Hailstone and Freezer Iceball Mechanics and Damage Profiles by Matt B. Phelps, P.E., MS a Dissertation in Industrial Engineering

Home , Ice crystals

Hailstone and freezer iceball mechanics and damage profiles

Matt B. Phelps, P.E., MS

A Dissertation

Industrial Engineering

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved

Clifford B. Fedler, Ph.D., P.E. Co-chair of the Committee

Milton L. Smith, Ph.D. Co-Chair of the Committee

Mario Beruvides, Ph.D., P.E.

John Schroeder, Ph.D.

Mark Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School

December, 2018

Texas Tech University, Matt B. Phelps, December 2018

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

No part of this work would have occurred without the love and guidance of our Heavenly Father. I wish to thank my research committee for their time, effort and consideration. Numerous people and organizations contributed to this work: I would like to thank the Helen De Vit Jones Graduate Fellowship for their financial assistance and my friend, mentor and co-chair of my research committee Cliff Fedler, Ph.D., P.E. I wish to thank my friends and colleagues Gary Treider and Don Spradling, E.I.T. for their support, technical work, commentary and excellent advice. I would also like thank my research committee and to acknowledge the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, and particularly Ian Giammanco, Ph.D. for data, commentary and excellent advice throughout the work.

I want to thank John Ewell and Alan Odom for their contribution of time, labor and materials for insulating and protecting the mobile research laboratory and tow vehicle. I thank Mark McGivern, E.I.T. for his help in the cold lab and testing hundreds of freezer iceball samples, and for his technical assistance to keep the instruments working properly in difficult conditions.

I appreciate the commentary, advise and encouragement from Andrew Heymsfield, Ph.D. and Charles Knight, Ph.D.

I would like to thank my brother-in-law Dr. James V. Campbell for his advice and consultation on opacity and optical properties, and human visual perception of optics and opacity.

I must thank my parents, Bernard and Arline Phelps, who lovingly taught me the difference between right and wrong, the value of hard work, persistence and honesty during their lives, and have joined me in my moments of splendor and melancholy before and after their deaths.

I want to thank my children, Ches Phelps and Christina Phelps Hairgrove, for their years of loving support and encouragement; they are truly my life’s greatest work. And finally, any acknowledgment would be incomplete without thanking my loving wife, partner, teacher, coach, and the best friend I have ever had, Carol Phelps. I could not have done this without you, and I now dedicate this work to you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii

ABSTRACTS ...... v

LIST OF TABLES ...... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xii

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Evaluating compressive strength...... 1 Hailstone and freezer iceball opacity ...... 1 Hailstone and freezer iceball fracture mechanics...... 2 II. EVALUATING THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF HAIL AND ITS DIRECT RELATIONSLHIP TO FREEZER ICEBALLS ...... 4 Introduction ...... 4 History of hail compressive strength testing ...... 5 The language problem ...... 7 Fracture mechanics...... 8 Weather data...... 9 Hail testing ...... 10 Observed data ...... 12 Relationship to freezer iceballs ...... 20 Monte Carlo analysis and ANOVA ...... 28 Conclusions ...... 33 III. HAILSTONE AND FREEZER ICEBALL NON-DESTRUCTIVE TEST METHOD USING OPACITY AND AIR BUBBLE RECOVERY ...... 34 Introduction ...... 34 History of Hailstone Investigation ...... 35 Measurement of Light Luminosity and Wavelength ...... 54 Opacity Materials and Methods ...... 67 Measurement of Freezer Iceballs’ Air Bubble Volume ...... 80 Air Bubble Materials and Methods ...... 86 Results and Discussion ...... 100 Conclusions ...... 103 IV. FRACTURE MECHANICS AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF NATURAL HAILSTONES AND FREEZER ICEBALL COMPRESSIVE STRESS RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP ...... 105 Introduction ...... 105 Issues with hailstones and freezer iceball testing ...... 115

iii

History of materials testing of concrete and wood ...... 120 Reconciliation of test methods ...... 131 Fracture mechanics...... 135 Natural hail and freezer iceball testing ...... 137 Freezer iceball testing ...... 140 Finite element analysis ...... 153 Conclusions ...... 162 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 163 Direct relationship between natural hail and freezer iceballs ...... 163 Opacity and Non-Destructive Test Methods ...... 166 Fracture mechanics and spherical ice shapes ...... 168 VI. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 169 Relationship between natural hail and freezer iceballs ...... 169 Opacity and non-destructive test methods ...... 169 Testing procedures and instruments ...... 170 Fracture mechanics and finite element analysis ...... 172 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 173

ABSTRACTS

ABSTRACT FOR THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF HAIL AND DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO FREEZER ICEBALLS Hail damage to building envelopes is clearly on the rise. Insurance companies report that 2017 was the first year that hail damage was the most expensive insured peril for real property claims in the US. The causes for this unprecedented hail damage cost are many, but they include; more frequent damaging hailstorms, urban growth that puts more structures at risk, bigger structures that have bigger roofs, more expensive repairs due to higher materials and labor costs and increased public awareness of the insureds rights and responsibilities under the terms of their policies.

This paper addresses the general issue of damaging hail events and specifically addresses the compressive strength of hail. Hail impacts have typically been related to hailstone size. Some investigators compute the kinetic energy of hail impacts and adjusted the hail falling speed by the wind speed occurring during the hail event. ASTM E822-92 provides numerical methods for adjusting hail falling speed based upon the hail’s terminal velocity and wind speed. Many people have had the experience of observing hail in various forms, from soft slush balls to those that are seemingly as hard as a ball bearing. This presentation will review what we do know about hail compressive strength, what we do not know, and what is being done to close the gap on understanding why some hail events are more damaging than others.

Some researchers have investigated the amount of hail Kinetic Energy (KE) required to produce a specified damage profile. Most of the time this inquiry is related to hail diameter, using freezer iceballs as hail. The work is done without regard to projectile hardness (compressive strength) density, or terminal velocity. Numerous investigators have reported on the hailstone size and some on the amount of KE required to exceed the damage threshold of several different cladding materials. None of these authors measured or reported the projectiles weight, density or how they computed the terminal velocity, most of them simply reported the diameter of the iceballs used in their demonstration. This procedure produces a biased result that assumes that freezer iceballs possess the same density, terminal velocity and compressive strength as natural hail.

More than 875 natural hailstones were analyzed for size, density, compressive strength (Fo), and compressive stress (σc) by the Insurance Institute of Business and Home Safety (IBHS). These data were analyzed with a variety of methods, and the analysis shows a clear trend in the increase of compressive strength and compressive strength uniformity with increases in hail diameter by size bin. These data were considered by hail size bins beginning with ½” through 2 ½” in ¼” group bins. These data, Fo and σc were regressed with an exponential equation with R2 = 0.9694 and 0.9516 respectively. The data shows that as diameter increases so does Fo and its uniformity; however, σc will decrease with diameter increase, and uniformity of σc increases with increased diameter. The hail Fo and σc population distribution was developed for each hail size bin. The Kinetic Energy (KE) was computed for each hail size bin such that the probability of the hail impacts exceeding a damage threshold were computed.

ABSTRACT FOR NATURAL HAIL AND FREEZER ICEBALL OPACITY A NON-DESTRUCTIVE TEST METHOD Many aspects of hail have been studied for years, with most of the published literature focusing on the meteorological aspects of hail. Many reports are on ice which in part, infers hail information. Without an understanding of the physical and engineering properties of freezer ice balls, simulated and natural hails, meaningful understanding of hail properties, such as compressive strength, strain rate response, and stress strain relationships within and between sets remains largely unknown.

Hail occurs in many different locations, climates and storm types. Kinetic Energy (KE) is related to velocity by the square of the term. Increases in falling velocity have a dramatic effect on KE and the damage potential of hail stones.

Opacity is the measurement of light that is refracted or adsorbed but does not pass through an object. In other words, opacity is the amount of absorption, scattering or reflected light, electromagnetic or other radiation. In this paper we focus on light from the visible spectrum passing through hailstones and freezer iceballs by measuring the light intensity passing through the hailstones and freezer iceballs (I) and comparing it to the initial light intensity (Io). The percentage passing through (I/Io) was measured for each observation.

Prior hailstone research that utilized opacity did so through the examination of thin sections of hailstones and looked at the component parts of the hailstone (ice, liquid water, and air content). The research focus is on hailstones as a single structure in much the same way that a building is comprised of various structural elements. In a structural engineering sense, opacity measurements of thin sections of ice (hailstones) are analogous to load assessments of individual beams and columns within a structure; whereas opacity measurements of the whole hailstone are analogous to load assessments of the whole structures Main Wind Force Resisting System (MWFRS) as described in the American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) reference Minimum

vii

Design Guide for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7). Since hailstone impacts occur as whole hailstones, it seems reasonable to assess them as whole units.

By understanding the compressive strength (Fo), the compressive stress (σc) the stress strain (ε) relationship, and strain rate behavior we can more accurately describe hail’s damage potential, relationships between manmade and natural hails, and difference with in types and between types of hailstones.

viii

ABSTRACT FOR FRACTURE MECHANICS AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF NATURAL HAILSTONES AND FREEZER ICEBALL COMPRESSIVE STRESS RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP The study of the built environment has traditionally focused on construction, materials, methods of assembly, and functionality. In recent years the topics of sustainability, resilience, and energy conservation have expanded the scope of study for the built environment. In most college curricul the scope of study of the built environment is mostly limited to structural elements, how those elements are clad, installed, and protected are frequently left up to the general contractor or even sub- contractors. Incredibly, non-professionals have taken the lead on most building envelop design and resulting performance issues. Building history is full of ruined structures that are structurally recoverable; however, the damage to the exterior cladding and resulting environmental intrusion has ruined the building such that all remains is its structural shell.

The built environment is exposed to all the elements of the local environment. Some environments have commonalities that are a concern for very large geographic areas. One of the commonalities that affects large areas of the US is hail. Annually, hail affects larger land surface areas than tornados, hurricanes, sinkholes and earthquakes combined. In the period 2010 through 2012 property loss insurance claims resulting from hail increased by 84%. The Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS) reports that in 2017 hail was the most expensive insured peril for real property claims costlier than tornados, hurricanes or earth quakes. Hail affects all areas where thunderstorms occur. Many aspects of hail have been studied for years, with most of the published literature focusing on the meteorological aspects of hail. Without an understanding of the physical and engineering properties of freezer ice balls, simulated hail, and natural hails, meaningful understanding of hail hardness, strain rate response, or compressive strength, remain unclear.

The relationship between natural and manmade hails cannot be quantified without understanding the engineering properties of freezer iceballs and then applying that knowledge to natural hails. Some researchers have investigated the amount of

hail kinetic energy required to produce a specified damage profile. Most of the time this is related to hail diameter using freezer ice balls. This work is done without regard to projectile hardness. Some investigators have reported that freezer ice balls are harder than natural hail stones and should be regarded as the “worst case scenario”. In a structural engineering sense, opacity measurements of thin sections of ice (hailstones) are analogous to load assessments of individual beams and columns in a structure, whereas opacity measurements of the whole hailstone is analogous to load assessments of the whole structures Main Wind Force Resisting System (MWFRS) as described in the American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) reference Minimum Design Guide for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7). Since hailstone impacts occur as a whole, it seems reasonable to assess them as whole units.

LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Size of hail bins and typical terminal velocity and kinetic energy...... 10

1.2 Natural hail compressive strength (lbf) bin information ...... 13 1.3 Freezer iceball bin information ...... 20 1.4 ANOVA for natural hail and freezer iceballs modeled as natural hail ...... 31

1.5 ANOVA for natural hail and freezer iceballs modeled as natural hail σc...32

2.1 Natural hail count by size bin (nine bins)………………………………...44

2.2 Freezer iceball sample count and data…………………………………....45

2.3 Light intensity standard deviations, amperage settings and colors…….....56

2.4 Lights of the visible spectrum and typical and measured wavelengths…..59

2.5 Wavelength, color and refractive index (CRC Press)………………….....66

2.6 Visible spectrum measured baseline wavelength values………………....67

2.7 Typical light compositions for RGB to produce ROYGBIV+W………...70

2.8 SD for 27 sets of light intensity observations………………………….....79

2.9 Symbol and variable values legend for Figure 1.5-4.11……………….....90

2.10 SD for colors ROYGBIV+W and relative ercentages of lowest SD ...... 100 3.1 Hail physical properties (from Giammanco, et al (2015)) ...... 128 3.2 Reported values for materials properties of ice...... 129 3.3 Average values for 19 freezer iceball samples ...... 136 3.4 Maximum values for 19 freezer iceball samples...... 137 3.5 Elements and their respective Poisson ratio (υ) ...... 146

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Hail compressive strength (Fo) in units of lbf (IBHS) ...... 13 1.2 Hail avg. diameter distribution (IBHS) ...... 14 1.3 Hail density distribution (IBHS) ...... 14 1.4 Natural hail, max, min and mean compressive force (Fo) ...... 15 1.5 Nature hail average diameter for each group bin...... 16 1.6 X(red), Y(blue) and Z(green) axis...... 17 1.7 Relationship between hail and compressive stress and hail bin ...... 18 1.8 Relationship between compressive stress SD and diameter bin...... 19 1.9 Freezer iceball compressive strength (Fo) at failure by group bin...... 21 1.10 Compressive stress (psi) at failure for freezer iceballs...... 22 1.11 Standard deviations of compressive stress freezer icballs by Avg. Dia…...... 23

1.12 Compressive strength (Fo) natural hailstone/iceball direct relationship...... 24

1.13 Compressive stress (σc) natural hailstones/iceball direct relationship ...... 25 1.14 Side by side comparison of model results to measured data...... 25

1.15 Outliers of natural hail compressive strength (Fo) data...... 26

1.16 Outliers of freezer iceball compressive strength (Fo)...... 27

1.17 Natural hail average (Fo)...... 29

1.18 Natural hail average (σc)...... 29

1.19 Freezer iceball average (Fo)...... 29

1.20 Freezer iceball average (σc)...... 29

1.21 Hail Probability >= Freezer Iceball Fo...... 30

1.22 Hail Probability >= Freezer Iceball σc...... 30 2.1 Ice Ih hexagonal ice crystals and water to ice pressure/temp curve...... 38 2.2 Bubble chart of opaque and transparent simulated hailstones ...... 46 2.3 Normalized distribution of apparent air bubble diameter ...... 47

2.4 Light intensity ratio (I/Io) and wet and dry growth regions ...... 48

2.5 Light intensity ratio (I/Io) and bubble concentration ...... 49

xii

2.6 Relationship between air temp. and surface temps...... 50

2.7 Fitted model of temperature effect on ice Ih density...... 51 2.8 Fitted model of temperature effect on air density at one ATM...... 52 2.9 Fitted model of temperatue effect on fresh liquid water density...... 52 2.10 Standard deviations by amperage group...... 57 2.11 Luminosity (lux) range for ROYGBIV+W at test amperage...... 58 2.12 Effect of temperature on light wavelength (color) group mean SD...... 61 2.13 12VDC LED light source, model GLUX-RGB18W-S40B...... 69

2.14 Opacity and Fo regression for freezer iceballs with all colors...... 76

2.15 Opacity and Fo regression for freezer iceballs with green color...... 77

2.16 All freezer iceball Fo data with third order polynomial fit...... 78 2.17 USDA soil textural triangle with contours...... 82 2.18 Soil textural two side graph...... 83 2.19 Sample inside inverted funnel...... 87 2.20 Sample melting and floating towards funnel stem...... 87 2.21 Melting sample and bubbles floating into air collection balloon...... 88 2.22 Syring and needle used to recover collected gases from balloon...... 88 2.23 Needle inserted into balloon removing accumulated gasses...... 89 2.24 Opacity value for freezer iceballs...... 92 2.25 Porosity values for freezer iceballs...... 93 2.26 Compressive strength of freezer iceballs...... 94 2.27 Compressive stress of freezer iceballs...... 95 2.28 Volume of voids for freezer iceballs...... 96 2.29 Average diameter of freezer iceballs...... 97 2.30 Density of freezer iceballs...... 98 3.1 Ice structure and axis orientation...... 116 3.2 Cone shape from concrete cylinder compression load test...... 120 3.3 Tension load test on concrete cylinder...... 121 3.4 Wood in compressive load failure...... 123 3.5 Wood compressive load test on glulam assembly...... 124 3.6 Compression load on hygrogel sphere...... 125 3.7 Load test on sphere with load/time graph...... 126

xiii

3.8 Freezer iceball in compression...... 133 3.9 Freezer iceball breaking pattern...... 134 3.10 Transducers to measure compression distance and tension expansion...... 139 3.11 Ice fraction pattern time series...... 140 3.12 Close-up of time series steps b and c...... 141 3.13 Close-up of time series steps d and e...... 142 3.14 Sketch of breaking iceball...... 143 3.15 Typical stress-strain curve for steel...... 144 3.16 Ice cylinders stress-strain relationships...... 146 3.17 Compressive stress response of five freezer iceball samples (a)...... 147 3.18 Compressive stress response of five freezer iceball samples (b)...... 148 3.19 Compressive stress response of five freezer iceball samples (c)...... 148 3.20 Giammanco and Brown Figure 2...... 149 3.21 Poisson ratio relationship to compressive force...... 150 3.22 Probability of average Youngs modulus equal to max value...... 151 3.23 Probability of average Possion ratio equal to max value...... 151 3.24 Force transition diagram of spherical object...... 156 3.25 Base model of simplified iceball in compression...... 157 3.26 Cross-section view of compression (a) ...... 157 3.27 Cross-section view of compression (b)...... 158 3.28 Cross-section view of compression (c)...... 158 3.29 Cross-section view of compression (d)...... 159 3.30 Cross-section view of compression (e)...... 159 3.31 Cross-section view of compression (f)...... 160 3.32 Cross-section view of compression (g)...... 160 3.33 Cross-section view of compression (h)...... 161 3.34 Cross-section view of compression (i)...... 161

xiv

Texas Tech University, Matt B. Phelps, December 2018

CHAPTER I

I. INTRODUCTION Evaluating compressive strength Hailstorm investigations have traditionally focused on metrological facts and documented damage to determine if the insured real property has been damaged by the subject storm. Not until engineering science and mathematics were applied to the analysis has the need for hailstone engineering properties become so relevant. In introducing the use of engineering science, engineers are subjected to legal and technical scrutiny requiring documentation of both the damage profile and causation model that produced the alleged damage.

Engineers who opine without documentation and clear references are subject to being barred from testifying under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (and others). Rule 702 says, in part, that the expert must demonstrate clear understanding of the subject by education, experience or reference. The methodology used by the investigator is important to allowing the expert to opine in court. A combination of all relevant elements--education, experience, training, and reference--is highly desirable. This paper will help practicing engineers demonstrate sufficient mastery of this subject matter in training, education and reference.

Falling kinematics is an expression of learning and understanding the interaction between falling hailstones and the space through which they fall. Some literature suggests that the terminal velocity of hailstones is higher than that calculated by Equation 1.0. Khvorostyanov (2005) and Heymsfield (2014a,b) both found that smooth hailstones fall at higher velocities due to lower Reynolds Numbers (Rn), indicating less friction between the skin surface of the “smooth, round” hailstone and the air through which it is falling. In like fashion, the same groups reported that irregularly shaped hailstones fell at or below the velocities computed using Equation 1.0. Hailstone density also plays a significant role in falling kinematics: higher density hailstones fall faster than those that are less dense.

Hailstone and freezer iceball opacity Can a Non-Destructive Test (NDT) method be a reliable proxy for destructive testing, and can opacity be such a NDT for hailstones and freezer iceballs? The need for an NDT that can serve

as a suitable proxy for destructive testing is apparent, but not easily met. Hailstones come in all shapes, sizes, constructs, compressive strength (Fo) and compressive stress (σc). The range of recorded values is impressively large, especially considering that hailstones and freezer iceballs typically only contain three principal ingredients – ice, air, and liquid water.

The four basic constructs we define are static, cyclic, impact, and conglomerate (see Table 2.1.0). Hundreds of hailstone construct variations employing many of the same variable’s multiple times in any number of combinations and order of occurrence could easily exist. In order to create this family of data curves, we must know the individual hailstone’s category of construct. Without this level of detail, we are left with only one general fit curve that must suffice for all construct types. Since freezer iceballs are of only one construct, it is reasonable to employ only one curve fit.

Since compressing the hailstone to measure its Fo destroys the hailstone, a Non- Destructive Test (NDT) method is needed as a proxy to allow comparison of other physical and engineering properties and preserve the hailstone for other testing or confirmation. Opacity is an NDT method that preserves the hailstone; our research is intended to determine the suitability of the opacity method for providing the proxy to Fo and other mechanical and engineering properties of hail.

In order to compare one hailstone type or construct to another, and freezer iceballs to simulated and/or natural hailstones, we must first make reliable measurements. Before making assessments between groups, we must first make assessments within groups.

Hailstone and freezer iceball fracture mechanics Many people have observed hailstorms where the hail seemed to produce less damage than might be expected based upon the observed hail size. Many people have seen real property damage result from hail that seemed too small to cause so much damage. At least four reasonable explanations exist for this discrepancy: (i) the damaged components were old enough that they had lost some or most of their hail resilience; (ii) the hail did not really cause as much damage as it may have seemed; (iii) wind blowing during the hail event caused the hail to move faster, increasing its Kinetic Energy (KE) content such that, though it may have appeared too small to create such damage, the KE was sufficient to create the observed damage profile; (iv)

the last explanation is that the hardness (compressive strength) of the hail was so low it did not translate its KE into sufficient impact energy to produce damage. In cases where the hail was very hard, the damage profile would appear quite different if sufficient KE were also present. These explanations show the importance of understanding hail compressive strength and the way hail fractures on impact.

Chapter II

II. EVALUATING THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF HAIL AND ITS DIRECT RELATIONSLHIP TO FREEZER ICEBALLS Introduction Hail damage is not new, hail research is. Prior to 1999 hail research was limited to a few papers per year and most were relegated to science journals that were not typically read by the public or trade professionals. Most hail is evaluated based upon size; however, size alone does not tell the whole story. Some roof and building envelope investigators compute the hails Kinetic Energy (KE) (Eq. 1.0) that does consider both the hail size (weight) and falling speed (impact velocity).

1.0 KE = ½ m V2 Where:

KE – Kinetic Energy (lbf or Joules) m – mass of the hailstone (lb or kg) V – Velocity of the falling hailstone at impact (mph or m/s)

Some investigators have observed that hailstorms frequently occur with wind and that wind may affect the falling speed and thus impact velocity of hailstones. Wind will cause the speed, with which a hailstone is falling, to increase (Eq. 2.0) and will thus increase the stones kinetic energy (ASTM E822- 92). Since the velocity term in KE is squared, the increase in KE due to a velocity is exponential; therefore, KE is very sensitive to changes in velocity.

2.0 FS = √TV2+WS2 Where:

FS – Failing Speed of hail stone at time of impact = V TV – Terminal Velocity of hail stone at time of impact WS – Wind Speed during the hail event

Since KE is sensitive to changes in velocity it is necessary to understand how fast hail is moving at the time of impact. Falling speed is affected by both the hails terminal velocity and wind speed. Wind speed also affects the angle at which the hail is falling. Hail KE must be resolved into direct and shear energy at impact. This energy calculation requires vector analysis that accounts for both direction and magnitude to resolve the KE into direct and shear forces.

History of hail compressive strength testing Early work on hail compressive strength focused on hail stone air content. Several researchers including Browning (1968), List (1972, 1973), Knight (1970, 1974, 1978, 1983, 2001) Heymsfield (1983, 2014a, 2014b) and investigated air content of hailstones and their falling behavior. It is clear, that hail density, shape and surface roughness play a big role in the terminal velocity of hail stones. Fewer researchers have investigated the compressive strength of hail. In fact, of the 316 references contained here only 15 (less than 5%) discussed the compressive strength of hail. Of these 15, five dealt with strain rates of ice that were not hail stones at all, but ice cylinders, and only three (<1%) papers specifically addressed the compressive strength of hail stones. The term hardness typically refers to a surface condition and not the entire structure. Many of these researchers expressed compressive strength as hardness or other terms. The verbiage used to describe hail has been confusing. In some cases, we discuss compressive stress, the difference between force (load) and stress being that load is only the application for force where stress is the force applied over an area. In the terms of compressive stress (σc) we use the applied force (Fo) divided by the cross-sectional area of the average diameter. This is the σ reported in most materials testing literature in stress – strain relationships. Strain (ε) is the distance by which the sample is compressed by σc.

Why so little research on hail compressive strength? There are several answers; it is logistically difficult to safely collect scientific quality measurements operating around severe thunderstorms, such that collecting freshly fallen hail stones is not easy, nor inexpensive. This type of research requires highly specialized equipment and trained personnel to execute scientific experimental plans in a difficult environment and to do so timely. Once hail hits the ground and begins to melt it is quickly changing from the same hailstone that originally hit the ground. Many hailstones are damaged upon impact. In short, the investigator must be on the spot and prepared with the equipment ready to go to be able to perform the investigation before the hail has changed from its condition at the time of impact. That means being in the right spot at the right time. Even in vehicles equipped with computers and radar software, it is not easy to get to “the right spot at the right time”. Many times, ideal locations for a hail collection are off paved roads that are not accessible to storm chase vehicles, especially one pulling a mobile lab trailer. The research mobile lab operates at 28 oF and samples are refrigerated until tested. Hailstone temperature is the first item measured and testing is done as soon after collection as safely possible. Samples stored in freezers for long will change from their antecedent condition.

Most commercial freezer units will produce temperatures between -24 and -4 oF. Since most impact testing is done with iceballs made and stored in commercial freezers it seems logical to use the same temperature range. Compressive strength of ice increases dramatically as the temperature decreases

from -10 to -50 oC (14 to -58 oF). Other reasons for little hailstone compressive strength research are that easier research can be done that does not take the investigator out of the lab, this work requires the investigator to take the lab to the field. Chasing storms is not easy nor cheap and has numerous risks.

Giammanco et al. (2015) used a pistol grip clamp with attached load cell to measure hailstone compressive strength. The data ranged from soft and slushy to hard. Actual measurements showed hail compressive strength ranged from as low as 0.19 to as high as 490.64 lbf.

Butkovich (1958) used a Brinell hardness tester to measure the hardness of the surface of single ice crystals. These data showed that the Brinell hardness number varied by temperature by more than 300% in the temperature range from -15 oC to -50 oC (, in other words the colder the temperature the harder the ice crystals.

Note that Brinell test are done on the surface; therefore, hardness would be an appropriate term to describe their results. Earlier work by Barnes (1928), Moor (1940) and Blackwelder (1940) measured the scratch hardness of the surface of ice crystals using the Moh’s hardness scale. The obvious difference between the work from Giammanco and Butkovich, Barnes, Moor, and Blackwelder is that the last four researchers only tested the surface conditions of halstones and not the compressive strength of the entire stone. Only the work by Giammanco et al. (2015) address the compressive strength which is the measure of the compressive strength of the whole hailstone. For the work to be specific to what causes hailstones to damage roofs and other elements of building envelopes, the whole stone must be considered, not just its surface condition.

Most hail impact testing is done using freezer ice balls. Many building envelope products are not even tested with hailstones or freezer iceballs with investigators opting for ASTM D3746, FM 4470 or UL 2218, all of which rely upon steel balls or missiles to impact building envelope materials. Steel projectiles do not fairly represent ice due to the difference in surface hardness and terminal velocity of the different materials. Steel balls are denser than ice and they are more uniform, so they do not replicate the types of damage caused by hailstones. Freezer iceballs are not the same as natural hailstones either, they are similar in surface hardness and terminal velocity, but they have higher compressive strength. Compressive strength above the damage threshold may not make any difference in the damage profile produced by hailstone or freezer iceball impacts. The ASTM standard E822-92 states “no direct relationship has been established between the effect of impact of {freezer} ice balls and hailstones”, (UL 2218 contains similar language). This paper will offer such a relationship that will allow new insights into how hail impacts on building envelope products and other materials are tested. This paper will also allow manufacturers a direct comparison of freezer iceball testing to natural hailstones, something that no

“steel ball” test can do. It would seem logical that at some point, additional increases in hail compressive strength do not cause additional damage. In other words, there should be some level of compressive strength after which additional compressive strength makes no difference. Once a hailstone is “hard enough”, any increase of compressive strength makes little material difference in the damage profile it produces. This work expands upon the original dataset collected by Giammanco et al. (2015) and this dataset allows direct comparison between natural hailstones and man-made freezer ice balls.

The language problem One of the difficulties investigating the material science of hail is the words used. To reduce confusion and provide clarity we have chosen to use the verbiage for the various disciplines and defined for this investigation. The word usage tracks back to the discipline of origin. This investigation utilized meteorology, materials science, engineering and statistics. This effort in clarification extends to abbreviations and symbols too. A few notable words/symbols and their meaning include:

• Hardness – Toughness of the surface of the object • Compressive Strength (Fo) – Applied load at the point of rupture or failure • Compressive Stress (σc) – Compressive Strength (Fo) divided by the cross-sectional area • Ultimate Stress – Stress at the point of rupture or failure • Strain (ε) – Distance the sample is compressed during testing • Uniaxial Load – load applied along one axis in one direction • Standard Deviation (SD) – in most scientific literature the standard deviation uses the symbol σ; however, since we are discussing stress which also uses the same symbol, here we use the abbreviation SD for standard deviation.

Fracture mechanics The topic of hailstone and freezer iceball fracture mechanics is covered in some detail in Phelps (2018c). The study of fracture mechanics of hailstones and freezer iceballs is complicated by shape, surface roughness and material types. The shape problem is due to spherical or oblate objects that are not typically used in materials testing. The typical shape for materials testing tends to be cylinders with a ratio of the diameter (d) to length 2d. The stress-strain curve created by plotting σc against ε has numerous points defined by the shape, or change of slope of the curve. Since hailstones and freezer iceballs are not cylindrical they are affected by hoop stress which is not typically present in traditional testing shapes. This is the reason that most ice strain rate literature is reported on ice cylinders and not spherical or oblate shapes. This fact alone makes hailstone and freezer iceball test unique among materials testing professionals.

