IEEE Tkanactions on Nucteoa Science, V'o.t.S-24, No.

6, Decembet 1977
THREDE: A FREE-FIELD EMP COUPLING AND SCATTERING CODE
Richard Holland
Mission Research Corporation
Post Office Box 3693
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108
Abstract Equations To Be Solved
THREDE is a time-domain, linear, finite-difference, Maxwell 's equations, in the presence of electrical
three-dimensional EMP coupling and scattering code. In and magnetic conductivity and current, are
its present form, it can accomodate a problem space con- M
sisting of a 30x3Ox30 mesh. Differencing is linear. VxE- = s
Problem-space boundaries are provided with a radiating = t -J* *H- (1)
condition which does not generate ficticious mathemati-
cal echos at late times. The scatterer must be a per- VAH =- C at -+ J + (iE (2)
fect conductor, although a nonideal ground plane (runway)
may be close by. The present article describes the We will be dealing with problems where the total E and
mathematical basis of THREDE, and shows the results of H are the superposition of incident and scattered fields:
applying it to predict the response of an F-lll shell
in the horizontally-polarized dipole (HPD) EMP simulator. E T E inc
= n Es (3)
Amplitude agreement between experiment and prediction
for this example is typically on the order of 20%; HTH= H inc + H s (4)
resonant frequencies are predicted more closely than
this. THREDE costs about 1 second of CDC 7600 computer THREDE is presently written in a linear form where
time per program cycle; most practical analyses require u and o* do not depend on ET or HT. Subject to this
500 to 1000 program cycles. linearity assumption, the scattered field alone also
satisfies Maxwell's equations.
Introduction
We shall presume the scattering object is perfectly
This paper describes the three-dimensional finite- electrically conducting and completely enclosed by the
difference code THREDE, for solving time-domain Mlaxwell's problem space. We shall also presume there are no inde-
equations in cartesian coordinates and three dimensions. pendent electric or magnetic currents J or J* in the
The primary application of THREDE is in calculatinq EMP problem space. We do not require c, ui, a or o* to be
free-field scattering and surface currents for a com- homogeneous, and wo do not require the incident field
plicated strurture, such as an aircraft. Scattering to be a plane wave.
structures may either be imbedded in homogeneous space
(as an aircraft in flight) or located over a lossy Then the boundary condition at the surface of the
ground plane (as an aircraft on a runway). scattering body is that the total tangential E field
vanish,
The algorithm upon which THREDE is based was first
described by Yee1 about ten years ago. At that time, E an =-Einc
`:-t
= -En
--t a n (5)
computers did not exist which could implement this
scheme practically in three dimensions. This is no The distant boundary on the scattered field is that the
longer the case. It is now possible to mesh a problem field takes the form of an outgoing radial wave
space of interest into a 30x30x30 grid and have random
access to the resulting 162,000 field quantities. These sE g,) (t-r r/c)
f (6 4)
= f( (6)
advances in computer technology have prompted Longmire
to credit Yee's algorithm as being "the fastest numeri- At t= O, the scattered field is presumed to be every-
cal way of solving Maxwell's equations".2 where zero. Subject to the linearity assumption, these
conditions uniquely specify Es and Hs within the problem
The other significant cornerstone upon which THREDE space at all time.
is based is Merewether's radiating boundary condition.3
This mathematical technique permits one to treat a The logic of THREDE procedes as follows: Wle assume
finite problem space without being troubled at late we know the incident field (Einc, Hlnc) at all times
times by numerical echos from the problem-space boun- and places; this is the field which would exist in the
daries. Basically, it utilizes the fact that, far from absence of a scatterer. The main portion of THREDE is
a scattering object, the electromagnetic scattered field devoted to finite-differencing Maxwell 's equations for
must behave like f(e,q)g(t- r/c)/r. the scattered field (ES, HS). Output quantities of
THREDE are usually total fields or total surface currents
In the following sections of this article, we will on the scatterer. Total fields are given by (3) or (4).
first summarize the Yee technique for finite-differencing Total surface currents are
Maxwell's equations. Next, we will describe the radia-
ting boundary condition. Finally, we will illustrate K T = nx (H incc+Hs + , (7)
an application of THREDE by showing how it is used to
predict the EMP response of an F-111 aircraft shell in where n is the outward-pointing unit normal on the
the horizontally-polarized dipole (HPD) simulator. This scatterer.
final section will include experimental comparisons with
the THREDE predictions. Difference Equations
A more detailed description of the THREDE code is Figure 1 illustrates the manner of imposing the
also available,4 in a report which was not prepared un- (I,J,K) index-space mesh on the problem space. It also
der the brevity constraint applied to the present article. illustrates the location of evaluation points for the
The experimental data described in this paper was ob- six scattered field components in a typical cell. Note
tained at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland that the Es and Hs evaluation points are interlaced al-
Air Force Base, New Mexico, under Contract F29601-76- ternately along each spatial axis. This interlacinq is
C-0064 (EG&G, Inc., prime).
2416
 The other four component equations may be identically
differenced to yield corresponding formulas. If the
medium filling the problem space is inhomogeneous, c,
YiJ (K) uj, a and a* will depend on (I,J,K).
The finite-difference equations for the scattered
fields are now solved as follows: Let us assume the
grid indices run I= 1 to Nx, J= 1 to Ny and K= 1 to Nz.
Let us further assume the scatterer is modelable as an
(1+1 ,J,K) assemblage of conductive cells completely interior to
the problem space. At t<0, all scattered fields are
zero:

