962. It ispurt of future communmity respar studies, and (b) in intended to represent the understanding of sonic boomSpmlc studies isolat frmn pculatcd aweas where very at that period of time Wd same of the needs for ad"i-inmtense boosn could be u•ta ed. tional research that were imentified. The articles that

4. Theo a follow describe the development of the sonic-boom pic-

ented to a cmnxial supersonic aircraft on reaction to tint since that tim

the boom be evaluated in the next study. &CNOYr.LDOI[MT

VIL POSTSCaRI This asearcd was funded in part under National

"The reader 6 reminded that the information and Aeronautics and Spam Administration contract throughdiacamkm contained in this article reflect the state of NASA-Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia.

" Am* v 9 sak5 pit?2 1 "f.

Smcudty ClbaiftcatiogDOCUMENT CONTROL DATA - R&D

(lecurfte elC.H.. o tII. hoe ' w1 eb-1 0 to"mON dwoenas AWW1*0"m ons be en .etd " hen 00 e0 all .epoat to -c•8l0r04

I- ORIGOA TIN G ACTIVITY (CoMfaw0.) I2.. REPORT SaCuf•ta C LASS79CATIOW

Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Aerospace UNCLASSIFIEDMedical Division, Air Force Systems Command, 2. GOUP

Wrfiht-Patterson Air -orce Base, Ohio 4b433 N/A3. REPORT TITLE

EFFECTS OF SONIC BOOM ON PEOPLE: ST LOUIS,

MISSOURI, 1961-1962

4- PESCRIPTIVE NOTES (7p, ogf ret ,t d g b,&saiv, doNt,)

S.AIITIIORS) (Lees nam. host now*, ,uai~s)

Nbr.on, Charles W.Borsky, Paul N.

I. REPORT DATE 7.. TOTAL POO. OF PAGES | 76. No. Or maP's

May 1966 8 5S.. CONTRACTOR GRNTS NO Prepared in part 110 o0eOIATOXe IEPORT UNDIWiRS)

under NA$1-1397b. PROJECT *o. 7231 AMRL-TR-65-196

,-Task No. 723102 ob. lZlT." POnT WXS) (Aa&VAe**,y 6.••t&,4- W

4.

SO. AVAIL ABILITY/LOMITATION NOTICES

Distribution of this document is unlimited.

I,. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12-. M•S , M,.ILITANY ACTIVTY

Reprinted from The Journal of the Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories,

Acoustical Society of America, Vol 39, Aerospace Medical Div., Air Force Systems

No. 5,...Part 2, May 1966. ICommand, Wright-Patterson APB, Ohio13. ABSTRACT

/The vicinity of St. Louis, Missouri, was exposed to approximately 150 sonic booms

during a 10-month period from July 1961 to April 1962. Ground overpressures,

ranging up to about 3 lb/sq ft, were carefully measured for a series of 17 of the

supersonic flights. Data obtained from over 2300 direct interviews, analyses of

complaints, and engineering evaluations of alleged damage were related to

information on aircraft operations and sonic-boom overpressure measurements.

Most residents interviewed indicated some interference with routine living

activities, yet less than 1% filed formal complaints. Alleged building damage

was superficial in nature and consisted mostly of cracks in brittle sur.faces.

There were no reports of direct adverse physiological effects.

DD IjA0#4 1473Security ClasificatioN

Secwity C lasslficatic________14. LINK A LINK 0 LaNK C

- - - ~~~~Key WORDS OK W LS* W RL w

1 *Sonic Boom I2. Effects of Sonic, BoomI3. Supersonic TransportI4. Supersonic FlightI5. Noise6. Hurnin reactions to sonic boom