The other issue with analyzing stress/strain relationships is the ice itself. Many of the stress strain diagrams found in the literature are from materials that are homogeneous and isotropic. Ice is neither, especially natural hailstones. Since natural hailstones contain varying amounts of ice, air, and liquid water they are seldom well behaved in stress strain test and this fact is further complicated by the fact that the ratio of ice, air and water can change with each layer in the hailstone. Not all hailstones have layered or cyclic construction. As previously discussed ice compressive strength changes inversely with temperature. As the temperature of ice goes down the compressive strength goes up. Ice surface hardness can increase 240% between a temperature of 0 to -80 oC (32 to -112 oF) (Chaplin, 2016).

Practically all ice on this planet is type Ih or hexagonal ice (Chaplin, 2012). Hexagonal ice is so called due to its six equivalent prism faces. Hexagons typically have internal angles totaling 720o. The angles of hexagonal ice (ice Ih) is due to the bond angle of the hydrogen=oxygen bonds from which they are made. The weakness of ice comes not from the bond but from the discontinues of entrained/trapped air and liquid water within the ice voids (Phelps, 2018b). Hexagonal ice has triple points with liquid and gaseous water. A triple point is a temperature and pressure combination at which liquid water, solid ice and water vapor can coexist in stable equilibrium (0.01 oC and partial pressure of 611.657 pascals, and others) (Wikipedia, 2018).

Weather data Hail occurs in many storm types with the largest hail typically occurring in a high precipitation supercell. The National Weather Service (NWS) uses hail size as one of the two conditions that will trigger a severe storm warning. Hail size one inch in diameter or wind surface speeds above 58 mph will trigger a severe storm warning. In Canada, hail size of 20 millimeters (0.79 inch) or wind greater than 90 kilometers per hour (56 mph) will trigger a severe weather warning.

Hailstone diameters vary from storm to storm but also with in a storm. Not all hail from a single storm comes from the same cloud cell and even those that do will still have a size distribution. Since many hailstorms have distributions with the higher population occurring with smaller size hail and larger more damaging hail, it is more likely than not that NWS or other spotters will report the most frequently observed hail size. NWS trained spotters are trained to:

1. Keep out of harm’s way and avoid injury 2. Collect only whole undamaged hailstones. The NWS provides no training to collect any specific or relevant size hailstones. Which hailstone a spotter selects to report is up to the individual spotter. The relevant size (measured or other description such as golf ball or quarter) is what is reported by the spotter. Not all spotters are NWS trained.

Hail testing The IBHS collected freshly fallen hail samples from several storms over a seven-year period. Most locations were in the US Midwest. The IBHS collected all sizes of hail and did not limit samples by size, condition or fitness for any use. Samples were assessed in near real time, as soon as could safely be performed after collection. Diameters were measured with calipers on three axis and stones were weighed before they were crushed. The IBHS used a hand operated clamp to compress the stone against a load cell. This process did not permit controlling the speed of application of force (strain rate). In a laboratory setting samples would ideally be load tested at a force application rate that reaches the strain rate similar to that at terminal velocity impact. Table 1.1 shows typical terminal velocities and resulting Kinetic Energy for a variety of hail diameters.

Table 1.1 Size of hail bins and typical Terminal Velocity (TV) and Kinetic Energy (KE) ½” ¾” 1” 1 ¼” 1 ½” 1 ¾” 2” 2 ¼” 2 ½” Typical TV (mph) 36.76 45.02 51.98 58.12 63.66 68.77 73.51 77.97 82.19 Typical KE (Joules) 0.13 0.67 2.12 5.18 10.75 19.92 33.98 54.43 82.96

IBHS used a hand operated pistol grip clamp to apply uniaxial force to the hailstones. The strain rate was not well controlled in their investigation and differences would occur with different operators, arm strength, and fatigue. IBHS reports strain rates around 10-1 s-1 (Giammanco, 2015). In this investigation the freezer iceballs were compressed using a hydro-pneumatic press that provided a similar strain rate to IBHS.

IBHS used a 2.2 kN (500 lb) load cell with a Wheatstone bridge, signal conditioner (48-kHz) and LabView software. In similar fashion we used an 8.8 kN (2,000 lb) Omega Engineering load cell with function generator, Omega Engineering Data Acquisition (DAQ) module (10-kHz) and TracerDAC Pro software. The load cell and other instruments were calibrated in conformance with ISO 17025 and possess NIST traceability. This method of applying compressive load to the freezer iceballs is also a uniaxial (load applied from only one side along a single axis).

The cold lab operating temperature is about -2 oC (28 oF). The lab is cooled by a Leer brand 230 V 1P 20 Amp ¾ hp freezer unit that produces about 60,000 BTU and will cool the cold lab to about -27 oC (-17 oF). Mobile electricity is provided by a Predator brand 230/115 VAC 18 hp generator, 7,000 watts (8,750 peak wattage), parked power comes from building electrical service. The mobile cold lab, van and outdoor air temperatures are monitored by Omega brand type J thermocouples attached to the

DAQ and recorded in the same time and fashion as the load cell and linear transducers. Temperatures are spot checked with thermometers throughout the data collection process.

Observed data The IBHS data was collected from about 33 hail days from 2012 through 2017 from Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Minnesota. A total of about 3,270 stones were collected; however, strength tests were not conducted on all hailstones and some quality control was needed to remove hailstones that had erroneous measurements due to instrumentation error or the adverse conditions the field teams must operate in. Those records that were incomplete or had erroneous data such as negative applied load values, were removed from the analysis. This left 879 stones with sufficiently complete data records, and with associated strength tests that would permit further analysis and comparison to our dataset of manmade freezer iceballs.

These data were considered in numerous ways:

• Storm data/location • Hail diameter (measured on three locations or axes) • Mass (weight) • Hail compressive strength The data were divided into bins by diameter similar to NWS divisions of hailstones. IBHS measured natural hailstones on three axes as shown in Figure 1.6. In keeping with this method, the freezer iceballs were measured in the same way. Since the natural hailstones collected by IBHS tended to be oblate shapes, they computed the cross-sectional area as the longest axis x1/2 and the shortest axis y/2 following Knight (1986). The cross-sectional area of this shape was computed as Across-section = Πab with a being x1/2 and b as y/2 Giammanco (2015). The average diameter of freezer iceballs was computed as the numerical average of the three measurements. Cross-sectional areas were computed using these same average diameters (A=Πr2) where the radius is ½ the diameter, as noted by Giammanco (2015), “laboratory stones are nearly perfect spheres”. The method for determining the cross-sectional area is appropriate for freezer iceballs which are made in a plastic mold and are more spherical than oblate. Starting with 0.5 inch and increasing in 0.25-inch increments ultimately arriving at nine bins <1/2”, <3/4”, <1”, <1 ¼”, <1 ½”, <1 ¾”, <2”, <2 ¼” and <2 ½” (all diameters in inches). These nine bins form the basis from which other analysis were performed. The notation <1 ½” is used for the size of bin label and not a mathematical operation. Table 1.2.0 shows the size bins, number of stones in each bin and the maximum, minimum and average values for compressive strength (lbs force, lbf) and diameter (inch).

Table 1.2 Natural hail compressive strength (lbf) bin information Count 134 250 230 117 72 43 21 8 4 Size Bin < 1/2" <3/4" < 1" <1 < 1 <1 < 2" <2 1/4" < 2 1/2" 1/4" 1/2" 3/4" Max (lbf) 254.92 314.64 366.89 266.51 490.64 200.71 201.10 237.48 341.64 Min (lbf) 0.19 0.84 2.31 4.01 4.01 17.18 45.85 70.3 82.17 Avg (lbf) 28.28 29.476 37.84 55.11 66.67 91.710 102.46 106.5 189.61 Variance 2323.3 1257.3 1695. 1300.7 2964.7 1786.8 1371.9 2907.5 12228.42 SD 48.20 35.459 41.17 36.07 54.449 42.271 37.04 53.921 110.582 Avg. 0.405 0.6283 0.852 1.103 1.3601 1.6096 1.825 2.0792 2.56282 Diam. (in)

The compressive strength (Fo) for natural hail varies within and between size groups. Figure 1.1 shows the range and distribution of hailstones Fo collected by IBHS.

Figure 1.1 Hail Compressive Strength (Fo) in units of lbf for all validated data from IBHS

The size and density of hail was also measured by IBHS and the data distribution displayed with Crystal Ball by Oracle. Monte Carlo methods utilize probability distributions which it will develop based upon the data set being analyzed. Figure 1.2 shows the probability distribution of average diameter of the

hail samples collected by IBHS. Storms are different and not all storms or hail diameters will have the same distribution type.

Since hail Kinetic Energy (KE) is a function of both mass (weight) and impact speed (velocity) the density of hail is of significant concern also. Figure 1.3 shows the range of density values for the entire validated IBHS collected hail data set. Since KE is computed using equation 1.0, we see the significance of hail density in assessing KE and the damage potential of hail strikes.

Figure 1.2 Hail avg. diameter distribution (IBHS) Figure 1.3 Hail density distribution (IBHS)

Hail stones were grouped by diameter because that is how hail size is reported by the NWS and other weather services. The incremental increase (1/4”) was chosen because it allowed us to display the data for 1.0” hail (NWS severe weather condition), 2.0” (NWS significant hail size) and 1-1/4” which is a hail diameter that is common to the damage threshold size for many building envelope products (Marshall et al 2002, 2004 and 2010), (Koontz 1991 and 2000), and (Cullen 1997). The average compressive strength for each bin was analyzed and plotted along with the range of compressive strength, number of samples in each bin, the average diameter for each bin was also graphed. Figure 1.4 shows the results of this grouping along with the curve fit and associated R2 for the average compressive strength and average diameter for each size bin. Figure 1.2.0 shows the range of compressive strength values. As the hail diameter increases, a curious trend seems to develop, compressive strength becomes more uniform. The average compressive strength increases with diameter too. These trends suggest that as hail grows larger it tends to be harder and tends to be more uniform. One probable reason for the increase in compressive strength with increase in diameter is the crack length required to rupture the hailstone is larger and the hailstones structure type. Large hail is formed by cyclic growth produced by cycling up and down in the updraft/downdrafts of the cloud cell in which it is growing. With each cycle, growth rings form inside the hailstone. Growth rings are evidence of cyclic growth structure. All hail growth varies between dry and wet growth types.

Figure 1.4 Natural Hail Max, Min, and Mean Compressive Force (Fo) relationship to diameter bin

Figure 1.5 Natural Hail average diameter for each group bin

To better understand the relationship between compressive strength and diameter it is helpful to compute the compressive stress (σc) which is to divide the compressive strength value by the cross- sectional area. Since average hail diameter is increasing faster than average hail compressive strength when dividing the compressive strength by the cross-sectional area applied stress (force over area). This shows the interaction between diameter and compressive strength in a rather unique way. As seen in Figure 1.7 compressive stress is now decreasing with hail diameter bin. This is the result of hail diameter increasing faster than hail compressive strength. This is not the case and in fact the curve is downward with increasing hail diameter. The decline is because diameter is increasing faster than compressive strength. Both diameter and compressive strength may be increasing with each diameter bin (Figure 1.4) but the diameter is increasing faster. IBHS collected hailstone diameters by measuring the diameters with calipers in three locations across the hail stone somewhat like shown in Figure 1.6. We measured freezer iceballs in the same way.

Figure 1.6 X (red), Y (blue), and Z (green) axis.

The cross-sectional area was computed using the average of the three axis lengths. This measurement was chosen to provide a uniform basis for the cross-sectional area calculation as shown in Eq. 3.0.

3.0 A = Π*r2

4.0 σc = Fo/A

Where:

A – cross-sectional area (sq. inches) Π – mathematical constant, general taken as 3.14159 r – radius as the average diameter/2 σc – uniaxial compressive stress (psi) Fo – applied compressive force (lbf)

Figure 1.7 Relationship between hail compressive stress and hail diameter bin

Another interesting observation is that the spread of the data for uniaxial compressive stress and peak compressive force is reduced with increasing diameter. The reduced variability or spread of compressive stress and compressive strength is due to increased diameter with each bin. This is especially true for those diameter bins greater than 1.0 inch. The identified trends with both peak compressive stress and peak uniaxial compressive force with diameter are both statistically significant, with the fitted curves accounting for 96.94% of the variance in Figure 1.4 and 95.16% of the variance in Figure 1.7.

Since the hail grouping is based upon diameter hailstones and freezer iceballs are in 0.25-inch bins, this limits the variability to bin size. For example, the variance between bins may be larger than the variance with in bins. This is evident in both Figures 1.4 and 1.7 by the length (height) of the vertical lines that show the high and low for each bin. Figure 1.7 shows only that portion of the high values below 600 psi.

Figure 1.8 shows the relationship between Compressive Stress(σc) Standard Deviation (SD) and hail size. These data confirm the large variability in compressive strength for small (0.5 inch) hail whose SD is over 580 (134 samples) where as one inch hail has a SD of only 36 (230 samples), the SD for the largest hail size was 12 (three samples). Figure 1.8 shows a clear trend that as hail size (diameter) increases the SD decreases. This is further evidence that small hail (<1.0 inch) compressive strength is more variable than larger hail. The hypothesis that crack length must increase as hail grows larger, and hail structure, with cyclic growth, results in compressive strength increases and the spread of the data is reduced. This hypothesis is supported by the reduction of the SD with respect to increasing diameter.

Figure 1.8 Relationship between compressive stress Standard Deviation (SD) and Average Diameter by Bin in ¼” increments.

Relationship to freezer iceballs The compressive strength of freezer iceballs has long been debated and comparisons of hail compressive strength to the compressive strength of freezer iceballs have been anecdotal; no real numerical comparisons have been made. This fact prompted the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), now ASTM International, to conclude in their standard E822-92 Standard Practice for Determining Resistance of Solar Collector Covers to Hail by Impact With Propelled Ice Balls, that “no direct relationship has been established between the effect of impact of {freezer} ice balls and hailstones”. To develop such a direct relationship similarities and dissimilarities alike must be quantified for both iceballs and hailstones. To accomplish this, we compared compressive strength (Fo) in (lbf) and compressive stress (σc) in (psi) for both natural hailstones and freezer iceballs. This was done by grouping the two types into ¼” size bins beginning with ½” through 2 ½”. The ¼” increment was used because it includes 1”, 1 ¼”, and 2” bins. The 1” bin needed to be included because the NWS identifies 1” as the threshold for severe hail, 1 ¼” is a frequent diameter damage threshold for a variety of building envelop products in the published literature, and 2” is identified by the NWS as “significant hail”. The ¼” increment includes all these bins and results in nine bins that provide an acceptable sample distribution range. The number of samples for natural hail and freezer iceballs with in each bin are included in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3 Freezer iceball bin information Count 65 61 36 31 62 63 60 35 53 Size <1/2" <3/4" <1" <1 1/4" < 1 1/2" <1 3/4" < 2" <2 1/4" <2 1/2" Max (lbf) 76.47 247.30 258.30 270.80 359.80 541.20 430.80 708.70 892.90 Min (lbf) 5.16 11.19 38.81 47.30 65.56 76.76 87.97 169.30 133.80 Avg. (lbf 27.68 40.65 100.30 127.78 149.24 211.62 258.07 392.54 428.50 Variance 202.41 1243.09 3532.81 2880.26 3493.36 7549.64 6280.41 14414.80 23275.28 SD 14.23 35.26 59.44 53.67 59.10 86.89 79.25 120.06 152.56

Diameter Max (in) 0.49 0.74 0.99 1.24 1.49 1.74 1.99 2.24 2.49 Min (in) 0.38 0.50 0.75 1.01 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 Mean (in) 0.45 0.59 0.85 1.15 1.32 1.64 1.83 2.14 2.38 Variance 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 SD 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07

To compare natural hails to freezer iceballs the data for each was graphed. The graphs of the natural hail data are shown in Figures 1.4, 1.5, and 1.7. Similar graphs for freezer iceballs are shown in Figures 1.9, 1.10 and 1.7.0.

Avg. Diameter

Compressive Force (Fo)

Figure 1.9 Freezer Iceball Compressive Strength (Fo) at failure by diameter group bin

Figure 1.9 shows the range of the bin compressive strength, the average compressive strength, average diameter and number of samples in each bin. The R2 for both average diameter and compressive strength are significant.

Figure 1.10 shows the same data set as Figure 1.9; however, the compressive stress (compressive load divided by cross-sectional area) are graphed. The cross-sectional area is increasing faster than the applied load; therefore, we have a decrease in psi with increasing bin average diameter.

Figure 1.10 Compressive Stress (psi) at Failure for Freezer Iceballs by diameter group bin.

Figures 1.4 and 1.9 show the compressive load (lbf) for bin size for natural hail and freezer iceballs, respectively; similarly, Figures 1.7 and 1.10 show the compressive stress (psi) for natural hail and freezer iceballs. Figures 1.8 and 1.11 show the relationship between Standard Deviation by size bin for natural hail and freezer iceballs respectively.

Figure 1.11 Standard Deviations of Compressive Stress Freezer Iceballs by Average Diameter

Freezer iceballs are cast in a plastic/rubber mold. As one might expect they are more uniform in size and construction than natural hailstones. The SD for freezer iceballs was 106 to 33, and the SD for natural hailstones was 582 to 12. Both natural hailstones and freezer iceballs show more variation for small size (1/2”) than large size (2 ½”). The number of samples for the larger size bins is minimal and should be used with caution.

In Figures 1.12 and 1.13 we see the relationships between natural hailstones and freezer iceballs as compressive strength (Fo) (lbf) and compressive stress (σc) (psi) respectively.

Figure 1.12 Compressive strength (Fo) in (lbf) natural hailstones direct relationship to freezer iceballs of the same diameter.

Figure 1.13 Compressive stress (σc) in (psi) natural hailstones direct relationship to freezer iceballs

Both the models for compressive load and compressive stress R2 values are significant for natural systems (R2>0.6).

Figure 1.14 shows the plots of mean hail measured to modeled Fo values and the mean hail measured to modeled σc values. These plots display how well the model equations from Figures 9.0 and 9.1 compare to the measured data.

Figure 1.14 Side by side comparison of model results to measured data. These data confirm the goodness of the model fit to the measured data for both compressive strength (Fo) and compressive stress (σc).

Figures 1.15 and 1.16 show comparison of box and whisker plots of the outliers for natural hail and freezer iceballs by size bin. The natural hail has 45 outliers where the freezer iceballs have 10. The reason for the difference is that the natural process of hail creation creates more variability than distilled water iceballs frozen in a plastic mold. Additional details on hail content of air, liquid water, and ice with engineering and materials properties on this subject are found in Phelps (2018b).

Figure 1.15 Outliers of natural hail compressive strength (Fo) data. The data points above the box plot whiskers are outliers. There are 45 outliers in this data set. Most outliers occur with smaller size hail.

Figure 1.16 Outliers for freezer iceballs compressive strength (σc). The outliers are the data points outside the box whiskers. Note that most of the outliers are associated with smaller size iceballs.

In Figure 1.15 and 1.16, 29 of 45 outliers (64.4%) are associated with smallest size bins (<1/2”, 3/4”) size hail and only four of 10 (40%) for freezer iceballs of the same size. Obviously, freezer iceballs are more uniform than natural hail; however, the larger size of both hail and freezer iceballs is more uniform than smaller diameter. Both hail and freezer iceballs have more variability on the high side (above the mean) than below.

Freezer iceballs are frozen from the outside in. That is to say, the exterior freezes first and the inside last. Natural hail is just the opposite, they freeze from the inside first and then add layers as they continue to (grow). The “layering” may add uniformity to natural hail. Freezer iceballs do not benefit from the inside out uniformity associated with natural hail. The variability of freezer iceballs remains a function of air bubbles and inconsistencies in the ice matrix; however, clear ice with fewer air bubbles tends to have higher compressive strength than cloudy or opaque ice. In other words, the causes of variability in hail and freezer iceballs include some of the same mechanics; however, hail also has the added complexity of different growth types (wet and dry) and structural types (static, cyclic, impact and conglomerate).

Monte Carlo analysis and ANOVA Monte Carlo methods utilize the probability distribution of a data set to estimate the expected values for many observations. Most Monte Carlo simulations perform thousands of simulations such that the results can be used to estimate the probability of an outcome.

In this Monte Carlo simulation the software “Crystal Ball” by Oracle Systems was used. Crystal Ball uses the Anderson-Darling method to compare 20 different distribution types and identifies the one that has the most significant fit. The Anderson-Darling methods uses all the data within the data set to identify the best fit distribution type. Those data sets with fewer than 15 samples could not be analyzed by Crystal Ball and were assigned a triangular distribution. Nine distribution types were found for natural hail and eight for freezer iceballs. The distribution types also varied by diameter, Fo and σc for both natural hail and freezer iceballs. The most common distribution type was lognormal which can be described as a higher population (frequency) of smaller values and lower frequency of larger values.

Probability distribution come in many types and known by different names. Some distribution types are common to specific applications. For example, the uniform distribution is commonly used to model events that have the same probability of occurrence, such as the roll of a die. The distributions used here were selected using the Anderson-Darling (A-D) method. The A-D test the fit for distributions, whether a given data set is best described by the possible distribution types. The distribution with the lowest A-D score is the best fit. Many times, the distribution types are very close, many of the distributions listed in Tables 1.4 and 1.5 were decided by less than 0.001 difference. Many of the distributions could have been three or more different types with about the same outcome. All Monte Carlo simulations were performed with 10,000 trials per simulation. The actual number of trials graphed are shown in the upper right corner of each Monte Carlo figure.

The distributions for the Average Fo and σc for natural hailstones and freezer iceballs are shown in Figures 1.17, 1.18 and 1.19 and 1.20 respectively. These distribution graphs are helpful to understand the probability of a specified outcome. The distributions for Fo and σc look similar, they are the same distribution type (lognormal), this is for the entire data set. The distribution types vary by diameter.

Figure 1.17 Natural Hail Average Fo Figure 1.18 Natural Hail Average σc

Figure 1.19 Freezer Iceball Average Fo Figure 1.20 Freezer Iceball Average σc

With an understanding of the probability distributions of the natural hail and freezer iceball Fo and σc, we can now compare the likelihood that natural hail Fo and σc will equal or exceed that of freezer iceballs. This is a necessary step in assessing the comparison of natural hail to freezer iceballs. Figures

1.21 and 1.22 show the probability of Fo or σc of natural hail being equal to or greater than freezer iceballs.

Figure 1.21 Hail Probability >= Freezer Iceball Fo Figure 1.22 Hail Probability >= Freezer Iceball σc

From Figures 1.21 and 1.22 we see that natural hail has a probability of 13.51% and 34.5% of Fo and σc being equal to or greater than freezer iceballs.

Another method of assessing the variability between natural hail and freezer iceballs modeled as natural hail is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). ANOVA is a vetted statistical test that is often used to test one data set against another. ANOVA is an exceptional tool for testing hypothesis. In this case the null hypothesis is that freezer iceballs modeled as natural hailstones are the same value as the natural hailstones, in other words the averages for the two are the same.

Table 1.4 ANOVA for natural hail and freezer iceballs modeled as natural hail Fo Measured Model Anova: Single Factor a 0.05 28.28171642 22.83646559 LSD 30.24516 29.47628 29.33129432 SUMMARY HSD 30.24486 37.843709 52.83414079 Groups Count Sum Average Variance Scheffe 124.704 55.11070555 61.86450858 Measured 18 1415.34 78.63002 2487.426 Post Hoc Measured 66.67345899 68.45066266 Model 18 1367.426 75.96814 1499.446 Model 2.661885 91.71079858 85.9438233 Colored cells have signficant mean differences 102.463496 97.8063072 106.5000268 128.5445801 ANOVA Cannot Reject Null Hypothesis because p > 0.05 (Means are the same) 189.61 136.1014396 Source of Variation SS df MS F P-Value F crit 28.28171642 22.83646559 Between Groups 63.77071 1 63.77071 0.03199 0.859 4.130018 29.47628 29.33129432 Within Groups 67776.82 34 1993.436 37.843709 52.83414079 55.11070555 61.86450858 Total 67840.59 35 66.67345899 68.45066266 91.71079858 85.9438233 Measured - Model 102.463496 97.8063072 106.5000268 128.5445801 213.27447 189.61 136.1014396 193.27447

173.27447

153.27447

133.27447

113.27447 Values 93.274473

73.274473

53.274473

33.274473

13.274473 Group 1 Group 2 Subgroups

In the Fo ANOVA, the null hypothesis is that the means (between the measured and modeled Fo values) are the same. The ANOVA in Table 1.4 confirms that the means are the same; therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. This ANOVA confirms that our freezer iceball model for natural hail Fo is appropriate and fit for use in the manor shown.

Table 1.5 ANOVA for natural hail and freezer iceballs modeled as natural hail σc Measured Mean Anova: Single Factor a 0.05 264.888565 128.6162517 LSD 38.5342 97.14518358 90.07386076 SUMMARY HSD 38.53383 65.96082252 135.1153394 Groups Count Sum Average Variance Scheffe 158.8806 57.46370929 63.09071812 Measured 18 1389.259 77.18103 5040.065 Post Hoc Measured 58.42781866 49.02059056 Mean 18 1254.54 69.69668 1431.561 Mean 7.484349 45.04125918 39.30160604 Colored cells have signficant mean differences 39.29400641 37.71469509 31.59819961 48.01990126 ANOVA Cannot Reject Null Hypothesis because p > 0.05 (Means are the same) 34.80970514 36.31716211 Source of Variation SS df MS F P-Value F crit 264.888565 128.6162517 Between Groups 504.1394 1 504.1394 0.1558 0.696 4.130018 97.14518358 90.07386076 Within Groups 110017.6 34 3235.813 65.96082252 135.1153394 57.46370929 63.09071812 Total 110521.8 35 58.42781866 49.02059056 45.04125918 39.30160604 Measured σc - Modeled σc 39.29400641 37.71469509 31.59819961 48.01990126 323.90239 34.80970514 36.31716211 273.90239

223.90239

173.90239 Values

123.90239

73.902393

23.902393 Group 1 Group 2 Subgroups

In the σc ANOVA the null hypothesis is the means (between the measured and modeled σc values) are the same. The σc ANOVA in Table 1.5 confirms that the means are the same; therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. This ANOVA confirms that our freezer iceball model for natural hail σc is appropriate and fit for use in the manor shown.

Conclusions In weather systems, hail size is measured by diameter. It is logical and reliable to base this investigation upon size bins and for those bins to include one, 1-1/4, and 2-inch sizes. It is statistically appropriate to include nine (or more) size bins that encompass the sizes most typically reported by meteorologist and in the media. Giant size hail may be more dangerous than the sizes reported here; however, it is also rare.

The compressive strength resistance of hail is highly variable especially with small diameter hail and tends to become less variable as diameter increases. It is logical to reason that compressive strength resistance increases with diameter due to increased crack length and variability is reduced with hail structure produced within strong, supercell updrafts that promote cyclic structural type of hail growth.

The data collected and described by Giammanco et al. (2015) provides reliable evidence of the compressive strength resistance of natural hailstones. Observations of freezer iceballs in this investigation provides reliable evidence of the compressive strength resistance of freezer iceballs often used in standard impact test protocols. Both hail and iceball data sets were collected using similar instruments and methods. The numerical analysis methods of the two data sets were the same.

Uncertainty of measurements was controlled by using calibrated instruments whose calibration was compliant with ISO 17025 and all instruments possess NIST traceability. Written operational procedures and pilot test were used prior to collecting data. Standard, Type A and Type B uncertainty were employed throughout this investigation.

ASTM International stated “no direct relationship has been established between the effect of impact of {freezer} ice balls and hailstones”. This relationship allows investigators, engineers, meteorologist, manufactures, testing labs, and educators to mathematical relate natural hailstones to freezer iceballs. This work provides new insights into how we access and test hail impacts on building materials and other materials and also provides manufactures a direct comparison of freezer iceball testing to natural hailstones and makes possible standard methods based upon hail impact effects.

Another method of assessing the variability between natural hail and freezer iceballs modeled as natural hail is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). ANOVA is a vetted statistical test often used to test one data set against another. ANOVA is an exceptional tool for testing hypothesis. In this case the null hypothesis is that freezer iceballs modeled as natural hailstones have the same value as the natural hailstones, in other words the averages for the two are the same.

Chapter III

III. HAILSTONE AND FREEZER ICEBALL NON-DESTRUCTIVE TEST METHOD USING OPACITY AND AIR BUBBLE RECOVERY

Introduction Can a Non-Destructive Test (NDT) method be a reliable proxy for destructive testing, and can opacity be such a NDT for hailstones and freezer iceballs? The need for an NDT that can serve as a suitable proxy for destructive testing is apparent, but not easily met. Hailstones come in all shapes, sizes, constructs, compressive strength (Fo) and compressive stress (σc). The range of recorded values is impressively large, especially considering that hailstones and freezer iceballs typically only contain three principal ingredients – ice, air, and liquid water.

The four basic constructs we define are static, cyclic, impact, and conglomerate. Hundreds of hailstone construct variations employing many of the same variable’s multiple times in any number of combinations and order of occurrence could easily exist. In order to create this family of data curves, we must know the individual hailstone’s category of construct. Without this level of detail, we are left with only one general fit curve that must suffice for all construct types. Since freezer iceballs are of only one construct, it is reasonable to employ only one curve fit.

Wikipedia reports the density of most ice (type Ih) is around 0.9167 g/cm3 at 0 oC. Practically all ice on Planet Earth is type Ih (hexagonal ice). Liquid water is most dense at 4 oC at 1.00 g/cm3. Some researchers report values of the density of ice around 0.934 g/cm3 at -180 oC (- 56 oF). Ice chemistry tables report that ice is stable over a wide range of temperatures at one atmosphere of pressure. Knight and Heymsfield (1983), Braham (1963), Prodi (1970), List et al. (1970), Heymsfield (1978) and Macklin and Ludlam (1961) all reported hailstone densities between 0.45 to 0.89 g/cm3. Obviously, hailstones are less dense than pure ice; their density is highly variable and is less than that of water.

Since ice, air and liquid water are the principal components of hailstones, this information provides important understanding of the effect of temperature on hailstones. Temperatures are the temperature reported for the sample being investigated.