E2 (I,J,K) = 0 l<I<NX- ;l<J<Ny; l<K<Nz (1 2)

E 2(I,J,K) = 0 < Nx 1 < J < Ny-1 ;1 < K< N
I < I- (1 3)
EZ( y '-- y '- -z

H (I,J,K) E2 (I,J,K) = 0 1 <I<Nx ; 1 <J<Ny; 1 < K< N -1 (14)

SyvW)~~~~~~~
o( I)
XO(I) Xf+
H (I,J,K)=O 1 < I < Nx; I < J Ny--
< ; < K< Nz-z (1 5)
z,K x

H0 (I,J, K) =o (16)
y
1 < I< NX -1; 1 < J< N -1; 1 < K< N
Figure 1. Convention for imposing the (I,J,K) indices
on the (x,y,z) problem space, and location
Ho (I,J ,K)= 0
z
<I<N-
-
I
I-
- y -
"
- Nz (1 7)
of the six field evaluation points in a Let the incident field first touch the scatterer at '2At,
typical cell. and consider what happens then on a surface facing -x.
If the -x surface of Cell (I,J,K) coincides with the -x
also done in time: If At is a program cycle time, Hs surface of the scatterer, E2(I,J,K), E 2(I,J,K+1),
is evaluated at nAt, and Es is evaluated at (n+12)AtY
The THREDE mesh is not required to be uniform. However, E1(I,J,K) and E(I,J+1,K) are all determined by Eq. (5).
if nonuniform meshing is used, we do not recommend that Teese four quantities, in turn, define Hl(I,J,K) via
adjacent cells differ in size by more than 30%. Eq. (10). The same is true at all subsequent program
cycles, n>l.
In component form, two of Maxwell's equations for
the scattered fields are Likewise,on a surface facing +x, let Cell (I',J',
K') have surface coincident with the +x surface of
a +x
az 3E5
3E5

3y az
ay=
Ms x
(8)
the scatterer. Then E2 2(I-+1,J-,K-), En (I +l,J-,K +1)!
EzE 1i(I+l,J',K'),
2 and Ez 12 (IV+l,J'+l,K') are all deter- y

mined by Eq. (5) for n>0. These four quantities subse-

aHz 3Hs 3Es quently determine Hx l(I"+l,JY,K') for n>0.
zy

ay az
y=
£ x
t
+
s
x (9)
Identical considerations apply on the scatterer
The other four equations are obtained from these by surfaces facing ±y and ±z. In this way, the tangential
index permutation. Let us define En+(I,J,K) to be Es E and normal H components of the scattered fields are
evaluated at the point indicated in Figure 1, and at determinate on all the external surfaces of the cells
time (n+'2)At. Let us further define Hn(I,J,K) to be Hs which make up the conducting scatterer model.
at the correspondingly indicated point, and at time nAt.
The other four field components may be analogously spe- Mathematically, the difference equations pertaining
cified. Subject to these conventions, Eqs. (8) and (9), to the fields at the interior points of the scatterer
when finite-differenced consistently with Figure 1, yield thus become decoupled from the equations pertaining to
the exterior points. In other words, if E n(I,J,K)
Hn(I,J_K)
-(,u/At + o*/2) At+ c*/2
Ia*/2 H (I-Jx
-
K)
I,J describes the field at an Ex mesh point in the interior
of the scatterer, this quantity cannot at some later
time have any influence on any field at some mesh point
external to the scatterer. We can thus set all the
E (I,JK+ -
E(Ij1K)
10(
+ ) EE2(IJK)
Y
internal mesh-point fields to zero every program cycle
without affecting the external scattering-problem solu-
tion.
nI,,KJK+l)
E
En(I9J9K) Knowledge of H nl (I,J,K) for 1 < I < N I <J < N -1,
Z(K)- Z(K-1 K) (10) ,

