Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Remote Sensing of Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rse

High-resolution surface topographic change analyses to characterize a series T

of underground explosions
⁎
Emily S. Schultz-Fellenza, , Erika M. Swansona, Aviva J. Sussmanb, Ryan T. Coppersmithc,
Richard E. Kelleya, Elizabeth D. Millera, Brandon M. Crawforda, Anita F. Lavadie-Bulnesa,
James R. Cooleyd, Steven R. Vigilb, Margaret J. Townsende, Jennifer M. Larotondae
a
Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
b
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA
c
Coppersmith Consulting Inc., Walnut Creek, CA, USA
d
Civil and Environmental Consultants Inc., Nashville, TN, USA
e
Mission Support and Test Services, LLC, Las Vegas, NV, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The understanding of subsurface events that cannot be directly observed is dependent on the ability to relate
Change detection surface-based observations to subsurface processes. This is particularly important for nuclear explosion mon-
Unmanned aerial systems itoring, as any future clandestine tests will likely be underground. We collected ground-based lidar and optical
Lidar imagery using remote, very-low-altitude unmanned aerial system platforms, before and after several under-
Underground explosions
ground high explosive experiments. For the lidar collections, we used a terrestrial lidar scanner to obtain high-
Structure-from-motion
Nuclear explosion monitoring
resolution point clouds and create digital elevation models (DEMs). For the imagery collections, we used
Photogrammetry structure-from-motion photogrammetry techniques and a dense grid of surveyed ground control points to create
high-resolution DEMs. Comparisons between the pre- and post-experiment DEMs indicate changes in surface
topography that vary between explosive experiments with varying yield and depth parameters. Our work shows
that the relationship between explosive yield and the extent of observable surface change differs from the
standard scaled-depth-of-burial model. This suggests that the surface morphological change from underground
high explosive experiments can help constrain the experiments' yield and depth, and may impact how such
activities are monitored and verified.

1. Introduction verification, as well as other global security efforts.

Many subsurface events cause measurable changes in surface mor-
phology. Earthquakes, mining activities, volcanic and magmatic events,
explosions, groundwater drawdown, and other natural or manmade
events can potentially create surface expressions that could be observed
with sufficiently high-resolution data. Advances through time in de-
tecting small surface changes have enabled greater understanding of
these processes with respect to groundwater drawdown (Galloway
et al., 1998; Chai et al., 2004; Higgins et al., 2013; Erban et al., 2014),
earthquakes and resulting infrastructure damage (Liau and Shen, 2009;
Kaya et al., 2011; Ishitsuka et al., 2012; Menderes et al., 2015), ground
motion amplification effects (Buech et al., 2010; Kaiser et al., 2013),
and mining activities (Phang et al., 1983; Chowdhury and Wilt, 2015).
Similarly, the measurement of surface morphological changes has sig-
nificant implications for improving nuclear explosion monitoring and
For global security applications, it is critical to detect, locate, and
characterize underground explosions remotely (cf. Thurber et al., 1993;
Argo et al., 1995; Gupta and Pabian, 1998; Henderson et al., 2014;
Zelinski et al., 2014; Pabian and Coblentz, 2018; Wang et al., 2018;
Yocky et al., 2018) to work toward estimating explosion size or yield.
Most yield estimates currently come from seismic data. However,
seismic data need to be empirically calibrated to each location, as the
mechanical properties of rocks differ between locations. Therefore,
there is a trade-off between accurately assessing depth vs. accurately
assessing yield when using seismic data alone for areas with unknown
or poorly constrained source and path information (e.g., Rougier et al.,
2011; Pasyanos and Myers, 2018 and references therein). An in-
dependent data source is needed to facilitate this trade-off.
While remote sensing data has been applied to identifying and de-
scribing the geology for nuclear test locations (e.g., Canty and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: eschultz@lanl.gov (E.S. Schultz-Fellenz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111871
Received 11 October 2019; Received in revised form 27 April 2020; Accepted 6 May 2020
Available online 18 May 2020
0034-4257/ Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al.
Schlittenhardt, 2001; Zelinski et al., 2014; Coblentz and Pabian, 2015),
its use for characterizing underground nuclear tests has been so far
limited to the announced tests of the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea (DPRK) (e.g., Wei, 2017; Wang et al., 2018; Pabian and Coblentz,
2018), where the observations cannot be compared against verified
yields. Remotely sensed change detection has the potential to provide
significant insight on yield/depth trade-offs. However, this cannot be
done without a better understanding of how surface signals manifest
from underground explosions, a field in need of significantly more
study. For example, at the current time, it is unclear (1) whether the
surface change from any given underground explosion will manifest as
uplift or subsidence, and (2) what specific parameters govern this
manifestation.
The most commonly documented and identified surface morpholo-
gical changes related to United States (U.S.) legacy underground nu-
clear explosions were surface fractures (referred to as cracks in older
literature; e.g., Barosh, 1968; Grasso, 2003 and references therein) and
subsidence features, including collapse sinks/craters (e.g., Houser,
1969; Hakala, 1970; Allen et al., 1997; Vincent et al., 2003). Signatures
of topographic uplift such as doming or bulging were documented only
twice in post-experiment surface change analyses of the more than 800
underground nuclear explosive experiments conducted by the U.S. since
the Limited Test Ban Treaty took effect in 1963 (Allen et al., 1997;
Grasso, 2003; U.S. Department of Energy, 2015). Cattermole and
Hansen (1962) characterized and discriminated uplifts ≥30 cm in large
(10- and 50-ton) high explosive experiments. Most previous measure-
ments of surface deformation were conducted using individually sur-
veyed control points or along level lines (e.g., Cattermole and Hansen,
1962; Dickey, 1968, 1969; Bucknam, 1972); the data were not collected
for every underground nuclear explosion, and the tools available at the
time of the experimentation may not have captured cm-scale topo-
graphic change. Furthermore, the legacy photogrammetric techniques
used to quantify explosion-induced surface effects focused largely on
crater volume changes (e.g., Love and Vortman, 1967; Garcia, 1989) or
major surface morphologic changes (Morris, 1973), and do not explore
the possibility of subtle uplift or subsidence.
Recent improvements in surface morphological change detection
techniques now enable much higher-resolution topographic datasets to
be collected in the field, requiring less time (Barnhart and Crosby,
2013; Piras et al., 2017; Di Traglia et al., 2018; Favalli et al., 2018;
Schultz-Fellenz et al., 2018). As these field collection techniques and
commercial off-the-shelf topographic model development software
suites offer affordable, flexible modalities for repeat data collection and
processing, four-dimensional analyses lie within reach for many appli-
cations (e.g., Tannant, 2015; Warrick et al., 2017). Similar techniques
for data collection have been carried out to understand processes re-
lated to natural changes in surface topography (e.g., Klawitter et al.,
2017). These techniques facilitate the detection and identification of
very subtle uplifts (< 5 cm) from underground chemical explosive ex-
periments, where they are not otherwise apparent (Schultz-Fellenz
et al., 2018). Yet the full value of these techniques lies not just with
detection of explosion signatures, but with the potential ability to
constrain the role that geology (i.e., the local tectonic/structural re-
gime, material properties, pre-existing induced damage, saturation),
depth, and yield have on the formation of such signatures from un-
derground explosions. A better understanding of the processes involved
with surface damage (e.g., spall) could enhance the ability to detect and
characterize clandestine underground nuclear explosions using remote
methods, including seismic data.
The first phase of the Source Physics Experiments (SPE), performed
under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear
Security Administration, provided a scientific framework to observe
and analyze surface morphological change with varying underground
explosive experiment parameters. SPE aims to advance the physical
understanding of seismic wave propagation through geologic media
(Snelson et al., 2013). As part of this effort, detailed surface
2
Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871
morphological change characterizations were conducted for individual
experiments within a sequence of multiple, controlled underground
conventional high-explosive experiments in granite. Here, we compare
the results from two different change detection modalities (terrestrial
light detection and ranging scanners, known as TLS or lidar; and pho-
togrammetry), and discuss how measurement technique, geology, ex-
plosive yield, and depth of burial influence surface signatures.
With respect to surface response to explosions, previous work has
used the term “spall” in two different ways. The first describes the
physical manifestation of permanent geologic deformation and/or
surface morphological change (e.g., Glasstone and Dolan, 1977;
Adushkin and Leith, 2001; Khalturin et al., 2005). The second (e.g.,
Eisler and Chilton, 1964; Viecelli, 1973; Merkle, 1980; Patton and
Taylor, 2011) describes an interval of time when surface accelerometers
measure a period of freefall, (i.e., −1 g acceleration). While both uses
of the term refer to interactions of the explosive seismic wave with the
free surface, their implications are different. McKeown et al. (1967); as
reported by Allen et al., 1997) observed that while cracks from UNEs
are most prevalent and best developed within the region of accel-
erometer-measured spall, it was not uncommon for cracking to occur
outside this zone. This paper discusses the permanent deformation re-
sulting from the SPE experiments, and our use of the term spall herein
refers to the physical manifestation of deformation at the surface and
does not necessarily indicate any particular accelerometer measure-
ment at that location. Similarly, since the paper discusses geologic
controls on deformation, our use of fracture herein refers to cracks,
joints, or other breaks in rocks.
2. Geologic setting, experimental series, and test bed
The experiments of SPE Phase 1 are located within the Nevada
National Security Site (NNSS, formerly the Nevada Test Site; Fig. 1),
within a Cretaceous igneous granitic body comprised of porphyritic
biotite quartz monzonite known as the Climax Stock (Houser and Poole,
1961; Orkild et al., 1983). The Climax Stock is bounded by faults along
its south and east sides (Fig. 1). The NE-trending Boundary Fault, lo-
cated southeast of the SPE test bed, merges with the NNE-trending
Yucca Fault to the east. This major basin-bounding normal fault sepa-
rates the quartz monzonite stock from the nearby Yucca Flat alluvial
valley and accommodates as much as 600 m of throw (Maldonado,
1977). The Tippinip Fault, located immediately west of the Climax
stock, strikes north (e.g., Houser and Poole, 1961; Barnes et al., 1963;
Orkild et al., 1983). The nearest approach of any regional fault to the
SPE site is the Boundary Fault, 280 m to the southeast (Fig. 1). The
predominant pre-existing fracture orientations within the Climax stock
are subhorizontal, and the secondary fracture set strikes WNW-ESE, and
dips steeply to the NNE-SSW (Fig. 2) (Houser and Poole, 1961; Barnes
et al., 1963; Orkild et al., 1983; Wilder and Yow Jr., 1984). There is a
less prominent fracture set sub-parallel to the Boundary Fault, dipping
steeply ESE, and likely aligned with the modern stress field.
Phase 1 of SPE involved six individual subsurface chemical ex-
plosive experiments of varying depth and yield. The first experiment,
SPE-1, was very small and deep, intended to obtain an approximate
Green's function (i.e., elastic response) for later experiments. Since the
experiment had a heavy initial focus on seismology, there were neither
predictions nor the expectation of surface damage, so no surface change
detection data were collected against SPE-1. An effort to quantitatively
assess the no-surface-effects hypothesis followed the initial experiment,
and surface morphological change detection studies were performed for
each Phase 1 experiment following SPE-1. Therefore, this work ex-
amines quantitative relationships of spatial distribution of damage re-
lated to five underground explosive experiments that took place in the
same emplacement hole, although the depth and yield of the experi-
ments varied. The surface damage information presented here helps
validate other real-time field geologic and geophysical measurements
(including surface effects mapping, subsurface microfracture density
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

Fig. 1. Map of the study area, showing simplified geology. Modified from Houser and Poole (1961). Inset shows outline of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS)
and its location within the state of Nevada. The locations of three nearby legacy nuclear tests are shown in black stars. Coordinate system shown is NAD83, UTM Zone
11n, meters.

and orientation analyses, downhole accelerometer instrumentation, and
seismic wave analyses recorded from nearfield and farfield sensors; e.g.,
Snelson et al., 2013; Patton, 2015; Larmat et al., 2017), and provides
critical input into predictive models (e.g., Larmat et al., 2017). All ex-
periments in the SPE Phase 1 series were conducted underground,
within the same 0.91 m-diameter borehole. Where this borehole meets
the ground surface is a reference point known as surface ground zero, or
SGZ. This emplacement borehole is located within a test bed, which is a
graded pad area inset into a bedrock hillslope (Fig. 3).
The SPE test bed sits proximal to three underground nuclear tests
conducted within the Climax Stock, with the largest in terms of an-
nounced yield being the PILE DRIVER test (U.S. Department of Energy,
2015; Table 1), located ~760 m to the northeast of the SPE area. Maps
of surface effects from PILE DRIVER show an area of concentrated
fractures (Grasso, 2003) at the approximate location of the SPE test bed
as it exists now, likely because a graded pad had already been con-
structed at that location (the site was later reused for the SPE tests) and
suggesting the SPE site had experienced geologic damage prior to the
initiation of this experiment series in 2011. Since the SPE test bed was
re-graded and prepared for the experimental series starting in 2010, the

3
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al.
Fig. 2. Rose diagram showing pre-existing fracture strike orientations in the
SPE area. Fractures are those found from televiewer logs from U-15n and pre-
SPE-1 instrument holes, filtered to include only the larger (rank 2–5; Townsend
et al., 2012), and higher angle (dipping > 45°) fractures. Fracture strikes are
shown following the right-hand rule convention. Plotted using Stereonet ver.
10.2.9 (Allmendinger et al., 2013). (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
PILE DRIVER surface effects at that location are no longer visible. A thin
(up to 2 m) layer of unconsolidated fill covers the bedrock and provides
the flat experimental test bed. Bedrock is visible at the surface just west
of the graded area and forms a prominent outcrop. The uppermost test
bed bedrock contains regions of “slightly to moderately weathered”
rock, while the region below 15 m consists predominantly of “slightly
weathered” rock (Townsend et al., 2012). Slightly to moderately
weathered zones also occur near minor fault zones identified in sub-
surface geologic core. Definitions of rock weathering follow the con-
vention of International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), 1981. At
~25 m depth, the top of a perched water table is present. The bottom
depth of this perched water level is not known.
3. Methods
3.1. Surface topographic data collection
For experiments SPE-2, −3, and −4prime, field surface topo-
graphic data collection was performed both pre-experiment (PreX) and
post-experiment (PostX) using conventional TLS (Fig. 4a), portable
targets, and global positioning system (GPS) tie-in to a network of three
to five ground control points (GCPs). This method involved deploying
scanners in multiple positions throughout the study area for a single
PreX or PostX data collection. Preliminary change detection results for
SPE-2 through SPE-4prime showed topographic changes on the order of
greater than ± 1 cm, which exists in the error noise. However, < 3 cm
change in an isolated spatial area could be obscured, masked, or de-
stroyed by the field acquisition methodology required for TLS deploy-
ment.
To acquire data in a less invasive manner, we used a commercial-
off-the-shelf electro-optical (E/O) camera deployed from a low-altitude
(between 7 and 20 m above ground level) small unmanned aerial
system (UAS) (Fig. 4b). For position recognition and image rectifica-
tion, a grid of over 100 GCPs – surveyed using a Topcon HiPer V dif-
ferential global positioning system (GPS) with real-time-kinematic
(RTK) procedures – anchor the UAS photogrammetric data in an ab-
solute reference frame. Details on the UAS photogrammetric methods
4
Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871
and systems employed for SPE-5 and SPE-6 are described in Schultz-
Fellenz et al. (2018) and key parameters for both the UAS flights and
SPE Phase 1 experiments are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3, re-
spectively. Surveyed positions of all GCPs and benchmarks in the SPE-5
and SPE-6 campaigns are included in Appendix A.
In both data capture methods, PreX and PostX data acquisition oc-
curred as close to zero-time as possible to rule out other formation
processes for observed signatures. The surface change detection team
were among the first researchers allowed back to the experimental pad
after the execution of experiments. However, following some SPE ex-
periments, issues like carbon monoxide gas venting and geyser-like
water evacuation from instrumentation boreholes near the main em-
placement hole caused delays of as much as 24 h in accessing the ex-
perimental pad for field data collection.
3.2. Surface topographic data processing
TLS data processing began with co-registration of the multiple TLS
scans using Leica Cyclone software for each of the PreX and PostX
collections. Raw TLS point cloud data from all of the scanner locations
on the site were combined into a single georegistered .las data file and
used to generate a single dense point cloud for the PreX and PostX
collections. A combination of automated software and manual methods
were used to remove noise (e.g., blowing dust, birds) from each col-
lection's georectified .las file. A digital elevation model (DEM) surface
was then generated for each collection using the ArcGIS geographic
information system software, specifically the “Topo to Raster” ArcGIS
Spatial Analyst discretized thin plate spline interpolation technique. A
DEM grid size between 1 and 2 cm was chosen to ensure the capture of
multiple (between 2 and 8) TLS points within each grid to minimize
return noise and error. Analysts ensured that all calculation parameters
were equal when processing the PreX and PostX datasets.
Photogrammetric processing of E/O imagery employed commer-
cially available structure-from-motion software (Agisoft Photoscan®).
This software was selected for its optimal performance in image
alignment, point-cloud production for datasets including vegetation,
and the finest-resolution point-cloud output (e.g., Niederheiser et al.,
2016; Schultz-Fellenz et al., 2018; Frazer and Congalton, 2018). In-
tegrating survey-grade real-time kinematic (RTK) GPS measurements
from the dense GCP network facilitated translation of the imagery to an
orthorectified dense point cloud; from there, a DEM was generated. This
work followed the methods of Schultz-Fellenz et al. (2018) for photo-
grammetric data acquisition, processing, and generation of DEMs. Once
the PreX and PostX DEMs are created, simple raster math calculations in
ArcGIS software determine the amount of vertical surface change and
volume change within the site boundary.
3.3. Photogrammetric error analyses
The accuracy of photogrammetry products derived using structure
from motion (SfM) software is controlled by a combination of the model
inputs accuracy and quality (photos, GPS data for GCPs) and the error
inherent within the SfM program. Constraining accuracy to increase
confidence in detectable surface change beyond the ± 2 cm range is
based on knowledge of data inputs and software. The UAS flight spa-
cing, speed, and altitude above ground level varied slightly between
SPE-5 and SPE-6; however, they were consistent within each experi-
ment. The GCP network also varied slightly between experiments.
Despite these minor differences, the quality of surveying did not vary
and was close to the maximum attainable accuracy for the systems used
( ± 0.8 cm horizontal, ± 1.5 cm vertical). In addition, the survey grid
and < 30 m spacing between GCPs spacing on the pad, and less than
60 m in the outlying areas, was designed to maximize accuracy of
photogrammetrically derived DEMs. Other studies have suggested that
the grid design and distance between GCPs drives the accuracy of
photogrammetric products toward the recorded GPS error (e.g., Tonkin
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