History of Hailstone Investigation Much hail literature comes from meteorology, with the emphasis on meteorological understanding of the processes of hail formation, locations, synoptic conditions and forecasting. This investigation is original research methods (i.e., opacity), void space volume and contents, the compressive strength of hail, and engineering mechanics of the materials aspects of hail. Opacity is a new Non-Destructive Test (NDT) research method; it facilitates developing additional information that can benefit from a proxy for destructive methods and it will preserve the sample for further investigation.

Schulson (1999) and Gold (2004) include the early study of ice from an engineered material perspective from 1942, when the eccentric scientific advisor to Lord Louis Mountbatten, Geoffrey Nathaniel Joseph Pyke, proposed using a mixture of wood fiber and ice to build war ships during World War II. Experiments were conducted in Canada to measure the engineering properties of ice and various additives, plus construction techniques to produce a sufficiently strong, long-lasting ice boat (the Habbakuk). These experiments were aimed at constructing low- cost, slow-moving war ships and aircraft carriers. The product was called Pykecrete (referring to Mr. Pyke and concrete) and the research was among the first investigations of the engineering properties of ice. This “top secret” work was performed by C.J. Mackenzie, of the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC). Mackenzie found that “manufactured ice can have a

complex grain structure determined, in part, by the directions in which heat is extracted from the water.” The findings were chronicled by Lorne W. Gold in his book, The Canadian Habbakuk Project and subsequent journal article Building Ships from Ice: Habbakuk and After. Mackenzie’s conclusion is confirmed by observing the location and amount of air entrainment in freezer iceballs. Iceballs frozen in freezer space will have air entrainment towards the center, as the heat removal is on all sides of the iceball and takes place at the same time. Iceballs frozen with one or more sides open to warmer air will be clearer and mostly free of entrained air bubbles. These frozen iceballs will be almost perfectly clear, since little dissolved gases remain entrained to create bubbles that would cause an opaque appearance.

The Habbakuk project reported data that indicated modulus of elasticity values in the range of five to ten MPa, depending on temperature range and strain rate; these values were confirmed during the project. Gold (2004) reports, “Early work had shown that, at a temperature of -10 to -15 oC, the brittle compressive strength was about four to six MPa, and relatively independent of the rate at which the load was applied.” The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) found their measurement to be in the same range.

Gold’s work noted also that specimens cracked initially at compressive loads that were about half the load at failure. Schulson (1999) reports that ice tensile strengths measured both before and during the project were in the range of 0.5 – 2.5 MPa.”

The structure of ice, particularly sea ice, was studied by Schulson (1999), who found that the ice was brittle in tension and ductile under compression.

Schulson reports that ice {type Ih} ductile-brittle transition is rate sensitive. He also reports that the Young’s modulus for single grains of ice varied by less than 30% from 12GPa (parallel to Axis c) to 8.6GPa for inclined angles to either Axis c or a, depending on the load angle relative to the axis of the crystal shape. The shape consists of two Axes: c, the longer of the two and shown by Schulson in the vertical, and Axis a, shown in the horizontal. Schulson further reports the load response is rate dependent. The formation of hail is a fascinating study and beyond the scope of this investigation; however, a literature review of this topic is essential to understanding and reproducing the growth of simulated hail stones. Our hail growth incubator is designed and constructed to mimic the basic hail growth processes found in one structural type

and several dynamic growth types of natural hailstones. The incubator produces stones of only one type of construction--cyclic or layer construction; however, the growth incubator can grow hailstones with either wet or dry growth, in various configurations. Without an understanding of natural hail formation, it would not have been possible to design or build the hail incubator.

In order to understand the formation of hailstones, we must first consider the formation of ice itself. M.F. Chaplin (2012) reports that there are 20 different phases of ice; however, only one predominates on our planet. Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia reports that “virtually all ice in the biosphere is ice Ih with the exception only of a small amount of ice Ic.” Cube ice (Ic) may occur in the upper atmosphere at temperatures between 130 and 240 oK (-143 to -33 oC or -225 o to -27 F). Chaplin writes that “hexagonal ice (ice Ih) is the form of all natural snow and ice on

Earth.” Since hailstones are ice Ih, we will focus on this type. Chaplin writes that hexagonal ice

(Ih) forms a crystalline structure that may be “thought of as sheets lying on top of each other.” “The basic structure consists of a hexameric box where planes consist of chair-form hexamers

(two horizontal planes, opposite) or boat-form hexamers (three vertical plans, opposite).” Ice Ih has triple points with liquid and water vapor; that is to say, it can exist in any one of three states-- solid, liquid or vapor--at the points of 0.01 oC, 612 Pa, -21.985 oC, 209.9 MPa, and -34.7 oC, 212.9 MPa. Chaplin states further that “Hexagonal ice crystals form hexagonal plates and columns where the top and bottom faces are basal planes” as shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Ice Ih Hexagonal Ice Crystals and Water to Ice at Pressure and Temperature Curve

The density of hailstones is typically measured by estimating the volume from n measurements of the diameter and computing the volume from the resulting radius. The mass divided by this estimated volume yields the estimated density. This procedure has some problems: (i) hailstones do not typically possess a uniform diameter, (ii) the number of measurements (axis) may be established but their location is not, (iii) surface roughness can allow caliper ends to sit in a pit or crack, and (iv) the investigator’s amount of pressure on the caliper jaw may not always be the same. We have selected the z Axis as the longest axis of the x, y, and z measurements in this work; however, there is no guarantee that z is indeed the longest axis--only that it is the longest axis actually measured. The selection of an axis of an individual hailstone is based upon sight and feel. The longest axis measured becomes the z Axis.

A second method of estimating the volume of a hailstone is the immersion method or Archimedes Principle. Wikipedia reports that Archimedes of Syracuse (287–212 BC) was a Greek mathematician, physicist, engineer, inventor, and astronomer. Among this brilliant man’s many accomplishments and contributions to science and mathematics is the Archimedes Principle, which states, in part, “the upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces and acts in the upward direction at the center of mass of the displaced fluid.” Archimedes’ Principle is a law of physics fundamental to fluid mechanics. The Archimedes Principle was employed by other researchers to measure hailstone volume. Prodi (1970) used ethylene dichloride to perform an immersion technique to measure the density of hailstones. Prodi reported his data with three decimal digits of accuracy and found that densities ranged from 0.82 to 0.87 g/ml. Knight and Heymsfield (1983) used mercury to perform the Archimedes method and reported densities that ranged from 0.31 to 0.87 g/ml with the average being 0.84 g/ml. The temperature was not reported by these investigators.

The basics of hailstone construction and the role of bubbles in hailstones was investigated by Browning (1966), who found that large (giant) hailstones (upwards of 8 cm (3.15 inch) diameter) “grew as three-dimensional arrays of more of less completely frozen lobes, sometimes but not always separated by regions of spongy ice characterized by radial lines of bubbles.” This appearance can give the false impression that the stone is an aggregate of smaller hailstones. Charles Knight confirmed this in his presentation at the NCAR Hail Workshop, Boulder Co., August 2018. Due to surface roughness, these hailstones have more efficient heat loss, reducing the presence of liquid water.

Carte (1960) found that “ice formed from water containing dissolved air”. Both bubble concentration and size were found to depend on the rate of freezing.” He adds, “Bubbles were formed at the ice-water boundary when the concentration of dissolved air reached a critical value which, for rates of freezing greater than 2 mm min-1, corresponded to a supersaturation ratio of 30.” Carte also concludes that agitation prevents the critical concentration allowing clear ice to form, and that other factors influencing bubble development include the amount of dissolved air, atmospheric pressure, thickness of the water layer ahead of the growing ice, and bubbles

escaping. Carte also reports that bubbles tend to change shape with time and with changes in temperature gradient. Carte froze water on plates (sheets) and also cut hailstones in thin sections to evaluate the entrained air bubbles. In practice, the rate of freezing as well as directional freezing (heat removal from one side only) produces clear freezer iceballs.

Carte expresses the luminance entering the ice Co and exiting the ice as C in the ratio

(C/Co). Several times in his report Carte writes (C/Co)red, possibly suggesting he used red color (wavelength) light for this test; however, he does not discuss doing so in his text and no comparisons to other colors are made or discussed.

Macklin, Merlivat, and Stevenson (1970) used opacity measurements of thin hailstone sections to access the bubble concentration in a single hailstone. Opacity was estimated by the bubble size and concentration. These authors found that “bubble concentration tends to underestimate the opacity of the regions where there are medium sized bubbles which give rise 2 to moderate opacity due to refraction at the bubble periphery, while ∑ rj overestimates the opacity of regions containing large bubbles because of the relatively high fraction of the bubble area through which light is transmitted.” It is difficult to determine if the inverse of the observations would be true: would increased opacity be an indication of bubble concentration and/or size.

“Clear ice is formed near the wet growth limit at temperatures about - 22°C and droplet concentrations exceeding the critical value by up to about 10%. Ice formed at temperatures below - 22°C is opaque, as also is ice formed at water concentrations somewhat less than the critical value, i.e., in the dry growth regime.” Ice grown in the wet regime is spongy and becomes opaque when frozen solid. However, at this time, there are no quantitative measurements of the opacity of ice formed under various conditions” Ludlam (1958).

Ludlam cautioned “If quantitative measurements of opacity and bubble structure are to be used in analyzing hailstones, some consideration will have to be given to these aspects of the problem.” The work of Macklin, Merlivat and Stevenson (1970) has the complication of an inadequate sample size and repeatability. Only one hailstone was assessed and no comparison to others was made.

The authors did a laudable job of comparing their findings to others in the literature but lacked repeatability or the “boots on the ground” epistemology that confers justification of the “opacity” part of their findings.

One way to overcome the problem of refraction on the shell of bubbles that Macklin, Merlivat and Stevenson encountered, is to dispense with analysis of the hailstone as discrete layers, but rather to investigate each as a whole unit--to treat the hailstone as a structure not just as a series of layers or discrete elements. In this work, we assess hailstones as a single structural unit rather than the component parts that prior authors assessed. Another significant difference between Macklin, Merlivat and Stevenson and others and this work is that they used the hailstone physical observations to estimate the opacity; we used opacity to estimate the physical observations.

Brownscombe and Hallett (1967) found that “opaque ice forms when the particle is growing spongily or dry, with transparent ice forming when the growth is just wet. Such spongy growth at low temperatures is associated with ice crystals and opaque ice.”

Knight and Knight (1968) found that spongy {freezer} iceballs can contain 85% or more liquid water, which they opined would be more than the amount expected in natural hails. Gitlin and Goyer (1968) found that most hailstones (about 88.6%) have less than 4% liquid water, with

about 52% having none. About 11% had more than 4% liquid water. These findings express percentage by weight.

List and Agnew (1973) made (accreting) artificial hailstones in a vertical wind tunnel at about 18 m sec-1 (40 mph) with liquid water contents of 2 and 4 g m-3 +/- 0.5 g m-3. Water was injected through a nozzle with variable amounts of air, and a 2 cm (0.79 inch) graupel was rotated at 1 Hz (60 RPM). The apparatus accretion rate was between 0.11 and 0.34 cm min-1 to 0.06 to 0.11 cm min-1 for the 4 and 2 g m-3 water contents, respectively. Their results, at -5 to -20 oC (23 to -4 oF) showed that “air bubble size was a log-normal distribution with mean bubble size dependent on the liquid water content.” Mean bubble volume diameters were 57 and 47 μm (2.24 to 1.85 mils, one mil = 0.001 inch). “Increasing the water content from 2 to 4 g m-3 led to fewer but larger bubbles. Lowering the air temperature from -5 to -20 oC led to smaller but more numerous bubbles.”

The “bubble chart” created by List and Agnew shows the bubble concentration and size relationship between opaque and transparent appearance in Figure 2.2. This relationship led these investigators to opine that a hailstone’s “bubble size distribution and concentration may be the key to the interpretation of hailstone history.”

List and Agnew add, “Besides the fact that opacity is not a proper physical term (see Brownscombe and Hallett, 1967) and should not be used, we now have proof that associations of transparent with frozen spongy ice and that of opaque with “dry growth” ice are not tenable.” These researchers were referring to the thin sections cut from hailstones and using air bubbles to estimate the opacity of the thin sections; their comments should not apply to whole hailstones.

Brownscombe and Hallett (1967) specifically discuss the opacity of thin sections cut from hailstones and produced Figure 2.7, which defines the relations of temperature to opaque and clear ice.

List, Murray and Dyck (1972) used the same “bubble chart” in their work, Figure 2.2, with the exception of the line from opacity to transparence. These researchers also created a chart of the normalized distribution of air bubble diameters and average bubble diameter for the seven shells of a specific hailstone, shown in Figure 2.3.

List, Murray and Dyck; Brownscombe and Hallett; List and Agnew; and others suffer the same hardship of limited sample size. In some cases, as with Brownscombe and Hallett, only a few hailstones were available for analysis.

A sufficient sample size is necessary to accurately estimate hailstone properties. Estimating the necessary sample size is difficult from known populations of uniform parameters. Estimating the sample size from an unknown population of widely varying parameters is extremely difficult. The cost of investigating a sufficient number of natural hailstones may be prohibitive.

EXAMPLE 1.0 A statistical sampling routine (QI Macros) utilizing a 95% confidence interval (for type I error) and a 90% power factor (type II error) and a standard deviation of 0.167 and defects percent 50% (worst case). For an unknown population this would require about 384 samples for each data set. Statistics can infer the number of samples needed within a data set, but experience is what it takes to determine how many sets of data are needed. For example, we divided hail samples into size bins based upon ¼” increments on sizes ½” through 4” (total of 15 bins). Note, that the “x/x” notation is a label, not a value. Therefore, is each bin a separate set of data? Should we have 384 samples per bin? Should the number of samples per bin be the same for natural hail as it would be for freezer iceballs? Since freezer iceballs are cast in a plastic mold, it is likely their variability will be less than that of natural hail; therefore, it does not seem necessary to have the same sample size for natural hail and freezer iceballs.

The number of verified samples used in this investigation is shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 shows that a total of 879 (of about 3,000) natural hailstones were assessed as part of this investigation and Table 2.2 shows that 597 freezer iceballs were assessed. Based upon Tables 2.1 and 2.2, it would seem that we far exceeded the minimum number of required samples, 768, with our sample population of 1,476. The problem with sample size calculations is that they do not discriminate between data distribution types. For example, data that form a normal distribution curve are quite different from data that have a binomial U-shape distribution. How do we account for the differences in distribution types in estimating the minimum number of samples needed? One way is to assume that the minimum number of required samples is for sub-groups, not the total for all hailstones or all freezer iceballs. In this investigation, we have divided hailstones and freezer iceballs into size bins based upon average diameter. The bins start at ½” through 4”, in ¼” increments, such that each bin is < the size it represents (<1/2”, <3/4”,…<4”) This gives us nine subgroups for natural hail and 15 for freezer iceballs.

Table 2.1 Natural Hail Count by Size Bin (nine bins) Count 134 250 230 117 72 43 21 8 4 Size Bin < 1/2" <3/4" < 1" <1 < 1 <1 < 2" <2 1/4" < 2 1/2" 1/4" 1/2" 3/4" Max (lbf) 254.92 314.64 366.89 266.51 490.64 200.71 201.10 237.48 341.64 Min (lbf) 0.19 0.84 2.31 4.01 4.01 17.18 45.85 70.3 82.17 Avg (lbf) 28.28 29.476 37.84 55.11 66.67 91.710 102.46 106.5 189.61 Variance 2323.3 1257.3 1695. 1300.7 2964.7 1786.8 1371.9 2907.5 12228.42 SD 48.20 35.459 41.17 36.07 54.449 42.271 37.04 53.921 110.582 Avg. 0.405 0.6283 0.852 1.103 1.3601 1.6096 1.825 2.0792 2.56282 Diam. (in)

Table 2.2 Freezer Iceball Sample Count and Data Count 65 61 42 29 64 63 63 36 56 29 25 21 25 23 4 Size <1/2" <3/4" <1" <1 1/4" < 1 1/2" <1 3/4" < 2" <2 1/4" <2 1/2" <2 3/4" <3" < 3 1/4" < 3 1/2" < 3 3/4" < 4" Max 68.04 247.30 258.30 270.80 359.80 541.20 430.80 708.70 892.90 818.20 895.30 1156.00 1,365.000 1131.00 1107.00 Min 5.16 11.19 27.95 47.30 52.40 76.76 87.97 169.30 133.80 215.90 193.10 201.80 288.699 251.61 425.20 Average 27.34 38.57 98.80 129.16 148.56 211.62 260.00 388.11 427.01 499.54 561.95 724.81 676.103 537.89 854.38 Variance 175.87 1080.44 3582.52 2743.68 3576.56 7549.64 6146.41 14709.95 22378.62 30194.76 41759.75 77283.18 91,614.476 56868.72 88945.22 SD 13.26 32.87 59.85 52.38 59.80 86.89 78.40 121.28 149.59 173.77 204.35 278.00 302.679 238.47 298.24 Diameter Max 0.49 0.74 0.99 1.25 1.49 1.78 2.00 2.31 2.65 2.75 2.99 3.24 3.494 3.72 3.83 Min 0.38 0.50 0.75 1.04 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.01 3.246 3.51 3.77 Mean 0.45 0.58 0.85 1.17 1.32 1.65 1.83 2.14 2.38 2.55 2.87 3.14 3.387 3.62 3.80 Variance 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.006 0.01 0.00 SD 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.077 0.07 0.03

If we apply the number of needed samples to this grouping method, we would need 3,456 natural hailstones and 5,760 freezer iceballs. Since freezer iceballs are cast in a mold, they will be more uniform than natural hail. This method seems reasonable for the needed number of hail samples but not for the number of iceballs.

Since freezer iceballs are made in the lab, we can make any number we choose; this is not so with the collection of natural hail. Neither freezer iceballs nor freshly fallen natural hail will remain “fresh” for long. The collection time is limited for moving hail to a stable refrigeration temperature and performing the sample testing. Testing hailstones that no longer represent the “freshly fallen” state may be misleading and confusing. Both hailstones and iceballs will sublimate in refrigeration and can lose mass and volume, resulting in drastically different results from their antecedent condition. Chasing storms and collecting suitable hailstone samples is difficult, expensive, time-consuming and exhausting.

Sample size could be a never-ending argument. In this investigation, we were the beneficiaries of natural hailstone data from the Insurance Institute of Business and Home Safety (IBHS). The number of hailstone data points was provided to us; therefore, we could only work with what we were provided. The number of freezer iceballs was based upon producing around 30+ freezer iceballs per size bin. As the sample diameter increases, the repeatability difficulty also increases such that the larger size bins have fewer than 30 samples each.

These data were assessed using descriptive statistics, regression, ANOVA and Monte Carlo simulations. The distribution types were fit to the data by the software Crystal Ball by Oracle. In order for Crystal Ball to fit a distribution type, a minimum of 16 samples is required. Those bins with fewer than 16 samples, by convention, used a triangular distribution with the minimum, maximum and mean coming from the bin data set. Note: size bin refers to the diameter of the samples within the bin (i.e., <1/2”, <3/4”, etc.), whereas bin size means the number of samples within the bin. (i.e., 134). Notation in the form <1/2” is a label, whereas 0.5 inch is a numerical value suitable for mathematical operations.

Figure 2.2 Bubble Chart of Opaque and Transparent Simulated Hailstones. Note that smaller, more frequent bubbles led to increased opaqueness and fewer, larger bubbles led to increased transparency.

Figure 2.3 Normalized Distributions of Apparent Air Bubble Diameters Average bubble diameters for the seven shells of hailstone 4, 5, and 6 are shown. Shell 1 represents the conical embryo; the shells with odd numbers were opaque, the others transparent. Note that the hailstones with smaller bubble diameters were opaque and that hailstones with larger bubbles were clear or transparent.

Carras and Macklin (1975) passed light through a hypodermic needle onto thin sections of ice to estimate the deposits of air bubble concentration. The method was useful for supplementing the analysis of air bubble structures of hailstones. This research effort, like others, used thin sections of ice cut from the hailstone. The phrase “air bubble” suggest the bubble contains only air.

Figures 2.4 and 2.5 indicate the changes in the ratio of light intensity entering and leaving the ice section, and the resulting Td (dry growth temperature) and fraction of liquid water for the wet growth samples.

Figure 2.4 from Carras and Macklin (1975): Light Intensity Ratio (I/Io) and Wet and Dry Growth

Regions for Various Ambient Temperatures (Ta)

None of the investigators--Carte (1960), Merlivat, and Stevenson, (1970), List, Murray and Dyck (1972), List and Agnew (1973), Macklin, and Carras and Macklin (1975)--considered what the void spaces might contain. The voids (bubbles) may be filled with liquid water, water vapor, air, or any combination thereof. Knight and Knight (1968) and Gitlin and Goyer (1968) did identify the amount of liquid water in artificial and natural hailstones; however, they did not

measure opacity. None of these researchers related the issues of hailstones containing relative percentages of ice, air and liquid water. Those researchers who did measure opacity only did so on thin sections, and only Carte may have made notations of the color of light he used; however, he did not discuss using various colors of light (wavelength) in his investigation.

Figure 2.5 from Carras and Macklin (1975): Light Intensity Ratio (I/Io) and Bubble

Concentrations for Wet and Dry Growth and Various Ambient Temperatures (Ta) and Other Samples

Some of the aforementioned researchers did use opacity to help assess the presence and concentration of air bubbles and the growth type (wet or dry); however, none of them used opacity to estimate the values of other physical properties, and all of them used thin cuts of ice samples and did not consider the stone as a whole or as a single structure.

In a structural sense, opacity measurements of thin sections of ice (hailstones) are analogous to load assessments of individual beams and columns in a structure, whereas opacity measurements of the entire hailstone are analogous to load assessments of the whole structure

(see Main Wind Force Resisting System (MWFRS) described in the American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) reference Minimum Design Guide for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7)). The engineering assessment of whole structures has been in practice for many years; in this report we apply the same paradigm to hailstones and freezer iceballs.

Figure 2.6 Relationship between Air Temperature and Surface Temperature/Liquid Fraction of Spongy Ice and Resulting Opacity with Clear Ice Having No Bubbles, Bubbly Ice Having Bubbles with Radius > 50μm and Opaque Ice Bubble Radius < 50μm.

Like many other researchers, Brownscombe and Hallett (1967) (Figure 2.6), and List and Agnew (1973) did not actually measure opacity. Carras and Macklin (1975) did measure opacity of thin sections of hailstones; however, all they reported was the (C/Co) ratio without regard to the wavelength of the light used in the evaluation. None measured the opacity of the stone as a whole or used different wavelengths of light.

None of the literature reviewed in this work reported researchers using opacity measurements for whole hailstones, or different wavelengths of light, or opacity as a non-

destructive test method for a proxy of other physical or engineering mechanical properties of hail.

The measurement of hailstone opacity has not been investigated by itself in the literature on hailstones. The measurement of light through ice has been investigated. Lundberg, et al (2007) investigated light scattering and absorption in glacial ice. Lundberg acknowledges that light passing through even the clearest ice will experience scattering and absorption. Absorption of visible light is a function of absorption length (λa), scattering length (λs). Scattering type ice is predominated by Mie, or “forward peaked”, and is largely due to scattering angle distribution (phase function). To understand this issue, it is helpful to understand the temperature /density relationship among ice, air and liquid water.

Figure 2.7 Fitted Model of Temperature Effect on Ice Ih Density

Figure 2.8 Fitted Model of Temperature Effect on Air Density at One ATM Pressure

Figure 2.9 Fitted Model of Temperature Effect on Fresh Liquid Water Density

The density of samples varies based upon the amount of entrained air and liquid water- filled pores in the individual stone. List, et al. (1972 and 1973) found that many freezer iceballs

contain more than 10% void space. Some hail stones have been found to have over 30% liquid water content, which exists in a void space. In general, the more opaque the stone appearance, the larger the volume of voids (but not necessarily their individual size) and the lower the density of the hailstone. Natural hailstones and freezer iceballs may be more dense (fewer entrained air bubbles) while others are less dense (more air bubbles). The size, frequency and content of air bubbles is further discussed in this investigation.

Measurement of Light Luminosity and Wavelength Opacity is the measure of how much light is transmitted through a material. Merriam Webster defines opacity as “the quality or state of a body that makes it impervious to the rays of light; broadly: the relative capacity of matter to obstruct the transmission of radiant energy.” Opacity is measured by a light intensity meter (Lux is the metric unit of light intensity or luminosity). To be clear, opacity describes the blockage of light through a material; in other words, the less light that gets through the material, the greater its opacity.

Wikipedia defines Lux as “(symbol: lx) is the SI unit of illuminance and luminous emittance, measuring luminous flux per unit area. It is equal to one lumen per square meter. In photometry, this is used as a measure of the intensity, as perceived by the human eye, of light that hits or passes through a surface.”

Since luminosity is the intensity of light passing through an object, we must use various electrical devices to provide the light source, measurement, data, storage, etc. This investigation is performed in a cold lab (temperature about 28 oF). Understanding the effect of temperature on devices like lights, instruments, electrical power converters, and other electrical devices, etc. is necessary to obtain reliable data.

Performance of electrical equipment is affected by temperature. The Thermal Edge Inc. (2017) writes, “High temperature can cause erratic equipment performance, often leading to undesirable results. {Variable Frequency Drives} (VFDs) are not rated for operation at temperatures above their normal range. The accepted standard has been derating drive efficiency by 1% for every degree above 40 °C.” Thermal Edge, Inc. is a company that manufactures packaged cooling equipment for electrical gear such as circuit breakers, VFD motors, Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC), lighting systems, and other sensitive electronic equipment. The control of temperature in electronic operating environments is so important that at least one manufacturer has built its business on this issue.

Electrical devices consist of a variety of materials, wire types, conductors, capacitors, switches, circuits, etc., each of which has its own temperature coefficient. Temperature coefficients can be affected by the component’s manufacturing process, so the same item from different manufacturers may have different temperature coefficients. Thermal Edge Inc. also

reports that temperature coefficients may be positive or negative. A material where resistance (voltage drop) increases with an increasing temperature has a positive temperature coefficient. As the environmental temperature decreases, the conduit resistance is reduced, thereby increasing the voltage at the same amperage. At a higher environmental temperature, the conduit resistance is increased, thereby decreasing the voltage at the same amperage. Material that has a decrease in resistance with an increase in temperature has a negative temperature coefficient. New World Encyclopedia reports that this phenomenon was first described by William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) in 1851 and is today referred to as the Thomson effect. Braunovic and Alexandrov (1994) demonstrated that the physical properties of copper change with changes in temperature-- properties such as size (thermal expansion/contraction), brittleness and micropores in the metal-- and that resistance increases linearly with thickness for aluminum-copper joints.

Since electrical components can have either a positive or negative temperature coefficient, it is logical to assume that electrical devices may have some components that have both in the same device. This gives rise to an additional complication, as does the fact that temperatures affecting electrical resistance change do not all occur at the same magnitude, which affects performance inconsistency. This forms the basis that different temperature ranges will produce inconsistency in electrical devices such as LED light sources.

Li, Wang, and Ba (2012) found that the charge barrier (electrical resistance) decreases with molecular length and that it can be tuned with substrate temperatures and other factors such as light illumination. Since temperatures vary inversely with positive thermal coefficients, it should follow that we can control electrical resistance by controlling the temperature at which the electrical device at issue is operating.

If Li, Wang, and Ba are correct, it should follow that by controlling the temperature at which the system is operating, the voltage drop (electrical resistance) can also be controlled. This is a significant issue in our investigation because light luminance for a given amperage is strongly dependent upon voltage. As operating temperature in the cold lab (typically -1.7 oC, or 28 oF) affects voltage, so too does voltage affect light luminance (intensity). Ohm’s Law in Equations 5.2 and 5.3 is the basic equation of electrical current.

R = V/I..……………………………………………………………………………………… 5.2

Where: R – Resistance (ohms) I – Current (amps) V – Voltage (volts)

P = V2/R ……………………………………………………………………………………… 5.3

Where: P – Power (watts)

From Ohm’s Law we see that anything that affects current or voltage will have an impact on the wattage delivered to an electrical device; therefore, a reduction in resistance will increase power. Since voltage is squared, the increase in voltage and decrease in resistance will result in an exponential increase in wattage. We see that a small change in voltage can result in a large change in the outcome of wattage.

The light source is sensitive to the amperage applied. The system can operate at a variety of amperage settings. To determine the optimum operational amperage, data points were collected for each light color--Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet, and White (ROYGBIV+W)--and the values recorded. Each data set consisted of at least 32 observations at the amperages shown in Table 2.3. The Standard Deviation (SD) was computed for each data set and recorded for each color for each amperage setting, as was the group mean. Results are shown in Figure 2.10.

Table 2.3 Light Intensity Standard Deviations, Amperage Settings and Colors From Color Light Standard Deviations Setting 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mean of Number Amperage Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet White Means 1 0.247 1.4242 12.3386 120.6458 0.1768 0.5149 5.9619 6.0926 0.1768 18.4164 2 0.225 0.4919 9.3972 3.8014 3.9919 0.1414 4.6963 6.1980 0.1768 3.6119 3 0.200 1.0234 7.5624 5.8018 3.9968 0.4032 3.7361 4.9423 0.6591 3.5157 4 0.175 2.8284 2.8448 4.2838 3.9350 0.0177 4.3101 3.9980 0.1768 2.7993 5 0.150 0.4399 4.7587 8.5194 0.7453 0.0177 3.4072 4.5433 0.1768 2.8260 6 0.125 0.1768 2.5525 1.6086 0.1768 0.0683 3.2448 3.3793 0.1768 1.4230 7 0.100 0.4399 1.2144 2.9442 0.1768 0.0177 2.6917 2.7867 0.2459 1.3147 8 0.075 0.0177 0.6104 2.1681 0.5351 0.1230 2.0302 1.5986 0.1768 0.9075 9 0.050 0.0471 0.2688 1.7332 0.1768 0.0254 0.1164 0.0538 0.0177 0.3049

From Table 2.3 we see that as amperage increases so does the spread of the data. The lowest amperage has the lowest SD and the highest amperage has the highest SD. The amperage setting used for this investigation is 0.125 amps (Item #6 – 0.125 amps).