Z *
+-( E/At + a/12)
0
-1(z ( ,JsK z 0/
J ,K 1 < K< N -1, of E nx2(I,J,K) for < I< -x , 1 < J< N
y

z zn y x
1 < K< Nz-l, and Ey 2(I,J,K) for 1 <I < Nx, 1 < J < Ny-l ,
En+2( I J ,K) =
En 2( I,J K)
1 < K< Nz now determines the new Hn(I,J,K) for 1 < K< Nx,
(E/At-+a/2)

1 < J< Ny.l 1 < K<Nz-l by means of Eq. (10). Similarly,

llHn (I,J,K) -Hn(,,j_l
knowledge of all the problem-space Hn (1,J,K)
9K)
+. (c/At +cI2) Iz
Y(J) -Y(J-l)
Ex (I,J,K) and Ez (I,J,K) determines all the new
H(I,J,K) Hn(I,J ,K-1)~
Hn( I,J,K) in the problem space. Finally, all the
Hz (I,J,K), Ex (I,J,K) and En (I ,J,I) may be used
7(K Z K-1)
to find all the new Hn(I,J,K).
z

2417
 The electric fields are a bit more complicated to
advance than the magnetic fields due to the fact that
the radiation boundary condition, Eq. (6), must be ap-
plied on these fields at the limits of the problem space.
If we know Ex (I,J,K), Hy(I,J,K) and Hz( I,J,K) at all
the mesh points in the problem space we can use Eq. (11)
to find the new Ex (I,J,K) everywhere except on the
problem-space boundary. The following Ex 2(I,J,K)
problem-soace boundary values, however, must be obtained
by means of the radiation-boundary condition, not Eq.
( 1) :

Enx +2(I,lK) 1 < I < N -1 , I < K< Nz

En+2(IIN
x y
,K) 1 I<N-1, 1 <K<N
En+(I,J,1) 1I-< I<N -1 ,1 i<J<N
- x i y
Ex 2(I,J,NZ) I < I < N-I-1 1 < J < Ny
Implementation of this condition will be described in
the next section.
In a similar way, the other electric field compo-
nents Ey 2(I,J,K) and EZ 2(I,J,K) are advanced by finite-
difference formulas at interior mesh points, and by the
radiation condition at the problem-space boundaries.
Radiation Boundary Condition
Figure 2. Separation required between scattering object
The purpose of the radiation boundary condition is and problem-space boundary for radiation-
to permit the volume of the problem space to be finite boundary approximation to-be valid.
without generating nonphysical reflections off the
problem-space boundary. This is achieved in TyREDE by where
assuming the fields drop off as an outgoing r wave in =1Ryx(
(20)
JK) -
Ryx(2,J,K)
yx (J,K) cAt y
Eq. (6) if one is "far enough" away from the scatterer. o = 1 - yx
It is, of course, desirable to make "far enough" as
small as possible, so as to minimize the number of buf- In view of the radiation assumption, Eq. (6), it
fer meshes which must be interposed between the scatterer is also true that
and the problem-space boundary. The first step towards
this goal is to center the scatterer within the problem Ryx (2,J,K)Eyn-2- (2,J,K) =

space. Thus, we shall hereafter presume r=O coincides

with some point at or near the center of the scatterer.
Subject to this convention, if d is the greatest dimen- 1 (21)
sion of the scatterer, Merewether has empirically found
c