Fig. 3. Map showing some of the surface effects mapped after PILE DRIVER (1966), and compiled by Grasso (2003). The PILE DRIVER surface ground zero is located
approximately 760 m northeast of the SPE SGZ. Grasso (2003) transferred fracture traces from mylar overlain on aerial photography from the 1960s, potentially
causing minor distortion when projected to modern coordinates. Background imagery circa 2017 from ESRI ArcMap 10.6. Coordinate system shown is NAD83, UTM
Zone 11n, meters.

Table 1
Published parameters of three U.S. underground nuclear explosions (UNEs) conducted in the Climax Stock. Latitude and longitude locations are the surface ground
zero location of the drill hole or other emplacement location, surveyed in NAD27, State Plane Coordinate System 12,702, and converted to the World Geodetic
System 1984 reference model, shown in decimal degrees. From U.S. Department of Energy (2015).
Climax Stock UNE Date Latitude Longitude Yield (W; tons TNT equiv.) Depth, m

HARD HAT 2/15/1962 37.226214 −116.06019 5700 287.4

TINY TOT 6/17/1965 37.223368 −116.05784 < 20,000 110.9
PILE DRIVER 6/2/1966 37.227022 −116.05641 62,000 462.7

and Midgley, 2016).
3.4. Surface effects mapping
Surface effects (e.g., fractures, separation of ground or grout from
well casing, slumping/debris fall, enhanced desiccation cracks, fluffed
soil, degassing features, soil fallback, and shifted equipment) for SPE-2
through SPE-6 were visually mapped by geologists on foot using tech-
niques similar to those employed for surface effects mapping after un-
derground nuclear explosive tests during the Weapons Testing Program
at the NNSS (Allen et al., 1997). Mapping was done for SPE-3, SPE-5,
and SPE-6 on the day after the test. The SPE-4prime site was mapped an
hour after execution, and SPE-2 effects were mapped seven days after
execution.
Photographs were taken after each experiment to document the
surface effects. Pre-test photographs of the SPE pad were taken prior to
SPE-5 and SPE-6. In addition to the immediate SGZ area and pad sur-
face in general, geologists photographed areas thought to be most
susceptible to showing surface effects, such as borehole casings and
slopes. Each site at which a photo was taken was given a station
number, which was annotated on the orthophoto base map. Features
photographed pre-test were re-photographed post-test. The photos were
then visually compared to determine if any surface effects were visible
that were not obvious in the field.
The 1–3 m accuracy of available hand-held GPS units was deemed
inadequate for measuring the closely spaced fractures near the SGZ, so a
handheld GPS was not used to collect location data. Surface effects were
plotted from visual observations directly on an aerial orthophoto using
existing features for location. When larger distances to known features
made plotting fractures on the orthophoto less accurate, fractures were
also located by measuring from the features with a tape measure and by
taking bearings with a pocket transit. The surface effects were later

5
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

Fig. 4. Data collection methods. (a), data for earlier

tests were collected via a terrestrial lidar scanner
mounted on a tripod. (b), data for later tests were
collected using a commercial-off-the-shelf visible
light (RGB) camera mounted on an unmanned aerial
vehicle platform, and tied to an absolute reference
frame using 100+ surveyed ground control points.

Table 3
Parameters of SPE Phase 1 experiments, including surface change detection measurement details from each experiment in the series. Surface morphological change
detection analyses were performed for all experiments except for SPE-1. Chemical high-explosive experiment yields are presented in terms of tons of trinitrotoluene
(TNT) equivalence. Explosive types: SHANFO = sensitized heavy ammonium nitrate/fuel oil; C4 = Composition C4 plastic explosive; PBX = polymer-bonded
explosive. sDOB = scaled depth of burial, which is a calculated indication of confinement of an explosion; TLS = terrestrial lidar scanning; UAS = unmanned aerial
system. Experiment operational constraints drove scheduling of PreX and PostX collections. Surface distance is the maximum horizontal distance to edge of 2 cm
uplift area from the center point of the emplacement hole at the test bed ground surface post-experiment, as measured on map. Range distance is the straight-line
distance from that same point, and is calculated from the centroid depth of the experiment as noted in Table 1.
Experiment Depth, m Yield (W, Explosive Surface change PreX PostX Max Max Total Max Δz Max Δz range
(sDOB, tons TNT Type field data Collect Collect uplift, subsidence, cm surface surface distance, m
Name Date 1 equiv.) capture Date Date cm change distance, m
m/ kt 3 ⎞⎟ modality area, m2
⎠

SPE-1 5/3/ 55.1 0.09 SHANFO n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
2011 (1230)
SPE-2 10/ 45.7 0.997 SHANFO TLS 10/23–24 10/26–27 5 0 30 11 46
25/ (457)
2011
SPE-3 7/24/ 45.7 0.905 SHANFO TLS 7/23 7/25 4 0 24 11 47
2012 (457)
SPE-4prime 5/21/ 87.2 0.089 C4 TLS 5/20 5/21–22 – – – – –
2015 (1952)
SPE-5 4/26/ 76.5 5.035 PBXN-110 UAS 4/19–20 4/27–28 9 5 3600 65 100
2016 (446)
SPE-6 10/ 31.4 2.245 PBXC-141 UAS 10/6–7 10/13–14 28 0 1530 50 59
12/ (240)
2016

digitized using ArcGIS. Maps showing the visually-mapped fractures for
SPE-2 through SPE-6 are provided in Figs. 5 and 6.
More surface fractures were documented following SPE-6 than any
of the previous SPE tests, as anticipated based on its shallower scaled
depth of burial (sDOB), which is a calculated indication of confinement
of an explosion. SPE-2 produced few surface fractures. SPE-3 and SPE-5
produced considerably more surface effects than SPE-2, even though
the three tests had similar sDOBs. SPE-5 produced more surface effects
than SPE-3, but less than SPE-6. SPE-4prime had the largest sDOB and
produced few surface fractures, as expected. The farthest visually ob-
served effects were from SPE-6 and SPE-5, about 52 m from the SGZ.
4. Results
This section presents results of DEM raster difference calculations,
performed by subtracting the PreX surface from the PostX surface,
which yields surface change (ΔZ) on the SPE test bed for individual SPE
experiments. These data are presented together with an examination of
overall surface change across the SPE Phase 1 series (pre-SPE-2 com-
pared to post-SPE-6; Fig. 5). We do not include data analysis between
tests, (e.g., comparing post-SPE-5 to pre-SPE-6) due to the errors as-
sociated with different data modalities, stand-off distances, and ima-
gery resolution for different experiments. When subtracting datasets
collected the same way, these differences are small, but comparisons
between different types of collections result in much more noise, ob-
scuring the signal of interest.
Focused views of maximum surface change and patterns in regions
around the SPE SGZ are shown in Fig. 6. Calculated vertical surface
changes of less than 2 cm are considered to be less than the elevation
error in calculating the DEM surfaces, and are not included in the

6
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

Table 2
UAS flight parameters for SPE-5 and SPE-6. The SPE-5 low altitude model includes data collected only over the graded test bed area; the high altitude model
represents data collection across the full study area, including a region of native terrain beyond the graded test bed area.
Parameter SPE-5 PreX (Low altitude model) SPE-5 PostX (Low altitude model) SPE-5 PreX (High altitude model) SPE-5 PostX (High altitude model)

Aircraft DJI Inspire 1 DJI Inspire 1 DJI Inspire 1 DJI Inspire 1

Average flight height (AGL) 8.24 m 9.23 m 23.4 m 21.5 m
Flight speed 2.0 m/s 2.0 m/s 5.0 m/s 5.0 m/s
Camera specifications DJI Zenmuse X3 DJI Zenmuse X3 DJI Zenmuse X3 DJI Zenmuse X3
Image format JPEG JPEG JPEG JPEG
Pixel size 1.56 × 1.56 μm 1.56 × 1.56 μm 1.56 × 1.56 μm 1.56 × 1.56 μm
Focal length 3.61 mm 3.61 mm 3.61 mm 3.61 mm
Frontal/side overlap Minimum of 75% Minimum of 75% Minimum of 75% Minimum of 75%
Image footprint (approx.) 8 m × 11 m 8 m × 11 m 30 m × 40 m 30 m × 40 m
Ground resolution 3.07 mm/pix 3.44 mm/pix 8.74 mm/pix 8.1 mm/pix
Number of flight lines 23 28 16 21
Number of images 1241 1504 1060 1623
Study area 0.0181 km2 0.0142 km2 0.0521 km2 0.0551 km2
Point cloud RMS reprojection error 0.575982 (1.94906 pix) 0.780925 (2.10349 pix) 0.71531 (2.04063 pix) 0.738022 (2.02064 pix)

Parameter SPE-6 PreX SPE-6 PostX

Aircraft Aeryon SkyRanger Aeryon SkyRanger

Average flight height (AGL) 17.9 m 13.5 m
Flight speed 4.0 m/s 4.0 m/s
Camera specifications DSC-QX30U DSC-QX30U
Image format JPEG JPEG
Pixel size Unknown Unknown
Focal length 4.3 mm 4.3 mm
Frontal/side overlap Minimum of 75% Minimum of 75%
Image footprint (approx.) 12 m × 16 m 12 m × 16 m
Ground resolution 4.54 mm/pix 4.83 mm/pix
Number of flight lines 40 38
Number of images 1666 1767
Study area 0.0525 km2 0.0558 km2
Point cloud RMS reprojection error 0.304702 (1.33368 pix) 0.353858 (1.26698 pix)

discussions below. In addition, any testbed surface changes deemed not
to be associated with effects of the experiment (e.g., natural geo-
morphic processes, equipment movement) are not considered here.
Unless otherwise noted, all lateral distances and azimuths noted in the
section below are relative to the center of SGZ.
little to no subsidence is observed. Weak linear features again appear to
bound small localized areas of uplift and align with the surface fractures
mapped on the test bed. We note that the mapped surface fractures for
SPE-3 extend well beyond regions of calculated surface topographical
changes, an unusual occurrence across the SPE experiment series.

4.1. SPE-2 4.3. SPE-4prime

Surface topographic change from SPE-2 was detected in regions
adjacent to, immediately northeast and southwest of SGZ (Figs. 5a and
6a), and near the edges of the graded pad. Visually mapped surface
fractures broadly correlate with calculated surface topographic change.
We interpret the changes along the edge of the graded area to be arti-
facts of the collection modality, not experiment-related change; since
the edge of the graded area was at a low angle to the TLS, minute
differences in horizontal alignment result in large differences in vertical
position. A rectangular container removed from the collection area
between the PreX and PostX collections can be seen in the data. Max-
imum uplift is observed N44E of SGZ at a distance of 8.4 m. A weak NE-
SW oriented linear trace is visible near the northeastern margin of the
uplift area. Little to no subsidence is observed. Very few surface frac-
tures were observed for this experiment.
4.2. SPE-3
Surface changes related to SPE-3 (conducted at the same depth as
SPE-2, within the SPE-2 damage zone) are very similar in spatial extent
and maximum magnitude to those from SPE-2, with an area of uplift
near SGZ and near the edge of the graded area. We interpret the
changes near the edge of the graded area to be artifacts for the same
reason above. Slightly NE from SGZ, a small uplifted area trends NW-
SE. Maximum uplift is observed N30E of SGZ at a distance of 4.4 m;
SPE-4prime was the deepest and smallest-yield experiment in the
series for which change detection studies were performed (Table 1).
Despite the depth and yield, subtle surface changes were measured
(Fig. 5c). Most of the changes observed are over surface-mounted or
shallowly-buried instruments, where sand bags were added or removed.
Examinations focused on SGZ (Fig. 6c) show subsidence observed im-
mediately northeast of SGZ. Maximum uplift is located N34E from SGZ
at a distance of 1.8 m. Since these subtle changes are about the same
magnitude as the data error and given their spatial distributions, we
interpret that these changes are noise or artifacts, and do not reflect
explosion-induced surface damage.
4.4. SPE-5
SPE-5 was the largest-yield experiment, and the first for which
surface morphologic change detection was performed using UAS pho-
togrammetric techniques (Schultz-Fellenz et al., 2018). Widespread
surface changes resulted from this experiment, both in spatial extent
and maximum magnitude (Fig. 5d, Fig. 6d). Surface fracturing was
observed, and those effects correlate with regions of surface topo-
graphic change. A longer time window was budgeted for the SPE-5 PreX
collection to ensure adequate data capture using this novel metho-
dology. Because of this, PreX data for SPE-5 were collected several days
prior to the SPE-5 experiment, with PostX data capture occurring within

7
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

Fig. 5. (a-e) change in surface elevations for each explosion in the SPE series. (f) cumulative surface change (DEM subtraction of pre-SPE-2 from post-SPE-6). Mapped
surface fractures in (a-e) are from this study's visual surface effects mapping; those shown in (e) are additionally validated using geospatial analysis of this study's
PostX imagery. One small surface fracture was mapped following SPE-4prime (c), but is not visible at the scale of this figure. Background hillshade DEM data for all
panels is post-SPE-6.