Figure 2.10 Graph of Standard Deviations by Amperage Group with Means and Mean of 0.125 Amps. All measurements were made at 60oF.

From Figure 2.10 we see that 0.125 amps provides an optimized consistency condition for each color and the group mean. We selected 0.125 amps as our operational condition. In Figure 2.11 we see the range of luminosity (lux) for each amperage group.

Figure 2.11 Luminosity (lux) Range for ROYGBIV+W at Tested Amperages

The wavelengths for each color of the visible spectrum were measured with a RSpecExplorer photo spectrometer. Each color and its associated wavelengths are shown in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 - Lights of the Visible Spectrum and Their Typical and Measured Wavelengths 1 – Reported by RSpecExplorer ™ Version: 1.1.0 (Build: 20) measured on 1.11.2016 2 – Measured by Phelps using the a RSpec Explorer spectrometer No. Color Typical Wavelength1 Measured Utilized Wavelength2 Wavelengths 1.0 Red 620-750 nm 699.6 nm 699.6 nm 2.0 Orange 590-620 nm 604.2 nm 604.2 nm 3.0 Yellow 590-570 nm 580.0 nm 580.0 nm 4.0 Green 495-570 nm 532.2 nm 532.2 nm 5.0 Blue 470-495 nm 472.5 nm 472.5 nm 6.0 Indigo 450-470 nm 425.2 nm 425.2 nm 7.0 Violet 380-450 nm 390.0 nm 390.0 nm 8.0 White 380-750 nm 543.2 nm 543.2 nm

An analysis of the consistency, SD, and repeatability was performed with two sets of 32 observations each, for each color, and is included in the Appendix. The mean SD for all wavelength data was 0.105. The utilized wavelengths are the values used in this investigation. The wavelengths were measured at 0.125 amps at 40 oF.

In this investigation, we have found that the 12 VDC LED lighting system provides the most luminance consistency at a temperature range between 10 and 21.6 oC (50 and 71 oF).

We performed a baseline study with 27 sets of 32 observations of each color per set. A set is 32 discrete observations for each color of the visible spectrum. A set consists of the colors ROYGBIV+W. These sets were performed 27 times at temperatures ranging from -8.3 to 26.9 oC (17 to 80.5 oF).

The baseline luminosity (no stone in place) was measured 32 times for each color of the visible spectrum and the Standard Deviation (SD) was computed for each color. The group mean SD for each temperature setting was regressed and the results plotted in Figure 2.12. Note the Greek symbol (σ) is typically used to represent standard deviation; since this investigation includes elements of stress which also typically uses (σ), we chose to use SD for notation of standard deviation to avoid confusion.

The mean of the SD for each color is the group mean SD. Descriptive statistics including the SD were recorded for each color in each set at each temperature. Temperatures were cold lab room temperatures (28 oF). The mean luminance for each color was recorded and each set of means was regressed against the set’s temperature. The sets in the temperature range of 10.0 to 21.6 oC (50 to 71 oF) produced the lowest group of sets SD (see Figure 2.2.0). Based upon these findings, a 115 VAC thermostat with a remote temperature probe and high (heat) and low (cool) outputs was used to control a 175 W 125 VAC heater inside the LDC light box; a 4” low speed 115 VAC fan was placed on the light box grate with a 4” diameter hole through the light box cover.

The temperature -sensing probe was attached to the side of the LED light unit. The fan was covered with a shroud that trapped all light that might otherwise escape from the light box. The thermostat would turn the heater on if the LED light unit temperature fell to 10.0 oC (50.0 oF) and off when it reached 21.6 oC (71.0 oF). The thermostat would turn on the cooling fan if the light unit temperature rose to 21 oC (70 oF). No readings were allowed to take place with the temperature inside the light box below 10.0 oC or above 21.6 oC (50/71 oF). The normal cold lab operating temperature is -1.6 oC (28 oF). During normal operations, the light box temperature varies between 50 and 71oF with the latent heat from the LED light unit providing most of the energy necessary to maintain the desired temperature range. The cold lab temperature was selected to reduce the rate of change of hailstones or iceballs during testing. The only time the cooling fan was activated was during the freezer defrost cycle (15 minutes every six hours). The rest of the time, the light system temperature was supplemented by the space heater. All the light system components were located inside the light box and were subject to the same temperature, as previously described.

Optimum Range

Figure 2.12 Effect of Temperature on Light Wavelength (Color) Group Mean SD from 50 to 71.0 oF from 27 Data Sets of 32 Observations Each for the Colors Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Indigo, Violet and White (ROYGBIV+W)

Wikipedia (2017) reads “light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light, which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight. Like all types of light, visible light is emitted and absorbed in tiny “packets” called photons, and exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the wave-particle duality.” Visible light “speed in a vacuum, is 299,792,458 meters per second, and is one of the fundamental constants of nature.” “When a beam of light crosses the boundary between a vacuum and another medium, or between two different media, the wavelength of the light changes, but the frequency remains constant. If the beam of light is not orthogonal (normal) to the boundary, the change in wavelength results in a change in the direction of the beam. This change of direction is known as refraction.”

Tilley (2011) reports that the visible spectrum (what human eyes can see) can be defined as the irradiance which is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the wave, as shown in Equation 2.1.

2 I = K(ε0) ……………………………………………………………………………………. 2.1

Where:

I – Irradiance* K – Proportionality constant dependent upon properties of the medium containing the light wave ε0 – Amplitude of light wave

*Irradiance is the flux of radiant energy per unit of area normal to the direction of the flow of a light wave through a medium.

Light moving through a medium may be refracted or absorbed. Wikipedia (2017) defines refraction as “bending of light rays when passing through the surface between one transparent material and another.” Refraction can be described mathematically by Snell’s Law and is shown in Equation 5.0. n1 sin Ɵ1 = n2 sin Ɵ2 ……………...………………………………………………………… 5.0

Where:

Ɵ1 – the angle between the ray and the surface is normal in the first medium Ɵ2 – the angle between the ray and the surface is normal in the second medium n1 – indices of refraction of medium 1 n2 – indices of refraction of medium 2

The definition of light absorption in Wikipedia (2017) is “absorption of electromagnetic radiation is the way in which the energy of a photon is taken up by matter, typically the electrons of an atom. Thus, the electromagnetic energy is transformed into internal energy of the absorber, for example, thermal energy. The reduction in intensity of light wave propagation through a medium by absorption of a part of its photon is often called attenuation.”

Tilly (2011) writes, “(A)s a beam of light passes through a material it gradually loses intensity, a process generally called attenuation. Attenuation is due to the interaction of light with a material in two basic ways: scattering or absorption.”

“Attenuation is often associated with the presence of chemical or physical ‘centres’, which may be atoms, molecules or large particles, distributed through the bulk of a material.” Tilly gives us a mass fraction for analysis of mass adsorption as shown in Equations 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4.

μM = (wt fraction A) x μA + (wt fraction B) x μB + (wt fraction C) x μC …………………… 2.1

The weight fraction of each item is given by: wt fraction A = mass of A present/total mass = x(mA)/x(mA)+y(mB)+z(mC) ………………. 2.2 wt fraction B = x(mB)/x(mA)+y(mB)+z(mC) ………………………………………………… 2.3 wt fraction C = x(mC)/x(mA)+y(mB)+z(mC) ………………………………………………… 2.4 Where:

μM – mass absorption coefficient of material μA – item A absorption coefficient μB – item B absorption coefficient μC – item C absorption coefficient

The value for μM gives rise to Equation 2.5, which allows us to compute the estimated final irradiance.

Ix = Io exp(μM ρ x) ……………………………………………………………………………. 2.5

Where:

Ix – final irradiance Io – initial irradiance μM – mass absorption coefficient of the material ρ – density of the material x – thickness of the material

Let us assume that Item A is ice in a hailstone, Item B is liquid water, trapped inside the voids within the hailstone, and Item C is air, also trapped inside the voids within the hailstone. Now we can use Tilley’s set of equations to estimate the irradiance of a hailstone based upon its relative weights of ice, liquid water, and air. In this example, we would use the density of the hailstone in question and the thickness would be the z or longest axis.

Tilley (2011) acknowledges that hexagonal crystals (ice Ih) have identical refractive indices along two Axes, a and b, but the refractive index is different along Axis c. No

information is provided on how to determine which axis is which. Some researchers determine the c-Axis orientation by light transmission through the sample.

Hobbs (1974) writes that refraction of light from ice crystals is often said to be double refraction, due to light waves being divided into the directions of propagation.

Ordinary waves are those that travel at the same velocity in all directions; therefore, their vector is spherical. The other wave change is extraordinary waves, whose velocity varies with the direction of propagation through the ice crystal and whose vector is ellipsoid of revolution. If extraordinary waves are slower than ordinary waves, the ice crystal is said to be optically positive; if the reverse is true, the crystal is optically negative. Brewster, (1814, 1818, 1834) reported that ice crystals tend to be doubly refracting, uniaxial, and optically positive. Hobbs reports that “ice has the lowest indices of refraction of all the known minerals.” This may have an effect on the opacity of ice, and on hailstones in particular.

From Equation 5.0 we can see that hailstones with air bubbles provide a plethora of opportunities for refraction to occur. The attenuation of light may occur more with the actual shell of the air bubbles and solids in the ice, and dissolved solids in the water from which the hailstone is made.

Light scattering in ice is affected by different types and sizes of ice crystals, air bubbles, suspended and dissolved solids, and particles. Since the natural hail process utilizes water that evaporated as part of the hydrological cycle, it would seem reasonable to assume the suspended and dissolved solids in hailstone growth would be negligible.

Lundberg, et al (2007) reports other items, such as mineral grains, that affect light scattering in glacial ice; however, since our focus is on hail formed from atmospheric water that has undergone evaporation, it is less likely that impurities such as mineral grains would be present in hail. Other items described by Lundberg such as sediment particles and biological matter would most likely be present in hailstones. In fact, “sediment particles” sounds a lot like a graupel that is necessary to provide the first surface upon which cloud moisture will accrete.

Achterberg, et al (2006) confirms that light intensity (luminance) changes over distance with even the clearest glacial ice. Other authors, such as Andres, et al (2000), also report that luminance will decrease with distance in glacial ice.

The effect of wavelength reported by Lundberg, et al (2007) is that “shorter wavelengths (≈210 nm) and longer wavelengths (≈500 nm) tend to be dominated by the properties of pure ice, while the intermediate range absorption of impurities dominates.” “Both scattering, and absorption are strongly depth dependent and vary on all depth scales.” These data (from glacial ice) may be relevant to hailstone opacity measurement because the wavelengths of the light used in this investigation (Table 2.6) range from 699.6 to 390 nm. The colors Red, Orange, Yellow, and Green fall in the group > 500 nm while the colors Blue, Indigo, and Violet are less than 500 nm but greater than ≈210 nm. Therefore, we may conclude that the longer wavelength colors, Red, Orange Yellow and Green, may be dominated by the properties of pure ice such as grain size and orientation, and the mid-range wavelengths of Blue, Indigo and Violet may be more sensitive to impurities such as dust, air or liquid water. Violet, wavelength 390 nm, is the closest to 210 nm; however, Violet’s wavelength is still 53% larger than ≈210 nm; therefore, it is more likely than not that Violet will be dominated by impurities. Lundberg, et al (2007) does not elaborate on what constitutes as an impurity. In all events, the longest diameter of a hailstone or iceball of any origin must be used as the vertical axis for opacity measurement.

In optics, how light passes through a medium is defined as the refractive index and is described mathematically in Equation 5.1. n = c/υ ……………………………………………………………………………………… 5.1

Where: n – refractive index, aka index of refraction c – speed of light in a vacuum υ – phase velocity of light in the medium

Wikipedia reports that “water has a refractive index of 1.333, meaning that light travels 1.333 times faster in a vacuum that it does in water.” “The refractive index determines how much light is bent, or refracted, when entering a material.”

The refractive index for ice has numerous standardized results that range from 1.30 to 1.3602. The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 48th Edition, reports that the refractive index for ice varies based upon the color of light passing through the sample. Table 2.5 details the wavelength, color and related refractive index for some of the colors of the visible spectrum.

Table 2.5 Wavelength, Color and Refractive Index, from CRC Press

Wavelength Color (typical nm) Refractive nm Index 759.4 Red (750-620) 1.3602 589.3 Yellow (570-590) 1.3104 486.1 Green (495-570) 1.3147

Other researchers have used light wavelength (waveforms) to investigate materials. Lee, Kevin K., et al (2000) developed a model to estimate transmission loss of silicon integrated circuits with lights in the 500 to 200 nm spectrum. From Table 2.5 it appears that no linear relationship exists between wavelength and refractive index values.

Opacity Materials and Methods To measure a sample’s (natural or manmade hailstone or freezer iceball) opacity, we constructed a mirror-lined 18” X 12” X 18” light box powered with a 12 VDC LED light source. The light system is a GLUX-RGB 18W-S40B model sold by Superbrightleds.com.

The light unit has three red, green and blue colored bulbs (total of nine bulbs) that produce the seven colors of the visible light spectrum: Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet, and White (ROYGBIV+W) light is the eighth. See Figure 2.6. White light was not tested in this investigation; however, it played an important role as it was used to warm up the light unit and was maintained when data were not being collected.

Table 2.6 shows the colors and their respective typical wavelengths and measured wave lengths. Wave lengths were measured using a spectrometer.

Table 2.6 Lights of the Visible Spectrum inside the Light Table and Their Typical and Measured Wavelengths 1 – Reported by RSpecExplorer ™ Version: 1.1.0 (Build: 20) measured on 1.11.2016 2 – Measured by Phelps using the RSpec Explorer spectrometer.

No. Color Typical Wavelength1 Measured Utilized Wavelength2 Wavelengths 1.0 Red 620-750 nm 699.6 nm 699.6 nm 2.0 Orange 590-620 nm 604.2 nm 604.2 nm 3.0 Yellow 590-570 nm 580.0 nm 580.0 nm 4.0 Green 495-570 nm 532.2 nm 532.2 nm 5.0 Blue 470-495 nm 472.5 nm 472.5 nm 6.0 Indigo 450-470 nm 425.2 nm 425.2 nm 7.0 Violet 380-450 nm 390.0 nm 390.0 nm 8.0 White 380-750 nm 543.2 nm 543.2 nm

Each color of the visible spectrum is created by various percentages of RGB light, as shown in Table 2.2.2. Light for each color of the visible spectrum can be conveniently remembered with the mnemonic ROYGBIV for Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet colored lights. Wavelengths were measured (32 samples) for each color and the average was reported for each color of the spectrum and rounded to one decimal digit.

Each color luminosity (intensity) is measured with no stone in place (Io). Each freezer iceball was placed inside a corresponding size reflective lined cone. Light from each individual color of the spectrum was passed through the stone (I) and its value compared to the same color without a stone in place (Io). The percentage of light intensity (I/Io) is the opacity of the stone for each of the colors in the spectrum. This process is repeated for each color of the spectrum. The data are recorded and the longest color wavelength with the least opacity (most light passing through) defines the color/wavelength of the hailstone or freezer iceball.

The purpose of this examination is to see if subsequently collected data have a correlation to the opacity value and if the correlation is unique to a specific wavelength. Since opacity is a non-destructive test method, it can be used as a proxy for other properties such as Fo and σc so that the stone can be preserved for other uses.

The light intensity was measured with an Extech model SDL-400-NIST light meter, which is a calibrated instrument. The baseline intensity for each color of the visible spectrum is shown in Table 2.5.0.

The baseline was developed by measuring the intensity of each color, 32 samples for each wavelength of the spectrum at 11 different temperatures (352 samples per color). The data set with the lowest Standard Deviation (SD) was used to determine the most suitable test temperature range 10-21.6 oC (50-71 oF). See Figure 2.12.

The longest wavelength with the highest percent intensity (I/Io) divided by the sample’s longest dimension multiplied by a scaling factor was the selection process for reporting the opacity value of each stone. In other words, the light color that has the longest wavelength and the highest percentage of light/diameter passing through the stone multiplied by the scaling factor is the one used in the analysis to compare the other measured properties.

Example 2.0 Let us assume sample “n” has the highest percent of light passing through it of all colors (ROYGBIV) at 34.497% and Green (532.2 nm) is the color for which 34.497% occurs, and the longest diameter of this stone is 66 mm. In such a case, it’s percent passing would be 34.497%/66 mm or 0.552%. The color Green has a wavelength of 532.2 nm. So, 532.2*0.552% = 2.9377. We multiply this value by a scaling factor of 100 so that our final number (293.77) is on the same scale (hundreds) as our anticipated Fo values. The scaling factor allows the sample’s “opacity” number to be of the same scale as the Fo value against which it is to be regressed. This computed value for “opacity” has the dimensions L/L; therefore, it should be considered dimensionless and can represent the sample’s unique opacity value.

Understanding how the opacity value is computed is necessary to understanding the results of this investigation. The results include numerical analysis and physical understanding.

Figure 2.13 12VDC LED Light Source, Model GLUX-RGB18W-S40B with Remote

The light source is Direct Current (DC) because DC has a linear waveform output. Alternating Current (AC) has a sinusoidal wave; therefore, we used DC lights for our investigation.

Per suggestions from Dr. Albert Sacco, to minimize the latent heat load in the freezer- controlled space of our mobile lab, we used Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) for space lighting. The test temperature in our mobile lab is about 28 oF.

All tests were performed inside the mobile lab (trailer), which is insulated on its structural exterior with 4.5-inch closed cell poly-urethane insulation with an R-value around R- 3.5 per inch. Urethane insulation is on all structural exterior surfaces and is covered with 26 gauge fitted metal panels riveted 6” on center, to 3.5” metal studs, 16” on center on the exterior

sides and top. Interior insulation is two layers of 1.0 inch of Extruded Polystyrene Foam (XPS) (one layer on the floor) with an R-value of about R-5 per inch. The doors are insulated inside the trailer. The roof is covered in 5/8” plywood directly under the metal skin to provide hail resistance. Per suggestions from Weather Channel storm chaser Kelly Williamson (1959-2017), the roof is also covered with an expanded metal “hail topper” such that hail damage would be minimized, and the expanded metal cover could be easily replaced while the metal skin and insulation would remain undamaged.

The 12 VDC LED light system used in this research is an 18-Watt Color-changing Red Green Blue (RGB), LED Landscape Spotlight G-Lux Series, with an adjustable beam angle, and a current draw of 1600mA. This unit is comparable to 50-55 watts and contains nine LED bulbs (three each of Red, Green and Blue). The vendor specifications include LED type as CREE and the unit is sold as RoHS compliant. The operating temperature range is -20 to +40 oC (-4 to +104 oF). The unit was purchased from online retailer Superbrightleds.com, part number GLUX-RGB18W-S40B. See Figure 2.13.

The RGB colors in different combinations make all the colors used in this investigation. The colors and their respective percentages of RGB are shown in Table 2.7. The intensity values in Table 2.7 have a maximum of 255 units and minimum of 0.

Table 2.7 Typical Light Compositions of RGB to Produce ROYGBIV+W

Color Red Green Blue Red 255 0 0 Orange 255 192 0 Yellow 255 255 0 Green 0 176 80 Blue 0 112 192 Indigo 0 32 96 Violet 112 48 160 White 255 255 255

The light unit is mounted in the bottom of an 18” square wooden box that is 12” tall. The interior is lined with polycarbonate mirrors and the top is made from polycarbonate grating with ¼” openings. The LED light unit is covered with an opaque light diffuser. The top grate is covered with foam core board that is taped to the box with a 3” hole over the LED light sources.

Foam core rings, sizes 2-15/16” to 1” are cut to fit into the 3” hole to accommodate samples of various sizes. A sample is placed on the open grate and covered with a cone whose interior is lined with aluminum foil. A foam strip inside the cone ensures a tight fit to the sample, such that no light can pass around the sample and all light must pass through the sample. A wire is placed through the cone beneath the stone to keep the stone firmly pressed into the foam strip so that no light can pass around the stone.

Stones are weighed and measured after the opacity is measured. The spherical shapes had the longest measurement of the stone oriented in the vertical for each measurement. Oddly shaped or defective stones are discarded and not evaluated. Since freezer iceballs are cast in plastic molds, they form near perfect spheres.

The digital balance was a Cen-Tech model 95364 precision digital scale with LCD display with a scale of 0.1 grams and accuracy of +/- 1% FS. Calibration was confirmed with calibrated test weights 100, 50, and 1 gram prior to use. The digital balance was within its ISO 17025 calibrated tolerance and calibration period and has an operating temperature of -40 to 100 oC (-40 to 212 oF). The balance was digitally zeroed before use in each work session.

Sample diameters were measured on an arbitrary x, y, z axis. By convention, the z-Axis would be in the vertical. Measurements were made with a Pittsburgh model 63714 long reach digital caliper. The caliper has a display of 0.01 mm and an accuracy +/- 0.03 mm. The caliper is calibrated in compliance with ISO 17025 and was confirmed with calibrated test blocks 100, 50, and 1 mm prior to use. The caliper was digitally calibrated before use in each work session.

The DC LED light unit is powered by a Korad brand KA3005D 30-volt, 5-amp DC variable power supply. The power supply has an output voltage range of 0-30 V, a setup resolution of 10 mV and setup accuracy of <0.05% + 20 mV. The output current range is 0-5A and is continuously adjustable. The setup resolution is 1 mA and accuracy is <0.1% @ 3mA.

The light luminance is measured with a calibrated Extech model SDL-400-NIST light meter datalogger with NIST traceability. This light meter has a range of 0 to 999,999 Lux with a

resolution of one Lux. The basic accuracy is +/- 4% FS. The meter also uses a type J or K thermocouple and can report temperature as well as luminance. The manufacturer reports the meter utilizes a silicon diode and spectral response filter, and is cosine and color corrected for LED lights. The meter also places a time/data stamp on each measurement. Data are manually logged to a computer worksheet. The unit is adjusted to zero before each use.

Pilot studies were performed to test the equipment and refine the method of operation. The pilot studies were necessary to verify the equipment and method and to define the operational environment for testing. No data or analysis were collected or performed on pilot test data.

It is necessary to select one wavelength for each color spectrum so that numerical analysis is possible. It would be difficult to perform numerical analysis on a range of values or the verbal color of the spectrum. The wavelength for each color of the visible spectrum was measured and the results appear in Table 2.6.

Samples with obvious defects (via visual observation) were discarded and not used in this investigation; however, defects can exist that are not readily discernable to the naked eye. How those unobserved defects are oriented during the investigation is by chance; however, to maintain consistency, the light intensity measurements were consistently taken with the longest axis oriented vertically regardless of crack orientation.

To better define the physical and engineering characteristics of the samples, they were visually defined by their internal construction: static, cyclic, impact, or conglomerate. The predominating growth type (wet, dry, alternating) is also estimated and recorded. The sample’s porosity is calculated based upon its density compared to the density of pure ice at the same temperature. The porosity allows us to compute the volume of the voids and estimate the volume of air and water within the sample.

Tortuosity is a measure of the interconnectedness of the pore spaces. As the tortuosity value increases so do the pore space connections. The pore space connections tend to lower Fo

more than discrete air bubbles because the connections tend to increase the bubble surface area, thereby reducing the bubble surface area-to-volume ratio and reducing the crack length required for compression before rupture. Therefore, the sample can be defined by its unique wavelength value, internal structure, external shape, surface roughness, growth type, porosity and gas tortuosity. The samples are defined with these seven categories of values, and a family of curve fit data can better describe the unique sample.

Color (ROYGBIV) wavelengths are used, as previously described, regressed against Fo and σc, for families of curves for internal structure (static, cyclic, cluster, conglomerate), and growth type (wet, dry, alternating). These data give us about 12 curves for natural hail in which to fit our data. Since freezer iceballs are monotonic they all have the same internal structure, static; therefore, we only need one curve to describe freezer iceball internal structure.

Test samples are in individual plastic bags and placed in storage tray cups such that each sample is uniquely identified by data, tray letter, and cup number. For example, 08.10.2018 tray A cup 1 would be the date the sample was tested, the tray (A) and cup number (1). Each tray has 12 cups. Most data collection workbooks have four dozen samples. If more than one workbook per day is used, Roman numerals are added to the file-naming convention. Up to four dozen samples results can be contained in a single workbook.

The operational method includes placing the individual samples in plastic baggies (researchers wore insulated gloves) and placing each sample in a tray cup. When ready to test, we measure and record the light baseline luminosity for each color and then remove the tray from freezer storage, remove the individually baggie and measure the opacity. This step is followed by diameter measurements on three axes: Shore A, surface hardness, and dry weight. If the sample’s volume is measured with the liquid displacement method, the sample is completely submerged in a volume of liquid silicone and the displaced volume recorded. The sample’s wet weight is recorded. The sample is then re-bagged and returned to its correct cup and tray.

These data are manually logged in the data collection worksheet. This is a two-person operation: the technician taking the measurement calls out the reported value and the technician entering values into the data collection workbook repeats the value as it is entered. This is an

important process control step that traps errors and permits confirmation as the data are recorded. The two technicians must work as a team and maintain the data collection protocol. Conditional formatting of the worksheet will alert the technician if a value outside the expected range for a given variable is entered, turning the worksheet cell red. At the end of each work session the workbook values are reviewed for cells that are out of the expected value range. Out-of-range values are confirmed or removed from analysis.

The sample volume is measured using the Archimedes Principle in liquid silicone cooled to -16 oF. The displaced volume and sample wet weight are manually logged in the data collection worksheet. The volume of the sample is equal to the volume of displaced liquid. The difference between the wet weight and dry weight is computed and is divided by the density of the silicone product, and the additional volume is added to the corrected volume for the sample.

The density of each sample is computed using the physically measured volume and the corrected displaced liquid volume. The density from the displaced liquid volume is the reported density. Densities are reported in g/ml because the density of pure water at 4 oC is 1 g/ml. Densities greater than 1.0 will cause a density error alert. This is not just a cell color change, but a macro that displays “density error.” This error will prevent further analysis of the sample.

To test the compressive strength of samples, the bagged sample is placed on the 0.0 mark on the tempered glass base beneath the hydropneumatic press. The glass base sits on a closed cell cushion on top of steel plates. The steel plates/cushion are open in the center and allow an unobstructed view of the sample from beneath. The glass plate has a circular, one mm scale to evaluate the size of the deformation of the bottom surface of the stone in the x and y dimensions. When possible, samples are compressed inside plastic bags to reduce shard impacts for personal safety and to keep the work place clean and tidy.

A GoPro camera is placed beneath the glass base to record the deformation of the stone against the glass base and is monitored with a Bluetooth connection to a tablet computer. Uniaxial force is applied by a hydropneumatic jack and the force is measured by a Transducer Techniques model THD-2K-Y calibrated load cell with a calibrated temperature range of -40 to 100 oC (-40 to 212 oF). Vertical compression and horizontal (lateral) expansion are measured by two Midori calibrated plunge indicators model LP-20FB-2K with return spring. The plunge

indicators have an effective travel of 20 mm and total resistance of 1K, 2KΩ with linearity of +/- 1%FS. The unit’s temperature operating range is -40 to 100 oC.

All sensors are calibrated in compliance with ISO 17025 with NIST traceability. The load cell and transducer data are digitally recorded by Omega Engineering DAQ Model 2416- 4AO. The sample collection rate is about 50Hz. The sample reporting rate is about 10Hz. The difference is that the sample collection rate is averaged to produce the sample reporting rate. The graph of each compression and its associated deformation is digitally recorded. Ten Hz is numerically equivalent to 10 data points per second. If the compression of a hailstone to rupture takes 2.5 seconds, 25 data points would be collected. Most samples have between ten and 25 data points. The data are displayed with Tracer DAQ Pro software. Values for compression, vertical deflection and horizontal deflection are digitally recorded in real time to individual .csv files for each sample.

File management becomes oppressive with such a large volume of observations; therefore, sample compression file names included the date, tray letter, and cup number such that each specimen was individually recorded. The file type was .csv, which is imported into Excel workbooks. Opacity files use a similar naming convention but are by date only and include a Roman numeral if more than one per day is used. Opacity file names would be similar to Hail Engineering Properties 05.15.2018.xlsx.

Figure 2.14 shows the regression curve fit between the opacity value and the measured compressive strength (Fo). The fitted equation is a third order polynomial with an unremarkable R2=0.13. Curve fits were tested against each of the colors of the visible spectrum using the method previously described. The R2 for each color’s regression were compared. The color with the highest R2 was Green (R2=0.3361, insignificant) with a third order polynomial equation as shown in Figure 2.15.

Figure 2.14 Regression of Opacity and Fo for Freezer Iceballs, Using All Color Comparison for Each Data Point

The R2 were compared for exponential, linear, logarithmic, polynomial (3rd order) and power functions.

Figure 2.15 Regression of Fo against the Color Green (wavelength 532.2 nm) for Freezer Iceballs with Fitted Curve and R2=0.3361

Figure 2.15 is the highest R2 of all the color fit analyses for this data set. None of the R2 for any of the color fit analyses are significant. Experience and convention agree that R2s for natural systems above 0.6 are frequently considered significant. Other fields of study such as manufacturing and industrial engineering consider R2 >.95 to be significant.

2 Using R >.6 as an arbitrary datum confirms that none of the Fo to opacity value fits in this study are significant. About 55 freezer iceballs were included in this investigation of opacity and Fo relationship. We find no evidence of correlation between opacity value and Fo.

Charlie Knight (2018a) pointed out, mid-length wavelength lights scatter/refract differently than longer and shorter wavelengths. Lundberg, et al (2007) writes, “In wavelengths shorter than ≈ 210 nm and longer than ≈ 500 nm, absorption is dominated by the properties of pure ice, while (in) the intermediate range, absorption by impurities dominates. And resulting effective scattering and absorptions lengths, λe and λa as functions of wavelength”.