that "far enough" occurs in a two-dimensional program for any Z. If we abbreviate the quantity indicated in
when r is about d/2 past the scatterer in every direc- Eq. (21) as
tion3 (see Figure 2). We shall presume this result is
also valid in three dimensions. Ryx (2,J,K)Eny 12-(2,J,K) = f
yx
(-QAt) 5 (22)
Actual construction of the radiation boundary is the quantity described by Eq. (19) can be written
best explained by example. One of the boundary-field
quantities we need to specify is En 2(l1,J,K) for some Ryx (l,J,K)Eyn2(1,J,K) = f (e yx (J,K)At)
yx
(23)
(J K) such that 1 < J < Ny-l, I < K <{Iz. (This E mesh
point lies on the -x facing surface of the proNlem We now assume that f x(u) can be represented by
space.) In our scheme, this quantity is determined from the first three terms in ; Maclaurin series,
old values of Ey(2,J,K) by three-point interpolation
over time. Let Ryx(I,J,K) be the value of r at which fyx (u) = A + Bu + Cu2 (24)
Ey(l,J,K) or Ey(2,J,K) is calculated. Furthermore,
define where A, B and C are unknowns to be determined. THREDE
e (J,K,(n+-')At R (1,J,K)/c) =
-
is programmed so that access to old values of Ey(2,J,K)
y yx is available for three selected previous cycles. These
Ryx (l,J,K)E 2(l ,J ,K) (18) old values are denoted to be k,l'2 and Q3 proqram cycles
yxy
in the past. In other words, THREDE backstores
Equation (18) can also be expressed as for =Z1'Q2'Q3S
En 2(2,J,K) (-'~21t3
-