36 h after zero-time. Between the PreX collect and zero time, a large the intervening time such as flowering plant blossom drop or vegetation
rainstorm crossed the SPE site and impacted both surface morphology movement in wind. Given these alternative, non-experiment related
and the integrity of some GCP fiducial markers. Thirty-eight GCPs were scenarios for surface change off the test bed, and the higher-confidence
damaged and unusable in the SPE-5 analyses. Although some recent data available for the test bed, we did not include these off-testbed
studies have suggested that the arrangement and distance from GCPs regions in our SPE-5 change detection calculations.
may be one of the largest contributing errors in Agisoft-created DEMs
(Goetz et al., 2018), the optimal quantity, density, and distribution of
4.5. SPE-6
GCPs is actively under research for geologic change detection photo-
grammetric analyses and applications.
The experimental parameters of SPE-6 were expected to enhance
Following SPE-5, the emplacement hole and several test bed bore-
surface damage. Surface change manifests predominantly as uplift in an
holes evacuated stemming materials and/or water, some within seconds
elongated region, located NE from SGZ and oriented NE-SW. There are
after the experiment. Deposition of these evacuated materials, including
also broad areas of change farther from SGZ that are ambiguous to
gravel, are visible (Fig. 6d). In addition to the gravel, flowing water
interpret and may be artifacts, so we focus on the more obvious uplift
altered the test bed morphology. One instrumentation borehole located
near SGZ in our analyses. While SPE-6 exhibited widespread surface
on the northeast margin of the test bed geysered water to a height of
change like SPE-5, the spatial extent was smaller than for SPE-5. The
nearly 30 m. Another instrument hole to the southwest also geysered.
region of uplift was bound on the west by a prominent linear feature
Because of these disturbances, the specific attribution of observed
oriented approximately N40E (Fig. 5e). This prominent bounding edge
surface morphological changes to the weather event, the experiment's
was not observed in any other experiment. Surface fractures are present
explosion-induced seismic waves, or the water flowing from the bore-
in greater observed quantity than any previous experiment, and their
holes is unclear.
mapped positions strongly correlate with regions of surface topographic
Much larger areas of subsidence and uplift are identified off of the
change.
test bed for SPE-5, but determining whether these observations re-
present actual surface topographic change from SPE-5 is ambiguous.
These changes may result from the passing weather system between the 4.6. Post-SPE-6 minus pre-SPE-2
PreX and PostX collections, or may be other artifacts of site changes in
Figs. 5f and 6f illustrate cumulative overall surface change on the

8
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

Fig. 6. (a-e) More detailed change in surface elevations for each explosion. Mapped surface fractures in (a-e) are from this study's visual surface effects mapping;
those shown in (e) are additionally validated using geospatial analysis of this study's PostX imagery. (f) cumulative surface change (DEM subtraction of pre-SPE-2
from post-SPE-6). Background hillshade DEM data from post-SPE-6. Many localized areas of apparent uplift, like the small point-locations east and south of SGZ for
SPE-5 (6d) and similar features in the lowermost quarter of the panel showing cumulative change from SPE-2 to SPE-6 (6f), are due to anthropogenic activities in the
collection area between collections, such as the installation of surface instrumentation, sandbags, or traffic cones. There is a network of diagnostic cables at the site
that are prominent linear features not related to surface topographic change.

SPE testbed from pre-SPE-2 to post-SPE-6. The figures indicate that
earlier surface change is largely overprinted by the results of SPE-5 and
SPE-6. Small subsidence occurs on the NNE and SSW ends of the graded
pad that were not apparent in analyses from any single test. This could
possibly reveal topographic relaxation or settling in the intervening
time between SPE-5 and SPE-6, or it could indicate that the original
uplift was a data processing artifact and did not reflect actual surface
change. Given the disturbances to the area (discussed above under SPE-
5), we prefer the interpretation that these distal uplifted regions result
from artifacts, but cannot eliminate the possible interpretation that
these uplifted regions are SPE-series changes that manifest through
different timescale processes than previously understood. We interpret
that most or all of the subsidence shown in Fig. 5f is due to testbed
surface activity and disturbances not related to the experiments (ero-
sion, traffic, etc.), due to their linear pattern and the lack of such
subsidence areas between any one PreX - PostX pair (Fig. 5a-e). How-
ever, it remains possible that some late-time subsidence affected loca-
lized areas.
4.7. Δx and Δy
For SPE-5 and SPE-6 photogrammetric collections, a dense network
of geodetically-surveyed GCPs establishes an absolute reference fra-
mework for Δz analyses (changes in height), and quantifies lateral Δx
and Δy (Fig. 7). Most GCPs show radially outward motion from SGZ, as
expected. However, many GCPs exhibit more south-easterly motion
than expected, particularly due to SPE-6 (Figs. 5e and 6e). These GCPs
moved vertically upward and laterally southeast, a motion consistent
with the opening of one or more fractures parallel to the Boundary Fault
surface trace. This suggests that latent geologic and geostructural
complexity may alter predicted explosion-induced deformation pat-
terns.
5. Discussion
All SPE experiments at the Climax Stock for which data were col-
lected resulted in observable surface morphological change.
Observations of surface changes were found during experiments with
explosions occurring at scaled depths of burial of 240–472 m, which
contrasts with previous work that predicted no surface change would be
detectable for experiments deeper than ~200 scaled meters depth (e.g.,
Rougier et al., 2011, whose simulations were based on scaling re-
lationships from Mueller and Murphy (1971) and Denny and Johnson
(1991)). Topographic changes from SPE-4prime are interpreted to be
noise, based on their lack of obvious correlation to SGZ or other ex-
perimental features. Consistently observing surface topographic change
where none was predicted indicates that the dependence on scaled
depth of burial to minimize buried explosion surface effects may not be

9
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al.
Fig. 7. Changes in horizontal position of ground control points, shown by vectors. (a), SPE-5 and (b) SPE-6. See Figs. 5 and 6 for source data of surface fracture
mapping. Only points with changes of > 1 cm (the error in the GPS measurements) are shown. SGZ, surface ground zero. Note the combination of radially outward
(away from SGZ) and southeasterly displacements.
correct and requires reconsideration. Furthermore, the patterns of
surface change reflect the roles that geology, explosion parameters, and
SGZ pad characteristics play in the manifestation of these features at the
ground surface at testing locations.
5.1. Uplift or subsidence?
The surface changes discussed here that result from the SPE series
predominantly exhibit uplift. These data contrast with observations
made by Houser (1969), Hakala (1970), Allen et al. (1997), and Vincent
et al. (2003), which principally identify subsidence as the permanent
topographic signature of underground nuclear explosions in tuff and
alluvium at the Nevada Test Site (now the NNSS). This difference could
be due to a variety of potential factors: the geology at the explosion site,
the size of the explosion, and the nuclear vs conventional high explosive
energy source, among others. To help constrain the determining factors,
we searched for other studies of permanent surface deformation from
underground nuclear explosions.
Before the U.S. nuclear testing moratorium took effect in 1992,
surface topographic change measurements of underground nuclear ex-
plosions that did not crater were extremely limited, mostly in the form
of “level lines”, which measured one or two linear trends across an
explosively damaged area. Photogrammetric studies employed for le-
gacy U.S. underground nuclear explosions (e.g., Morris, 1973) could not
resolve changes ± 1 ft. (30 cm). Recent progress in remote-sensing
techniques now enable the measurement of small (cm-scale) changes
with orders of magnitude more data points. Vincent et al. (2003) used
10
Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) to show subsidence of legacy U.S. un-
derground nuclear explosive tests starting in 1992 and continuing for
years after the end of testing. These measurements occurred wholly
post-detonation, and in many cases, years after detonation, and thus do
not provide insight into surface changes during the explosions.
The use of remote sensing data to analyze surface change from
underground nuclear explosions has been so far limited to the DPRK
announced tests (e.g., Carluccio et al., 2014; Wei, 2017; Wang et al.,
2018; Pabian and Coblentz, 2018). Carluccio et al. (2014) used SAR
data collected within 3 months of the 2009 DPRK announced nuclear
test and discovered surface changes they interpret as subsidence or
landsliding caused by the nuclear test. However, the location of their
observed surface are 10 km away from the estimated test location based
on satellite imagery of the tunnel entrance and seismic epicentral lo-
cations. While this detected change could represent surface processes
unrelated to nuclear tests, it intriguingly suggests that relevant sig-
natures may happen at locations distal from the area of interest, not
necessarily co-located with an estimated SGZ position. Analysis by Wei
(2017) of SAR interferometry from the January 2016 DPRK announced
nuclear test shows permanent surface change interpreted as either a
landslide or uplift, with uplift being the preferred interpretation due to
a lack of an apparent scarp in optical (0.5 m resolution) Google Earth
imagery. Wang et al. (2018) interpret aseismic subsidence to have oc-
curred from the September 2017 DPRK test based on SAR data that
show less uplift than expected based on predictive numerical models.
Analysis by Pabian and Coblentz (2018) of the 2017 announced DPRK
nuclear test use SAR data from Wang et al. (2018) and optical imagery
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al.
to suggest that subsidence occurred.
The DPRK nuclear tests are thought to have been conducted in
granite or diorite (Coblentz and Pabian, 2015; Pabian and Coblentz,
2018), whereas the host rock for the SPE series is a quartz monzonite
(Houser and Poole, 1961; Orkild et al., 1983). While the rock types at
these disparate locations have similarities, it is unlikely that a differ-
ence in rock type would explain the potential subsidence in some of the
DPRK underground nuclear explosions vs. uplift in the SPE series. Other
potential factors that may influence uplift or subsidence include po-
tential differences in nuclear vs. conventional high explosive source,
water saturation levels in the host rock, or differences in yield and/or
depth. There is also the potential for temporal variability in data col-
lection timing to account for these differences, with uplift occurring
during the explosion and temporarily preserved, with subsidence fol-
lowing as a longer-term signature that develops within days to months
of the event. This is supported by observations from Vincent et al.
(2003), that seem to suggest subsidence on the order of up to 5 cm, over
a period of months to years following underground nuclear explosions
at the current NNSS. The change detection data presented here do not
comprehensively assess or distinguish time-dependent patterns, as there
was only one collection after each explosion, always within a few days.
However, if the observed subsidence between pre-SPE-2 and post-SPE-6
in the more distal areas of the graded pad is a real signal, late-time
subsidence may have occurred. This interpretation requires assuming
that changes observed are due to ground motion alone, despite col-
lections between different data collection modalities, over several years
of heavy equipment operation, and many weather events. Thus, we
prefer the interpretation that the subsidence is not indicative of sub-
surface processes of interest.
5.2. Uplift magnitude
Observations presented here that were generally not present in
historical datasets is the measurements of uplift magnitude. While
Cattermole and Hansen (1962) obtained uplift data from a series of
surveyed points, they mentioned that the wide spacing between mea-
surement locations prevented accurate contours, particularly at loca-
tions distal from SGZ. UAS photogrammetry and TLS both provide
much denser topographic data than line or point surveys, which results
in superior resolution of cm-scale changes.
While both SPE-5 and SPE-6 show clear cm-scale topographic
changes, their patterns of uplift differ (Figs. 5d and 5e). This is espe-
cially apparent in the difference in maximum uplift magnitudes. While
both experiments produced approximately similar lateral extent of
uplift, SPE-6 produced a greater maximum magnitude of uplift than
SPE-5 (28 cm and 15.5 cm, respectively), despite a smaller yield. In
addition, SPE-2, −3, and − 5 all have approximately the same scaled
depth of burial. This suggests that the true depth of burial plays a strong
role in the total magnitude of uplift. This raises the intriguing possibi-
lity that depth of burial could be obtained independently from scaled
depth of burial using a combination of surface change extent and
magnitude. While the dataset presented here is too small to quantify
such a relationship, SPE has recently completed a second phase, a suite
of experiments in an alluvial geologic site, where additional data may
help address this critical knowledge gap.
5.3. The role of geology
Comparing the surface changes resulting from individual experi-
ments SPE-2 through SPE-6 identifies significant spatial variability
(Fig. 5). However, one common feature across all of the change de-
tection analyses for all of the experiments is the offset of the region of
maximum uplift to the northeast of SGZ. No engineering factors of the
experimental set-up appear to account for this consistent observation
through the experimental series, as the emplacement hole for all the
explosives is vertical and the SPE experimental explosives packages
11
Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871
were engineered to detonate and burn symmetrically. Thus, the
northeasterly offset of maximum uplift is likely controlled by some
parameter of the site geology.
A priori, it is not apparent whether surface change patterns would
be more heavily controlled by the majority of fractures, which are or-
iented WNW-ESE, or the less numerous fractures that are parallel to the
Boundary Fault, and thus more likely to fail under the modern tectonic
stress regime. We observe that some uplifts seem to be bound on the
west by a NNE-striking linear feature, which is particularly prominent
in Fig. 5e, where it corresponds to a surface fracture mapped post-test.
This suggests that failure is preferred along planes that are oriented
favorably for slip with the state of tectonic stress, even if they cross
more numerous pre-existing fractures.
The work of Morris (1973) interpreted that geologic and fault/
fracture conditions at the site of the CANNIKIN underground nuclear
explosion govern the complexity of form, magnitude, and location of
surface deformation relative to the test SGZ. At CANNIKIN, post-shot
photogrammetric analyses identified maximum subsidence of 12.2 m at
a location 450 m ESE of SGZ, in an area where three faults were known.
While this study does not focus specifically on how geological host rock
heterogeneities or faults may impact on how explosion-related changes
manifest topographically, we acknowledge this likely plays a role in the
pattern and magnitude of damage. Geological impacts on surface
morphological changes requires further study at the SPE site, and at
other test sites.
5.4. Effect of pre-existing damage
One of the purposes of creating two explosions of very similar size
and depth in the same emplacement hole (SPE-2 and SPE-3) was to
examine the possible role of pre-existing damage on the measured ef-
fects of the explosion. Here, the surface change resulting from SPE-3
(the test conducted in damaged rock) is very similar to SPE-2 (the less
damaged one), as shown in Fig. 5. However, we hesitate to conclude
that pre-existing damage has no effect due to the area's previous ex-
plosions. SPE-1, which was intended to be small enough to not spall, did
spall, likely damaging the surface rock to some extent, but no surface
topographic change measurements were collected for SPE-1. In addi-
tion, PILE DRIVER did cause a few surface fractures at what is now the
SPE site, although that was decades prior to the SPE Phase 1 com-
mencement. Thus, SPE-2 may have also already been pre-damaged, and
therefore looks similar to SPE-3 for that reason.
5.5. Role of scaled depth of burial
As scaled depth of burial is a calculated indication of confinement of
an explosion, and by correlation relates to minimization of visible
surface effects, relating scaled depth of burial to our observations is
important in assessing its role as a predictor of damage. A comparison
of the surface changes from SPE-2, SPE-3, and SPE-5 (Fig. 5), which all
had similar scaled depths of burial (Table 1) show that they do not all
have the same pattern of uplift. SPE-2 and SPE-3, which had very si-
milar yields and depths, appear to have similar surface damage, but
SPE-5, which is larger and deeper, has a broader and higher uplift. All
of these tests were in the same borehole in the same unit. This indicates
the scaled depth of burial alone is not a good predictor of damage.
5.6. Extent of surface change scaling
The fact that geologic features play a role in the distribution of
surface effects at the U.S. former nuclear testing site has been noted in
open literature for many decades, with Barosh (1968) observing that
post-experiment fractures commonly formed preferentially along pre-
existing faults and joints in alluvium. Dickey (1968) attempted to
quantify the relationship between the horizontal distance to fault and
the size of the explosion, finding that there was a cube-root-of-yield
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al.
10000
Legend
tuff UNE
range distance of surface fractures (ft)
granite UNE
tuff HE
granite HE (SPE)
Power (Legend)
1000 y = 170*x0.30
100
0.1 1 10
yield of explosion (in tons)
100
y=
Yield of explosion, in kilotons
10
1 source of this discrepancy cannot be determined.
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
10 100
Maximum range distance of surface fractures (m)
Fig. 8. Relationship of explosive yield to maximum range distance of mapped
surface fractures or morphological change related to the experiment.
Underground nuclear explosion (UNE) yield and depth data from U.S.
Department of Energy (2015); and surface effect data from Grasso (2003). Tuff
high explosive (HE) data from Cattermole and Hansen (1962). Best fit power-
law line through combined UNE and HE data is shown. (a), showing range
distance in feet as a function of yield in tons, of the form used by Wilmarth and
McKeown (1960). (b), showing yield in kilotons as a function of range distance
in meters, a more useful form for today's purposes.
relationship for tests in alluvium. Dickey (1968) divided the horizontal
distance of the farthest fracture to surface ground zero, and divided by
the cube root of the explosion yield to obtain a “scaled distance”, which
ranged from 920 ft./kt1/3 to 3600 ft./kt1/3 (280–1100 m/kt1/3). In
addition, these values of scaled distance only applied to the Yucca
Fault, with another nearby fault only having triggered slip for explo-
sions closer than 500 ft./kt1/3 (150 m/kt1/3). This gives nearly an order
of magnitude spread in the scaled horizontal extent of fracturing, all
within the same alluvial unit in Yucca Flat.
Scaled ranges of fractures in volcanic units in the northwestern
portion of the NNSS, range between approximately 300–1000 m/kt1/3
(Fig. 8), which are remarkably similar given the differences in geology.
These order-of-magnitude ranges in values are too imprecise to be
useful for nuclear explosion monitoring purposes; a more precise re-
lationship is needed.
Wilmarth and McKeown (1960) also quantified the extent of surface
cracking after studying the effects of several underground nuclear ex-
plosions in the tuffs at Rainier Mesa. However, their mathematical
analyses used a scaled slant range, a measure of direct-line distance
Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871
from the location of the explosion to the farthest identified surface
fracture resulting from the underground experiment. Although at the
time of their study this was more relevant because of the significant
topography in their study area, conceptually this relationship may be
superior in all cases, since the surface fracturing is produced as a result
of the radially-outward wave generated from the experiment. Their
empirical results gave a relationship of scaled slant range equal to 50 ft.
* tons0.4, based on five data points, (three underground nuclear ex-
plosions and two conventional high-explosive experiments).
In order to directly compare our results to previous work, we have
computed the slant range distances (which require depth as an input)
for the maximum extents of uplift discussed earlier (Fig. 8). To the data
presented in Wilmarth and McKeown (1960), this study adds the four
data points from SPE, as well as data from PILE DRIVER, the only one of
the three nuclear experiments in granite nearby to SPE for which sur-
face cracking data are available (Grasso, 2003). This was done to assess
whether significant differences arose from the different rock types
100 1000 10000 100000
(granite for SPE and PILE DRIVER, tuff for the high explosive and nu-
(a)
clear tests presented in Wilmarth and McKeown (1960)). The data
follow similar trends, and so their data are analyzed together (Fig. 8).
704
While Wilmarth and McKeown (1960) present extents of fracturing only
1.57E-09x3.398 705 in a figure, this study obtained data from reports by Cattermole and
706 Hansen (1962) and from data presented by Grasso (2003). Our values
707 appear to be slightly different from the values used by Wilmarth and
708 McKeown (1960), but as that work did not report their data source, the
709
Following the previously published conventions [and as used by
710
Wilmarth and McKeown (1960)] of feet and yield in tons, the best fit to
711 the extended dataset is:
712
Legend RD = 170 ∗ W 0.30
tuff UNE 713
where RD is range distance in feet, and W is yield in tons. The exponent
granite UNE 714
tuff HE presented here is 0.3, which is slightly different from the 0.4 presented
SPE, HE granite 715
by Wilmarth and McKeown (1960), but both bracket the expected
Power (Legend) 716 theoretical 1 - power relationship proposed by Mueller and Murphy
3
1000 717
10000 (b) (1971). To assess potential relationships and application to nuclear
explosive events, it is more helpful to present the data as W (in kt)
calculated from extent of surface damage (in m). For this, the equation
is:
W = 1.57 ∗ 10−9 ∗ RD3.4
where RD is the range distance in meters and W is yield in kt. Note
that this equation is based on a relatively small number of data points,
and scales with range distance, a value that depends on knowing (or
accurately estimating) the depth.
6. Conclusions
All SPE Phase 1 experiments for which surface morphological
change data were collected showed evidence of detectable surface
changes with the exception of SPE-4prime, which had effects that are
not distinguishable from noise in the imagery data though a few small
test-related effects were visible during visual mapping. In this experi-
mental series, all changes within 80 m of SGZ manifest as uplift. The
maximum uplift magnitude ranged from 2 to 20 cm, depending on an
individual experiment's yield and depth of burial. We attribute this
difference to a scaling relationship that is not exclusively dependent on
scaled depth of burial.
The observed topographic change for this series of conventional
high explosive experiments in granite is all uplift, with some horizontal
movement identified through repeat geodetic survey of ground control
points. Though SPE used conventional high explosives, it is interesting
to note that this is the same direction of motion as that interpreted from
InSAR data for one DPRK underground nuclear test (e.g., Wei, 2017)
but opposite in direction to that cited in literature for legacy U.S. nu-
clear tests in alluvium and tuff (Houser, 1969; Vincent et al., 2003)
12
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