The colors Red, Orange, Yellow and Green may be absorbed due to the properties of pure ice while absorption by the colors Blue, Indigo and Violet may be dominated by impurities. Since ice is made principally from water and air, what are the impurities? What defines an impurity? Wikipedia (2018) defines impurity as “substances inside a confined amount of liquid, gas, or solid, which differ from the chemical composition of the material or compound.” Based upon this definition, we should consider air trapped inside a hailstone as an impurity; therefore, air should cause different absorption of wavelengths of light through pure ice when the light wavelength is in the range of ≈500 to ≈210 nm. In other words, Blue, Indigo and Violet can be hypothesized to do a better job of identifying air and water trapped inside pure ice than Red, Orange, Yellow or Green. To test this, we only need examine our data for Blue, Indigo and Violet colors and compare them to Red, Orange, Yellow and Green. In doing so we find that all the colors’ best fit is with a third order polynomial function; since none of the R2s can be considered significant, then the difference between the R2 for each color in the two groups cannot be considered significant, either.

Figure 2.16 All Freezer Iceball Fo Data with Third Order Polynomial Fit

Table 2.8 SD for 27 Sets of Light Intensity Observations Color of Light and Standard Deviation and Temperature Test 750-620 nm 590-620 nm 570-590 nm 495-570 nm 450-495 nm 400-450 nm 380-400 nm 380-750 nm Group Average Number Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet White Mean Temperature 2 3.038562638 10.34987728 2.566651829 0.522671488 0.196747751 3.28240667 3.926748635 0.913606819 3.0997 72.5 3 1.921598377 9.022373624 13.21835082 0.860771409 0.457365792 4.157072287 7.106831675 0.948258165 4.7116 72.5 4 1.436491582 11.56311572 8.86497048 0.82733053 0.67190149 3.975225699 6.468206986 1.216486214 4.3780 73.0 5 0.396557769 9.049817321 13.3177286 1.190943649 0.565685425 3.709050613 5.477225575 0.552669475 4.2825 73.0 6 3.174844421 9.249182614 10.74817126 1.776867486 0.687415684 4.751909633 3.273642294 1.134147399 4.3495 72.5 7 4.257346591 11.88639097 15.54896014 2.408821155 0.548522576 4.207807643 5.479341702 2.143773805 5.8101 72.0 8 4.181251356 9.273129322 10.56603658 1.674945834 0.53701685 4.316136265 6.531483925 2.273399827 4.9192 72.0 9 3.200302405 8.650703868 15.55310881 1.295152252 0.672021505 4.142497104 5.971707488 1.203154456 5.0861 72.5 10 0.491869377 8.65181083 12.81376371 1.534219882 0.515564207 3.856158669 8.791892801 0.842423539 4.6872 72.5 11 3.964433613 6.022722431 17.20172066 1.883716299 0.930221748 4.472924821 6.723139508 1.568014463 5.3459 73.0 12 3.654427275 10.18809987 17.38786075 0.336010753 0.727671662 4.632350306 8.331585838 2.244841757 5.9379 73.0 13 3.371937081 4.564833142 14.63080599 1.803893638 0.725125128 3.957307451 6.920560182 0.574140311 4.5686 73.0 14 3.710816796 15.46480786 17.2196437 0.176776695 0.618979063 4.095631032 13.93055935 1.631037172 7.1060 73.0 15 3.2372579 9.933600117 8.135941764 1.883716299 0.37674326 4.353345025 9.073179192 1.396640555 4.7988 73.0 16 3.859294395 7.341263735 17.30440812 1.946875081 0.555906699 4.179442778 9.623350299 1.683650029 5.8118 72.5 17 3.334660354 10.43238599 10.80765671 1.431218745 0.393495501 4.421241798 5.46312787 1.868402371 4.7690 72.5 18 2.934603067 6.969692454 15.14443233 1.468760724 0.749085464 3.376717006 7.869845984 1.496972752 5.0013 72.5 19 1.464292739 7.857603673 9.452555551 6.969981719 1.722055107 5.446868551 6.815468057 5.613833001 5.6678 72.0 20 5.983512293 12.70505202 9.257026538 7.801920256 0.961769203 4.356007161 12.29997213 5.098920664 7.3080 40.0 21 7.823081544 10.80467156 11.20033842 16.89901219 2.055166581 6.127344844 8.668572733 9.919789198 9.1872 31.5 22 23.27084567 30.64032697 32.24646767 30.46494548 3.627226791 10.21892417 15.44605597 19.9289059 20.7305 17.0 23 7.372505045 14.29738866 11.84833594 5.429905245 0.470415054 5.266678576 8.564685087 6.05010997 7.4125 27.5 24 21.26842181 24.82517501 31.42117634 27.29791954 2.733039709 8.58255686 9.907434484 11.3251077 17.1701 30.0 25 3.963034842 5.262370219 11.79239093 2.881916645 0.795121212 3.93274098 3.886364708 0.793115539 4.1634 51.0 26 3.818461099 6.706325252 7.822050614 2.206113207 1.086871806 4.135755772 6.280971648 2.264514119 4.2901 60.5 27 5.615987403 10.76864475 8.362683529 4.988696901 0.01767767 4.951274681 7.860104961 3.61434753 5.7724 80.5 28 23.27084567 30.64032697 32.24646767 30.46494548 3.627226791 10.21892417 15.44605597 19.9289059 32.2465 max 29 0.396557769 4.564833142 2.566651829 0.176776695 0.01767767 3.28240667 3.273642294 0.552669475 0.0177 min

Based upon these data, it is clear that opacity did not provide a suitable Non-Destructive Test (NDT) method for hail and freezer iceballs and the polynomial equation in Figure 2.16 offers no useful information. The scatter of the data in Figure 2.16 confirms that no distribution is likely to provide a statistically meaningful fit.

Measurement of Freezer Iceballs’ Air Bubble Volume Most hails contain various amounts of ice, liquid water, and air; however, these forms occur in random patterns that are as yet not clearly understood. Not only do hails contain various amounts of ice, liquid water, and air, some contain no liquid water and a small number have only the smallest volume of air-filled voids.

Volume measurements, weight and density are basic attributes such that the data collection procedure may appear routine; however, nothing is routine when the work environment is 28 oF, investigators are bundled in arctic gear and all instruments and equipment are operating at the same temperature. We performed numerous pilot studies to practice these procedures and to gauge how well the instruments and equipment worked at the environmental temperature of 28 oF. Without fail, the instruments and equipment worked as well if not better than the humans performing the assessments. Frequent breaks to “thaw out” were required. Since our movement was so restricted, we produced less body heat and thus were more susceptible to the cold.

These measurements should include the uncertainty associated with their measurement. Data collected in pilot studies show that the more frequently the diameter of a sample is measured the closer the measurement is to the true value. Sample diameters were measured with a calibrated caliper on three arbitrary axes (x, y, z) and the spherical volume computed for freezer iceballs. The IBHS did the same for natural hails; however, they computed them as the volume of an oblate spheroid, per Giammanco (2015). The computed volume was compared to the same stones’ volume using the Archimedes Principle of displaced volume. The Archimedes method is to fully immerse the sample in a super-cooled silicon solution and measure the displaced fluid when the stone is fully submerged. The direct measure of the sample’s displaced volume is desirable. Using calibrated instruments will allow us to compute the type A uncertainty. Uncalibrated instruments or methods add to uncertainty and consume the uncertainty budget.

The Archimedes’ volume is compared to the physically measured volume and the percent of error is computed for physical measurements using one, two and three axes diameter measurements. The pilot study indicated that the percent error of one diameter measurement could be more than 20% from the Archimedes measured volume.

Since density is the product of the samples’ weight divided by the volume, and the weight is easily measured by calibrated instruments, it is more likely than not that the source of uncertainty in sample density will come from the volume measurement. Since our pilot study found that single diameter measurements could result in errors of 20% or more (combining positive and negative errors, those above and below the Archimedes value), those studies with two measurements could result in errors of 10%, both of which may introduce a significant source of errors. A volume measurement error will result in a density error measurement as well; like a row of dominoes, the density error will result in errors in porosity and other measures.

The relative percentages of ice, liquid water, and gases are plotted on triangular graph paper (similar to the USDA soil textural triangle) for each hailstone. The proxy values for the opacity, Fo and σc of the samples, are added to their respective data plot and contours developed for each family of curves (structure type), similar to a soil textural graph shown in Figure 2.17.

The United States Department of Agriculture uses a three-side graph to describe the particle size distribution in soils. The triangle legs are for the percent sand, silt, and clay size particles found within the soil sample. A point is found within the triangle that is defined by the relative percentages of sand, silt and clay size particles. Dr. Kirk Brown of Texas A&M University has used these soil textural triangles to relate other soil factors such as specific heat, density, porosity, and a variety of other soil chemical, physical and engineering properties and developing contours of the data relative to the sample’s percent of sand, silt, and clay size particle, as shown in Figure 2.17. Both three-sided and two-sided graphs are employed by the USDA to display the same information. Figure 2.18 is a two-sided soil particle graph that shows the same information as the traditional three-sided graph.

In like fashion to the USDA soil textural triangle, we display the samples’ relative percentages on ice, liquid water, and air. By plotting several samples of one category, ice, liquid water, and air percentages and then comparing their other physical and engineering properties, we will be able to develop the relationship within and between groups of samples.

Figure 2.17 USDA Soil Textural Triangle with Contours for Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity – courtesy of NRCS

Figure 2.28 Soil textural two side graph. The graph uses two of the three constituents to define the sample. The last constituent is not shown but would be % sand = 100% - % clay - % silt

Like Dr. Brown, we developed contours that will allow us to relate other factors to the percentages of ice, liquid water, and air. A significant difference between soil particle size distribution and hailstone/freezer iceball ice, air and water distribution is that soils may contain 100% of only one textural size. Many soils--such as clay and sand--contain only clay or sand size particles. This is not true of hailstones/freezer iceballs. Hailstone or freezer iceballs that contain 100% air or 100% liquid water would not be hailstones/freezer iceballs at all.

Contour graphs were completed using Surfer contouring and graphing software from Golden Software, Inc. Surfer has 13 different contouring mathematical options that range from special uses such as city and other jurisdictional boundaries to spatial variable data such as ours. The kriging method was used to fit the contours to the data because it was recommended by the software producer.

The porosity (ϕ) of soil provides our basis for computing the ϕ of freezer iceballs, the ϕ is computed using Equation 4.1.

Most samples of hailstones/freezer iceballs do contain relative percentages of ice, air and liquid water. Using the density difference between pure ice (at the same temperature as the measured sample) and our sample, we compute the porosity using Equation 4.1.

ϕ= 1-Vs/VT 4.0

Where: ϕ – porosity (volume of voids per total volume of sample) Vs – volume of solid pure ice VT – total volume of sample

ϕ= 1- Mst/Mit 4.1

Where: ϕ – porosity of hailstone/freezer iceball Mit – mass of pure ice at temperature t – Note tice must equal tsample Mst – mass of sample at temperature t

The problem with Equation 4.0 is that the volume of pure ice is only known from the porosity or the difference in the mass of pure ice at the same temperature as the sample, which is the same as Equation 4.1 The circular reference makes Equation 4.0 undesirable; therefore, we use Equation 4.1.

The mass of pure ice (Mit) in Equation 4.1 is computed from the density of pure ice at the test temperature of the sample (see Figure 2.7) and divided by the sample volume, resulting in the mass of pure ice in the sample. This method is consistent with methods used to compute the porosity of soils.

To determine the relative percentages of ice, liquid water, and air, we use the porosity (Equation 4.1) to compute the volume of the voids as shown in Equation 5.0. The voids from Equation 5.0 do not address their contents. The volume of ice is the total volume less the volume of the voids (Equation 5.1). The void can be filled with air or water (as liquid or gas) or any combination. Melted samples and collected air bubbles measure the amount of air in the sample. The volume of water is found by subtracting the volume of air from the volume of the voids. The total volume equals the sum of ice, air, and liquid water (Equation 5.3). Equation 5.3 is typically expressed in percentages. With these data, we complete two -sided graphs and contour

the sample properties shown in Table 2.9. Equations 5.0-5.3 are admittedly simple; however, while their epistemology tracks to soil physics, they are new to the analysis of hailstones.

Vv = VT(ϕ) 5.0 VT – VV = Vice 5.1 VV = Vair + Vwater 5.2 VT = Vice + Vair + Vwater 5.3

Where: Vv – volume of the voids Vice – volume of ice in the sample Vair – volume of air in the sample Vwater – volume of liquid water in the sample

Air Bubble Materials and Methods Air content from voids inside the hailstones/freezer iceballs was measured using a method described by Milton Smith and modified by Phelps. Figures 2.19-2.24 show the procedure. A sample is placed under a glass funnel that is placed inside a volume of tap water at room temperature. The tap water has been previously saturated with air by pumping atmospheric air through a stone diffuser overnight before the procedure. The stones’ volume, mass, opacity, density, identifiable internal structure, growth type, shape, surface roughness, temperature, porosity, tortuosity and volume of the voids are measured and recorded prior to submersion (all information that is NDT). The funnel stem is covered with a rubber balloon prior to submersion. The empty funnel with balloon is submerged, and all air is removed from the system. Once all the air is removed, the stone is placed inside the inverted funnel as shown in the figures below. As the stone melts in the air-saturated water, the air bubbles release and float toward the surface inside the upturned funnel and collect inside the rubber balloon.

Once the stone has completely melted, the gases inside the balloon are removed by needle and syringe such that no gasses can escape, and the volume in the syringe is measured (units of 0.05 ml). The volume of gases is then subtracted from the volume of the voids (Equation 5.2) to estimate the volume of liquid water inside the hailstone. The temperature of the tap water is monitored throughout the procedure. The melt water is changed as needed such that the initial volume and melting temperature are about the same for each sample.

Figure 2.19 Sample Inside Inverted Funnel Note temperature probe in foreground and balloon lip on top of the funnel stem.

Figure 2.20 Sample Melting and Floating toward Funnel Stem Note small air bubbles coalescing as they ascend.

Figure 2.21 Melting Sample and Bubbles Floating into Air Collection Balloon The remaining portion of the sample has floated into the stem and can be seen inside the balloon- covered stem. Bubbles stuck to sides are rubbed free.

Figure 2.22 Syringe and Needle Used to Recover Collected Gases from Balloon in 0.05 ml Increments

Figure 2.23 Needled Inserted into Balloon Removing Accumulated Gasses

We subtract the percent of ice and air from 100% to get the % liquid water. This method does not distinguish between air and water vapor. We now plot the relative percentages of ice, air and water onto the modified USDA textural triangle and mark each data point with its measured values for density, opacity (wavelength), or other property of interest. We use the regression between opacity (wavelength) and Fo to estimate the Fo values and plot these data and contour on the graph. This process is done by hand. The wavelengths are used to estimate the Fo. Values of the relative percentage of ice, air and liquid water are estimated for samples that are not melted. Ice, air and water estimates are made from the porosity and the volume of voids. The air and water fraction of the sample is estimated from the density of same at the sample temperature. Estimated ice, air, and water percentages are compared to melted stone data and the percent error computed.

Table 2.9 Symbol and Variable Values Legend Note Fo and c must be estimated from opacity value because the sample was melted to arrive at the air content value. X Y Z Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 Z7 Z6 Max Dominate Estimated

Ice Air Water Diameter Color Opacity Density Porosity VV Fo Avg. Crossectional Estimated

Symbol (%) (%) (%) (mm) ROYGBIV Value (g/ml) (%) (ml) kg Diameter Area σc C1.5 90% 2% 8% 62.77 Yellow 157.6939 0.9869 6.853% 7.2914 168.9576 61.8000 2999.6241 0.0563 C5 78% 1% 21% 63 Red 282.2615 0.7286 27.123% 37.9725 131.2759 60.4000 2865.2582 0.0458 C7 88% 3% 9% 61.2 Red 294.3865 0.8357 16.406% 22.9684 127.6081 59.0333 2737.0611 0.0466 C11 88% 4% 8% 65.8 Green 150.6706 0.8411 15.871% 23.9657 171.0821 62.7000 3087.6279 0.0554 E2 98% 1% 0% 70.54 Orange 96.6655 0.9404 2.697% 3.8305 187.4187 64.7367 3291.4749 0.0569 E3 93% 2% 5% 67.6 Red 137.1812 0.9444 2.719% 3.8113 175.1627 64.4533 3262.7263 0.0537 E4 96% 1% 3% 64.24 Yellow 238.3374 0.8914 3.896% 4.9670 144.5629 62.4467 3062.7278 0.0472 E5 92% 2% 6% 62.97 Red 345.4565 0.9756 5.820% 7.0874 112.1594 61.4967 2970.2502 0.0378 E7 83% 6% 11% 62.24 Red 229.5264 0.8087 2.754% 3.3084 147.2283 61.2167 2943.2641 0.0500 L1 75% 1% 24% 62.5 Violet 244.2506 0.9869 6.853% 7.2914 142.7742 58.7900 2714.5435 0.0526 L2 97% 1% 2% 62.27 Red 291.7503 0.8851 6.563% 6.0040 128.4055 55.9033 2454.5127 0.0523 L3 95% 0% 5% 61.51 Violet 231.5848 0.9984 7.920% 7.2194 146.6056 55.8367 2448.6620 0.0599 L4 90% 0% 10% 61.88 Red 503.0790 0.9270 0.828% 0.9293 64.4786 59.8400 2812.3738 0.0229 L5 92% 1% 6% 62.77 Yellow 157.6939 0.9014 7.118% 7.1923 168.9576 57.7867 2622.6792 0.0644 L12 88% 1% 11% 62.04 Green 318.1167 0.9757 5.778% 5.9222 120.4297 58.0633 2647.8526 0.0455 M1 90% 10% 0% 61.94 Yellow 261.3850 0.8494 11.150% 11.6359 137.5911 58.4133 2679.8708 0.0513 M4 100% 0% 0% 68.46 Orange 156.2346 0.8384 0.000% 0.0000 169.3990 64.8967 3307.7651 0.0512 None 100% 0% 0% 68.46 None N/A 0.9197 0.000% 0.0000 N/A N/A N/A N/A None 0% 100% 0% 0 None N/A 0.0014 0.000% 0.0000 N/A N/A N/A N/A None 0% 0% 100% 0 None N/A 1.0000 0.000% 0.0000 N/A N/A N/A N/A

The estimated compressive force (Fo) values were computed using the third-degree polynomial shown in Equation 6.0. This model has a R2=0.13, i.e., the model compares favorably with about 13% of the actual data to which it was fit. Equation 6.0 should be used with caution.

Fo = 2Exp(+6x3) – E(-5x2) – 0.325x + 216.66 6.0

Where:

Fo – compressive force (kg) x – opacity value (dominant wavelength*net intensity/sample max length*100)

Notes on legend (Table 2.9)

Max diameter is used because when opacity is measured, the sample is always placed with the longest axis in the vertical; thus, the light must travel the longest distance through the sample.

Dominant color is the color which had the longest wavelength and the highest percent light passing through the sample (I/Io) divided by the sample’s largest diameter r.

Each color’s dominant wavelength is the single most common wavelength within the color’s range of wavelengths.

Opacity value is the dominant color’s dominant wavelength*its net light intensity (I/Io)%/sample max length * a scaling factor of 100.

Density is computed using volume measurements from both physical (caliper) measurements on three axes and liquid displacement. Liquid displacement is preferred and compared to physical measurement.

If one method returns a value greater than the density of water at the same temperature, then the other method is used. If both methods return densities greater than liquid water at the same temperature, then “density error” is reported.

Porosity is computed using Equation 4.1; however, if density > 1.0 g/ml, the worksheet reports “density error.” Porosity is not calculated if “density error” exists.

The volume of the voids is computed using Equation 5.0. Like porosity, if “density error” is reported, the volume of the voids is not calculated.

The compressive strength (Fo) is computed using Equation 6.0. Compressive stress σc is computed by dividing Fo by the original average cross-sectional area.

PercentAir

Percent Ice

Figure 2.24 Opacity Value (dimensionless) for freezer iceballs

PercentAir

Figure 2.25 Porosity values (%) of freezer iceballs

PercentAir

Figure 2.26 Compressive strength (lbf) of freezer iceballs

PercentAir

Figure 2.27 Compressive stress (psi) of freezer iceballs

PercentAir

Figure 2.28 Volume of voids (ml) for freezer iceballs

PercentAir

Figure 2.29 Average diameter (mm) freezer iceballs

PercentAir

Figure 2.30 Density (g/ml) of freezer iceballs

Pilot tests confirmed that Fo varies with hailstone opacity. Since our model for selecting the light wavelength that represents a specific hailstone is based upon the highest percent/longest diameter light passing through the stone for the longest light wavelength multiplied by a scaling factor, we have a uniform method for comparing the Fo to the opacity wavelength value. Note that we measure opacity with the longest (Z-axis) in the vertical. This is done to provide

uniformity in our procedure and represents the longest axis that light must travel through the sample.

Per recommendations from committee member Dr. Mario Beruvides, the pilot study did not include regression analysis of the opacity and Fo, or other stone properties. This was left undone to reduce bias and prevent forming hypotheses that were tailored to the results. Results were not recorded.

Results and Discussion No natural hailstones or simulated hailstones (frozen from the inside out) were available for this analysis. This analysis is for freezer iceballs only. A total of 48+ freezer iceballs were assessed for this investigation, 17 were melted for the air volume test and 13 were usable for the compression load assessment. The 18 stones remaining were partially usable due to incomplete data records, data collection or data entry errors. Those samples whose data could not be verified were omitted from the analysis.

The light source intensity variance was too large to function as a diagnostic tool for this analysis. The data do confirm a relationship between opacity value and Fo; however, light source variability could not be adequately controlled due to equipment random error. The hypothesis that light intensity (opacity value) can serve as an NDT as a suitable proxy for Fo is not confirmed, and its accuracy is not yet great enough to produce sufficiently accurate results. Testing was done on freezer iceballs. No hailstones were available for this investigation. If this test can be repeated with a reliable light source and the resulting R2 increase is consistent with the increased consistency of the light source then the resulting model may be suitable for estimating Fo, c, , ,Vv and other engineering and physical properties.

Future work will include construction of a suitable light source with consistently and sufficiently low SD for each color (wavelength) to allow further development of the opacity value and collect sufficient data to produce repeated results. The existing light source had an average SD that was simply too large to produce accurate results. Table 2.10 shows the SD for each color of ROYGBIV+W and each color’s average SD percent of the lowest average SD of all colors.

100

Table 2.10 SD for Colors ROYGBIV+W and Relative Percentages of Lowest SD Color SD – avg. of 26 sets of 32 samples % of lowest SD (Blue) difference to per set (6,656 observations) lowest Red 50.115 405.27% 305.27% Orange 50.794 410.76% 310.76% Yellow 58.625 474.08% 374.08% Green 91.658 741.21% 641.21% Blue 12.366 100.00% 0.00% Indigo 24.574 198.72% 98.72% Violet 37.834 305.95% 205.95% White 49.289 398.58% 298.58%

From Table 2.10 we can see the spread in the average SD values for 26 sets of ROYGBIV+W, with 32 observations of each color in each set; the SD range is too high. The largest average SD (Green, 91.658) is more than 7.4 times larger than the smallest average SD (Blue 12.366). We therefore conclude that we did not confirm our hypothesis and that a relationship does not exist between opacity value and Fo. Our equipment does not yet produce sufficiently consistent light intensity to permit us to fully develop a mathematical model that will allow us to reliably estimate Fo (or any other sample property) with the opacity value.

The air bubble recovery method suggested by Milton Smith and modified by Phelps was successfully used to measure the amount of air in freezer iceballs. The volume of air recovered was not consistent with the volume of voids estimated by the porosity calculation. The measurement of samples with calipers was not sufficiently accurate to reproduce the same values measured using the liquid displacement method. Sample dry and wet weight was measured with a calibrated scale; however, the graduated cylinder used to measure liquid displacement was not calibrated. These issues increase the uncertainty associated with this measurement; however, the liquid displacement method was considered superior to the caliper method because the caliper method produce dozens of “density error” warnings. “Density error” warnings resulting from samples measurements that had densities greater than that of water at 4 oC. Earth-bound terrestrial ice type Ih floats. Those measurements with density error warnings could not be

101

considered for further use. The liquid displacement method produced two “density error” warnings. Both methods were used to compute sample volumes. Of the 48 samples that were measured with both the caliper and liquid displacement methods 26 had the caliper method report “density error”, the liquid displacement method had two. The two displacement measurements that produced “density error” warnings likely resulted from movement that caused the liquid silicone to splash into the catch can that otherwise would not have been transferred to the graduated cylinder. Of the 28 “density error” messages about 93% came from the caliper method.

102

Conclusions

The use of opacity for assessing hailstones remains an open question. This investigation on freezer iceballs confirms that light intensity varies with sample density (), diameter, Fo, c, porosity (), and the volume of voids. This investigation does not confirm opacity as a suitable NDT method because of uncontrolled variability of our light source and that only freezer iceballs were tested, no hailstones were available. Only freezer iceballs were available for testing. Additional work with suitable a suitable light source should be performed to confirm if the accuracy of the opacity method can provide a reliable NDT method.

This investigation confirms that melting samples and collecting the air bubbles is a suitable measure for assessing the volume of air contained in hailstones and freezer iceballs. No natural hailstones were available for this investigation; however, the mechanics of how the method is performed remain the same for natural hailstones as for freezer iceballs.

Plotting the relative percentages of ice, air and liquid water is a suitable method for displaying the spatial relationship for each of the items listed in Table 2.9. The values plotted in figures 2.24-2.30 are for freezer iceballs. The air content in freezer iceballs was consistently low which skewed our results for all test items. Plotting hailstone and freezer relative percentages of ice, air, and liquid water provides a reliable, if not tedious method for displaying the relationships of ice, air, and liquid water. Plotting the data is difficult if all the data points are clustered around one corner of the plot. We added data points for 100% ice, 100% air, and 100% water because we could compute the values for these data locations using the equations described in Figures 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9for Ice, Air and Liquid Freshwater respectively.

A suitable 12 VDC LED light source with individual LED’s for each color should be constructed such that each color has three LED diodes that are controlled as a group. When energized, only the three LEDs in the group are used. No color combinations that are blended to produce other colors can be allowed. The wire lengths for each LED should be the same specification and length. All items for each color group should be identical and from the same manufacturer. Each LED diode should receive the same current and electrical power. The colors

103

should include Infrared, near Infrared, and Ultraviolet wavelengths in addition to ROYGBIV. As previously stated, the light source should be the most reliable system in the assemblage producing consistent results – consistently.

104

CHAPTER IV

IV. FRACTURE MECHANICS AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF NATURAL HAILSTONES AND FREEZER ICEBALL COMPRESSIVE STRESS RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP Introduction Hailstorm investigations have traditionally focused on the meteorological facts and documented damage to determine if the insured real property has been damaged by the subject storm. Not until engineering science and mathematics were applied to the analysis has the need for hailstone engineering properties become so relevant. In introducing the use of engineering science, engineers are subjected to legal and technical scrutiny requiring documentation of both the damage profile and causation model that produced the alleged damage.

105

Knight and Knight (2001) and Matson and Huggins (1980) found the terminal velocity of smooth spherical hailstones fits Equation 1.0. ASTM E822-92 Standard Practice for Determining Resistance of Solar Collector Covers to Hail by Impact with Propelled Ice Balls uses Equations 1.1 and 1.2. Equation 1.1 is more conservative than 1.0 and will consistently return smaller values for the same diameter stone as Equation 1.0 with ρa = 1.2, ρice = 916.7 both 3 values in kg/m units, and Cd = 0.47. Equation 1.2 estimates the resulting hailstone velocity from the terminal velocity and wind speed. ASTM E822 uses Equations 1.1 and 1.2 with propelled ice balls.

1/2 VT = (2mg/CdρaA) 1.0

VT = 14.04√d 1.1

2 2 Vr = √VT +VW 1.2

Where:

VT – hailstone terminal velocity (m/s) m – mass of hailstone (kg) g – gravity (m/s2) Cd – drag coefficient dimensionless ρa – air density (kg/ml) A – cross sectional area of hailstone (m2) d – diameter of hailstone (mm) VW – wind velocity (m/s) Vr – resultant velocity of hailstone (m/s)

Heymsfield (1978) found that hailstone diameter and fall speed had an almost linear relationship. Matson and Huggins (1980) reported their finding that falling hailstones had a drag coefficient (Cd) median value of 0.87.

Knight and Heymsfield (1983) found that hailstones grown with smooth surfaces have higher falling velocities, and that the same hailstone without the added smoother surface and the computed CD values were similar to those reported by Matson and Huggins (1980) and

Heymsfield (1978). However, CD values are a function not only of surface roughness and mass, but also density. These factors do not include the changes in the density of the air through which the stones are falling. Stones will fall faster in less dense air but slow down when they encounter a layer of more dense air.

106

Heymsfield, Giammanco and Wright (2014) reported that non-sphericity will result in lower terminal velocities and kinetic energies (average) than spherical stones of the same diameter. These authors also found that hails with an area ratio to an equivalent diameter sphere with values of 0.72 to 0.79 fell slower. The closer this value is to 1.0, the more it represents the ideal sphere; this is consistent with Phelps’s experience in the investigation of more than 100 hail-damaged structures. This fact was observed at least as early as 1937. Bilham and Relf (1937) published hailstone growth data based on drag coefficients for spheres. List (1959) determined drag coefficients for hailstones between 18 and 32g and found that roughly spherical stones had drag coefficients of 0.6 and oblate stones (axis ratios 1:0.8:0.6) had values of about 0.7; however, none of these investigations separated shape from surface roughness.

Many people have observed hailstorms where the hail seemed to produce less damage than might be expected based upon the observed hail size. Many people have seen real property damage result from hail that seemed too small to cause so much damage. At least four reasonable explanations exist for this discrepancy: (i) the damaged components were old enough that they had lost some or most of their hail resilience; (ii) the hail did not really cause as much damage as it may have seemed; (iii) wind blowing during the hail event caused the hail to move faster, increasing its Kinetic Energy (KE) content such that, though it may have appeared too small to create such damage, the KE was sufficient to create the observed damage profile; (iv) the hardness (compressive strength) of the hail was so low it did not translate its KE into sufficient impact energy to produce damage. In cases where the hail was very hard, the damage profile would appear quite different if sufficient KE were also present. This explanation illustrates the importance of understanding hail compressive strength and the way hail fractures on impact.