INSTRUCTIONS

I. ORMGNATING~ ACTIVITY: Enter the name and address imposed by security classification, usiir- standard statementsof the contractor. Vzbcontroctot, pant**, Deportment of D~e- such as:fense activity or other otganlzstior. (corp~orate sulhor) issung (1) "Qualified iequesters mity obtain copies of thisthe report. report from [)DC."2a. REPORT SECUEaTY CLA¶I.SIFICATION: Enter the ovet. (2) "Foreign announcement and dissemination of thisall security classification of the report. Indicate whetherreotb Disntahr zd"Restricted Date" is Included. Marking is to be in~ aceprbord-s otathrze.ance with appropriate security regulations. (3) 'U. S. Government agencies may obtain copies of

2b. ROU: Atomticdowgraing ra pecfie inDoDDl.this report directly from DDC. Other qualified DDCrective S200. 10 and Arnied Forces Industrial Manual. Enter srshlreustrogthe group number. Also, when applicable, show that optional -markings have bean tised for Group 3 and Group 4 as author- (4) "U. S. military agencies may obtain copies of thisized. reort directly from DDC. Other qualified users

3. REPORTr TITLE- Entrr the complete repeat title in all shell request throughcapital lettera. Titles in Ati cases should be unclassified. ,

If as meaningful title cantiot. be selected without cleasifica-tion. sho~w title classificatiton in all capitals in parenthesis (5) "All distribution of this report is co ntrolled. Qual-immnediately following the ti ri,. ified DDC uisers shall request through4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTE~S: If iappropriate, enter the type ofreport, e I.*anterim, progres it summrrary, annual, or final. If the report has been furnished to the Office of TechnicalGive the Incluiveie daitus when a specific reporting period ia Services, Department of Commerce, for sale to the public. indi.covered. cate this iact and enter the price, if known.5. AUTIHOR(S): Enter the name(s) of author(s) as shown on It. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES: Use for additional explana.or in the report. Ein c! Inut name, first name, middle initial, tory notes.If milititry, ehow ri-nit -A-d bronch of service, The name ofthe principal A4hor it; an a.bsolute mninimum requirement. 12,. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY: Eniai the name of

the departmental project office or laboratory sponsoring (pay,6. REPORT DAT7_ Enter the date of the report aa day, itnj for) the research and development. Include address.month, year; or month. year. If more than one date appearson the report, use date of publication. 13. ABSTRACT: Enter an abstract giving a brief and factual

summary of the document indicative of the report, even though7o. TOTAL NUMBFRR OF PAGES: The total page count It may &len appear elsewhete in the body of the technical rre-should foll;)w normal pagination procedures, i~e., enter the part. If additional apace is required, a continuation sheet shellnumber of pages containing information. be attached.76. NUMbi:cR OF REFERENCES Enter the total number of It is highly desirable that the abstract of classified reportsreferences cited in the report. be unclassified, Each paragraph of the abstract shalt end withga. CONTRACT OR G.RANT NUMBER: If appropriate, enter an Indication of the military security classification of the in-the applicable number of the cortract or grant under which formation In the paragraph, represented as (TS). (S). (C). or (U)the report wan; written. There is no limitation on the length of the abstract. How-8b, 8c, & Bd. PROJECI NUMBER: Enter the appropriate ever, the suggested length is from IS0 to 225 words.military department identification, such as project number, 14KE WOD: eywrsaetcnaly enigutrmsubproject numbter, system numbers, task number, etc.14KEWOD:eywrsaetcnalymnigutrs

or short phrases that characterize a report and may he used as9a. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S): Enter the offi- index entries for catalogitng the report. Key words must becial report number by whivii the dacunaent will be Identified aelected so that no security classification is required. Identi.and controlled by the originating activity. This number must fiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name, militarybe unique to this report. project code name. geographic location. may be used as key9b. OTIIER REPORT NUMBIIER(S): If the report has been words hut will he followed by an tindicotion of technical con-assigned any other report numbers (either by the originsior text. The assignment of links, rules, and weight~s is optional.or by the aponsor,), also enter this number(s).10. AVAIL AIILITY/ LIMITATION NOTICES: Enter any lIm-,itations on further dissemination of the report, other than thosel

Security Classification