However, Pabian and Coblentz (2018) interpret landslides/subsidence
for the same event as well as a later test. More work is needed to un-
derstand this discrepancy.
The pattern of surface expression, and in particular maximum lat-
eral extent and the maximum magnitude of uplift, do not vary solely as
a function of scaled depth of burial, as previously published (e.g.,
Houser, 1969). Deeper explosions seem to have a broader, lower am-
plitude signal while shallower explosions have larger maximum
changes but smaller areal extent. This is in contrast to the predicted
pattern of similar surface changes from explosions with the same scaled
depth of burial (e.g., Houser, 1969). Thus, the uplift pattern may po-
tentially be used to constrain characteristics of interest, although more
data are needed for quantitative predictions. Our results show that
observable surface changes exist from this series of overburied explo-
sions, and this ground-truth validation suggests that surface changes
may be detectable in areas of interest where no surface changes were
previously expected or anticipated. Additionally, this work helps to
refine how, when, and what types of remote modalities could be used in
explosion monitoring and verification. Subtle surface changes from
explosions are more readily observable with modern tools, and show
their potential to help determine subsurface explosive experiment
characteristics such as yield and depth.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The Source Physics Experiments (SPE) would not have been possible
without the support of many people from several organizations. The
authors thank NNSA, the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Research and Development (DNN R&D), and the SPE working group, a
multi-institutional, interdisciplinary group of scientists and engineers.
Thanks to the staff of Optira, Inc. for TLS acquisitions for SPE-2, SPE-3,
and SPE-4prime. The skill, dedication, and professionalism of our field
UAS pilots (M Grimler and D Cornely [now retired] of Los Alamos
National Laboratory) ensured safe and successful airborne operations
and data collections during SPE-5 and SPE-6. Los Alamos National
Laboratory, an affirmative-action/equal opportunity employer, is op-
erated by Triad National Security, LLC for the National Nuclear Security
Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy under contract
89233218CNA000001. Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-mission
laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and
Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Honeywell International, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy's
National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-
NA0003525. This manuscript has been co-authored by Mission Support
and Test Services, LLC, under Contract No. DE-NA003624 with the U.S.
Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. The
United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the
article for publication, acknowledges that the United States
Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide
license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript,
or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes. The
U.S. Department of Energy will provide public access to these results of
federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access
Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan). The
views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of
the U.S. Department of Energy or the United States Government. This
document is unclassified and has been approved for unlimited release
(LA-UR-19-28786; DOE/NV/03624—0765; SAND2020-4478 J).

Appendix A. GPS Survey Data from SPE-5 and SPE-6

Project control specifications for GPS survey

Units Meters

UTM Zone 11 North

Horizontal Datum North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)
Vertical Datum North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88)
Geoid Utilized Geoid 12B
Field Methodology OPUS/RTK
Field Equipment Topcon HiPer V GPS

Experiment Point name Point type Northing Easting Elevation

SPE-5 PreX A0 GCP 4,119,852.1050 583,413.1800 1517.9560

SPE-5 PreX A1 GCP 4,119,828.0340 583,398.9560 1519.1480
SPE-5 PreX A2 GCP 4,119,801.5350 583,384.9010 1518.0540
SPE-5 PreX A3 GCP 4,119,774.9360 583,370.3400 1518.2920
SPE-5 PreX A4 GCP 4,119,748.5930 583,357.1760 1517.0110
SPE-5 PreX A5 GCP 4,119,722.1840 583,342.9510 1516.4150
SPE-5 PreX A7 GCP 4,119,668.9000 583,314.7230 1516.2500
SPE-5 PreX B0 GCP 4,119,869.3460 583,385.8600 1520.6650
SPE-5 PreX B1 GCP 4,119,860.3210 583,381.3300 1520.8040
SPE-5 PreX B10 GCP 4,119,778.8900 583,338.7340 1520.1930
SPE-5 PreX B11 GCP 4,119,771.1030 583,334.6110 1521.1850
SPE-5 PreX B12 GCP 4,119,760.0060 583,328.9690 1519.1700
SPE-5 PreX B13 GCP 4,119,735.8660 583,316.3090 1518.7730
SPE-5 PreX B14 GCP 4,119,709.8700 583,302.0180 1521.7020
SPE-5 PreX B15 GCP 4,119,683.6860 583,287.2380 1519.4060
SPE-5 PreX B2 GCP 4,119,850.8080 583,376.9880 1521.7310
SPE-5 PreX B3 GCP 4,119,842.2950 583,372.3140 1521.7600
SPE-5 PreX B4 GCP 4,119,833.2750 583,367.7560 1522.0760
SPE-5 PreX B5 GCP 4,119,824.3360 583,362.9240 1522.3210
SPE-5 PreX B6 GCP 4,119,815.4840 583,358.3420 1522.0050
SPE-5 PreX B7 GCP 4,119,806.6950 583,353.5060 1521.9560
SPE-5 PreX B8 GCP 4,119,798.0220 583,348.6740 1522.3400

13
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

SPE-5 PreX B9 GCP 4,119,789.0130 583,344.2240 1521.0660

SPE-5 PreX C0 GCP 4,119,873.2330 583,377.4880 1521.5320
SPE-5 PreX C1 GCP 4,119,864.4850 583,372.9680 1522.0500
SPE-5 PreX C10 GCP 4,119,784.0680 583,331.6080 1521.0220
SPE-5 PreX C11 GCP 4,119,776.3010 583,325.8400 1521.7100
SPE-5 PreX C12 GCP 4,119,767.0420 583,321.4540 1520.0800
SPE-5 PreX C2 GCP 4,119,855.6370 583,368.1310 1522.5670
SPE-5 PreX C3 GCP 4,119,846.4880 583,363.3370 1522.8930
SPE-5 PreX C4 GCP 4,119,837.9650 583,358.8190 1523.0830
SPE-5 PreX C5 GCP 4,119,828.8720 583,354.3500 1523.4850
SPE-5 PreX C6 GCP 4,119,820.1970 583,349.4460 1523.3580
SPE-5 PreX C7 GCP 4,119,811.3120 583,344.5320 1523.3830
SPE-5 PreX C8 GCP 4,119,802.6340 583,340.1300 1522.3480
SPE-5 PreX C9 GCP 4,119,793.6840 583,335.3910 1521.2830
SPE-5 PreX D0 GCP 4,119,877.7840 583,368.6010 1522.5250
SPE-5 PreX D1 GCP 4,119,870.5160 583,364.8340 1522.7380
SPE-5 PreX D10 GCP 4,119,789.5610 583,322.0620 1522.9380
SPE-5 PreX D11 GCP 4,119,780.1480 583,317.1640 1521.2660
SPE-5 PreX D12 GCP 4,119,771.8270 583,312.5410 1521.0530
SPE-5 PreX D2 GCP 4,119,860.3720 583,360.9900 1523.3410
SPE-5 PreX D3 GCP 4,119,851.4160 583,354.7680 1523.7580
SPE-5 PreX D4 GCP 4,119,842.3750 583,349.8480 1524.5520
SPE-5 PreX D5 GCP 4,119,833.5010 583,345.1180 1524.6380
SPE-5 PreX D6 GCP 4,119,824.9210 583,340.1810 1525.2300
SPE-5 PreX D7 GCP 4,119,816.2790 583,337.1810 1524.4700
SPE-5 PreX D8 GCP 4,119,807.3940 583,331.2000 1523.4190
SPE-5 PreX D9 GCP 4,119,798.4000 583,326.3490 1522.8370
SPE-5 PreX E0 GCP 4,119,882.4630 583,359.6990 1523.4160
SPE-5 PreX E1 GCP 4,119,873.6790 583,354.9860 1523.8280
SPE-5 PreX E10 GCP 4,119,794.3190 583,313.1060 1525.0950
SPE-5 PreX E11 GCP 4,119,785.7080 583,308.4380 1523.2760
SPE-5 PreX E12 GCP 4,119,776.2880 583,303.8980 1522.1580
SPE-5 PreX E13 GCP 4,119,749.7010 583,290.1640 1522.8780
SPE-5 PreX E14 GCP 4,119,723.4550 583,275.6810 1523.3570
SPE-5 PreX E15 GCP 4,119,696.6910 583,261.6170 1522.0940
SPE-5 PreX E2 GCP 4,119,864.6850 583,350.7600 1524.2110
SPE-5 PreX E3 GCP 4,119,856.1670 583,345.5490 1525.3680
SPE-5 PreX E4 GCP 4,119,847.2930 583,341.1730 1525.3650
SPE-5 PreX E5 GCP 4,119,838.4270 583,336.3990 1525.3420
SPE-5 PreX E6 GCP 4,119,829.5820 583,331.7840 1525.2590
SPE-5 PreX E7 GCP 4,119,820.7400 583,327.1280 1525.2730
SPE-5 PreX E8 GCP 4,119,811.7370 583,322.4740 1525.2700
SPE-5 PreX E9 GCP 4,119,803.1330 583,317.9830 1525.1610
SPE-5 PreX F0 GCP 4,119,887.2350 583,351.0090 1524.1290
SPE-5 PreX F1 GCP 4,119,878.9020 583,346.2990 1524.5860
SPE-5 PreX F10 GCP 4,119,801.8000 583,305.7190 1525.2980
SPE-5 PreX F11 GCP 4,119,786.5940 583,298.9820 1522.9050
SPE-5 PreX F12 GCP 4,119,781.2260 583,294.8660 1523.2430
SPE-5 PreX F2 GCP 4,119,869.5670 583,341.7180 1525.8390
SPE-5 PreX F3 GCP 4,119,860.7660 583,336.8670 1525.6980
SPE-5 PreX F4 GCP 4,119,851.8190 583,332.3450 1525.6080
SPE-5 PreX F5 GCP 4,119,843.0310 583,327.4790 1525.4460
SPE-5 PreX F6 GCP 4,119,834.1540 583,322.8800 1525.4210
SPE-5 PreX F7 GCP 4,119,826.8190 583,319.0550 1525.3850
SPE-5 PreX F8 GCP 4,119,816.3930 583,313.7960 1525.3670
SPE-5 PreX F9 GCP 4,119,807.6790 583,308.9770 1525.2520
SPE-5 PreX G0 GCP 4,119,892.3610 583,342.4350 1525.1280
SPE-5 PreX G1 GCP 4,119,883.0340 583,337.4160 1526.0610
SPE-5 PreX G10 GCP 4,119,803.5870 583,295.4400 1525.3640
SPE-5 PreX G11 GCP 4,119,793.8860 583,290.3480 1524.2220
SPE-5 PreX G12 GCP 4,119,785.7740 583,286.0580 1523.8450
SPE-5 PreX G2 GCP 4,119,874.2870 583,332.9340 1526.0790
SPE-5 PreX G3 GCP 4,119,865.5000 583,328.2150 1526.0280
SPE-5 PreX G4 GCP 4,119,856.6280 583,323.4260 1525.9100
SPE-5 PreX G5 GCP 4,119,847.7550 583,318.7080 1525.7990
SPE-5 PreX G6 GCP 4,119,838.9970 583,314.1260 1525.7230
SPE-5 PreX G7 GCP 4,119,830.3320 583,309.3830 1525.6370
SPE-5 PreX G8 GCP 4,119,821.2250 583,304.7040 1525.4640
SPE-5 PreX G9 GCP 4,119,812.4320 583,299.8370 1525.3850
SPE-5 PreX H0 GCP 4,119,896.7840 583,332.7880 1526.1340
SPE-5 PreX H1 GCP 4,119,887.7700 583,328.6980 1527.3600
SPE-5 PreX H10 GCP 4,119,808.1660 583,286.6320 1525.6980
SPE-5 PreX H11 GCP 4,119,799.2230 583,281.7630 1525.5020
SPE-5 PreX H12 GCP 4,119,790.4790 583,277.1910 1524.8950
SPE-5 PreX H13 GCP 4,119,764.4190 583,263.3860 1525.4830
SPE-5 PreX H14 GCP 4,119,735.5310 583,248.6230 1525.8510
SPE-5 PreX H15 GCP 4,119,711.1630 583,234.9820 1524.9020
SPE-5 PreX H2 GCP 4,119,878.9400 583,324.0480 1527.2730
SPE-5 PreX H3 GCP 4,119,870.2830 583,319.3760 1527.5910
SPE-5 PreX H4 GCP 4,119,861.2570 583,314.6430 1526.6060