From this literature review it is apparent that both shape and surface roughness are factors that affect the terminal velocity of falling hails. Macklin and Ludlam (1961) report that “drag coefficients from those spheres was between (about 0.45) to about 0.8, depending on the shape and surface characteristics of the stone.” These investigators used a novel weather balloon to raise hailstones to a height of about 2 km before dropping the stones. Of the 17 stones, all were mostly spherical (no comparison of shape) and all were “relatively smooth surfaces with no major projections (no comparison of surface roughness). Wind tunnel tests comparing spherical

107

to oblate hailstone shapes suggest that non-spherical hails fall with the longest axis in the horizontal. List (1959) confirms the fall orientation using experiments in a water tank and confirmed that hails do tend to fall with the long axis in the horizontal. This has subsequently been confirmed by weather radar.

Macklin and Ludlam (1961) found that spherical hailstones (plasticine models) 1:1:1 ratio had Reynolds (Re) of 7-17 and 5.5-13 for smooth spheres with depressions and projections, respectively. These same spheres had drag coefficients (CD) of 0.45 – 0.21 for smooth surfaces, 0.5 – 0.21 for depression surfaces and 0.53 – 0.25 for smooth with projections. Those smooth models with XYZ ratios of 1:0.75:0.68 had a Re of 6-14 with CD of (0.48 – 0.35), (0.50 – 0.25), (0.39 – 0.16) for 0, 45, and 90-degree orientation.

Those models of the same XYZ ratio with depressions had CD values of 0.7 – 0.35.

These data suggest that the relationship between CD due to shape is similar in magnitude to that due to surface roughness.

This paper summarizes that “CD values for smooth spheres ranges from 0.45 to 0.8 and depends mainly on the shape and the Re.” Macklin and Ludlam do not propose a mathematical relationship between the contributions of shape and surface roughness to total CD. Since their data appear to be about the same from each source, Equation 2.0 with the velocity components exchanged with CD for shape (CDs) and CD for roughness (CDr) might represent a suitable model for a combined drag coefficient. These data have a high level of uncertainty in part because they are based upon results from only three observations, thereby eliminating statistical analysis and repeatability.

2 2 CD = √(CDs +CDr ) 2.0

Locatelli and Hobbs (1974) found that more dense ice particles fall faster than less dense particles, and that densely rimed particles fall up to twice as fast as unrimed particles of the same maximum dimension.

Knight and Knight (1970) found that “normal falling behavior of moderate-to-large hailstones is rapid symmetrical tumbling.”

108

Most of the Knights’ observations are from spherical and oblate-shaped stones. Most of the photographs in their article, particularly Figures 3.8.0, 3.9.0 and 3.13.0, show that not only are hailstones not isotropic, they are unbalanced, which may contribute to the identified tumbling behavior. It would seem logical that midair collisions would contribute to tumbling of falling hailstones. If Knight and Knight are correct, then research from investigators such as Macklin and Ludlam should be re-evaluated in light of “rapid symmetrical tumbling.”

The WSR 88D radar with the Correlation Coefficient (CC) product can interrogate a storm system and identify the orientation of hydrometeors. With the CC product, meteorologists can interrogate a storm and obtain an understanding of the orientation of the hydrometeors (including hail) within the cloud until they fall below the radar beam. Of course, the radar cannot estimate the falling behavior of hails below its beam. Many oblate hails have been observed to fall with a “weather cocking” behavior; that term describes tumbling behavior of a specific type that maintains horizontal orientation of the longest axis.

The concept of objects orienting themselves at approximately a right angle to the prevailing wind can be observed in almost any wind-powered device. As a boy growing up in Muleshoe, Texas, Phelps routinely observed windmills rotating to direct the fan blades to approximately right angles with the prevailing wind. In a very real sense, oblate hailstones are doing the same. Since hailstones are seldom symmetrical or balanced, this induces rotation that may cause the hailstone to tumble as it falls.

Forecasting is the meteorologist’s best reading of sounding and radar data to suggest the most likely size, intensity and locations where hailstorms may occur.

On June 6th, 2015, in Lubbock, Texas, the National Weather Service (NWS) issued a severe storm warning for Lubbock County and the northeast portion of the City of Lubbock. The NWS told the public to seek shelter immediately from anticipated 3” diameter hail and winds of 70+ mph. The storm did produce high winds (about 73 mph) with hail (pea to ping pong size) and heavy rain in the Texas Panhandle; however, little if any hail or high wind occurred in Lubbock at the time of this warning. Forecasting, no matter how good it may be, is no substitute for a “boots on the ground” investigation to confirm damage and hail impact sizes.

109

Fawbush and Miller (1953) developed one of the first methods for forecasting hailstone size. These authors used a thermodynamic basis from sounding or predicted sounding data near an area of expected thunderstorm activity. Fawbush and Miller’s method was primarily empirical. Foster and Bates (1956) proposed a more physically based system and compared their results to the Fawbush and Miller method. Sounding data from 41 cases was analyzed by Fawbush and Miller using both methods, and the Foster and Bates method showed a “slight improvement” .

Kuhne and Wichmann (2011) showed how historical information is helpful in identifying the occurrence, or the probability that a specified hail event will occur in a specified geographical area.

Natural hailstone shape is quite variable and can be spherical, oblate, or almost any variety of symmetrical or non-symmetrical shapes or combinations of shapes. Some hailstones are spikes or star-shaped with many points that, if they are the point of contact, place all the stones’ KE in a very small area that may be only a fraction of the diameter of the entire hailstone.

One way of quantifying the shape of a hailstone is to take the volume (by the Archimedes method) and compute the diameter and compare it to the average measured diameter by direct measurement. This method is used by many researchers. (Knight, 1978, Heymsfield 1983)

The formation of hail is a fascinating study and beyond the scope of this investigation; however, a literature review of this topic is essential to understanding and mimicking the growth of simulated hailstones. Phelps’ patent pending hail growth incubator is designed and constructed to mimic the basic hail growth process found in one structural type of natural hailstone--cyclic or layer construction; however, the growth incubator can grow hailstones with either wet or dry growth, or both. Without an understanding of natural hail formation, it would not have been possible to design the hail incubator used in this investigation.

Chaplin (2012) continues, the nucleation that occurs at the air-water interface will be greatly enhanced (by a factor of 1010) over the same depth within a water column. The online dictionary, Dictionary.com, defines nucleation as “the beginning of chemical or physical changes at discrete points in a system, such as the formation of crystals in a liquid.”

110

Wikipedia adds: nucleation is the first step in the formation of either a new thermodynamic phase or a new structure via self-assembly or self-organization. Nucleation is often found to be very sensitive to impurities in the system such as air bubbles or dissolved gases. Therefore, it is often important to distinguish between heterogeneous nucleation and homogeneous nucleation. Heterogeneous nucleation occurs at nucleation sites on surfaces in the system, such as a graupel. Homogeneous nucleation occurs away from a surface. Nucleation is usually a stochastic (random) process, so even in two identical systems, nucleation will occur at different times. Clouds form when wet air cools (often because the air rises) and many small water droplets nucleate from the supersaturated air. The amount of water vapor that air can carry decreases with lower temperatures. The excess vapor begins to nucleate and to form small water droplets which form a cloud.

Nucleation of the droplets of liquid water is heterogeneous, occurring on particles referred to as cloud condensation nuclei (graupels). The freezing of small water droplets to ice is an important process, particularly in the formation and dynamics of clouds. Water (at atmospheric pressure) that does not freeze at 0 oC, but at temperatures that tend to decrease as the volume of the water decreases and as the water impurity increases. An example of experimental data on the freezing of small water droplets. The fraction of a large set of water droplets that are still liquid water, i.e., have not yet frozen, as a function of temperature. Note that the highest temperature at which any of the droplets freezes is close to -19 C, while the last droplet to freeze does so at almost -35 C. The data are from work by Dorsch and Hacker.

Nucleation of a new phase does not rely on the new phase already being present, either because it is the very first nucleus of that phase to form, or because the nucleus forms far from any pre-existing piece of the new phase. Particularly in the study of crystallization, secondary nucleation can be important. This is the formation of nuclei of a new crystal directly caused by pre-existing crystals. For example, if the crystals are in a solution and the system is subject to shearing forces, small crystal nuclei could be sheared off a growing crystal, thereby increasing the number of crystals in the system. Thus, both primary and secondary nucleation increase the number of crystals in the system, but their mechanisms are very different: secondary nucleation relies on crystals already being present.

111

The formation of ice crystals on graupels would be primary nucleation since the graupel provides the surface the crystals form upon; secondary nucleation occurs on the first formed crystals. A hailstone at this phase is still quite small (on the order of a few mm).

Duft and Leisner (2004) find the smaller water droplets (< 1 μm) are more likely to freeze (nucleate) homogeneously in the atmosphere. Their results indicate that droplets around 10 μm resulted from predominantly homogeneous nucleation by a volume proportional rate. That is to say that homogeneous nucleation tends to occur even for 10 μm size water droplets because the surface area is large relative to the volume.

Frias, Abascal, Millan, Garcia, Lopez-Vera, Delgado, Garcia, Rodriguez-Losada, Reyes, Rubi and Gomez-Coedo (2001) report that “the number of layers in a hailstone reveals the number of up-down journeys it has made before reaching the earth.”

Thus, most hailstones acquire onion skin layers from traveling up and down in a storm (cyclic growth). However, recent research has shown that there is not a single, simple process of hail formation. Hailstones may actually form in several ways. Some hailstones can grow while balanced in an updraft and have little layering (static growth). Stones may also form around raindrops that are carried high into the storm and freeze. Finally, some hailstones form around ice crystals. “Water vapor in the atmosphere is the key trace gas controlling weather and climate, and plays a central role in atmospheric chemistry, influencing the heterogeneous chemical reactions that destroy stratospheric ozone. An increase in water vapor could thus lead to greater ozone loss. A second critical atmospheric feature, which contributes to the formation of large hailstones, is the existence of significant changes in wind velocity with increasing height (shear). This shear has to be such that small hail fired out of the top of the storm eventually falls into the strong inflow at the base of the storm to be swept round again, perhaps several times. With each passage through the storm, the size of the chunk increases.” (Doswell, 2001)

Hailstone growth tends to follow the lines of two growth types. Wet growth is typified by liquid water coating the hailstone and freezing slowly enough that dissolved gases have time to come out of suspension, rise to the surface and escape to the atmosphere before the water freezes and locks the bubble in place. Wet growth tends to produce clear, strong ice that has fewer dissolved gases (impurities). The other growth type is dry growth and is typified by supercooled water and water vapor that freezes on contact with the forming hailstone.

112

Since the water freezes on contact, dissolved gases are trapped in the forming hailstone and result in microbubbles that tend to produce cloudy, spongy ice with lower compressive strength than wet growth. This is not to say that these two are the only growth processes for hailstones. Many larger hailstones contain smaller hailstones that represent mid-air collisions of growing hailstones that impact and fuse together (impact growth). Many times, all these growth types are present in the same hailstone (conglomerate growth) and may repeat any number of times within the hailstone.

Ludlam (1958 and 1959) identified hail growth occurring in wet and dry growth conditions and Hitschfeld and Douglas (1961) developed a one-dimensional model of hailstone growth around embryos as a function of temperature and cloud water content. Musil (1969) developed a similar one-dimensional model for both wet and dry growth. The Musil models are non-steady-state. These models show that the fate of any embryo is dependent upon the time and place it enters circulation and its size.

Musil’s figure 6 depicts the fate of specified-size embryos based upon time and indicates that a “given embryo yielded the largest hail in graphs P25 and R25.” Musil’s models estimate final hail sizes of around 1.3 cm (embryo size 30-50 μm) in about 40 minutes or less.

The time value from Musil is somewhat less than the growth rates observed in Phelps hail incubator, which will produce 4.5 cm (1.75 inch) stones in about the same length of time but starts with a larger ice graupel (about 0.5 X 1 cm cylinders). Also, the embryo shape for Musil’s equations was assumed to be spherical, and Phelps were cylindrical.

Musil continues, “The dry-growth state continues as long as the hailstone is able to dispel all the heat resulting from collisions with liquid droplets while maintaining a temperature < 0 oC. However, as increasing amounts of liquid water are encountered, the temperature of the surface of the stone reaches 0 oC, a thin film of water forms on the stone and the condition of wet growth has been reached. Hailstone growth under these conditions depends primarily on the rate at which heat can be transferred away from the stone to the environment.” As previously stated, this is a one-dimensional model and assumes liquid water is shed and does not become part of the stone structure. List (1963) showed that some liquid does become trapped in the lattice structure forming in the stone. The trapping of liquid water is confirmed by Gitlin and Goyer (1968) who found hailstones contained 0 to more than 4% liquid water by weight.

113

Natural hailstones are seldom merely falling chunks of ice. Upon close examination we find that hailstones have many different constructs that can occur in any combination and may be repeated many times, all in the same hailstone. Since hailstones freeze “from the inside out,” they can have layered construction.

Browning (1966) found that large (giant) hailstones (upwards of 8 cm (3.15”) diameter) “grew as three-dimensional arrays of more or less completely frozen lobes, sometimes but not always separated by regions of spongy ice characterized by radial lines of bubbles.” This appearance can give the false impression that the stone is an aggregate of smaller hailstones. Due to surface roughness, these hailstones have more efficient heat loss, reducing the presence of liquid water.

Carte (1960) found that “ice formed with bubbles of air in the ice is due to the water containing dissolved air. Both bubble concentration and sizes were found to depend on the rate of freezing.” He adds, “bubbles were formed at the ice-water boundary when the concentration of dissolved air reached a critical value which, for rates of freezing greater than 2 mm min-1, corresponded to a supersaturation ratio of 30.”

114

Issues with hailstones and freezer iceball testing Like many other natural occurrences, hailstones are highly variable. Variability occurs in size, density, construction type, shape, and surface roughness; the variations result in significant changes in the hailstones’ terminal velocity, compressive strength, Kinetic Energy (KE), and damage potential. Since KE is the mass times the square of the impact velocity, terminal velocity is a very significant factor in hailstone damage to real property.

Most tests of building materials with propelled iceballs are made without understanding the numerical relationships between freezer iceballs and natural hails (Phelps et al, (2018a)). In most cases of product testing, there is no attempt to explain the difference between freezer iceballs and natural hails. Marshall (2010) estimates that freezer iceballs represent the “worst case scenario” of hailstone impacts.

Hailstones and freezer iceballs are not solely ice. These objects principally contain ice, air and liquid water in varying amounts (Phelps, 2018a,b). The amount of void space within a hailstone or iceball can be computed based upon sample density and comparison to the density of pure ice at the same temperature (Phelps (2018b), Equation 4.1). Estimating the void space will allow us to determine the percent of the sample that is pure ice, and how much of the sample volume is ice and voids; however, it does not tell us what is inside the voids. Void contents can include air, liquid water, and water vapor. Using the method described by Phelps (2018b), we can reliably measure the amount of air in the voids, but this method does not address the amount of water vapor or liquid water in the void spaces. The amount of liquid water is described by b Phelps (2018 ), Equation 5.3, by rearranging terms and solving for Vwater. Both natural hailstones and freezer iceballs possess unique values of their relative percentages of their principal components, which have large effects on their density, mass, Fo and c.

Freezer iceballs are typical of monotonic or static construction: they exist as a single solid piece and are not typically made in layers or rings. Hailstones vary naturally in construction types. Freezer iceballs can be created with a variety of freezing techniques that can produce iceballs with many small bubbles (opaque appearance) and those of clear ice with very few bubbles. Freezer iceballs can be produced with ring or layered construction; however, they cannot be frozen from the inside out. Natural hailstones are created by ice accreting (growing)

115

on a solid surface (graupel). As more water is made available either as liquid or vapor, hailstones will continue to grow, but from the inside out.

In some conditions where rising and falling growing hailstones pass through different layers of air (temperature, pressure, moisture), the growing hail embryo will add another layer (growth ring). The ring-like structure may add strength to the hailstone in the same fashion that layered wood will produce stronger wood products like plywood, Oriented Strand Board (OSB) or Parallel Strand Lumber (PSL). These engineered wood products are stronger than their native grown counterparts, in part due to the layering effect that reduces the natural variability in growing wood.

Natural hailstones and to a lesser degree freezer iceballs introduce uncontrolled variables into their construction that affect the compressive strength (Fo) and compressive stress (c). If these two variables are affected by construction type, then the values representing them will be affected, too.

Figure 3.1 Ice Structure and Axis Orientation

116

Practically all ice on our planet is type Ih, known as hexagonal ice, as shown in Figure 3.1. It is so named for its hexagonal structure states (M.F. Chaplin (2012)). Ih ice forms along three axes in the horizontal plane and one in the vertical. On the horizontal plane, Axes a1, a2, and a3 extend radially. The an plane and the vertical, longer z Axis plane have different properties. The compressive strength of ice depends upon which axis is being assessed (Chaplin (2012)).

Compression loads applied to the long axis of single grains of ice indicate that z axis is much stronger than the same load applied perpendicular to the z Axis, according to Gold (1977). The structure of ice, particularly sea ice, was studied by Erland M. Schulson (JOM, 1999), who found that the ice was brittle in tension and ductile under compression. Schulson reports that the Ih ice ductile-brittle transition is rate sensitive and that Young’s modulus for single grains of ice varied by less than 30% from 12GPa (parallel to Axis c) to 8.6GPa for inclined angles to either Axis c or Axis a, depending on the load angle relative to the axis of the crystal shape. The shape consists of two axes, c--the longer of the two and shown by Schulson in the vertical, and Axis a, shown in the horizontal. Schulson furthers reports the load response is rate dependent.

Schulson and Chaplin agree that ice is stronger in compression along one axis that it is on its other axes. This is the basis for ice not qualifying as an isotropic material.

As hailstones fall they tumble randomly. Hailfall is chaotic, and many hailstones collide in mid-air, resulting in changes in falling conditions. Since hailstone impact can occur along any axis or inclination to an axis, one cannot predict to which axis (if any) the impact force might act parallel. Since a single crystal hailstone is unlikely, the added complication of multiple crystals within a single hailstone will change the compression resistance along a single axis. No method exists for estimating axes’ orientation during hailfall.

It is more likely than not that multi-crystal hailstones will predominate in any hailfall occurrence. These two facts partly explain why hailstones are of varying hardness and why test results vary so much between samples.

117

The compressive strength test produces a wide range of results for both natural hailstones and freezer iceballs. The commonality of ice grain and plane orientation shows that at least some variance in compressive strength (Fo) results from ice axis/plane orientation relevant to the application of force, or impact.

Temperature, humidity, methods and procedures, and physical conditions for freezer iceballs and natural hails should be virtually identical. Both should be below freezing. The freezer iceball assessments by Phelps (2018a,b) were done at a temperature of -2.2 oC (28 oF). These test conditions are difficult for both equipment and people. This makes progress slow, tedious and expensive. The testing procedure between freezer iceballs and natural hails should not vary. Freezer iceballs and hailstones (natural or simulated by incubator growth) should be inter-mixed (by size) when possible to reduce bias.

The analysis of compressive strength (Fo) and compressive stress (σc) should be different for spherical objects like hailstones and iceballs than for samples that are shapes of cylinders and ribbons. Sample shape has a big impact on what the data tell us and how we should interpret them.

In materials testing, there are tests for measuring the hardness of the material. Tests such as the Brinell hardness test for steel and other products are actually testing the surface (near surface) only and are not suitable for our purposes in hailstone testing. For hailstone testing we need to measure the compressive strength (compressive load resistance) to approximate the projectile’s fragility.

In measuring compressive load resistance, we must consider the application of materials science and the mechanics of materials as applied to the unique nature of hailstones. For example, in testing products such as concrete, the sample shape and dimensions are optimized to facilitate the testing strategy, namely the ratio of the sample diameter (d) to its length (>= 2d). This ratio has been found to give the most repeatable results and engineers have developed a great deal of understanding based upon this sample shape and dimensions. (ASTM C39) This would also be true for natural products like wood, that uses square, clear span samples free of knots, pitch pockets or other visible defects and are dried to a standard percentage before being tested (ASTM D4761-13). Both cited test standards define the sample size, shape, geometry and test configuration. Hailstones and freezer iceballs are mostly spherical; therefore,

118

the sample geometry dictates the test method, not the standard dictating the sample geometry. Testing hail or freezer iceballs preempts standard sample size, geometry or test configuration.

One of the largest problems is that the shape of the sample cannot be chosen or optimized to facilitate calculation, understanding or process. The analysis of load on spheres is a challenge. Another challenging area is uniformity. In testing steel, we assume the material is homogenous and isotropic; even with wood, we control the sample dimensions and conditions such that isotropicism and homogeneity are optimized. Hailstones, however, are anything but homogenous or isotropic. How, then, to apply mechanics of materials testing to this oddly shaped, somewhat spherical, non-homogenous and non-isotropic material? How do we test this shape and avoid using existing materials methods and terminology incorrectly? And most of all, how do we know that test results are telling us what we think they are? Testing building products like concrete, steel and wood has been done for many years; the methods have matured and procedures have been refined to produce reliable results. These building materials methods and procedures are so well defined that they dictate what the measurand parameters will be. Ice, and hailstones specifically, are utterly different materials; their shape dictates the testing methods and procedures--not at all the case with most building products. It is unclear if the stress-strain relationships as we understand them for concrete and other building products will provide us a suitable foundation for understanding what stress-strain means for these oddly shaped samples and the non-isotropic and non-homogenous ice they are made from. Natural hailstones have the added complexity of air and water inside the ice matrix. Such “impurities” are not present in other materials such as wood, steel, concrete or glass.

119

History of materials testing of concrete and wood Concrete is a good place to start in developing our basis for load testing of hailstones. Like ice, concrete can respond as a ductile or brittle material, depending upon the loading rate. Slow loading rates that give concrete (or ice) the time needed to deflect will have a ductile response to a sufficiently slow strain rate; on the other hand, a rapid loading rate will typically cause concrete (and ice) to respond as a brittle material to this high strain rate.

The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard ACI – 214R11 provides a standard method for testing concrete cores for compressive and tensile strength testing based upon ASTM C39 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. These test methods used cylinders with diameter (d) and length (2d). The purpose of the relationship between cylinder diameter and length is to allow the stress cone to develop fully. The stress cone, Figure 3.2, shows that the application of force to the test cylinder will manifest itself as cone shapes from the top and bottom of the cylinder.

Figure 3.2.0 Cone Shape from Concrete Cylinder Compression Load Test, from CIP-35 by the NRMCA

120

Since concrete is among the most used building components in the built environment, it is very well researched and testing methods are well developed. The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), now ASTM International, publishes more than 17 standard methods for strength testing of various concrete products and applications. Concrete is a strictly manmade product consisting mostly of kiln-dried powdered limestone, clay and aggregate.

This mixture does not exist in nature; however, it is one of the most common and essential elements in the built environment. A tension load test on concrete cylinders is typically taken by laying the cylinder on its long axis and compressing the length of the cylinder as shown in Figure 3.3. Tension values as well as compression values are needed to evaluate the stress-strain relationship of the sample.

Figure 3.2.1 Tension Load Test on a Concrete Cylinder, Matt O’Reilly KU Structures Lab (2013)

121

Like ice, wood is a natural material that is neither homogenous or isotropic. However, wood grain, an indication of non-homogeneity, is visible; such visibility in ice is not always the case. Testing of wood is divided into numerous areas of interest, such as forestry and fire performance; physical and engineering properties are broken into dimensional and panel wood products. ASTM International (ASTM) publishes more than 61 standard methods of testing dimensional and panel wood products.

Clear (no visible knots or pitch pockets, or other defects) square ends (2-8 cm, 1-3 inch) and about six to 24 cm (three to nine inch) long spans (rectangular cuboid, or a three- dimensional orthotope) are tested for compressive resistance as shown in Figure 3.3.

These load tests confirm that wood will fail in compression as a ductile material and less like a brittle material such as concrete; however, not all failure load patterns are so different between brittle and ductile materials. Figure 3.4 shows a ductile failure pattern that is similar to the brittle concrete failure pattern seen in Figure 3.2.

122

Figure 3.4 Wood in Compressive Load Failure Note failure in center of test specimen. From TU delft, faculty of Civil Engineering (2013), YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFI2kgbqm_Q

123

Figure 3.5 Wood Compressive Load Test on Glulam Assembly Note that failure cone at top is similar to the cone shape in Figure 3.2.

Compressive load tests on wood and concrete are not the same as such testing on spheres. Due to their geometry, compressive load testing on spheres offers an additional set of challenges that other shapes do not present. Figure 3.6 is a compressive test on hydrogel (a kind of rubber).

124

Figure 3.6 Compression Load on Hydrogel Sphere. Note that the deflection (flattened shape) at the top and bottom are similar, and the bulging sides are also proportional to each other. Since it is a 3D object, the bulging is on all vertical sides. From http://cellscale.com/products/microsquisher/ via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDIOHAHwvf8

This is not quite the same as ice, Figure 3.6 only displays the deflected shape of the test specimen. In Figure 3.7 we finally see the applied load and load response on a compressed sphere.

125

Figure 3.7 Load Test on Sphere with Load/Time Graph of the Response though Rupture. Note failure point at top of graph. From Hysitron's TEM Picoindenter - PI 95 via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36HaEIr3TOM

The data shown in Figure 3.7 show the load (μN s-1), which gives some insight into the load response of this sphere; however, without measurements of the relative compressed distance, expansion of the sphere equator and tensile strength, we are needlessly limited and unable to determine the stress-strain response, Poisson ratio and other engineering properties. By measuring the compressed distance (axial), equatorial expansion distance (transverse) and tensile strength, we can determine numerous engineering properties that facilitate numerous moduli, stress-strain relationships and analysis of internal stresses and strains inside the hailstone.

126

In order to complete the desired engineering calculations, we need to know the compressive load and distance and the tension load and distance to compute the stress-strain relationships and other engineering properties of ice spheres and hailstones.

Work on the engineering properties of hail and how this affects damage potential for the building envelopes they impact from (Kim and Kedward 2000; Schulson and Duval 2009; Swift 2013) agrees with other investigators like Tim Marshall, Jim Koontz, Matt B. Phelps, Robert Wright, and Neil Hall.

Knight and Knight (2001) focused on hail growth models and process, and radar detection of severe hail. Browning (1963), Browning and Foote (1976), Browning (1977), Macklin (1977), Foote and Knight (1977), Ziegler (1983), Knight and Knight (2001), Blair and Leighton (2012), Knight (2008 and Heymsfield (2014) recorded the physical measurements of hailstones--diameter, mass, shape and density; however, these researchers did not address the engineering or materials science properties of hailstones. Giammanco, Brown, Grant, Dewey, Hodel, and Stumpf (2015) made progress on hail hardness (compressive strength) and they did measure the compressive stress (σc) (Equation 3.0); however, they did not measure stress-strain relationships and were unable to opine as to engineering properties of hailstones. None of the above-mentioned researchers compared hailstone data to a Non-Destructive Test (NDT) method; therefore, they were unable to estimate the properties of hailstones based upon a NDT method that would leave the hailstone intact and provide inferred information as to its various engineering properties.

Giammanco, et al (2015) did find that hailstone hardness (compressive stress) varied (see Table 3.1); however, no regression or comparison to other hailstone properties was made.

127

Table 3.1 Hail Physical Properties (from Giammanco, et al (2015)

Data from Table 3.1 resulted from the compressive load (lbf) divided by the maximum cross-sectional area and converted to mPa units.

Hobbs (1974) agrees with Gold (1958), who found that in the temperature range -3 to -40 oC (26.6 to -40 oF) that ice Ih “behaves as an almost perfect elastic body and Hooke’s Law is obeyed provided the stress is kept below a certain value and the duration of the stress is short enough. A maximum stress of 10 bar (145 psi), a rate of stressing of 5 bar (72.5 psi) s-1, with a duration of stress less than 10s were sufficient to satisfy these conditions.”

128

Table 3.2 Reported Values for Materials Properties for Ice

The data in Table 3.2 are for ice of unknown shape or orientation.

Young’s modulus, the modulus of elasticity, is the measure of compression and tension. Young’s modulus, named for the 18th-century English physician and physicist Thomas Young, describes the elastic properties of a solid undergoing tension or compression in only one direction. Young’s modulus is a measure of the ability of a material to withstand changes in length when under lengthwise tension or compression. Young’s modulus is equal to the longitudinal stress divided by the strain. Young’s modulus describes the material’s stress-strain relationship (Beer, Johnston, 1992).

3.0 σc = Fo/A 4.0 Y = σc/(Lo-Lf)

Where: σc – uniaxial compressive stress Fo – applied compressive force A – cross-sectional area Y – Young’s modulus Lo – initial length Lf – final length

129

Shear modulus, also known as the modulus of rigidity, is the rate of change of unit shear stress with respect to unit shear strain for the condition of pure shear within the proportional limit. The modulus of rigidity value of a material is determined by a torsion test (Beer, Johnston, 1992).

5.0  = (dtrans/daxial) 6.0 G = E/(2(1+))

Where:

G – shear modulus E – elastic modulus  - Poisson ratio dtrans – change in transverse strain daxial – change in axial strain

Poisson’s ratio is the ratio of lateral unit strain to longitudinal unit strain under the condition of uniform and uniaxial longitudinal stress within the proportional limit (Beer, Johnston, 1992).

Bulk modulus is the measure of resistance to compression (Beer, Johnston, 1992).

7.0 K = -V dP/dV

Where:

K – bulk modulus V – volume of sample dP – change in applied pressure dV – change in volume of sample

These measures are used to describe the mechanics of materials for a large variety of materials. They provide numerical measures of the various properties they represent and permit additional analysis based upon their value.

130

Some investigators choose to avoid the issue of shape effect by using ice cast as cylinders, columns or other shapes that are typically used in materials testing. Compression testing of ice cylinders and columns may not provide an accurate representation of hailstones or iceballs. Swift (2013) tested iceballs with various amounts of cotton fiber for compliance with ASTM F320 (propelled iceball test of aircraft canopy enclosures). Swift crushed hundreds of iceballs with and without cotton fiber; however, he did not report the modulus or Poisson ratio for any of his tests.