If we define f by
R yx(l,J,K)(y(1,J,K)
R (2,J,K) fi fyx (-1it) =

ey(J,K,(n-'2)At + yAt y -JsK)

~~~~~~~~c Ryx (2,JyK)E d i(2,J,K), i = 1-3 , (25)
R (1,J,K) - R (2,J,K)\ we obtain three equations for the unknowns A, B and C
c/

R (2,J,K) in terms of the backstored y En-12-i(2,J,K):

ey JK,(n-1-2)At - _Y- + ey (J,K)At) (19) f. = A Bk At + Ck 2

At2, i = 1-3 (26)

2418
Simultaneous solution of these three linear equations closest interior field, En-MZi(2,J,K), at the present
is accomplished by the usual use of determinants. Re- cycle (Q; = -1) and the two most recent past cycles
sulting formulas for A, B and C in terms of the back- (N 0 and +1). For uniform cubical meshing, Eq. (28)
=

indicates the maximum stable time step to be

stored fields are given elsewhere,4 but in the interest
of brevity, are omitted here.
At = AX/(v'3 c) 9 (29)
It is now possible to express the radiation-
condition value for the desired boundary field where AX is the dimension of any of the cubical cell
En+2(1,J,K) entirely in terms of previously-determined edges. Thus, under these circumstances, an electromag-
quantities: netic signal will propagate .58 AX during each time step.
9 9
A + BO (J,K)At + Cox (iJ,K)AtL At this point, it may be helpful to refer to Figure
E +2(1,J,K) = yx lJ yx
y Ry (I J,K) 3, and to bear in mind that we are trying to compute the
7) new E+2(1,J,K) from Eyh2k(2,J,K) obtained previously
(Q > -1). As time progresses, the field at I= 2 propa-
Radiating-condition boundary fields must also be gates towards the I= 1 mesh point. At Qi = -1 (the pre-
obtained for sent cycle), this propagation has just begum. By i = 0
(the most recent past cycle), the propagation has pro-
l <J < Ny 1 < K< Nz- gressed .58 AX; by Qi = 1 (the next most recent past
cycle) the propagation has progressed 1.16 AX, and thus
En+2(N
y x,J,K) 1 <J < N-1, 1 < K< Nz passed the I= 1 mesh point. Thus, for this case, taking
Qi= -1, 0 and 1 guarantees that the new boundary field,
En+2 1 <J < Ny, 1 < K< Nz-
z (N x ,J,K) En+2(1,J,K), is interpolatively obtained from previously
determined values which have propagated to both sides of
the relevant I= 1 mesh point.
1 < I< NX- 1, 1 < K< Nz
I < I < Nx, 1 < K < Nz- Ey(l,J,K) Ey(2,J,K)
Enx +2(I,N,K) 1 < I'< NX- 1, I < K< Nz X0(l
0
) X0(2)
E n+12 (I,Ny ,K)
z y
I < I< N , 1 < K< Nz-
+t i -1
En 2(I,J,l) I < I< N -1 1 <J < N direction of
propagation
Eny 2(I,J,l ) I < I < N ,1 1 <'J <
Ny I1 .4 4* .58AX IQ =O
En+2(I,J,N
x z)
1 < I < N x- I, I1 J < Ny
-{II k= 1
1. 16AX
Eny +12(I,J,N z )
-

I < I< N , 1 <J < N y-.

Figure 3. Location of the boundary and first interior
These eleven additional cases of the radiation- E (I,J,K) mesh points. Note that by i==1, the
boundary condition are all developed by straightforward, signal from XO(2) has passed Xo(l) for uniform
but tedious, repetitions of the derivation of Eq. (27) cubical meshing. Thus, for this case, the new
with appropriate permutations of the subscripts. signal at Xo(l) can be temporally interpolated
from its and +1 values at Zi= -1, 0 X (2).
Stability Considerations
On the other hand, if one uses an expanding mesh
The algorithm described herein for solving Maxwell's the radiation boundary in order to satisfy the
near
equations is unstable if too large a value is assigned previously-described "far enouah" criterion with a mini-
the time step At. For stability, At must obey mum number of buffer meshes, selecting Qi = -1, 0 and -1
may not be satisfactory. Suppose, for example, XO(l) and
At < m in1X (I+1) - X (I)) -2( XO(2) are separated by three times the dimension of the
-1
+ (Yo(J+0 0 smallest mesh. Then the signal starting out from I =2
at Li = -1 will-have propagated only 1.16/3 of the dis-
+ (Y (3+1)- y()- tance to I= 1 by Li = +1. In this case, kj = -1,0 and 1
all correspond to signals which are on the same side of
I=1.
+ (z (K+l) - Z (K))Y2(p) 1) (28)
In the case of nonuniform meshing, it is generally
If c or p is inhomogeneous, their dependence on (I,J,K) necessary to make at least one of the ki greater than +1.
must be included in evaluating the minimal time step of In other words, generally it is necessary to backstore
Eq. (28). information from longer ago than the two immediately pre-
ceding cycles. It is not, however, necessary to back-
A somewhat more subtle stability difficulty can be store fields from more than two previous cycles at any
generated at the radiation boundary if one is careless given time - to do otherwise in a three-dimensional code
in picking values for the ki. In particular, one can is very extravagant of computer-memory resources. The
inadvertantly turn the radiation-interpolation procedure manner in which THREDE selects cycles for backstorage and
into a less stable extrapolation procedure. determines the corresponding Li for an arbitrary, nonuni-
form mesh is of sufficient complexity to preclude pre-
For the case of uniform cubical meshing, this sentation here. It has been documented in the THREDE
difficulty will be avoided if one takes k. =-l, 0 and 1 reference report, however.4
as the backstored fields used to determine A, B and C
from Eq. (26). This choice of Li corresponds to deter-
mining the new boundary field En Nl1,J,K) from the
y
2419
 DIMENSIONS: ANTENNA BASE TO BASE = 150 METERS
DIPOLE ELEVATION = 30 METERS
Figure 4. The AFWL HPD EMP simulator with an F-1il positioned for
excitation such that the E-field is along the fuselage.
Application to the F-1il Test Project at dimensions in the two horizontal directions are 1 m.
the Horizontally-Polarized Dipole (HPD) We call attention to the great amount of actual struc-
tural detail which the rectilinear model preserves.
The THREDE code has been used to predict the re-
sponse of an F-1il shell in the Air Force Weapons Labora-
tory (AFWL) HPD EMP simulator at Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Figure 4 is an approximate rendition of the HPD with the
F-ll shell positioned for testing so that the E-field
is directed along the fuselage.