14
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

SPE-5 PreX H5 GCP 4,119,852.5050 583,309.9650 1526.4890

SPE-5 PreX H6 GCP 4,119,843.4670 583,305.6170 1526.4490
SPE-5 PreX H7 GCP 4,119,834.7140 583,300.6580 1526.7300
SPE-5 PreX H8 GCP 4,119,826.1320 583,296.2170 1526.6600
SPE-5 PreX H9 GCP 4,119,817.2520 583,291.4050 1526.1220
SPE-5 PreX I0 GCP 4,119,910.3000 583,306.3720 1530.0650
SPE-5 PreX I1 GCP 4,119,884.1090 583,292.7810 1531.8250
SPE-5 PreX I2 GCP 4,119,858.8000 583,277.7870 1532.8470
SPE-5 PreX I3 GCP 4,119,830.3750 583,262.5310 1534.1470
SPE-5 PreX I4 GCP 4,119,802.5110 583,250.7750 1529.3730
SPE-5 PreX I5 GCP 4,119,776.9900 583,237.4410 1529.4050
SPE-5 PreX I6 GCP 4,119,750.2340 583,223.3780 1529.1770
SPE-5 PreX I7 GCP 4,119,725.3720 583,206.4270 1530.2650
SPE-5 PreX J0 GCP 4,119,923.2580 583,280.5720 1534.8440
SPE-5 PreX J1 GCP 4,119,898.1710 583,266.0300 1536.2870
SPE-5 PreX J2 GCP 4,119,871.6890 583,251.7960 1537.0320
SPE-5 PreX J3 GCP 4,119,845.7040 583,238.3040 1539.5560
SPE-5 PreX J4 GCP 4,119,819.7790 583,225.7130 1535.4080
SPE-5 PreX J5 GCP 4,119,792.0730 583,209.4340 1532.3490
SPE-5 PreX J6 GCP 4,119,765.4770 583,195.9860 1534.2080
SPE-5 PreX J7 GCP 4,119,738.9370 583,181.8840 1534.5970
SPE-5 PreX AMEC1154 Benchmark 4,119,828.3610 583,246.0100 1543.6930
SPE-5 PreX AMEC1155 Benchmark 4,119,821.3060 583,251.7960 1539.5300

Experiment Point name Point type Northing Easting Elevation

SPE-5 PostX A0 GCP 4,119,852.1110 583,413.1755 1517.9620
SPE-5 PostX A1 GCP 4,119,828.0310 583,398.9500 1519.1570
SPE-5 PostX A3 GCP 4,119,774.9410 583,370.3370 1518.2990
SPE-5 PostX A4 GCP 4,119,748.5890 583,357.1680 1517.0210
SPE-5 PostX A5 GCP 4,119,722.1830 583,342.9450 1516.4260
SPE-5 PostX A6 GCP 4,119,695.4460 583,328.8570 1517.4930
SPE-5 PostX A7 GCP 4,119,668.9100 583,314.7200 1516.2495
SPE-5 PostX B12 GCP 4,119,760.0000 583,328.9720 1519.1790
SPE-5 PostX B10 GCP 4,119,778.8870 583,338.7370 1520.1990
SPE-5 PostX B9 GCP 4,119,789.0050 583,344.2200 1521.0670
SPE-5 PostX B6 GCP 4,119,815.4740 583,358.3470 1522.0190
SPE-5 PostX B5 GCP 4,119,824.3410 583,362.9260 1522.3330
SPE-5 PostX B4 GCP 4,119,833.2830 583,367.7470 1522.0830
SPE-5 PostX B3 GCP 4,119,842.3010 583,372.3120 1521.7690
SPE-5 PostX B2 GCP 4,119,850.8170 583,376.9760 1521.7390
SPE-5 PostX B0 GCP 4,119,869.3570 583,385.8590 1520.6740
SPE-5 PostX C0 GCP 4,119,873.2430 583,377.4930 1521.5410
SPE-5 PostX C1 GCP 4,119,864.4930 583,372.9650 1522.0590
SPE-5 PostX C2 GCP 4,119,855.6470 583,368.1300 1522.5650
SPE-5 PostX C3 GCP 4,119,846.4990 583,363.3410 1522.9040
SPE-5 PostX C4 GCP 4,119,837.9750 583,358.8260 1523.1080
SPE-5 PostX C5 GCP 4,119,828.8780 583,354.3520 1523.4990
SPE-5 PostX C6 GCP 4,119,820.2000 583,349.4470 1523.3760
SPE-5 PostX C9 GCP 4,119,793.6760 583,335.4020 1521.2850
SPE-5 PostX C12 GCP 4,119,767.0340 583,321.4580 1520.0890
SPE-5 PostX D11 GCP 4,119,780.1330 583,317.1630 1521.2760
SPE-5 PostX D6 GCP 4,119,824.9220 583,340.1970 1525.2490
SPE-5 PostX D5 GCP 4,119,833.5070 583,345.1180 1524.6580
SPE-5 PostX D4 GCP 4,119,842.3830 583,349.8510 1524.5750
SPE-5 PostX D3 GCP 4,119,851.4130 583,354.7710 1523.7670
SPE-5 PostX D2 GCP 4,119,860.3730 583,360.9800 1523.3410
SPE-5 PostX D1 GCP 4,119,870.5230 583,364.8380 1522.7480
SPE-5 PostX E0 GCP 4,119,882.4670 583,359.7020 1523.4220
SPE-5 PostX E3 GCP 4,119,856.1740 583,345.5620 1525.3930
SPE-5 PostX E4 GCP 4,119,847.2970 583,341.1800 1525.3850
SPE-5 PostX E5 GCP 4,119,838.4270 583,336.4150 1525.3760
SPE-5 PostX E6 GCP 4,119,829.5800 583,331.8080 1525.2830
SPE-5 PostX E7 GCP 4,119,820.7290 583,327.1500 1525.2880
SPE-5 PostX E8 GCP 4,119,811.7200 583,322.4890 1525.2870
SPE-5 PostX E9 GCP 4,119,803.1240 583,317.9910 1525.1690
SPE-5 PostX E10 GCP 4,119,794.3060 583,313.1080 1525.1010
SPE-5 PostX E11 GCP 4,119,785.6890 583,308.4370 1523.2820
SPE-5 PostX E13 GCP 4,119,749.7030 583,290.1580 1522.8830
SPE-5 PostX E14 GCP 4,119,723.4510 583,275.6750 1523.3580
SPE-5 PostX E15 GCP 4,119,696.6870 583,261.6160 1522.0940
SPE-5 PostX F11 GCP 4,119,786.5830 583,298.9760 1522.9200
SPE-5 PostX F10 GCP 4,119,801.7940 583,305.7230 1525.2960
SPE-5 PostX F9 GCP 4,119,807.6730 583,308.9750 1525.2510
SPE-5 PostX F8 GCP 4,119,816.3810 583,313.8020 1525.3840
SPE-5 PostX F6 GCP 4,119,834.1750 583,322.8960 1525.4490
SPE-5 PostX F5 GCP 4,119,843.0570 583,327.4780 1525.4740
SPE-5 PostX F3 GCP 4,119,860.7710 583,336.8640 1525.7150
SPE-5 PostX F2 GCP 4,119,869.5790 583,341.7220 1525.8480
SPE-5 PostX F0 GCP 4,119,887.2410 583,351.0050 1524.1460
SPE-5 PostX G0 GCP 4,119,892.3670 583,342.4330 1525.1340

15
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

SPE-5 PostX G1 GCP 4,119,883.0380 583,337.4180 1526.0690

SPE-5 PostX G2 GCP 4,119,874.2960 583,332.9370 1526.0940
SPE-5 PostX G3 GCP 4,119,865.5070 583,328.2130 1526.0330
SPE-5 PostX G4 GCP 4,119,856.6370 583,323.4260 1525.9200
SPE-5 PostX G5 GCP 4,119,847.7790 583,318.7120 1525.8250
SPE-5 PostX G6 GCP 4,119,839.0010 583,314.1320 1525.7460
SPE-5 PostX G7 GCP 4,119,830.3290 583,309.3860 1525.6590
SPE-5 PostX G8 GCP 4,119,821.2170 583,304.7080 1525.4880
SPE-5 PostX G9 GCP 4,119,812.4210 583,299.8390 1525.4180
SPE-5 PostX G10 GCP 4,119,803.5750 583,295.4400 1525.3930
SPE-5 PostX G11 GCP 4,119,793.8740 583,290.3250 1524.2330
SPE-5 PostX G12 GCP 4,119,785.7750 583,286.0570 1523.8520
SPE-5 PostX H14 GCP 4,119,735.5320 583,248.6210 1525.8660
SPE-5 PostX H13 GCP 4,119,764.4170 583,263.3760 1525.4890
SPE-5 PostX H12 GCP 4,119,790.4740 583,277.1920 1524.9015
SPE-5 PostX H11 GCP 4,119,799.2160 583,281.7580 1525.5140
SPE-5 PostX H9 GCP 4,119,817.2520 583,291.4080 1526.1350
SPE-5 PostX H6 GCP 4,119,843.4630 583,305.6160 1526.4680
SPE-5 PostX H5 GCP 4,119,852.5110 583,309.9620 1526.5150
SPE-5 PostX H4 GCP 4,119,861.2640 583,314.6480 1526.6270
SPE-5 PostX H0 GCP 4,119,896.7910 583,332.7875 1526.1455
SPE-5 PostX I0 GCP 4,119,910.3050 583,306.3670 1530.0760
SPE-5 PostX I1 GCP 4,119,884.1160 583,292.7790 1531.8320
SPE-5 PostX I2 GCP 4,119,858.7990 583,277.7850 1532.8500
SPE-5 PostX I5 GCP 4,119,776.9940 583,237.4400 1529.4190
SPE-5 PostX I7 GCP 4,119,725.3720 583,206.4290 1530.2750
SPE-5 PostX J7 GCP 4,119,738.9400 583,181.8825 1534.5970
SPE-5 PostX J6 GCP 4,119,765.4830 583,195.9920 1534.2160
SPE-5 PostX J5 GCP 4,119,792.0760 583,209.4290 1532.3440
SPE-5 PostX J4 GCP 4,119,819.7800 583,225.7090 1535.4050
SPE-5 PostX J1 GCP 4,119,898.1750 583,266.0300 1536.2800
SPE-5 PostX J0 GCP 4,119,923.2620 583,280.5750 1534.8475
SPE-5 PostX AMEC1155 Benchmark 4,119,821.3080 583,251.7910 1539.5320
SPE-5 PostX AMEC1154 Benchmark 4,119,828.3630 583,246.0110 1543.6950

Experiment Point name Point type Northing Easting Elevation

SPE-6 PreX A0 GCP 4,119,852.1120 583,413.1780 1517.9510

SPE-6 PreX A1 GCP 4,119,845.8120 583,408.4000 1518.3710
SPE-6 PreX A2 GCP 4,119,837.4740 583,404.0180 1518.3820
SPE-6 PreX A3 GCP 4,119,828.0770 583,399.0620 1519.1510
SPE-6 PreX A4 GCP 4,119,818.9650 583,394.4410 1519.2530
SPE-6 PreX A5 GCP 4,119,810.4170 583,389.2660 1518.6020
SPE-6 PreX A6 GCP 4,119,801.3450 583,383.9110 1518.1540
SPE-6 PreX A7 GCP 4,119,792.5940 583,380.4380 1517.0190
SPE-6 PreX A8 GCP 4,119,783.5600 583,375.1400 1518.2970
SPE-6 PreX A9 GCP 4,119,774.9140 583,370.2710 1518.2980
SPE-6 PreX A10 GCP 4,119,767.5910 583,367.0790 1517.9100
SPE-6 PreX A11 GCP 4,119,757.3740 583,361.6310 1517.5670
SPE-6 PreX A12 GCP 4,119,748.7820 583,357.4940 1516.9950
SPE-6 PreX A13 GCP 4,119,730.8970 583,347.9600 1516.2920
SPE-6 PreX A14 GCP 4,119,713.3100 583,338.4450 1516.1110
SPE-6 PreX A15 GCP 4,119,695.4100 583,328.8930 1517.4930
SPE-6 PreX A16 GCP 4,119,678.3290 583,319.6210 1516.3670
SPE-6 PreX AA7 GCP 4,119,668.9030 583,314.7240 1516.2400
SPE-6 PreX A17 GCP 4,119,659.5350 583,309.8260 1516.3040
SPE-6 PreX B12 GCP 4,119,753.2230 583,347.9220 1517.6490
SPE-6 PreX B11 GCP 4,119,762.9660 583,352.9710 1520.8590
SPE-6 PreX B10 GCP 4,119,770.1980 583,356.6820 1519.0520
SPE-6 PreX B9 GCP 4,119,780.1040 583,362.1580 1519.0970
SPE-6 PreX B8 GCP 4,119,788.5320 583,366.5850 1519.4690
SPE-6 PreX B7 GCP 4,119,797.5530 583,371.3550 1518.4200
SPE-6 PreX B6 GCP 4,119,805.9360 583,375.6390 1519.5120
SPE-6 PreX B5 GCP 4,119,814.9150 583,380.7340 1520.0530
SPE-6 PreX B4 GCP 4,119,823.8270 583,385.3270 1520.2420
SPE-6 PreX B3 GCP 4,119,832.4640 583,390.0510 1519.6380
SPE-6 PreX B2 GCP 4,119,841.6530 583,394.8170 1519.4180
SPE-6 PreX B1 GCP 4,119,850.4050 583,399.7000 1518.9940
SPE-6 PreX B0 GCP 4,119,859.3380 583,403.7930 1518.9230
SPE-6 PreX C0 GCP 4,119,864.6660 583,395.5010 1519.7410
SPE-6 PreX C1 GCP 4,119,855.0240 583,390.1280 1520.0280
SPE-6 PreX C2 GCP 4,119,846.3430 583,385.2840 1520.8270
SPE-6 PreX C3 GCP 4,119,837.3470 583,380.8370 1520.5210
SPE-6 PreX C4 GCP 4,119,827.6340 583,375.9560 1522.4070
SPE-6 PreX C5 GCP 4,119,820.9030 583,372.3840 1522.3750
SPE-6 PreX C6 GCP 4,119,810.7670 583,367.3900 1520.7110
SPE-6 PreX C7 GCP 4,119,801.5300 583,362.3510 1520.4370
SPE-6 PreX C8 GCP 4,119,793.2370 583,357.8410 1520.5170
SPE-6 PreX C9 GCP 4,119,782.7670 583,351.7620 1521.2330