Reconciliation of test methods The test methods for concrete, natural hailstones and freezer iceballs are quite similar. The method used in this investigation includes these procedures:

To test the compressive strength of samples, the bagged sample is placed on the 0,0 mark on the tempered glass base beneath the hydropneumatic press. The glass base sits on a closed cell cushion on top of steel plates. The steel plates/cushion are open in the center and allow an unobstructed view of the sample from beneath. The glass plate has a circular one mm scale to evaluate the size of the deformation of the bottom surface of the stone in the x and y dimensions. When possible, samples are compressed inside plastic bags to reduce shard impacts for personal safety and keep the work place clean and tidy.

131

graph of each compression and its associated deformation is digitally recorded. Ten Hz is numerical equivalent to 10 data points per second. If the compression of a hailstone to rupture takes 2.5 seconds, 25 data points would be collected. Most samples have between ten and 25 data points. The data are displayed with Tracer DAQ Pro software. Values for compression, and for vertical and horizontal deflection, are digitally recorded in real time to individual .csv files for each individual sample.

File management becomes oppressive with such a large volume of observations; therefore, sample compression file names included the date, tray letter and cup number such that each specimen was individually recorded. The file type was .csv which is imported into Excel workbooks. Data files use a similar naming convention but are by date only and include a Roman numeral if more than one per day is used. Data file names would be similar to Hail Engineering Properties 05.15.2018.xlsx. The photo in Figure 3.9 looks quite similar to the breakage patterns in Figures 3.2 and 3.4. Note the similar breaking pattern and debris field.

Testing methods have evolved to provide reliable results for the materials on which they are performed. Most testing methods include the shape and orientation of the materials to be tested, which is to say that the testing method determines the shape and orientation of the test sample.

For example, concrete is one of the most common and reliable building products in the US and many other countries. Testing methods and procedures for the assessment of concrete are highly developed. They did not become so developed overnight. The use of concrete dates to the Egyptians in 2500 BC, and the earliest evidence of the use of concrete is found in Yugoslavia and was thought to have been laid in 5600 BC using red lime as the cement (Lambert, 2002).

Concrete testing was likely done by the Egyptians. Basic tests such as today’s “slump test” require no special tools, instruments or skill; however, the test provides good job site confirmation if the mix of water and solids is acceptable. Modern testing of concrete evolved to determine the limits and orientation of the samples. For example, concrete is most often tested as cylinders with a diameter (d) ratio to length of 2:1, the sample length being about twice the diameter (2d). Concrete samples are also tested with the cylinders in vertical and horizontal orientation. The applied force is a uniaxial parallel load in the vertical, and perpendicular in the horizontal. Wood samples are similarly tested, with samples in the horizontal and vertical

132

orientation and uniaxial force applied parallel to the longest axis in the horizontal and perpendicular in the vertical.

Samples for wood are also defined by the test method. Both concrete and wood are difficult to test in tension, which is why the horizontal test has the load applied perpendicular to the longest axis. This placement provides the same tension assessment that would be measured if the sample could easily be placed in direct tension. Steel and other metals are tested as both cylinders and ribbons--cylinders being tested in compression and ribbons in tension. Steel ribbons can be easily attached to testing equipment for tension testing, but those forms don’t work for concrete or wood.

Figure 3.8 Freezer Iceball in Compression

133

Note debris pile at bottom of sample and internal fracture pattern radiating out from the base toward the top, similar to the sketch in Figure 3.14.

Figure 3.9 Freezer Iceball Breaking Pattern Similar to Figures 3.2 and 3.5 for Concrete and Wood, Respectively

A similar but smaller cone exists on the underside of the top plate, out of view. Note how this cone shape is representative of the shapes in Figures 3.2 and 3.5. This shape will appear again in the figures in the section on finite element analysis.

134

Fracture mechanics The application of fracture mechanics to ice is not new; however, its application to natural hailstones or spherical iceballs is less well known. Most research on this topic has been done on ice cylinders, less on freezer iceballs and none on natural hailstones. The application of fracture mechanics to freezer iceballs is useful to begin understanding how shape and symmetry affect fracture behavior.

Practically all ice on our planet is type Ih, hexagonal ice, as shown in Figure 3.1. It is named for its hexagonal structure states (M.F. Chaplin (2012)). Ice Ih forms along three axes in the horizontal plane and one in the vertical. The horizontal plane, Axes a1, a2, and a3 extended radially with different properties for the an plane and the vertical, z Axis plane. The compressive strength of ice depends upon which axis is being assessed. Compression loads applied to the long axis of single grains of ice indicate that it is much stronger than the same load applied perpendicular to the z Axis, according to Gold, (1977).

Schulson (1999) reports that ductile-brittle transition of type Ih ice was rate sensitive and that the Young’s modulus for single grains of ice varied by less than 30% from 12GPa (parallel to Axis c) to 8.6GPa for inclined angles to either Axis c or Axis a, depending on the load angle relative to the axis of the crystal shape. The shape consists of two axes: Axis c, the longer of the two and shown by Schulson in the vertical, and Axis a, shown in the horizontal. Schulson further reports the load response is rate dependent. A change of 30% due to just one parameter is significant.

Several materials measures exist for ice, as shown in Table 3.1; however, the degree to which the measures apply to spherical ice samples is questionable. Table 3.2 provides Poisson values for a variety of elements, ice being one of them. Table 3.2 indicates the Poisson ratio for ice is 0.33 (Schulson, 1999); however, Schulson cut his samples from blocks of ice in the shape of rectangular bars. These bars may have complied with the test sample condition the length is twice the diameter; however, they do not comply with the general spherical shape of most hailstones.

135

Tables 3.3 and 3.4 contain the measured data for Young’s modulus, Poisson ratio, shear and bulk modulus for 19 samples. Table 3.3 is the numerical average values from each data collection, Table 3.4 is the maximum for each of the data collections.

Table 3.3 Average values for 19 freezer iceball samples AVERAGE VALUES MAXIMUM VALUES Time Compressive Cumulative ε ε Compressive Stress E G K Avg. Avg. Applied Applied Applied Time Step Cumulative Strain Strain Young's Avg. Shear Bulk

Diam. Stress (σc) Stress (σc) Stress (σc) Strain Strain Rate Rate modulus Poisson modulus Modulus Sample Sample ID (mm) (psi) (MPa) (MPa) (mm/mm) (mm/mm) (m/s) (GPa/s) (MPa) Ratio (GPa) (GPa) Poisson 8.26.2018 tray E cup 1 64.16 37.4774 0.2584 2.3612 0.1968 2.3004 101.9662 133.9833 13.2515 0.1317 1.2379 0.7053 0.3636 8.26.2018 tray E cup 5 64.74 15.5678 0.1073 3.7080 0.0735 3.1386 38.0868 55.6429 108.4118 0.0961 0.2311 1.3227 0.0807 8.26.2018 tray E cup 6 63.77 40.3924 0.2785 2.1893 0.2372 3.3759 122.9734 144.3660 136.4574 0.0275 3.8982 2.1655 8.26.2018 tray E cup 7 61.22 37.9451 0.2616 2.1348 0.2125 3.2449 110.1125 135.6493 9.6634 0.1463 0.1723 6.1753 0.3412 8.26.2018 tray E cup 8 59.93 32.8024 0.2262 1.3600 0.2531 2.3084 131.1859 117.2812 3.4476 0.0943 0.4275 2.4664 0.0413 8.26.2018 tray E cup 9 64.20 21.9736 0.1515 1.0205 0.2332 2.2429 120.9096 78.5334 4.7222 0.0597 1.0750 1.8401 0.0212 8.26.2018 tray E cup 11 64.47 14.3961 0.0993 0.7805 0.2331 2.8447 120.8384 51.4462 2.5001 0.1478 0.5972 1.0429 0.0118 8.26.2018 tray M cup 4 64.90 46.7003 0.3220 3.0308 0.3285 5.1956 170.2809 166.9285 14.3131 0.0480 0.1236 0.5967 0.0853 8.26.2018 tray M cup 5 56.64 18.6673 0.1287 1.0290 0.2101 2.9594 108.9070 66.7169 5.6759 0.3235 0.0283 3.7809 0.2952 8.26.2018 tray M cup 7 57.92 63.1144 0.4352 4.7958 0.1555 2.5944 80.5961 225.5924 5.4169 0.0349 3.0699 2.8749 0.8054 8.26.2018 tray M cup 8 64.63 47.6265 0.3284 2.3088 0.2922 3.5434 151.3329 170.2151 23.7354 0.2270 0.4000 3.8823 0.0514 8.26.2018 tray E cup 10 64.92 12.0802 0.0833 0.5462 0.2271 2.9900 117.7406 43.1871 7.3553 0.0199 1.0197 0.4561 0.0005 8.26.2018 tray E cup 12 62.85 22.6191 0.1560 0.8097 0.2663 2.2407 137.9452 80.8428 0.5901 0.1889 0.0316 0.5934 0.2279 8.26.2018 tray M cup 6 62.71 28.1747 0.1943 1.0780 0.3362 3.6027 174.2782 100.6618 0.6588 0.0779 1.2345 0.1038 0.0468 9.6.2018 0.5 inch tray B cup 1 14.06 0.1900 1.9811 98.4084 63.2655 0.1953 4.7257 4.8942 0.0143 9.10.2018 1.25 inch tray D cup 12 44.33 26.6519 0.1838 0.9395 0.5222 95.2476 0.2256 0.5176 0.0115 0.0718 0.1202 9.10.2018 1.25 inch tray G cup 12 40.46 50.2829 0.3467 2.4476 0.2126 2.7382 110.1918 179.8075 4.1161 0.1014 0.0281 0.6358 0.0765 9.11.2018 1.25 inch tray A cup 3 51.81 9.4260 0.0650 0.4476 0.1452 3.1959 75.3295 33.6930 19.1701 0.1011 0.2736 0.7256 0.0562 9.11.2018 1.25 inch tray A cup 5 48.06 29.8932 0.2061 2.0799 0.0329 0.1426 17.0207 106.8661 0.1060 0.1763 1.3637 0.0445 Max 64.92 63.1144 0.4352 4.7958 0.5222 5.1956 174.2782 225.5924 136.4574 0.5176 4.7257 6.1753 0.8054 Min 14.06 9.4260 0.0650 0.4476 0.0329 0.1426 17.0207 33.6930 0.2256 0.0199 0.0115 0.0718 0.0005 Range 50.86 53.6884 0.3702 4.3481 0.4894 5.0529 157.2575 191.8994 136.2317 0.4977 4.7142 6.1034 0.8049 Mean 56.62 30.8773 0.2129 1.8371 0.2294 2.8133 110.4502 110.3701 23.4987 0.1392 0.9875 1.8788 0.1491 Mode #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Median 62.71 29.0339 0.2002 1.7199 0.2271 2.9021 113.9662 103.7639 6.5156 0.1014 0.4000 1.3227 0.0664 SD 12.74583 14.9049 0.1028 1.1762 0.1033 0.9908 40.0354 53.2830 39.1193 0.1189 1.3861 1.7299 0.2004

Redacted data are in black. These data were extreme values that were 103 greater than other data from the same set indicated random error or equipment/system malfunction.

136

Table 3.4 Maximum values for 19 freezer iceball samples MAXIMUM VALUES Time Compressive Cumulative ε ε Compressive Stress E G K Avg. Applied Applied Applied Time Step Cumulative Strain Strain Young's Max Shear Bulk

Diam. Stress (σc) Stress (σc) Stress (σc) Strain Strain Rate Rate modulus Poisson modulus Modulus Sample ID (mm) (psi) (MPa) (MPa) (mm/mm) (mm/mm) (m/s) (GPa/s) (MPa) Ratio (GPa) (GPa) 8.26.2018 tray E cup 1 64.16 98.0806 0.6762 6.7308 1.4371 5.1173 743.5047 351.9719 166.0252 0.3220 5.8106 2.1296 8.26.2018 tray E cup 5 64.74 99.7238 0.6876 12.8803 4.0826 8.8242 2,112.1929 355.7266 1,222.3293 0.1875 2.1653 31.1566 8.26.2018 tray E cup 6 63.77 102.9910 0.7101 6.6839 0.7092 5.6935 366.9150 369.5932 2,253.9267 0.1379 15.3575 9.2794 8.26.2018 tray E cup 7 61.22 102.4137 0.7061 6.2789 0.7988 5.0991 415.7609 367.5214 90.2915 0.5000 0.9005 55.0558 8.26.2018 tray E cup 8 59.93 93.4100 0.6440 4.0710 1.2360 4.5561 639.4627 335.2108 13.2105 0.3157 2.9118 9.6876 8.26.2018 tray E cup 9 64.20 53.1364 0.3664 2.8786 1.0376 4.4306 536.8196 189.5430 28.2114 0.1600 8.2819 13.8291 8.26.2018 tray E cup 11 64.47 31.5718 0.2177 2.2829 0.7541 5.3607 392.4954 112.6199 12.7166 0.5000 4.5266 4.8896 8.26.2018 tray M cup 4 64.90 112.7330 0.7773 9.6596 0.8914 9.8548 461.6153 404.5533 201.8185 0.1854 0.3993 2.0628 8.26.2018 tray M cup 5 56.64 58.1437 0.4009 3.3464 0.7462 5.4616 386.0575 207.4047 75.3105 0.5000 0.0979 36.0040 8.26.2018 tray M cup 7 57.92 102.4137 0.7061 6.2789 0.7988 5.0991 415.7609 367.5214 90.2915 0.2870 0.9005 55.0558 8.26.2018 tray M cup 8 64.63 93.4100 0.6440 4.0710 1.2360 4.5561 639.4627 335.2108 13.2105 0.3157 2.9118 9.6876 8.26.2018 tray E cup 10 64.92 31.2327 0.2153 1.7491 1.0184 4.7683 526.8861 112.0817 80.4013 0.2206 4.8679 3.2805 8.26.2018 tray E cup 12 62.85 59.0717 0.4073 2.3393 0.8457 3.9951 437.5353 210.7150 1.8003 0.5000 0.1333 1.9850 8.26.2018 tray M cup 6 62.71 103.4999 0.7136 3.8852 1.0155 6.7243 525.3838 369.1949 3.3362 0.0833 5.3772 0.3858 9.6.2018 0.5 inch tray B cup 1 14.06 426.2515 2.9389 15.5230 0.1900 1.9811 98.4084 1,523.1476 63.2655 0.0327 4.7257 4.8942 9.10.2018 1.25 inch tray D cup 12 44.33 81.8336 0.5642 3.4914 0.9979 9.9224 516.2628 291.9103 0.5686 0.4972 0.0453 0.1409 9.10.2018 1.25 inch tray G cup 12 40.46 141.0115 0.9722 7.2917 0.8797 4.6653 455.1257 503.0030 20.6598 0.2154 0.0865 2.3825 9.11.2018 1.25 inch tray A cup 3 51.81 51.8142 0.3572 2.6646 0.5295 5.9547 275.5951 184.8267 390.2603 0.1477 3.5986 6.2105 9.11.2018 1.25 inch tray A cup 5 48.06 120.9598 0.8340 8.2262 0.3834 1.3147 198.3576 431.4778 4,657.7592 0.2191 2.8115 2.7315 Max 64.92 426.2515 2.9389 15.5230 4.0826 9.9224 2,112.1929 1,523.1476 4,657.7592 0.5000 15.3575 55.0558 Min 14.06 31.2327 0.2153 1.7491 0.1900 1.3147 98.4084 112.0817 0.5686 0.0327 0.0453 0.1409 Range 50.86 395.0188 2.7236 13.7740 3.8926 8.6077 2,013.7845 1,411.0659 4,657.1906 0.4673 15.3122 54.9149 Mean 56.62 103.3528 0.7126 5.8070 1.0309 5.4410 533.8738 369.6439 493.9681 0.2804 3.4689 13.2026 Mode #N/A 102.4137 0.7061 6.2789 0.7988 5.0991 415.7609 367.5214 90.2915 0.5000 0.9005 55.0558 Median 62.71 98.0806 0.6762 4.0710 0.8797 5.0991 455.1257 351.9719 75.3105 0.2206 2.9118 4.8942 SD 12.74583 83.7721 0.5776 3.7260 0.7954 2.2118 411.2988 299.3419 1,151.9959 0.1538 3.7217 17.6474

Natural hail and freezer iceball testing All test materials, sample size, orientation, and force direction are determined by the testing methods. Other testing options may permit other test methods, but in all cases the test method is determined by the test engineer. The test method specifies the sample size, dimension and orientation.

Hailstones and freezer iceballs are neither cylinders nor ribbons. The shape and orientation of hailstones and freezer iceballs is not determined by the test standard or test engineer. Freezer iceballs and natural hailstones dictate sample shape and orientation. The fact that the samples themselves dictate sample shape and orientation is so significant that some materials engineers question if spherical shapes can be reliably tested using the same methods and analyses employed in testing materials that conform to the established test method. We must ask if test results from ice samples cast to conform to the shape (cylindrical) and dimensions of diameter (d) and length (2d) reliably represent ice in the form of natural hailstones and freezer iceballs. Since freezer iceballs are frozen in plastic molds they produce near perfect spheres.

137

Research confirms that the spherical shape of some hailstones and nearly perfect spheres for freezer iceballs result in compressive force translation into hoop stresses that are not typically present in cylindrical or ribbon-shaped objects. Natural hailstones come in many shapes, sizes and constructions (Matson and Huggins, 1979). Spherical is a common shape, but others also occur, such as:

• Cuboid • Prism • Conical • Cylinder • Pyramid • Hemisphere

Shape is an important factor in estimating terminal velocity. Hailstones or iceballs of the same size and density but with different shapes will likely have different terminal velocities. Balance or location of the center of mass within the hailstone will cause the stone to tumble when falling and may result in lower terminal velocities. Matson and Huggins (1979) found that two shapes dominate, cone and spheroid. Of the 621 hails investigated Matson and Huggins found that 15.9% were cone shape and 84.1% were spheroids.

138

Figure 3.10 Transducers to Measure Compression Distance and Tension Expansion

139

Freezer iceball testing The study of structural failure of semi-brittle bodies such as freezer iceballs and hailstones concerns itself with cracks or fractures. The fracture process starts at a microscopic level. Hailstones tend to follow the same fracture features as other ice. The unique features of hailstones are their shape (sometimes spherical, but not necessarily) and the varying amounts of air, ice and liquid water from which they are constructed. Consider the fracture pattern in Figure 3.11.

Figure 3.11 Fracture Pattern Series a-h. Courtesy Roisman (2015), Royal Society Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Science

The propelled freezer iceball strikes the metal base (b) and fractures begin to develop. The initial fractures can be seen in Figure 3.12. The fractures start at the point of impact and progress away from the impact. The initial fractures are faint and indistinct in Figure 3.12 and are just starting to form (note the impact point has just started to collapse). As the kinetic energy from the moving iceball continues to be transferred to the ice matrix, the fracture pattern progresses as the impact surface continues to collapse. The fractures appear to bulge as compressive force is translated into tension force and hoop stress acting on the vertical exterior of the iceball. On the right side of Figure 3.12, the impact point is larger as the collapse continues.

140

Figure 3.12 Close-up of Time Series b/c from Figure 3.5.0 Fracture progression from b to c.

In series step c (right), the fracture pattern continues to develop and has become clear. Compressive forces continue to be translated to tensile forces and hoop stress as described by the Poisson ratio.

The fractures now extend completely through the iceball. This step makes the point that crack propagation starts at the point of impact and continues to the opposite extreme of the iceball in many directions. This observation confirms that crack length increases as diameter increases.

Note that the impact point remains intact on the photo on the left, but in the photo of the right, the impact area has begun to explode outward. The loss of material in the exploded area is because the material is unrestricted away from the iceball and the impact surface. The iceball has retained its shape as the fractures progress.

In Figure 3.13, the fracture (crack) is completely across the iceball from point of impact to the outer surface of the iceball. The impact area explosion continues to remove material and the impact side continues to collapse. In series step e, the collapsed impact point is now about the same diameter as the rest of the iceball. The iceball still retains its basic shape because the energy transfer is more axial than transverse.

141

Figure 3.13 Close-up of Time Series Steps d and e

In Figure 3.14 we see the impact areas that have exploded outward (crushed region) the area shown in time series e through h. These steps show the increasing volume of fine fragments that form in the iceball interior and contribute to the small particles that are exploded outward in the crush region.

142

Figure 3.14 Sketch of Breaking Iceball

The sketch in Figure 3.14 is a concept only and does not attempt to show the crack lines that have progressed away from the point of impact as seen in the time series photos. The Figure 3.14 facture pattern seems random and is not in agreement with the previous figures. The usefulness of Figure 3.14 is that it shows the defined regions and that the sidewalls of the iceball perform differently than the internal structure. The sides deform as a plastic material whereas the internal part of the iceball crushes as a brittle material. This phenomenon of plastic and brittle behavior in different locations in the same material at the same time can also be seen in time series steps c through e. The reason for the difference is not defined by Roisman; however, we can see that the plastic deformation only occurs on the unrestrained exterior of the iceball near and above the crushed region. This is a unique feature of both the ice and the symmetry of this spherical shape. Since the plastic/brittle behavior is in part due to the shape of the stone, we should expect it to vary with shape and the symmetry of the shape. Not all hailstones are spherical; in fact, most are not. The speed at which the iceball struck the plate in Figure 3.11 was 61.8 m/s (138.2 mph); the iceball had a diameter of 61 mm (2.4 inch). The terminal velocity of 2.5-inch hailstones is typically reported to be about 80 mph. The speed used by Roisman and Tropea would be reasonable, but only if the hailfall occurred during a wind event with a wind speed around 111 mph. High wind speeds during severe thunderstorms are to be expected, but 111 mph wind is the lower limit value for an EF2 tornado; that is not the magnitude of wind speeds commonly seen in hail-producing thunderstorms. It is clear that the impact speed used by Roisman and Tropea produced a high strain rate; however, the speed is greater than expected for hail producing storms with high wind events.

143

From this we can understand that hailstone fracture is variable and will change with the properties of the hailstone. The object struck by the hailstone also affects how the hailstone will fracture. The website youtube.com has dozens if not hundreds of videos of hail storms. In many, we see hail bouncing off hard surfaces such as concrete sidewalks and driveways. These videos confirm that many times hailstones do not crush as shown in Figure 3.11 – 3.14. Hailstones that “bounce” rather than crush at impact have sufficient compressive strength and a large enough Poisson ratio that the impact force was less than the compressive (yield) strength of the hailstone. This is similar to a baseball being struck with a bat. The batter may hit a home run, but the ball did not fracture and crush.

Graphs of stress-strain relationships are often helpful in understanding the yield strength of any material. Figure 3.15 shows a typical stress-strain curve for steel. This figure helps to understand the different responses of ice in general and hailstones or freezer iceballs in particular.

Figure 3.15 Typical Stress-Strain Curve for Steel Courtesy of www.thefabricator.com, Schaeffler (2015)

From Figure 3.15 we can see that yield strength is the point at which the slope of the graph changes from linear to curve. In this region the material will deform but will return to its original shape. The linear portion of the graph is often called the elastic region (bend but don’t

144

break). The elastic region ends at the start of the curve, which is the yield strength. The region between the start of the curve (yield strength) and the top of the curve (tensile strength) is often called the plastic region. In the plastic (sometimes called ductile) region, the material will deform but will not return to its original shape. This is the region that will show micro-fractures in hailstones or iceballs (Figure 3.11b). In materials like steel this region will show dents. In the final region of the graph, from the tensile strength to the rupture strength, fractures have become larger (Figure 3.11c-f); the region ends with collapse or rupture of the iceball. With malleable materials like 15 ksi steel, this region is called ‘necking,’ due to steel rods getting thinner (forming a neck) in the center. With more brittle materials like ice, this area may simply be called brittle.

Shazly, Prakash, and Lerch (2008) tested ice cylinders cut from single blocks of ice. The stress-strain relationships they found (Figure 3.16) show that varied rates at which the straining force is applied (strain rate) will produce different results.

Table 3.5 lists the Poisson ratio for several elements that range from elastic rubber (0.48- 0.5) to brittle Beryllium (0.03). The Poisson ratio of ice is listed as 0.33 which compares favorably with the values shown in Table 3.2. As the Poisson ratio value increases so does the elasticity of the material, as the material gets more brittle the Poisson value will be smaller.

145

Table 3.5 Elements and their respective Poisson ratio (υ)

Figure 3.16 Ice Cylinders Stress-Strain Relationships by Shazly, Prakash and Lerch

146

Note how orderly Figure 3.16 appears. Compare the appearance to the chaotic graphs of freezer iceballs in Figures 3.17-3.19. Actual freezer iceballs are not nearly so will behaved as Figure 3.16. The reason is that they are spheres and not idealized cylinders.

Figure 3.17 Compressive stress response of five freezer iceball samples

147

Figure 3.18 Compressive stress response of five freezer iceball samples

Figure 3.19 Compressive stress response of five freezer iceball samples

148

Figures 3.17-3.19 have the shape that coincides with brittle materials. The sharp break at the point of rupture is a clear indication that the material had a brittle failure. Figure 2 from Giammanco and Brown, (2015) (labeled as 3.20) is a conceptual diagram of the transition of pure ice from ductile to brittle failure. Figures 3.17-3.19 agree with Giammanco figure 2 for high strain rate and brittle failures (figure on right).

Figure 3.20 - figure 2 from Giammanco and Brown, 2015

Some of the samples in Figures 3.17 – 3.19 show elements of both ductile and brittle failure. That is to say, the initial slope of the stress line is shallow and in transition.

If the Poisson ratio is changing in response to the applied compressive force (Fo) then the change should be reflected on a xy plot. Figure 3.21 shows the relationship between Poisson and

Fo. There is no model fit to these data because too much of the data is for low forces and too few for higher forces.

149

Figure 3.21 - Poisson ratio relationship to compressive force (Fo) for freezer iceballs

All but two of the data points shown in Figure 3.21 are below the 45o line. Only one of the 45 data points agrees with the values shown in Tables 3.2 and 3.5.

Figures 3.22 and 3.23 are of the probability of average Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio respectively, falling within the distribution of the maximum values for the same.

150

Figure 3.22 Probability of average value falling with the maximum value of the Young’s modulus

Figure 3.23 Probability of average value falling with in the maximum value for Poisson ratio

151

Figures 3.22 and 3.23 confirm that there is overlap between the average values and maximum values for Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio. The probabilities are 23.95 and 20.85 percent, respectively, for Young’s and Poisson. These two measures are important because they form the basis for FEA and are the most significant material properties relating to the following FEA model.

152

Finite element analysis Finite Element Analysis (FEA) has evolved from a system of partial differential equations and matrix algebra to a robust method of materials analysis that allows the user to assign properties of different materials to the materials of construction of the shape being assessed. The FEA method provides a useful tool for assessing the mechanics’ response to forces acting on a body. The FEA method takes the base shape and draws a two- or three- dimensional wire frame for the internal structure of the element. The intersection of the “wires” are the nodes and are the point at which the matrices are solved. A three-dimensional model (as used in this analysis) will have a 3X3 matrix (xx, xy, xz, yy, yz, zz); since multiplication is associative (xy=yx), those duplicate associates can be omitted. A second matrix for the torque ( x ) moment about the x,y and z axes are also computed in another 3X3 matrix. We now have a minimum of 12 equations for each variable at each node in the model for each time step. The nodal structure of boxes, wedges, decahedrons, and other shapes allows the model to use these systems of partial differential equations to approximate the transition of an applied force or pressure throughout the specimen. Time steps are a sample variable and can include duration and frequency. Thus, an event that lasts 2.5 seconds with a frequency of 10 Hz will produce 10 time steps per second with a total of 25 steps. Extensive models with a million nodes and dozens of equations to solve at each node can take hours to solve, even with fast multi-core processors. The FEA modeling process is an excellent way to express how forces translate through an object by transferring from one node to another in an object. The visual output of most FEA software shows load response as either a force or a displacement. Both results are color coded and a model shell can show the change over time. Since FEA is a time- or rate-based method, the models can be displayed on a time line to show how the stress response occurs over time.

The FEA software used in this analysis is Mecway FEA produced by Mecway Limited (New Zealand). The software is operated on a computer with a 3.3 GHz (overclock to 4.9 GHz) Intel i9-7900x ten core processor. Due to limitations of the solver engine used by Mecway, only about 40% of the computer’s CPU capacity is utilized; however, the run time is acceptable.

Due to the spherical shape of hailstones and freezer iceballs, they are not as well represented by traditional stress-strain testing and relationships as are materials tested as cylinders or ribbons. We need additional tools to assess spherical objects. One useful measure

153

for spherical objects is hoop stress, the transition of forces from compression to tension as shown in Figure 3.24. The transition from compression to tension is defined by the Poisson Ratio.

Wikipedia (2018) reports:

Poisson ratio is a measure of the Poisson effect, the phenomenon in which a material tends to expand in directions perpendicular to the direction of compression. Conversely, if the material is stretched rather than compressed, it usually tends to contract in the directions transverse to the direction of stretching. It is a common observation when a rubber band is stretched, it becomes noticeably thinner. Again, the Poisson ratio will be the ratio of relative contraction to relative expansion and will have the same value as above. In certain rare cases, a material will actually shrink in the transverse direction when compressed (or expand when stretched) which will yield a negative value of the Poisson ratio.

The Poisson ratio of a stable, isotropic, linear elastic material will be greater than −1.0 or less than 0.5 because of the requirement for Young's modulus, that shear modulus and bulk modulus have positive values (Sokolnikoff, 1983) Most materials have Poisson's ratio values ranging between 0.0 and 0.5. A perfectly incompressible material deformed elastically at small strains would have a Poisson ratio of exactly 0.5.

Most steels and rigid polymers when used within their design limits (before yield) exhibit values of about 0.3, increasing to 0.5 for post-yield deformation which occurs largely at constant volume. Rubber has a Poisson ratio of nearly 0.5. Cork's Poisson ratio is close to 0, showing very little lateral expansion when compressed. Some materials, e.g. some polymer foams, origami folds and certain cells can exhibit a negative Poisson ratio, and are referred to as auxetic materials. If these auxetic materials are stretched in one direction, they become thicker in the perpendicular direction. In contrast, some anisotropic materials, such as carbon nanotubes, zigzag-based folded sheet materials and honeycomb auxetic metamaterials, can exhibit one or more Poisson ratios above 0.5 in certain directions.