Basically, the HPD generates a spherical wave emina-
ting from the point indicated in Figure 4. The angular
dependence of this wave is that of a dipole horizontally
aligned along x. The temporal dependence of the spheri-
cal wave with the R-1 dependence factored out, is illus-
trated in Figure 5.6 Superimposed on this direct-
output field is a dispersive ground-plane reflection of
coefficient varying from -1 at dc to -.75 at 250 MHz.
Thus, the HPD offers an opportunity to check out the
THREDE code under nonplane wave incident-field excitation.
Also, the presence of the dispersive ground plane exer-
cises the code's capability to treat scattering from an
object which is not imbedded in a homogemeous medium. Figure 6. F-111 aircraft, with rectilinear, finite-
difference model superimposed. Mesh dimen-
sions are .5 m vertically and 1 m horizontally.
The wings are treated as infinitely thin, per-
fectly conducting planes.7
Of the various parameters which enter into the
THREDE calculations for this problem, the one which by
go far leads to the greatest uncertainty is the value as-
signed the ground plane (runway) conductivity. Conse-
quently, a parametric study has been made using
a = l.x10-2, 2.x10-2 and 5.x10-2 mhos/m. Figure 7 com-
pares the results of these three calculations with the
measured axial surface current density at a point on
Time (ns)
the underbelly (dark side) of the F-1i1 shell. It may
readily be seen that a = 5.x10-2 gives the best agree-
Figure 5. Temporal dependence of the HPD radiation ment with measurement. Consequently, all subsequently
pulse in the yz plane with the R-1 dependence presented calculations are based on this a value.
factored out, R-1Elnc(O,y,z). Both predictions and measurements shown in Figure
7 pertain to the aircraft located with its center dis-
Figure 6 shows the F-1il shell with the rectilinear, placed 30 m out the z axis (see Fig. 4) from a point
finite-difference model used in our THREDE code super- directly underneath the HPD point source. The center of
imposed on it.7 In this rectilinear model, the wings are the aircraft was elevated 3.3 m off the runway - thus,
treated as having zero thickness. The other mesh dimen- the smallest separation between the aircraft underbelly
sions in the vertical direction are .5 m, and the mesh and the concrete pad was about 1.8 m.
2420
 300

7 1of

10 V

<: I Measured
-measured
-20 predicted
-4 ---Predicted (a = 2x<10 2rmhos/m)-
-5 R. -- Predicted (a = 5xlO mhos/m)
- 3010 200 400 600 800 1000
0, 200 400 600 800 1 000
Time (ns)
Time (ns )

Figure 9. Comparison of measured and calculated surface

Figure 7. Comparison of measured and calculated axial charge density at the indicated underbelly
surface current density at the indicated un- point on the F-111 shell.
derbelly point on the F-hil shell. Calcula-
tions are based on three different values for In conclusion, calculated and measured axial sur-
the conductivity of the ground plane. face current density at a point on the upper or illu-
minated side of the F-ll shell appear- in Figure 10.
The fuselage length of the F-lll is about 20 m. The F-lll/HPD configuration for this data is the same
If the dominant resonant frequency appearing in Figure as that upon which the previous figures in this section
7 corresponded to a half wavelength along the fuselage, are based. Much higher initial responses occur here
this resonance would occur at 7.5 MHz. In actuality, than on the underbelly due to the presence of direct,
both the measured and predicted resonances in Figure 7 rather than diffracted, excitation. This higher re-
are at 5.6 MHz. Thus, the fundamental fuselage reso- sponse is well anticipated by the THREDE computation.
nance occurs at a frequency considerably lower than that
18 I
corresponding to a half wavelength. Moreover, this fact
is predicted with considerable precision by the THREDE
analysis . Icr.
x
12
101,
Figure 8 compares the measured and predicted axial
surface-current density at another point on the F-lll
us 6
underbelly for the same excitation conditions. The sur-
face
in
charge
Figure 9.
density
Both
comparison
of these
at
figures
this
show
point is shown
-c 0I I_A
, _r
-V
-Z
9_%i%
1.1111,1,,.. =. _ =
excellent * 1-

agreement between prediction and measurement. (Figure

7 corresponds to a point nearly midway between the air- -6
craft nose
measured
and tail. The charge density goes through ... predicted
a null near this point, and thus it is difficult to
make meaningful predictions or repeatable measurements -12 --- I

there. )
0 I 100 200 300 400 500
Time (ns)
BRIGHT SIDE SURFACE CURRENT WITH EinC ALONG FUSELAGE

Figure 10. Comparison of measured and calculated axial

Time (ns)
DARK SIDE SURFACE CURRENT WITH
Figure 8. Comparison of measured and calculated axial
surface current density at the indicated
underbelly point on the F-ll shell.
surface current density at the indicated
point on the dorsal surface of the F-ll
shell.
References
1. K. S. Yee, "Numerical solution of initial boundary
value problems involving Maxwell's equations in iso-
tropic media," IEEE Trans. Ant. & Prop., AP-14, pp.
302-307, May 1966.
2. C. L. Longmire, "State of the art in IEMP and SGEMP
calculations," IEEE Trans. Nuc. Sci., NS-22, pp. 2340-
2344, December 1975.
3. D. E. Merewether, "Transient currents induced on a
metallic body of revolution by an electromagnetic
pulse," IEEE Trans. EMC, EMC-13, pp. 41-44, 'lay 1971
4. R. Holland, "THREDE: A free-field EMP coupling and
scattering code," Mission Research Corporation,
Albuquerque, NM, AMRC-R-85, 1977.
5. J. A. Stratton, Electromagnetic Theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1941, pp. 486-438.
6. R. Holland, "A simple method for modeling the AFWL
Einc ALONG FUSELAGE HPD electromagnetic fields," Mission Research Corpora-
tion, Albuquerque, NM, AMRC-R-83, August 1976.
7. The rectilinear fit to the F-ll shell was developed
by K. Kunz of Mission Research Corporation under,AFWL
Contract F29601-76-C-0064.

2421