16
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

SPE-6 PreX C10 GCP 4,119,775.2650 583,348.2950 1519.5270

SPE-6 PreX C11 GCP 4,119,766.7030 583,343.1360 1520.4290
SPE-6 PreX C12 GCP 4,119,757.4470 583,338.7420 1518.4500
SPE-6 PreX C13 GCP 4,119,739.9180 583,329.4120 1518.1000
SPE-6 PreX C14 GCP 4,119,722.0190 583,320.8430 1518.1890
SPE-6 PreX C15 GCP 4,119,704.2180 583,311.2060 1520.2930
SPE-6 PreX C16 GCP 4,119,686.7580 583,301.4880 1518.9940
SPE-6 PreX C17 GCP 4,119,669.4880 583,292.4960 1518.0980
SPE-6 PreX BB12 GCP 4,119,759.9940 583,328.9730 1519.1800
SPE-6 PreX D12 GCP 4,119,762.7800 583,329.5150 1519.3450
SPE-6 PreX D11 GCP 4,119,770.5590 583,334.8700 1521.0440
SPE-6 PreX D10 GCP 4,119,778.0950 583,338.6900 1520.0700
SPE-6 PreX D9 GCP 4,119,788.9670 583,344.2880 1521.1140
SPE-6 PreX D8 GCP 4,119,797.5870 583,348.7990 1522.2250
SPE-6 PreX D7 GCP 4,119,806.6560 583,353.4640 1521.9600
SPE-6 PreX D6 GCP 4,119,815.5500 583,358.2770 1522.0860
SPE-6 PreX D5 GCP 4,119,824.2460 583,362.8620 1522.4550
SPE-6 PreX D4 GCP 4,119,833.3090 583,367.5500 1522.4000
SPE-6 PreX D3 GCP 4,119,842.2550 583,372.3450 1521.7580
SPE-6 PreX D2 GCP 4,119,850.7710 583,377.0310 1521.7320
SPE-6 PreX D1 GCP 4,119,859.7850 583,381.7510 1520.7200
SPE-6 PreX D0 GCP 4,119,869.3600 583,385.8660 1520.6600
SPE-6 PreX N0 GCP 4,119,928.8530 583,270.1540 1536.8330
SPE-6 PreX N1 GCP 4,119,910.9670 583,262.9520 1536.9320
SPE-6 PreX N2 GCP 4,119,895.2020 583,252.0520 1537.0500
SPE-6 PreX N3 GCP 4,119,876.5430 583,244.5040 1537.6980
SPE-6 PreX N4 GCP 4,119,858.3400 583,234.5630 1539.8130
SPE-6 PreX N5 GCP 4,119,841.8330 583,224.1850 1539.8000
SPE-6 PreX N6 GCP 4,119,823.6130 583,215.5440 1536.6200
SPE-6 PreX N7 GCP 4,119,804.6000 583,206.3280 1533.9910
SPE-6 PreX N8 GCP 4,119,788.6910 583,196.7170 1533.7960
SPE-6 PreX N9 GCP 4,119,770.0700 583,188.5920 1534.9690
SPE-6 PreX N10 GCP 4,119,751.4980 583,177.4830 1535.6700
SPE-6 PreX N11 GCP 4,119,735.6550 583,170.2380 1535.0430
SPE-6 PreX JJ7 GCP 4,119,738.9370 583,181.8810 1534.5990
SPE-6 PreX M12 GCP 4,119,724.9610 583,187.8560 1532.8400
SPE-6 PreX M11 GCP 4,119,744.7640 583,195.2360 1532.7430
SPE-6 PreX M10 GCP 4,119,760.1990 583,206.2920 1531.9860
SPE-6 PreX M9 GCP 4,119,777.8480 583,214.7130 1532.6320
SPE-6 PreX M8 GCP 4,119,795.8160 583,222.4790 1531.0690
SPE-6 PreX M7 GCP 4,119,801.3770 583,229.9560 1530.1010
SPE-6 PreX M6 GCP 4,119,810.6710 583,230.0190 1532.3410
SPE-6 PreX M5 GCP 4,119,833.1830 583,240.5660 1538.5570
SPE-6 PreX M4 GCP 4,119,849.7650 583,250.5220 1537.4860
SPE-6 PreX M3 GCP 4,119,865.5200 583,260.9160 1535.9350
SPE-6 PreX M2 GCP 4,119,884.2300 583,271.7320 1534.3270
SPE-6 PreX M1 GCP 4,119,902.2180 583,280.9450 1534.1550
SPE-6 PreX M0 GCP 4,119,920.5150 583,289.7170 1533.5750
SPE-6 PreX JJ0 GCP 4,119,923.2630 583,280.5800 1534.8490
SPE-6 PreX L0 GCP 4,119,911.5760 583,306.3940 1529.9600
SPE-6 PreX L1 GCP 4,119,892.0250 583,298.0850 1531.9330
SPE-6 PreX L2 GCP 4,119,875.8700 583,285.6460 1532.3630
SPE-6 PreX L3 GCP 4,119,858.7630 583,277.7710 1532.8650
SPE-6 PreX L4 GCP 4,119,843.0490 583,265.2580 1535.7620
SPE-6 PreX L5 GCP 4,119,830.3380 583,262.4350 1534.1700
SPE-6 PreX L6 GCP 4,119,802.5500 583,250.7720 1529.3830
SPE-6 PreX L7 GCP 4,119,786.4360 583,241.7900 1528.3760
SPE-6 PreX L8 GCP 4,119,769.3450 583,231.9880 1530.0170
SPE-6 PreX L9 GCP 4,119,751.9040 583,222.5340 1529.3120
SPE-6 PreX L10 GCP 4,119,735.3230 583,214.3620 1529.8480
SPE-6 PreX L11 GCP 4,119,716.4360 583,202.6230 1529.9470
SPE-6 PreX K17 GCP 4,119,705.6210 583,219.2380 1526.5430
SPE-6 PreX K16 GCP 4,119,724.7180 583,230.4610 1526.6620
SPE-6 PreX K15 GCP 4,119,742.1220 583,239.4380 1527.5630
SPE-6 PreX K14 GCP 4,119,758.3720 583,246.0050 1528.1760
SPE-6 PreX K13 GCP 4,119,777.5650 583,256.1890 1526.6180
SPE-6 PreX K12 GCP 4,119,795.2870 583,267.5250 1526.1270
SPE-6 PreX K11 GCP 4,119,803.4150 583,273.5530 1526.8390
SPE-6 PreX K10 GCP 4,119,812.9310 583,278.0280 1527.1540
SPE-6 PreX K9 GCP 4,119,822.1790 583,282.2000 1527.8310
SPE-6 PreX K8 GCP 4,119,831.5840 583,285.9000 1528.5930
SPE-6 PreX K7 GCP 4,119,839.3030 583,290.9000 1528.8340
SPE-6 PreX K6 GCP 4,119,850.9860 583,294.2360 1529.4730
SPE-6 PreX K5 GCP 4,119,858.7940 583,297.3110 1530.0970
SPE-6 PreX K4 GCP 4,119,865.5750 583,305.7560 1529.5800
SPE-6 PreX K3 GCP 4,119,875.1970 583,310.0720 1529.7180
SPE-6 PreX K2 GCP 4,119,883.7200 583,314.6770 1529.4370
SPE-6 PreX K1 GCP 4,119,891.5020 583,319.3210 1528.7960
SPE-6 PreX K0 GCP 4,119,901.9950 583,325.0950 1527.4730
SPE-6 PreX J0 GCP 4,119,896.7890 583,332.7930 1526.1390

17
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

SPE-6 PreX J1 GCP 4,119,887.7250 583,328.8780 1527.3630

SPE-6 PreX J2 GCP 4,119,879.2590 583,324.5300 1527.2190
SPE-6 PreX J3 GCP 4,119,870.2010 583,319.0730 1527.6370
SPE-6 PreX J4 GCP 4,119,860.7910 583,314.7560 1526.5920
SPE-6 PreX J5 GCP 4,119,852.4510 583,309.9220 1526.5010
SPE-6 PreX J6 GCP 4,119,843.9000 583,304.3600 1526.6800
SPE-6 PreX J7 GCP 4,119,834.8370 583,301.0150 1526.7260
SPE-6 PreX J8 GCP 4,119,826.0460 583,296.2980 1526.6490
SPE-6 PreX J9 GCP 4,119,817.2090 583,292.0190 1526.0650
SPE-6 PreX J10 GCP 4,119,808.0280 583,287.1760 1525.6320
SPE-6 PreX J11 GCP 4,119,799.1890 583,281.8210 1525.4990
SPE-6 PreX J12 GCP 4,119,790.4710 583,277.1890 1524.8920
SPE-6 PreX I17 GCP 4,119,695.9380 583,239.6220 1524.1380
SPE-6 PreX I16 GCP 4,119,714.0220 583,250.3130 1524.2440
SPE-6 PreX I15 GCP 4,119,732.1770 583,257.9030 1524.9340
SPE-6 PreX I14 GCP 4,119,749.7600 583,267.1080 1525.0740
SPE-6 PreX I13 GCP 4,119,767.7080 583,277.1120 1523.7700
SPE-6 PreX I12 GCP 4,119,785.8600 583,285.9460 1523.8680
SPE-6 PreX I11 GCP 4,119,796.4590 583,291.3570 1525.4140
SPE-6 PreX I10 GCP 4,119,803.4290 583,295.3230 1525.3790
SPE-6 PreX I9 GCP 4,119,812.3330 583,299.7640 1525.3970
SPE-6 PreX I8 GCP 4,119,821.4390 583,304.6970 1525.4710
SPE-6 PreX I7 GCP 4,119,830.0920 583,309.3400 1525.6220
SPE-6 PreX I6 GCP 4,119,838.7680 583,314.0040 1525.7370
SPE-6 PreX I5 GCP 4,119,847.7420 583,318.6070 1525.8240
SPE-6 PreX I4 GCP 4,119,856.6020 583,323.3210 1525.9230
SPE-6 PreX I3 GCP 4,119,865.4850 583,328.2060 1526.0260
SPE-6 PreX I2 GCP 4,119,874.3250 583,332.9240 1526.1040
SPE-6 PreX I1 GCP 4,119,882.9260 583,337.6030 1526.0540
SPE-6 PreX I0 GCP 4,119,892.3130 583,342.3960 1525.1260
SPE-6 PreX H0 GCP 4,119,887.4590 583,351.0780 1524.1400
SPE-6 PreX H1 GCP 4,119,879.2540 583,346.0420 1524.6190
SPE-6 PreX H2 GCP 4,119,869.7530 583,341.6810 1525.8270
SPE-6 PreX H3 GCP 4,119,860.9020 583,336.8670 1525.7130
SPE-6 PreX H4 GCP 4,119,852.1300 583,332.2260 1525.6190
SPE-6 PreX H5 GCP 4,119,843.2460 583,327.6260 1525.4760
SPE-6 PreX H6 GCP 4,119,834.3340 583,323.0660 1525.4310
SPE-6 PreX H7 GCP 4,119,828.0870 583,319.5620 1525.4100
SPE-6 PreX H8 GCP 4,119,816.7340 583,313.5900 1525.3940
SPE-6 PreX H9 GCP 4,119,807.7230 583,308.9390 1525.2540
SPE-6 PreX H10 GCP 4,119,799.6900 583,302.0540 1525.2860
SPE-6 PreX H11 GCP 4,119,786.6230 583,298.9630 1522.9150
SPE-6 PreX H12 GCP 4,119,781.6220 583,294.9740 1523.2940
SPE-6 PreX G17 GCP 4,119,688.2300 583,256.0330 1521.9530
SPE-6 PreX G16 GCP 4,119,705.6660 583,266.1240 1522.4660
SPE-6 PreX G15 GCP 4,119,723.5720 583,275.7360 1523.3500
SPE-6 PreX G14 GCP 4,119,740.3970 583,284.9830 1523.1030
SPE-6 PreX G13 GCP 4,119,758.2220 583,294.7580 1521.7830
SPE-6 PreX G12 GCP 4,119,776.5070 583,303.8100 1522.1750
SPE-6 PreX G11 GCP 4,119,782.1620 583,305.9020 1521.9460
SPE-6 PreX G10 GCP 4,119,794.2530 583,312.7040 1525.1060
SPE-6 PreX G9 GCP 4,119,802.6470 583,317.5820 1525.0930
SPE-6 PreX G8 GCP 4,119,811.9340 583,322.3170 1525.2680
SPE-6 PreX G7 GCP 4,119,820.6920 583,327.1650 1525.2720
SPE-6 PreX G6 GCP 4,119,829.5690 583,331.8470 1525.2810
SPE-6 PreX G5 GCP 4,119,838.3620 583,336.4400 1525.3610
SPE-6 PreX G4 GCP 4,119,847.1440 583,341.0370 1525.3740
SPE-6 PreX G3 GCP 4,119,855.9950 583,345.7330 1525.3540
SPE-6 PreX G2 GCP 4,119,866.3700 583,349.3480 1524.3410
SPE-6 PreX G1 GCP 4,119,873.6430 583,355.0480 1523.8270
SPE-6 PreX G0 GCP 4,119,882.7070 583,359.7640 1523.4120
SPE-6 PreX F0 GCP 4,119,877.9370 583,368.6770 1522.5350
SPE-6 PreX F1 GCP 4,119,871.8420 583,365.8470 1522.3720
SPE-6 PreX F2 GCP 4,119,860.3290 583,359.3250 1523.4860
SPE-6 PreX F3 GCP 4,119,851.5220 583,354.4650 1523.8120
SPE-6 PreX F4 GCP 4,119,842.5500 583,349.8990 1524.5610
SPE-6 PreX F5 GCP 4,119,834.2860 583,345.5900 1524.6760
SPE-6 PreX F6 GCP 4,119,824.9330 583,340.2750 1525.2460
SPE-6 PreX F7 GCP 4,119,815.9340 583,337.1320 1524.4560
SPE-6 PreX F8 GCP 4,119,808.5980 583,331.6180 1523.7850
SPE-6 PreX F9 GCP 4,119,798.4230 583,325.4170 1523.0310
SPE-6 PreX F10 GCP 4,119,789.9420 583,320.8010 1523.4090
SPE-6 PreX F11 GCP 4,119,780.0950 583,317.2300 1521.2880
SPE-6 PreX F12 GCP 4,119,771.8210 583,312.7180 1521.0010
SPE-6 PreX E17 GCP 4,119,678.0110 583,274.0720 1519.9800
SPE-6 PreX E16 GCP 4,119,695.4120 583,283.9550 1520.5510
SPE-6 PreX E15 GCP 4,119,713.3800 583,292.6830 1522.6480
SPE-6 PreX E14 GCP 4,119,731.8580 583,302.7030 1519.7320
SPE-6 PreX E13 GCP 4,119,749.7330 583,312.1840 1519.8620
SPE-6 PreX E12 GCP 4,119,766.9340 583,321.2740 1520.0520

18
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

SPE-6 PreX E11 GCP 4,119,776.1180 583,325.7990 1521.6840

SPE-6 PreX E10 GCP 4,119,785.0040 583,330.6330 1520.8870
SPE-6 PreX E9 GCP 4,119,793.5710 583,335.5230 1521.3550
SPE-6 PreX E8 GCP 4,119,803.3140 583,340.2370 1522.4180
SPE-6 PreX E7 GCP 4,119,811.6740 583,344.5340 1523.3620
SPE-6 PreX E6 GCP 4,119,820.2460 583,349.3610 1522.7570
SPE-6 PreX E5 GCP 4,119,829.0050 583,354.2610 1522.8090
SPE-6 PreX E4 GCP 4,119,837.8310 583,358.7140 1523.0310
SPE-6 PreX E3 GCP 4,119,846.7220 583,363.4530 1522.8860
SPE-6 PreX E2 GCP 4,119,855.5410 583,368.0480 1522.5730
SPE-6 PreX E1 GCP 4,119,864.3960 583,372.9350 1522.0500
SPE-6 PreX E0 GCP 4,119,873.0950 583,378.0220 1521.4660
SPE-6 PreX BSCK1155 Benchmark 4,119,821.3060 583,251.8000 1539.5320
SPE-6 PreX BSCK1154 Benchmark 4,119,828.3600 583,246.0130 1543.6980

Experiment Point name Point type Northing Easting Elevation

SPE-6 PostX A0 GCP 4,119,852.1110 583,413.1730 1517.9560

SPE-6 PostX A1 GCP 4,119,845.8110 583,408.3950 1518.3750
SPE-6 PostX A10 GCP 4,119,767.5960 583,367.0740 1517.9030
SPE-6 PostX A11 GCP 4,119,757.3760 583,361.6310 1517.5600
SPE-6 PostX A12 GCP 4,119,748.7820 583,357.4890 1516.9960
SPE-6 PostX A13 GCP 4,119,730.9030 583,347.9550 1516.2950
SPE-6 PostX A14 GCP 4,119,713.3120 583,338.4370 1516.1130
SPE-6 PostX A15 GCP 4,119,695.4150 583,328.8910 1517.4820
SPE-6 PostX A16 GCP 4,119,678.3290 583,319.6220 1516.3550
SPE-6 PostX A17 GCP 4,119,659.5360 583,309.8240 1516.3090
SPE-6 PostX A2 GCP 4,119,837.4720 583,404.0150 1518.3830
SPE-6 PostX A3 GCP 4,119,828.0750 583,399.0590 1519.1510
SPE-6 PostX A4 GCP 4,119,818.9670 583,394.4380 1519.2590
SPE-6 PostX A5 GCP 4,119,810.4200 583,389.2630 1518.6000
SPE-6 PostX A6 GCP 4,119,801.3480 583,383.9110 1518.1520
SPE-6 PostX A7 GCP 4,119,792.5960 583,380.4360 1517.0200
SPE-6 PostX A8 GCP 4,119,783.5620 583,375.1380 1518.2920
SPE-6 PostX A9 GCP 4,119,774.9170 583,370.2710 1518.2930
SPE-6 PostX AA7 GCP 4,119,668.9090 583,314.7190 1516.2380
SPE-6 PostX B0 GCP 4,119,859.3390 583,403.7980 1518.9200
SPE-6 PostX B1 GCP 4,119,850.4030 583,399.7010 1518.9890
SPE-6 PostX B10 GCP 4,119,770.1990 583,356.6820 1519.0600
SPE-6 PostX B11 GCP 4,119,762.9670 583,352.9690 1520.8550
SPE-6 PostX B12 GCP 4,119,753.2180 583,347.9170 1517.6500
SPE-6 PostX B2 GCP 4,119,841.6590 583,394.8130 1519.4110
SPE-6 PostX B3 GCP 4,119,832.4650 583,390.0470 1519.6240
SPE-6 PostX B4 GCP 4,119,823.8360 583,385.3240 1520.2330
SPE-6 PostX B5 GCP 4,119,814.9200 583,380.7300 1520.0470
SPE-6 PostX B6 GCP 4,119,805.9370 583,375.6440 1519.5200
SPE-6 PostX B7 GCP 4,119,797.5560 583,371.3560 1518.4220
SPE-6 PostX B8 GCP 4,119,788.5350 583,366.5870 1519.4610
SPE-6 PostX B9 GCP 4,119,780.1050 583,362.1590 1519.0980
SPE-6 PostX BB12 GCP 4,119,759.9900 583,328.9740 1519.1790
SPE-6 PostX BSCK1154 Benchmark 4,119,828.3640 583,246.0130 1543.6970
SPE-6 PostX BSCK1155 Benchmark 4,119,821.3060 583,251.7990 1539.5320
SPE-6 PostX C0 GCP 4,119,864.6630 583,395.5020 1519.7440
SPE-6 PostX C1 GCP 4,119,855.0230 583,390.1360 1520.0290
SPE-6 PostX C10 GCP 4,119,775.2590 583,348.2890 1519.5270
SPE-6 PostX C11 GCP 4,119,766.7060 583,343.1380 1520.4260
SPE-6 PostX C12 GCP 4,119,757.4450 583,338.7490 1518.4450
SPE-6 PostX C13 GCP 4,119,739.9240 583,329.4180 1518.0970
SPE-6 PostX C14 GCP 4,119,722.0190 583,320.8430 1518.1890
SPE-6 PostX C15 GCP 4,119,704.2190 583,311.2050 1520.2990
SPE-6 PostX C16 GCP 4,119,686.7650 583,301.4840 1518.9990
SPE-6 PostX C17 GCP 4,119,669.4870 583,292.4930 1518.0970
SPE-6 PostX C2 GCP 4,119,846.3410 583,385.2880 1520.8250
SPE-6 PostX C3 GCP 4,119,837.3490 583,380.8410 1520.5220
SPE-6 PostX C4 GCP 4,119,827.6430 583,375.9560 1522.4030
SPE-6 PostX C5 GCP 4,119,820.8980 583,372.3820 1522.3690
SPE-6 PostX C6 GCP 4,119,810.7780 583,367.3940 1520.7080
SPE-6 PostX C7 GCP 4,119,801.5290 583,362.3620 1520.4380
SPE-6 PostX C8 GCP 4,119,793.2380 583,357.8400 1520.5200
SPE-6 PostX C9 GCP 4,119,782.7630 583,351.7620 1521.2350
SPE-6 PostX D0 GCP 4,119,869.3550 583,385.8660 1520.6600
SPE-6 PostX D1 GCP 4,119,859.7810 583,381.7550 1520.7140
SPE-6 PostX D10 GCP 4,119,778.0930 583,338.6870 1520.0600
SPE-6 PostX D11 GCP 4,119,770.5590 583,334.8700 1521.0380
SPE-6 PostX D12 GCP 4,119,762.7750 583,329.5220 1519.3550
SPE-6 PostX D2 GCP 4,119,850.7720 583,377.0270 1521.7290
SPE-6 PostX D3 GCP 4,119,842.2520 583,372.3400 1521.7580
SPE-6 PostX D4 GCP 4,119,833.3040 583,367.5420 1522.3980
SPE-6 PostX D5 GCP 4,119,824.2470 583,362.8620 1522.4490

19
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

SPE-6 PostX D6 GCP 4,119,815.5520 583,358.2790 1522.0880

SPE-6 PostX D7 GCP 4,119,806.6530 583,353.4660 1521.9720
SPE-6 PostX D8 GCP 4,119,797.5700 583,348.8190 1522.2380
SPE-6 PostX D9 GCP 4,119,788.9560 583,344.2930 1521.1080
SPE-6 PostX E0 GCP 4,119,873.0920 583,378.0300 1521.4720
SPE-6 PostX E1 GCP 4,119,864.3920 583,372.9340 1522.0530
SPE-6 PostX E10 GCP 4,119,784.9970 583,330.6350 1520.8810
SPE-6 PostX E11 GCP 4,119,776.1170 583,325.7970 1521.6810
SPE-6 PostX E12 GCP 4,119,766.9250 583,321.2680 1520.0530
SPE-6 PostX E13 GCP 4,119,749.7330 583,312.1790 1519.8570
SPE-6 PostX E14 GCP 4,119,731.8450 583,302.7020 1519.7230
SPE-6 PostX E15 GCP 4,119,713.3770 583,292.6910 1522.6460
SPE-6 PostX E16 GCP 4,119,695.4110 583,283.9550 1520.5490
SPE-6 PostX E17 GCP 4,119,678.0180 583,274.0690 1519.9820
SPE-6 PostX E2 GCP 4,119,855.5360 583,368.0530 1522.5760
SPE-6 PostX E3 GCP 4,119,846.7130 583,363.4530 1522.8810
SPE-6 PostX E4 GCP 4,119,837.8260 583,358.7120 1523.0270
SPE-6 PostX E5 GCP 4,119,829.0020 583,354.2720 1522.8060
SPE-6 PostX E6 GCP 4,119,820.2430 583,349.3690 1522.7690
SPE-6 PostX E7 GCP 4,119,811.6690 583,344.5340 1523.3720
SPE-6 PostX E8 GCP 4,119,803.3040 583,340.2550 1522.4200
SPE-6 PostX E9 GCP 4,119,793.5610 583,335.5300 1521.3570
SPE-6 PostX F1 GCP 4,119,871.8420 583,365.8420 1522.3750
SPE-6 PostX F10 GCP 4,119,789.9430 583,320.7940 1523.4070
SPE-6 PostX F11 GCP 4,119,780.0850 583,317.2300 1521.2940
SPE-6 PostX F12 GCP 4,119,771.8110 583,312.7150 1521.0090
SPE-6 PostX F2 GCP 4,119,860.3310 583,359.3340 1523.4980
SPE-6 PostX F3 GCP 4,119,851.5200 583,354.4620 1523.8190
SPE-6 PostX F4 GCP 4,119,842.5540 583,349.9060 1524.5680
SPE-6 PostX F5 GCP 4,119,834.2900 583,345.6050 1524.6890
SPE-6 PostX F6 GCP 4,119,824.9290 583,340.3050 1525.2650
SPE-6 PostX F7 GCP 4,119,815.9110 583,337.1710 1524.4790
SPE-6 PostX F8 GCP 4,119,808.5580 583,331.6400 1523.7910
SPE-6 PostX F9 GCP 4,119,798.4160 583,325.4210 1523.0350
SPE-6 PostX G0 GCP 4,119,882.7080 583,359.7740 1523.4180
SPE-6 PostX G1 GCP 4,119,873.6420 583,355.0570 1523.8340
SPE-6 PostX G10 GCP 4,119,794.2500 583,312.7090 1525.1110
SPE-6 PostX G11 GCP 4,119,782.1510 583,305.9000 1521.9540
SPE-6 PostX G12 GCP 4,119,776.5060 583,303.8090 1522.1820
SPE-6 PostX G13 GCP 4,119,758.2200 583,294.7530 1521.7950
SPE-6 PostX G14 GCP 4,119,740.4000 583,284.9900 1523.1080
SPE-6 PostX G15 GCP 4,119,723.5760 583,275.7400 1523.3540
SPE-6 PostX G16 GCP 4,119,705.6700 583,266.1220 1522.4590
SPE-6 PostX G17 GCP 4,119,688.2260 583,256.0270 1521.9470
SPE-6 PostX G2 GCP 4,119,866.3760 583,349.3480 1524.3460
SPE-6 PostX G3 GCP 4,119,855.9970 583,345.7440 1525.3620
SPE-6 PostX G4 GCP 4,119,847.1520 583,341.0420 1525.3810
SPE-6 PostX G5 GCP 4,119,838.3760 583,336.4640 1525.3810
SPE-6 PostX G6 GCP 4,119,829.5660 583,331.8760 1525.3280
SPE-6 PostX G7 GCP 4,119,820.6570 583,327.2360 1525.3450
SPE-6 PostX G8 GCP 4,119,811.8870 583,322.3470 1525.3020
SPE-6 PostX G9 GCP 4,119,802.6360 583,317.5910 1525.0950
SPE-6 PostX H0 GCP 4,119,887.4620 583,351.0740 1524.1470
SPE-6 PostX H1 GCP 4,119,879.2560 583,346.0440 1524.6330
SPE-6 PostX H10 GCP 4,119,799.6740 583,302.0560 1525.2880
SPE-6 PostX H11 GCP 4,119,786.6100 583,298.9570 1522.9180
SPE-6 PostX H12 GCP 4,119,781.6180 583,294.9700 1523.2940
SPE-6 PostX H2 GCP 4,119,869.7620 583,341.6860 1525.8400
SPE-6 PostX H3 GCP 4,119,860.8990 583,336.8830 1525.7310
SPE-6 PostX H4 GCP 4,119,852.1340 583,332.2360 1525.6270
SPE-6 PostX H5 GCP 4,119,843.2610 583,327.6350 1525.4930
SPE-6 PostX H6 GCP 4,119,834.3310 583,323.0840 1525.5020
SPE-6 PostX H7 GCP 4,119,828.0510 583,319.5980 1525.5500
SPE-6 PostX H8 GCP 4,119,816.7050 583,313.6170 1525.4720
SPE-6 PostX H9 GCP 4,119,807.7030 583,308.9340 1525.2700
SPE-6 PostX I0 GCP 4,119,892.3150 583,342.3980 1525.1260
SPE-6 PostX I1 GCP 4,119,882.9310 583,337.6150 1526.0640
SPE-6 PostX I10 GCP 4,119,803.4240 583,295.3100 1525.3950
SPE-6 PostX I11 GCP 4,119,796.4540 583,291.3420 1525.4150
SPE-6 PostX I12 GCP 4,119,785.8560 583,285.9400 1523.8760
SPE-6 PostX I13 GCP 4,119,767.7030 583,277.1070 1523.7760
SPE-6 PostX I14 GCP 4,119,749.7630 583,267.1020 1525.0770
SPE-6 PostX I15 GCP 4,119,732.1770 583,257.9000 1524.9390
SPE-6 PostX I16 GCP 4,119,714.0290 583,250.3170 1524.2480
SPE-6 PostX I17 GCP 4,119,695.9410 583,239.6160 1524.1410
SPE-6 PostX I2 GCP 4,119,874.3270 583,332.9170 1526.1060
SPE-6 PostX I3 GCP 4,119,865.4950 583,328.2030 1526.0340
SPE-6 PostX I4 GCP 4,119,856.6140 583,323.3230 1525.9350
SPE-6 PostX I5 GCP 4,119,847.7580 583,318.6090 1525.8250
SPE-6 PostX I6 GCP 4,119,838.7780 583,314.0130 1525.7510

20
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871

SPE-6 PostX I7 GCP 4,119,830.0880 583,309.3500 1525.6870

SPE-6 PostX I8 GCP 4,119,821.4150 583,304.7040 1525.5380
SPE-6 PostX I9 GCP 4,119,812.3240 583,299.7580 1525.4220
SPE-6 PostX J0 GCP 4,119,896.7920 583,332.7870 1526.1380
SPE-6 PostX J1 GCP 4,119,887.7240 583,328.8770 1527.3690
SPE-6 PostX J10 GCP 4,119,808.0210 583,287.1670 1525.6380
SPE-6 PostX J11 GCP 4,119,799.1830 583,281.8200 1525.5010
SPE-6 PostX J12 GCP 4,119,790.4770 583,277.1910 1524.9000
SPE-6 PostX J2 GCP 4,119,879.2670 583,324.5280 1527.2190
SPE-6 PostX J3 GCP 4,119,870.2070 583,319.0760 1527.6420
SPE-6 PostX J4 GCP 4,119,860.8000 583,314.7570 1526.5980
SPE-6 PostX J5 GCP 4,119,852.4590 583,309.9230 1526.5050
SPE-6 PostX J6 GCP 4,119,843.9010 583,304.3580 1526.6810
SPE-6 PostX J7 GCP 4,119,834.8380 583,301.0180 1526.7290
SPE-6 PostX J8 GCP 4,119,826.0470 583,296.2940 1526.6510
SPE-6 PostX J9 GCP 4,119,817.2020 583,292.0120 1526.0790
SPE-6 PostX JJ0 GCP 4,119,923.2580 583,280.5740 1534.8440
SPE-6 PostX JJ7 GCP 4,119,738.9370 583,181.8790 1534.5950
SPE-6 PostX K0 GCP 4,119,901.9950 583,325.0930 1527.4780
SPE-6 PostX K1 GCP 4,119,891.5000 583,319.3170 1528.7930
SPE-6 PostX K10 GCP 4,119,812.9370 583,278.0260 1527.1480
SPE-6 PostX K11 GCP 4,119,803.4160 583,273.5510 1526.8520
SPE-6 PostX K12 GCP 4,119,795.2840 583,267.5330 1526.1410
SPE-6 PostX K13 GCP 4,119,777.5650 583,256.1810 1526.6180
SPE-6 PostX K14 GCP 4,119,758.3670 583,245.9980 1528.1820
SPE-6 PostX K15 GCP 4,119,742.1190 583,239.4370 1527.5690
SPE-6 PostX K16 GCP 4,119,724.7170 583,230.4640 1526.6480
SPE-6 PostX K17 GCP 4,119,705.6190 583,219.2300 1526.5380
SPE-6 PostX K2 GCP 4,119,883.7160 583,314.6740 1529.4390
SPE-6 PostX K3 GCP 4,119,875.1970 583,310.0760 1529.7200
SPE-6 PostX K4 GCP 4,119,865.5750 583,305.7510 1529.5750
SPE-6 PostX K5 GCP 4,119,858.7910 583,297.3170 1530.1110
SPE-6 PostX K6 GCP 4,119,850.9830 583,294.2330 1529.4840
SPE-6 PostX K7 GCP 4,119,839.2950 583,290.8960 1528.8360
SPE-6 PostX K8 GCP 4,119,831.5800 583,285.8990 1528.5950
SPE-6 PostX K9 GCP 4,119,822.1780 583,282.2000 1527.8330
SPE-6 PostX L0 GCP 4,119,911.5700 583,306.3900 1529.9570
SPE-6 PostX L1 GCP 4,119,892.0230 583,298.0850 1531.9320
SPE-6 PostX L10 GCP 4,119,735.3210 583,214.3570 1529.8480
SPE-6 PostX L11 GCP 4,119,716.4300 583,202.6190 1529.9470
SPE-6 PostX L2 GCP 4,119,875.8670 583,285.6370 1532.3610
SPE-6 PostX L3 GCP 4,119,858.7620 583,277.7690 1532.8620
SPE-6 PostX L4 GCP 4,119,843.0480 583,265.2600 1535.7700
SPE-6 PostX L5 GCP 4,119,830.3410 583,262.4370 1534.1620
SPE-6 PostX L6 GCP 4,119,802.5550 583,250.7700 1529.3810
SPE-6 PostX L7 GCP 4,119,786.4400 583,241.7910 1528.3810
SPE-6 PostX L8 GCP 4,119,769.3450 583,231.9830 1530.0140
SPE-6 PostX L9 GCP 4,119,751.9080 583,222.5300 1529.3130
SPE-6 PostX M0 GCP 4,119,920.5140 583,289.7120 1533.5780
SPE-6 PostX M1 GCP 4,119,902.2180 583,280.9450 1534.1590
SPE-6 PostX M10 GCP 4,119,760.1970 583,206.2880 1531.9880
SPE-6 PostX M11 GCP 4,119,744.7630 583,195.2280 1532.7330
SPE-6 PostX M12 GCP 4,119,724.9550 583,187.8550 1532.8470
SPE-6 PostX M2 GCP 4,119,884.2360 583,271.7330 1534.3190
SPE-6 PostX M3 GCP 4,119,865.5170 583,260.9100 1535.9320
SPE-6 PostX M4 GCP 4,119,849.7600 583,250.5200 1537.4890
SPE-6 PostX M5 GCP 4,119,833.1770 583,240.5690 1538.5560
SPE-6 PostX M6 GCP 4,119,810.6760 583,230.0260 1532.3360
SPE-6 PostX M7 GCP 4,119,801.3720 583,229.9540 1530.1020
SPE-6 PostX M8 GCP 4,119,795.8180 583,222.4790 1531.0720
SPE-6 PostX M9 GCP 4,119,777.8430 583,214.7120 1532.6350
SPE-6 PostX N0 GCP 4,119,928.8540 583,270.1560 1536.8390
SPE-6 PostX N1 GCP 4,119,910.9620 583,262.9490 1536.9380
SPE-6 PostX N10 GCP 4,119,751.4930 583,177.4800 1535.6720
SPE-6 PostX N11 GCP 4,119,735.6510 583,170.2370 1535.0440
SPE-6 PostX N2 GCP 4,119,895.2050 583,252.0570 1537.0590
SPE-6 PostX N3 GCP 4,119,876.5380 583,244.4990 1537.7030
SPE-6 PostX N4 GCP 4,119,858.3380 583,234.5560 1539.8240
SPE-6 PostX N5 GCP 4,119,841.8360 583,224.1790 1539.8040
SPE-6 PostX N6 GCP 4,119,823.6160 583,215.5480 1536.6220
SPE-6 PostX N7 GCP 4,119,804.5940 583,206.3250 1533.9930
SPE-6 PostX N8 GCP 4,119,788.6920 583,196.7180 1533.8090
SPE-6 PostX N9 GCP 4,119,770.0630 583,188.5970 1534.9780

References Explosions, USGS Open-file Report 2001-312 (52 p). https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/ofr01312.
Allen, B.M., Drellack, S.L., Townsend, M.J., 1997. Surface Effects of Underground Nuclear
Adushkin, V.V., Leith, W., 2001. The Containment of Soviet Underground Nuclear Explosions, United States (147 p). https://doi.org/10.2172/671858. https://www.

21
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al.
osti.gov/servlets/purl/671858.
Allmendinger, R.W., Cardozo, N.C., Fisher, D., 2013. Structural Geology Algorithms:
Vectors & Tensors: Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, England (289 pp).
Argo, P., Clark, R.A., Douglas, A., Gupta, V., Hassard, J., Lewis, P.M., Playford, K.,
Ringdal, F., 1995. The detection and recognition of underground nuclear explosions.
Surv. Geophys. 16, 495–532.
Barnes, H., Houser, F.N., Poole, F.G., 1963. Geologic map of the Oak Spring Quadrangle,
Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Map GQ-214. Scale: 1:24,000.
Washington, D.C.
Barnhart, T.B., Crosby, B.T., 2013. Comparing two methods of surface change detection
on an evolving thermokarst using high-temporal-frequency terrestrial laser scanning,
Selawik River, Alaska. Remote Sens. 5, 2813–2837. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rs5062813.
Barosh, P.J., 1968. Relationships of explosion-produced fracture patterns to geologic
structures in Yucca Flat, Nevada Test Site. Geol. Soc. Am. Memoir 110, 199–217.
Bucknam, R.C., 1972. Vertical deformation produced by some underground nuclear ex-
plosions. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 62 (4), 961–971.
Buech, F., Davies, T.R., Pettinga, J.R., 2010. The little Red Hill seismic experimental
study: topographic effects on ground motion at a bedrock-dominated mountain edi-
fice. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 100 (5A), 2219–2229.
Canty, M.J., Schlittenhardt, J., 2001. Satellite data used to locate site of 1998 Indian
nuclear test. Eos Trans. AGU 82 (3), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1029/01EO00015.
Carluccio, R., Giuntini, A., Materni, V., Chiappini, S., Bignami, C., D’Ajello Caracciolo, F.,
Pignatelli, A., Stramondo, S., Console, R., Chiappini, M., 2014. A multidisciplinary
study of the DPRK nuclear tests. Pure Appl. Geophys. 171, 341–359. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00024-012-0628-8.
Cattermole, J.M., Hansen, W.R., 1962. Geologic effects of the high-explosive tests in the
USGS tunnel area, Nevada test site. In: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
382-B, (37 p).
Chai, J.C., Shen, S.L., Zhu, H.H., Zhang, X.L., 2004. Land subsidence due to groundwater
drawdown in Shanghai. Geotechnique 54 (2), 143–147.
Chowdhury, A.H., Wilt, T.E., 2015. Characterizing explosive effects on underground
structures. In: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission report NUREG/CR-7201, (97 p).
Coblentz, D., Pabian, F., 2015. Revised geologic site characterization of the north Korean
test site at Punggye-ri. Sci. Global Secur. 23 (2), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08929882.2015.1039343.
Denny, M.D., Johnson, L.R., 1991. The explosion seismic source function: models and
scaling laws reviewed. In: Taylor, S.R. (Ed.), Explosion Source Phenomenology. 65.
pp. 1–24 AGU Monograph.
Di Traglia, F., Calvari, S., D’Auria, L., Nolesini, T., Bonaccorso, A., Fornaciai, A., Esposito,
A., Cristaldi, A., Favalli, M., Casagli, N., 2018. The 2014 effusive eruption at
Stromboli: new insights from in situ and remote-sensing measurements. Remote Sens.
10 (12). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10122035.
Dickey, D.D., 1968. Fault displacement as a result of underground nuclear explosions, In
Nevada Test Site. Geol. Soc. Am. Memoir 110, 219–232.
Dickey, D.D., 1969. Strain associated with the Benham underground nuclear explosion.
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 59, 2221–2230.
Eisler, J.D., Chilton, F., 1964. Spalling of the Earth’s surface by underground nuclear
explosions. J. Geophys. Res. 69 (24), 5285–5293. https://doi.org/10.1029/
JZ069i024p05285.
Erban, L.E., Gorelick, S.M., Zebker, H.A., 2014. Groundwater extraction, land subsidence,
and sea-level rise in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 084010.
Favalli, M., Fornaciai, A., Nannipieri, L., Harris, A., Calvari, S., Lormand, C., 2018. UAV-
based remote sensing surveys of lava flow fields: a case study from Etna’s 1974
channel-fed lava flows. Bull. Volcanol. 80 (29). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-
018-1192-6.
Frazer, B.T., Congalton, R.G., 2018. Issues in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) data col-
lection of complex forest environments. Remote Sens. 10 (6). https://doi.org/10.
3390/rs10060908.
Galloway, D.L., Hudnut, K.W., Ingebritsen, S.E., Phillips, S.P., Peltzer, G., Rogez, F.,
Rosen, P.A., 1998. Detection of aquifer system compaction and land subsidence using
interferometric synthetic aperture radar, Antelope Valley, Mojave Desert, California.
Water Resour. Res. 34 (10), 2573–2585.
Garcia, M.N., 1989. Photogrammetric methods applied to surface effects mapping and
volumetric studies at the Nevada test site, Nevada. Photogramm. Eng. Remote. Sens.
55 (8), 1197–1201.
Glasstone, S., Dolan, P.J., 1977. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, U.S. Department of
Defense. 653 p.
Goetz, J., Brenning, A., Marcer, M., Bodin, X., 2018. Modeling the precision of structure-
from-motion multi-view stereo digital elevation models from repeated close-range
aerial surveys. Remote Sensing of Environment 210 (208). https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rse.2018.03.013.
Grasso, D.N., 2003. Geologic Surface Effects of Underground Nuclear Testing, Buckboard
Mesa, Climax Stock, Dome Mountain, Frenchman Flat, Rainier/Aqueduct Mesa, and
Shoshone Mountain, Nevada test Site, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 03-125.
Gupta, V., Pabian, F., 1998. Commercial satellite imagery and the CTBT verification
process. In: The Nonproliferation Review. 1998. Spring-Summer, pp. 89–97.
Hakala, W.W., 1970. Subsidence caused by an underground nuclear explosion. In:
Proceedings of the Symposium on Engineering with Nuclear Explosives, 14-16 Jan
1970. American Nuclear Society/U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Las Vegas, NV, pp.
1428–1455.
Henderson, J.R., Smith, M.O., Zelinski, M.E., 2014. Overhead detection of underground
nuclear explosions using multi-sepctral and infrared imaging. Pure Appl. Geophys.
171 (3–5), 763–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-012-0574-5.
Higgins, S., Overeem, I., Tanaka, A., Syvitski, J.P.M., 2013. Land subsidence at
22
Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871
aquaculture facilities in the Yellow River Delta, China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40,
3898–3902.
Houser, F.N., 1969. Subsidence related to underground nuclear explosions, Nevada test
site. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 59 (6), 2231–2251.
Houser, F.N., Poole, F.G., 1961. Age relations of the Climax composite stock, Nevada Test
Site, Nye County, Nevada; USGS Misc. Investigations Map I-328. (scale 1:4,800).
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), 1981. Basic geotechnical description of
rock masses. In: International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Sciences, and
Geomechanics Abstracts. 18. pp. 85–110.
Ishitsuka, K., Tsuji, T., Matsuoka, T., 2012. Detection and mapping of soil liquefaction in
the 2011 Tohoku earthquake using SAR interferometry. Earth Planet Space 64 (22).
https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2012.11.002.
Kaiser, A., Holden, C., Massey, C., 2013. Determination of site Amplification,
Polarization, and Topographic Effects in the Seismic Response of the Port Hills
Following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering Technical Conference, 26–28 April. 8 p.
Kaya, G., Musaoglu, N., Ersoy, O., 2011. Damage assessment of 2010 Haiti earthquake
with post-earthquake satellite image by support vector selection and adaptation.
Photogramm. Eng. Remote. Sens. 77, 1025–1035.
Khalturin, V.I., Rautian, T.G., Richards, P.G., Leith, W.S., 2005. A review of nuclear
testing by the Soviet Union at Novaya Zemlya, 1955–1990. Sci. Global Secur. 13
(1–2), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/08929880590961862.
Klawitter, M., Pistellato, D., Webster, A., Esterle, J., 2017. Application of photo-
grammetry for mapping of solution collapse breccia pipes on the Colorado Plateau,
U.S.A. Photogramm. Rec. 32 (160), 443–458.
Larmat, C., Rougier, E., Patton, H., 2017. Apparent explosion moments from Rg waves
recorded on SPE. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 107, 43–50.
Liau, J., Shen, G., 2009. Detection of land surface change due to the Wenchuan earth-
quake using multitemporal advanced land observation satellite-phased array type L-
band synthetic aperture radar data. J. Appl. Remote. Sens. 3 (1), 031680. https://doi.
org/10.1117/1.3142466.
Love, G.C., Vortman, L.J., 1967. Photogrammetric Techniques Associated with Model
Studies of Earth-Moving Explosions, Surveying and Mapping Division. American
Society of Civil Engineers 40 p. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4565399.
Maldonado, F., 1977. Summary of the Geology and Physical Properties of the Climax
stock, Nevada Test Site: USGS Open File Report 77-356. 25 p.
McKeown, F.A., Dickey, D.D., Ellis, W.L., 1967. Maps and Classification of Explosion-
Induced Fractures in Yucca Flat, Nevada Test Site: U.S. Geological Survey Technical
Letter NTS-195, Supp. 1.
Menderes, A., Erener, A., Sarp, G., 2015. Automatic detection of damaged buildings after
earthquake Hazard by using remote sensing and information technologies. Proc.
Earth Planet. Sci. 15, 257–262. ISSN 1878-5220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeps.
2015.08.063.
Merkle, D.H., 1980. Basic Mechanisms of Spall from near-Surface Explosions; Defense
Technical Information Center report. 100 p.
Morris, R.H., 1973. Topographic and Isobase Maps of the CANNIKIN sink, Amchitka
Island, Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Technical Report USGS-474-175. (10 p).
Mueller, R.A., Murphy, J.R., 1971. Seismic characteristics of underground nuclear deto-
nations, part I. Seismic spectrum scaling. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 67, 135–158.
Niederheiser, R., Mokros, M., Lange, J., Petschko, H., Prasicek, G., Elberink, S.O., 2016.
Deriving 3D point cloud from terrestrial photographs – comparison of different
sensors and software. In: International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote
Sensing, and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLA-B5, 12–19 July. Czech
Republic, Prague.
Orkild, P.P., Townsend, D.R., Baldwin, M.J., 1983. Chapter A; Geologic investigations. In:
Geologic and Geophysical Investigations of Climax Stock Intrusive, Nevada, USGS
Open File Report 83-377, (92 p).
Pabian, F., Coblentz, D., 2018. Observed surface disturbances associated with the DPRK’s
3 September 2017 underground nuclear test. Seismol. Res. Lett. 89 (6), 2017–2024.
https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180120.
Pasyanos, M.E., Myers, S.C., 2018. The coupled location/depth/yield problem for North
Korea’s declared nuclear tests. Seismological Research Letters 89 (6), 2059–2067.
https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180109.
Patton, H.J., 2015. New Insights into the Explosion Source from SPE, EOS Trans. AGU,
Abstract S51F-05, 2015 AGU Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
Patton, H.J., Taylor, S.R., 2011. The apparent explosion moment: inferences of volumetric
moment due to source medium damage by underground nuclear explosions. J.
Geophys. Res. 116, B03310. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JB007937.
Phang, M.K., Simpson, T.A., Brown, R.C., 1983. Investigation of Blast-Induced
Underground Vibrations from Surface Mining. Department of Interior Office of
Surface Mining Report, U.S. (107 p).
Piras, M., Taddia, G., Forno, M.G., Gattaglio, M., Aicardi, I., Dabove, P., Lo Russo, S.,
Lingua, A., 2017. Detailed geologic mapping in mountain areas using an unmanned
aerial vehicle: application to the Rodoretto Valley, NW Italian Alps. Geomat. Nat.
Hazards Risk 8, 137–149.
Rougier, E., Patton, H.J., Knight, E.E., Bradley, C.R., 2011. Constraints on burial depth
and yield of the 25 May 2009 North Korean test from hydrodynamic simulations in a
granite medium. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048269.
L16316.
Schultz-Fellenz, E.S., Coppersmith, R.T., Sussman, A.J., Swanson, E.M., Cooley, J.A.,
2018. Detecting surface changes from an underground explosion in granite using
unmanned aerial system photogrammetry. Pure Appl. Geophys. 175 (9), 3159–3177.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1649-0.
Snelson, C.M., Abbott, R.E., Broome, S.T., Mellors, R.J., Patton, H.J., Sussman, A.J.,
Townsend, M.J., Walter, W.R., 2013. Chemical explosion experiments to improve
nuclear test monitoring. Eos 94, 237–239.
E.S. Schultz-Fellenz, et al.
Tannant, D.D., 2015. Review of photogrammetry-based techniques for characterization
and hazard assessment of rock faces. Int. J. Geohazard. Environ. 1 (2), 76–87.
Thurber, C.H., Quin, H.R., Richards, P.G., 1993. Accurate locations of nuclear explosions
in Balapan, Kazakhstan, 1987 to 1989. Geophys. Res. Lett. 20 (5), 399–402.
Tonkin, T.N., Midgley, N.G., 2016. Ground control networks for image based surface
reconstruction: an investigation of optimum survey designs using UAV derived
imagery and structure-from-motion photogrammetry. Remote Sens. 8 (9). https://
doi.org/10.3390/rs8090786.
Townsend, M., Prothro, L., Obi, C., 2012. Geology of the Source Physics Experiment Site,
Climax stock, Nevada National Security Site. DOE/NV/25946–1448. National
Security Technologies, LLC, Las Vegas, NV.
U.S. Department of Energy, 2015. United States Nuclear Tests: July 1945 Through
September 1992, DOE/NV-209 REV16. (186 p).
Viecelli, J.A., 1973. Spallation and the generation of surface waves by an underground
explosion. J. Geophys. Res. 78, 2475–2487. https://doi.org/10.1029/
JB078i014p02475.
Vincent, P., Larsen, S., Galloway, D., Laczniak, R.J., Walter, W.R., Foxall, W., Zucca, J.J.,
2003. New signatures of underground nuclear tests revealed by satellite radar in-
terferometry. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30 (22). https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018179.
Wang, T., Shi, Q., Nikkhoo, M., Wei, S., Barbot, S., Dreger, D., Bürg-Mann, R., Motagh, M.,
Chen, Q.F., 2018. The rise, collapse, and compaction of Mt. Mantap from the 3
23
Remote Sensing of Environment 246 (2020) 111871
September 2017 North Korean nuclear test. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.aar7230.
Warrick, J.A., Ritchie, A.C., Adelman, G., Adelman, K., Limber, P.W., 2017. New tech-
niques to measure cliff change from historical oblique aerial photographs and
structure-from-motion photogrammetry. J. Coast. Res. 33 (1), 39–55.
Wei, M., 2017. Location and source characteristics of the 2016 January 6 north Korean
nuclear test constrained by InSAR. Geophys. J. Int. 209, 762–769.
Wilder, D., Yow Jr., J., 1984. Structural Geology Report Spent Fuel Test – Climax, Nevada
Test Site, UCRL-53381, Prepared by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, CA, October.
Wilmarth, V.R., McKeown, F.A., 1960. Structural effects of Rainier, Logan, Blanca un-
derground nuclear explosions, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. In: U.S.
Geological Survey Prof. Paper. 400–B U.S. Geological Survey.
Yocky, D.A., West, R.D., Riley, R.M., Calloway, T.M., 2018. Monitoring surface phe-
nomena created by an underground chemical explosion using fully polarimetric
VideoSAR. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens. 57 (5), 2481–2493. https://doi.org/10.
1109/TGRS.2018.2873979.
Zelinski, M.E., Henderson, J., Smith, M., 2014. Use of Landsat 5 for change detection at
1998 Indian and Pakistani nuclear test sites. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs.
Remote Sens. 7 (8), 3453–3460.