154

Figure 3.24 depicts the transition from compressive stress to tension stress inside a spherical object. As compressive force translates into tension forces, the Poisson ratio describes the transition from center to outer surface.

The photo time series shows how the tension forces move and increase as compression increases. This force transition is frequently described as a Von Mises yield criterion. Von Mises describes the hoop stress that develops in spherical objects.

155

Figure 3.24 Force Transition Diagram of Spherical Object

156

Figure 3.25 Base Model of Simplified Iceball between Steel Plates with Compression Applied from the Top Plate.

The von Mises stress is color coded and is shown in the top left corner (in MPa). The orientation indicator is on the bottom right corner of the figure.

Figure 3.26 Cross-section View with Plates Removed for Clarity

Stress is forming at top and bottom at about 1.9 MPa.

157

Figure 3.27 Cross-section with Compression Force Forming Upper and Lower Cones

Figure 3.28 Cross-Section with Increased Compressive Force and Internal Force Cone Extending to Center of Model

158

Figure 3.29 Stress Cone Fully Developed

Note outer transition of von Mises stress. The edge modeled is the point at which the Poisson ratio is acting and transitioning the compressive forces into tension. Note that the shape of the outer edge is now about the same as the surface area where the force is applied.

Figure 3.30 Continuing Tension Stress

Tension stress has continued to move towards the outer surface to the extent of the X Axis. The interior-most force translation pushes the tension force towards the surface along the X Axis.

159

Figure 3.31 Tension Forces Extended to the Surface of the X Axis

The force diagram is complete. Further changes will only be increases of von Mises stress. Note MPa legend in upper left corner.

Figure 3.32 Completed Force Diagram

Failure is immanent. The red area is at or near the Young’s modulus value for this material.

160

Figure 3.33 Completed Failure

Legend negative values are compression and positive values are tension.

Figure 3.34 Failure with Displacement Shown at the Compression Surfaces

Note the expansion along the x Axis. The model confirms the Poisson ratio transition and the von Mises stress describes the hoop stress radiating from the core toward the exterior surface. Figures 3.11 through 3.14 provide photographic evidence of the forces described in Figures 3.25 through 3.34.

161

Conclusions The FEA model confirms the Poisson ratio transition, and the von Mises stress describes the hoop stress radiating from the core toward the exterior surface. Figures 3.11 through 3.14 provide photographic evidence of the forces described in Figures 3.25 through 3.34.

The FEA is for a simplified iceball and does not address the likely dynamic nature of changing Poisson ratio’s in response to the applied compressive force. Apparent changes in the Poisson ratio result from the symmetry of spherical objects and not from the material its self.

Data required for FEA includes Young’s modulus, Poisson ratio as well as the node geometry, points of fixity and applied loads. Tables 3.4 and 3.5 clearly show that both Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio are much more than simple static values. The values shown in both tables suggest that both Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio are dynamic in response to the applied load. In other words, they tend to change as the applied load changes. This may explain why the graphs in Figures 3.17 – 3.19 demonstrate both ductile and brittle features. As the load increases it seems more likely than not that Poisson declines, meaning more brittle behavior.

The magnitude of σc, Young’s modulus, and Poisson are very different than those values reported by Schulson, Gold, Shazly, Prakash, and Lerch. It is likely the difference is that Shazly, Prakash, and Lerch were testing prepared ice cylinders and not spheres. It appears that the spherical shape causes ice to exhibit different values for Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio that what is in the published literature. The reason for this is that cylindrical objects do not experience hoop stress in the same manner as spherical objects. It also appears that the values for these two important parameters change with increased applied load.

It is more likely than not that the lower Poisson ratio values observed in this investigation are a result of the shape of the measurand. Table 3.2 was made from ice cylinders cut from a single block of ice. The data presented here is from freezer iceballs that are near perfect spheres.

These data are for freezer iceballs. There remain numerous unanswered questions regarding the materials properties and spherical objects. This research must continue and include natural hail and confirmation of these results.

162

CHAPTER V

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Direct relationship between natural hail and freezer iceballs

In weather systems, hail size is measured by diameter. It is logical and reliable to base this investigation upon size bins and for those bins to include one, 1-1/4 and 2-inch sizes. It is statistically appropriate to include nine (or more) size bins that encompass the sizes most typically reported by meteorologists and in the media. Giant size hail may be more dangerous than the sizes reported here; however, it is also rare.

The compressive strength resistance of hail is highly variable especially with small diameter hail and tends to become less variable as diameter increases. It is logical to reason that compressive strength resistance increases with diameter due to increased crack length, and that variability is reduced with hail structure produced within strong, supercell updrafts that promote cyclic structural type of hail growth.

Uncertainty of measurements was controlled by using calibrated instruments whose calibration was compliant with ISO 17025, all instruments posse NIST traceability. Written operational procedures and pilot test were used prior to collecting data. Standard, Type A and Type B uncertainty were employed throughout this investigation.

ASTM International stated “no direct relationship has been established between the effect of impact of {freezer} ice balls and hailstones” - this paper has detailed just such a relationship that allows investigators, engineers, meteorologist, manufactures, testing labs, and educators to relate natural hailstones to freezer iceballs mathematically. This work provides new insights into

163

how we access and test hail impacts on building materials and other materials and also provides manufactures a direct comparison of freezer iceball testing to natural hailstones and makes possible standard methods based upon hail impact effects.

So how do our models of natural hail vs freezer iceballs stack up against measured values 2 of Fo and σc respectively? One method of confirming the conclusions that the R in Figures 1.12 and 1.13 are as significant as we say they are is to plot the measured data against the modeled values on the same graph as shown in Figure 1.14. Another method to confirm the suitability of the comparison of natural hail to freezer iceballs is a linear comparison between natural hail and freezer iceballs as shown in Figures 1.12 and 1.13 respectively. From Figure 1.12 we see that the model data is a good fit to the measured data between natural hail and freezer iceballs Fo. This fact provides confidence that the modeled direct relationship between natural hail and freezer iceballs is suitable. From Figure 1.12.1 we see that the model data for σc is not as good a fit as Fo; however, as shown in Figure 1.12.1 we have an outlier in the data from the <½” size bin. This should not be seen as devaluing the data fit in Figure 1.12.1 because (i) the <1/2” size bin has the most outliers of all size bins for both natural hail and freezer iceballs (see Figures 1.9.0 and 1.9.1), and (ii) the KE contained in <1/2” hail is typically below the damage threshold for most building envelope products.

Another method of assessing the variability between natural hail and freezer iceballs modeled as natural hail is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). ANOVA is a vetted statistical test that is often used to test one data set against another. ANOVA is an exceptional tool for testing hypotheses. In this case the null hypothesis is that freezer iceballs modeled as natural hailstones are the same value as the natural hailstones, in other words the averages for the two are the same.

Montgomery, Peck and Vining (2012), Dobson and Barnett (2014), Conover (1999), Kutner, Nachtsheim and Neter (2004), Ragsdale (2012) and Montgomery (2013) agree that for ANOVA to be reliable the data sets must meet three conditions or assumptions. If one or more of these assumptions are violated, then the ANOVA analysis may not provide reliable results.

1. the distribution of the residuals (difference between each single observed value and the same data set average) should be normally distributed 2. the observations must be independent of each other; that is to say, the value of one is not dependent upon the other

164

3. the data variance groups should be the same, homogeneity, or homoscedasticity. This is not to say that if one or more of these assumptions is violated that ANOVA cannot be used. It does imply that each assumption must be joint and severally evaluated. Statistical textbooks uniformly consider ANOVA to be “robust” with respect to violations of normality.

These data set residuals (natural hail and freezer iceballs modeled as natural hail) are normally distributed for Fo but not for σc as shown in Table 1.4 and 1.5 respectively. The normality assumption is frequently relaxed for large data sets. The normality assumption is considered important when the sample size is very small (ours are relatively large with 36 2 samples) and the residuals are highly non-normal (Fo data set is normal, A =0.766, and σc is non- normal, A2=3.727) and the treatment effect is small (ours is large); therefore, we can safely conclude that our data set (freezer iceball σc modeled as natural hail σc) violation of normality is not sufficient justification to abandon or alter ANOVA.

Our data sets are compliant with the assumptions of independence and homoscedasticity; therefore, we do not discuss the treatment options (data transformations or removal) that might permit use of ANOVA if these violations had occurred.

These data and tests confirm that the data set for Fo (Table 1.3) is normally distributed and that none of the ANOVA assumptions have been violated and that a single factor ANOVA is appropriate for this analysis. The histogram, boxplot, confidence intervals, and normal distribution probability plot for this ANOVA are in Figure 1.13.0 The ANOVA for Fo is shown in Table 1.4.

The test statistic for freezer iceballs modeled as natural hail for σc is contained in Table

1.5 and Figure 1.13.1. The ANOVA for σc has the same assumptions as the ANOVA for Fo; however, the ANOVA for σc does violate the assumption of normality. As discussed, this

165

assumption can be relaxed due to the aforementioned facts. The ANOVA for σc complies with the remaining assumptions.

The ANOVA for freezer iceballs modeled as natural hail for σc is contained in Table 1.5.

The ANOVA for σc has the same assumptions as the ANOVA for Fo; however, the ANOVA for

σc does violate the assumption of normality. As discussed, this assumption can be relaxed. The

σc ANOVA complies with the remaining assumptions.

In the σc ANOVA the null hypothesis is the means (between the measured and modeled

σc values) are the same. The σc ANOVA in Table 1.5 confirms that the means are the same; therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. This ANOVA confirms that our freezer iceball model for natural hail σc is appropriate and fit for use in the manner shown.

Opacity and Non-Destructive Test Methods The use of opacity for assessing hailstones remains an open question. This investigation which used freezer iceballs confirms that light intensity varies with sample density (), diameter, Fo, c, porosity (), and the volume of voids. This investigation does not confirm opacity as a suitable NDT method because of uncontrolled variability of the light source and that only freezer iceballs were tested, no hailstones were tested. Only freezer iceballs were available for testing. Additional work with a suitable light source should be performed to confirm if the accuracy of the opacity method can provide a reliable NDT method.

166

clustered around one corner of the plot. We added data points for 100% ice, 100% air, and 100% water because we could compute the values for these data locations using the equations described in Figures 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9 for Ice, Air and Liquid Freshwater respectively.

A suitable 12 VDC LED light source with individual LED’s for each color should be constructed such that each color has three LED diodes that are controlled as a group. When energized, only the three LEDs in the group are used. No color combinations that are blended to produce other colors can be allowed. The wire lengths for each LED should be the same specification and length. All items for each color group should be identical and from the same manufacture. Each LED diode should receive the same current and electrical power. The colors should include Infrared, near Infrared, and Ultraviolet wavelengths in addition to ROYGBIV. As previously stated, the light source should be the most reliable system in the assemblage producing consistent results – consistently.

167

Fracture mechanics and spherical ice shapes The FEA model confirms the Poisson ratio transition, and the von Mises stress describes the hoop stress radiating from the core toward the exterior surface. Figures 3.11 through 3.13 provide photographic evidence of the forces described in Figures 3.26 through 3.34.

Data required for FEA includes Young’s modulus, Poisson ratio as well as the node geometry, points of fixity and applied loads. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 clearly show that both Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio are much more than simple static values. The values shown in both tables suggest that both Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio are dynamic in response to the applied load. In other words, they tend to change as the applied load changes. This may explain why the graphs in Figures 3.17 – 3.19 demonstrate both ductile and brittle features. As the load increases it seems more likely than not that Poisson declines (meaning more brittle behavior).

The magnitude of σc, Young’s modulus, and Poisson are very different than those values reported by Schulson, Gold, Shazly, Prakash, and Lerch. It is likely the difference is that Shazly, Prakash, and Lerch were testing prepared ice cylinders and not spheres. It appears that the spherical shape causes ice to exhibit different values for Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio than what is in the published literature. The reason for this is that cylindrical objects do not experience hoop stress in the same manner as spherical objects. It also appears that the values for these two important parameters change with increased applied load.

It is more likely than not that the lower Poisson ratio values observed in this investigation are a result of the shape of the measurand. Table 3.2 was made from ice cylinders cut from a single block of ice. The data presented here are from freezer iceballs that are near perfect spheres.

168

CHAPTER VI

VI. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS

Relationship between natural hail and freezer iceballs This work has compiled the available data on natural hail and freezer iceball compressive strength; however, it is far from complete. Some sizes are not present, and others are underrepresented. The larger the hail diameter the less frequently it occurs. Large hail is popular in the media, and one of the reasons for its popularity is its low frequency of occurrence.

Chasing hailstorms and testing samples in a near real time sequence is difficult and expensive. We need a hail chase/collection network that pools resources to chase storms, collect samples, and bring them timely to the mobile lab for testing. A group of five or ten chase teams collecting samples (with the means to preserve them in transport) should be coordinated and bring samples to the mobile lab, that would already be set and ready to log in the samples and start testing the moment they arrive. This research cooperation may involve numerous universities and governmental agencies. Coordination of this “hail net”, must involve logistical planning, a detailed investigation plan, and communications. It must also possess sufficient resources to put enough trained people in the field and on the team to complete their assignments in compliance with the plans and specifications and within the designated time.

Once hailstones have fallen, they will begin to melt and change quickly from their antecedent conditions. In warm rain many hailstones will melt in just a few moments. Thus, chase teams equipped with radar software and good internet connectivity are essential to the network of chase teams and the mobile lab. Once hail is collected and secured in sufficiently refrigerated storage and quickly transported to the mobile lab, it can be stabilized, logged, and tested. The temperature of the fallen hailstone should be maintained, not changed.

Opacity and non-destructive test methods For hailstone opacity to be relevant and to complete the assessment of opacity as a Non- Destructive Test (NDT) method a suitable light source must be found or constructed. The light source should be DC powered and use LED single color lights. The light source used in this work failed to provide the necessary consistence luminance. One reason for the failure was

169

using only three primary colors, Red, Green and Blue (RGB) to create all the other colors of the visible spectrum. Additionally, there were three LEDs for each RGB. The variance of the data, even for only the primary colors (RGB) was far too large and since each color luminance is measured twice (one with the sample in place and one without) the variance was double the single observation values. A group of single-color LEDs that is DC powered is needed to provide the consistence required. The color spectrum included Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet (ROYGBIV). Future work should expand the light color spectrum to include infrared, near infrared, and ultraviolet. Only those colors that can consistently produce the same values should be used in the investigation.

Testing procedures and instruments An improved reflective cone that will permit testing with and without the hailstone in place in the same measurement step will provide reduced variation and will shorten the time needed to take each measurement from each of the colors of the spectrum. This was not done in this investigation because the sample repositioning in the reflective cone was a bigger source of uncertainty that the variance of the light source.

A cone that will permit measuring luminance with the stone in place (not being removed) and luminance through the stone and no stone in place is needed to make the system work with lower variance and lower uncertainty.

The Archimedes method was employed in this investigation. An improved procedure of performing this method is needed. Specifically, a procedure that does not require overflow collection into a graduated cylinder to measure the sample volume. A procedure that accurately measures the liquid silicone rise once the sample is completely immersed without removing the fluid would greatly reduce the time for the measurement and likely increase accuracy and consistency. An improved calibrated balance with two decimal digits of accuracy should also be included. The balance used in this work had one decimal digit.

The transducers used in this work performed quite well; however, the mounting system proved to be difficult and time consuming. Instrument mounting that is easily adjustable (to

170

accommodate different size samples) is required. Signal connections to the transducer should be resilient enough that repositioning the instrument does not cause an interruption of connectivity.

To apply compressive load to the samples we used a hydropneumatic press that used air pressure to actuate the hydraulic press. During the investigation the air actuator failed resulting in most of the data being collected with hand actuation of the hydraulic press. An improved load source that is more temperature tolerant and provides smooth operation at variable rates is needed. We need to test at the strain rate that is approximate to the terminal velocity of the sample being tested.

Measurement frequency needs to be faster than 10 Hz. The Omega Engineering DAQ unit collects measurements at a rate of 50 Hz, averages them and reports on a frequency of 10 Hz, or about six data points per second. This is not ideal. It would be better if the DAQ would report at 50 Hz which would provide about 30 data points per second. The increased resolution would allow better understanding of the stress strain relationship and the Poisson like response changes with increased strain.

Pilot testing is the place to discover a problem with a procedure. If a procedure seems awkward, slow or “just not quite right”, imagine how difficult it will be at sub-freezing temperatures. Instruments and procedures with an acceptable amount of uncertainty at room temperature do not assure the same performance or uncertainty at sub-freezing temperatures.

171

Fracture mechanics and finite element analysis Testing spherical objects is in its infancy. Most materials engineers do not test spherical object. Spherical objects create new and difficult challenges as they do not confirm to traditional stress strain type testing methods. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a new tool and many in the field of materials testing, particularly hail testing, are unfamiliar with its use and application. Building a model with FE takes time, patience and some skill. The software demands are not the same as learning to use many software’s such as Excel or Word. To understand the software input parameters takes skill in materials testing as well as software operation.

Some parameters such as Youngs modulus and Poisson ratio behave differently with spherical objects. Typical materials science engineers consider Youngs and Poisson as static values of the material and not subject to change through the testing procedure. The results of this investigation suggest that Youngs and Poisson like changes occur within spherical samples that do not occur with cylindrical, block, ribbons or other typical test shapes. We need testing that can determine if the observed changes in Youngs and Poisson are dependent upon shape.

Current FEA use should expand rapidly with the increased availability of low-cost software (<$500.00) and fast multi-core personal computers. More researchers should incorporate FEA in their hail research and confirm FEA results with actual test data.

The use of FEA may allow us to accurately estimate an outcome between hail impact and expected damage profile. With the addition of Monte Carlo analysis, we are able to estimate outcomes for many variables and may even be able to include the expected damage profile for a large number of building materials. We need more testing of this type and confirmed procedures that allow for ease of operation and reduced uncertainty.

172

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Allotropy.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 27 September 2013. Web. 13 October 2013.

American Concrete Institute (ACI) standard ACI – 214R11, American Concrete Institute 38800 Country Club Dr., Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3439 USA.

Anghileri, Marco, Castelletti, Luigi M.L., Milanese, Andrea, Semboloni, Andrea. “Modeling Hailstone Impact onto Composite Material Panel Under a Multi-axial State of Stress.” 6th European LSDYNA Users’ Conference 4 (2007): 1-10. Print.

“ANSI Standards Action.” American National Standards Institute 40.30 (2009) 1-25. Print.

Appleby-Thomas, Gareth J., Paul J. Hazell, Gussam Dahini. “On the Response of Two Commercially-Important CFRP Structures to Multiple Ice Impacts.” Composite Structures, 93 (2011): 2619-2627. Print.

Bardsley, W.E. “On the Maximum Observed Hailstone Size.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 29 (1990): 1185-1187. Print.

Barnhart, Gregory J. “Predicting Hail Size Using Model Vertical Velocities.” Thesis. Naval Postgraduate School. Monterey, California. 2008. Print.

Barron, N.A., Changnon, S.A., Hornaday, J. “Investigations of Crop-Hail Loss Measurement Techniques.” Illinois State Water Survey, University of Illinois. 1970. Print.

Beckwith, W. Boynton. “Characteristics of Denver Hailstorms.” Bulletin American Meteorological Society 38.1 (1957): 20-30. Print.

Bilham, E.G. and E.F. Relf. “The Dynamics of Large Hailstones.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 63.269 (1937): 149-162. Print.

Blackmore, R.Z. and E.P. Lozowski. “A Theoretical Spongy Spray Icing Model With Surficial Structure.” Atmospheric Research 49 (1998): 267-288. Print.

Bomo, George W. Texas Weather. University of Texas Press. 1995. 121-128. Print.

173

Brimelow, Julian Charles. Numerical Modelling of Hailstone Growth in Alberta Storms. MS thesis. University of Alberta, 1999. Print.

Brown, Troy. “100 Most Prescribed, Best-Selling Branded Drugs Through September.” From www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834273, accessed on 7/2/2015.

Browning, Keith A. and Jelte G.D. Beimers. “The Oblateness of Large Hailstones.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 6 (1967): 1075-1081. Print.

Browning, K.A., Hallett, J., Harrold, T.W., Johnson, D. “The Collection and Analysis of Freshly Fallen Hailstones.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 7 (1968): 603-612. Print.

Butkovich, T.R. “Hardness of Single Ice Crystals.” The American Mineralogist 43 (1958): 48-57. Print.

Barnes, H.T. (1928), Ice Engineering, Renouf Publishing Company

Blackwelder, Eliot. "The compressive strength of ice." American Journal of Science 238.1 (1940): 61-62.

Braunovic, M., Alexandrov, N., Intermetallic Compounds at Aluminum-to-Copper Electrical Interfaces: Effect of Temperature and Electric Current. IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing Technology – Part A., Vol. 17 No. 1, March 1994.

Browning, K.A. “The Growth of Large Hail Within a Steady Updraught.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 89.382 (1963): 490-506. Print.

Browning, K.A., Ludlam, F.H., Macklin, W.C. “The Density and Structure of Hailstones.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 89.379 (1963) 75-84. Print.

Browning, K.A. “The Lobe Structure of Giant Hailstones.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 92.391 (1966): 1-14. Print.

Browning, K.A. and G.B. Foote. “Airflow and Hail Growth in Supercell Storms and Some Implications for Hail Suppression.” Quart. J. R. Met. Soc. 102 (1976): 499-533. Print.

Browning, K.A., Hallett, J., Harrold, T.W., Johnson, D. “The Collection and Analysis of Freshly Fallen Hailstones.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 7 (1968): 603-612. Print.

174

Butkovich, T.R. “Compressive strength of Single Ice Crystals.” The American Mineralogist 43 (1958): 48-57. Print.

Browning, K.A. “The Growth of Large Hail Within a Steady Updraught.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 89.382 (1963): 490-506. Print.

Browning, K.A., Ludlam, F.H., Macklin, W.C. “The Density and Structure of Hailstones.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 89.379 (1963) 75-84. Print.

Browning, K.A. “The Lobe Structure of Giant Hailstones.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 92.391 (1966): 1-14. Print.

Browning, K.A. and G.B. Foote. “Airflow and Hail Growth in Supercell Storms and Some Implications for Hail Suppression.” Quart. J. R. Met. Soc. 102 (1976): 499-533. Print.

Chaplin, Martin. “Hexagonal Ice (Ice Ih).” Water Structure and Science. London South Bank University. 10 April 2012. Web. 28 April 2012.

Chaplin, Martin. “Ice Phases.” Water Structure and Science. London South Bank University. 10 April 2012. Web. 28 April 2012.

Chaplin, Martin. “Water Phase Diagram.” Water Structure and Science. London South Bank University. 24 April 2012. Web. 28 April 2012.

Carte A.E., and R.E. Kidder, “Transvaal Hailstones.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 92.393 (1966) 382-391. Print.

Carte, A.E. “Areal Hail Frequency.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 6 (1967): 336-338. Print.

Carte, A.E. and G.N. Mader. “Hailstorms in the Transvaal on 29 November 1972.” Quart. J. R. Met. Soc. 103 (1977): 731-749. Print.

Carte, A.E. and G. Held. “Variability of Hailstorms on the South African Plateau.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 17 (1978): 365-373. Print.

175

Changnon, Jr., Stanley A. “Method of Evaluating Substation Records of Hail and Thunder.” Monthly Weather Review 95.4 (1967): 209-212. Print.

Changnon, Stanley A. and Paul T. Schickedanz. “Utilization of Hail-Day Data in Designing and Evaluating Hail Suppression Projects.” Monthly Weather Review 97.2 (1969): 95-102. Print.

Changnon, Jr., Stanley A. “Note on Hailstone Size Distributions.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 10 (1971): 168-170. Print.

Changnon, Jr., Stanley A. “Examples of Economic Losses from Hail in the United States.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 11 (1972): 1128-1137. Print.

Changnon, Jr. Stanley, A. “Temporal and Spatial Variations in Hail in the Upper Great Plains and Midwest.” Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 23 (1984): 1531-1541. Print.

Changnon, Stanley A. “Increasing Major Hail Losses in the U.S.” Climate Change 96.1-2 (2009): 161-166. Print.

Chaplin, Martin. “Cubic Ice (Ice IC and Ice XIc).” Water Structure and Science. London South Bank University. 10 April 2012. Web. 28 April 2012.

Chaplin, Martin. “Water Phase Diagram.” Water Structure and Science. London South Bank University. 24 April 2012. Web. 28 April 2012.

Chaplin, Martin. “Water Structure and Science.” London South Bank University. Web. 28 April 2012.

Charlton, Robert B. and Roland List. “Hail Size Distributions and Accumulation Zones.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 29 (1972): 1182-1193. Print.

Chemical Rubber Company, CRC, Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 48th Edition. Florida. CRC Press 1967-1968.

Cheng, L., English, M., Wong, R. “Hailstone Size Distributions and Their Relationship to Storm Thermodynamics.” Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 24 (1985): 1059-1067. Print.

176

Chong, Shu-Lin and C.S. Chen. “Water Shells on Ice Pellets and Hailstones.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 31 (1974): 1384-1391. Print.

Chylek, Peter, Gupta, B.R.D., Knight, Nancy C., Knight, Charles A. “Distribution of Water in Hailstones.” Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 23 (1984): 1469-1472. Print.

Cintineo, John L., Smith, Travis M., Lakshmanan, Valliappa, Brooks, Harold E., Ortega, Kiel L. “An Objective High-Resolution Hail Climatology of the Contiguous United States.” Weather and Forecasting 27.5 (2012): 1235-1248. Print.

Conway, John W. and Dusan S. Zrnic. “A Study of Embryo Production and Hail Growth Using Dual-Doppler and Multiparameter Radars.” Monthly Weather Review 121 (1993): 2511- 2528. Print.

Cosby, P.B. 1979. Quality is Free, McGraw Hill, 1979, ISBN 0-07-014512-1.

Cox, Michael and Peter R. Armstrong. “A Statistical Model for the Incidence of Large Hailstones on Solar Collectors.” Solar Energy 26 (1981): 97-111. Print.

Crenshaw, Vickie, and Jim D. Koontz. “Simulated Hail Damage and Impact Resistance Test Procedures.” The Roofing Industry Committee on weather Issues (RICOWI), Dallas, Texas, October 27, 2000. Group Presentation.

Crenshaw, Vickie and Jim D. Koontz. “Simulated Hail Damage and Impact Resistance Test Procedures For Roof Coverings and Membranes.” RCI Interface 19.5 (2001): 5-10. Print.

Cullen, William C. “Hail Damage to Roofing: Assessment and Classification.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roofing Technology. (1997): 211-216. Print.

Ćurić, Mladjen, and Dejan Janc. "Graupel Growth and Trajectories in a Shallow CB Cloud Determined by a Forced 1‐D Model." Atmosphere-Ocean 29.3 (1991): 462-478. Print.

Dalezios, N.R., Sioutas, M.V., Karacostas, T.S. “A Systematic Hailpad Calibration Procedure for Operational Hail Suppression in Greece.” Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 45 (1991): 101-111. Print.

Das, Phanindramohan. “Influence of Wind Shear on the Growth of Hail.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 19 (1962): 407-414. Print.

177

Daugherty, Robert L, Franzini, Joseph B., Finnemore, John E. Fluid Mechanics with Engineering Applications. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1985.

Davies-Jones, Robert. “A Review of Supercell and Tornado Dynamics.” Atmospheric Research 158-159 (2015) 274-291. Print.

Decker, Wayne L. “Hail-Damage Frequency Distributions for Iowa, and a Method of Evaluating the Probability of a Specified Amount of Hail Damage.” Transactions, American Geophysical Union 33.2 (1952): 204-210. Print.

Dennis, A.S., Smith, P.L., Peterson, G.A.P., McNeil, R.D. “Hailstone Size Distributions and Equivalent Radar Reflectivity Factors Computed from Hailstone Momentum Records.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 10 (1971): 79-85. Print.

Dessens, J., Berthet, C., Sanchez, J.L. “Change in Hailstone Size Distributions with an Increase in the Melting Level Height.” Atmospheric Research 158-159 (2015): 245-253. Print.

Doswell III, Charles A. “Severe Storms.” Jornades de Meteorologia Eduard Fontsere, Barcelona, Spain. 1997. Print.

Doswell III, Charles A. “Severe Storms.” Cimms.ou. NOAA, National Severe Storms Laboratory (1997): Web. 12 November 2013.

Doswell, Charles A. III., Severe Convective Storms, Volume 28, Number 50, 2001, American Meteorological Society, ISBN 1-878220-41-1

Douglas, R.H. “Recent Hail Research: A Review.” Meteorological Monographs 5.27 (1963): 157- 167. Print.

Elert, Glenn. “Speed of Falling Hailstones.” Hypertextbook.com. The Physics Factbook (2005): Web. 4 November 2013.

English, Marianne. “The Growth of Large Hail.” Thesis. McGill University, Montreal. 1972. Print.

Farley, R.D. and H.D. Orville. “Numerical Modeling of Hailstorms and Hailstone Growth. Part I: Preliminary Model Verification and Sensitivity Tests.” Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 25 (1986): 2014-2035. Print.

178

Farley, Richard D., Wu, Ting, Orville, Harold D., Hjelmfelt, Mark R. “Numerical Simulation of Hail Formation in the 28 June 1989 Bismarck Thunderstorm Part I. Studies Related to Hail Production.” Atmospheric Research 71 (2004) 51-79. Print.

Fawbush, Ernest J. and Robert C. Miller. “A Method for Forecast Hailstone Size at the Earth’s Surface.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 34.6 (1953): 235-244. Print.

Federal Rules of Evidence. Article VII. Opinions And Expert Testimony. Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses. Via Cornell University Law School at: www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702. Accessed on 7/3/2015.

Federer, B. and Waldvogel A. “Hail and Raindrop Size Distributions from a Swiss Multicell Storm.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 14 (1975): 91-97. Print.

Federer, B., Schmid, W., Waldvogel, A. “The Design of Grossversuch IV, a Randomized Hail Suppression Experiment in Switzerland.” Atmosphere-Ocean 16 (1978) 6-16. Print.

Fennig, David. “Data Analytics Forecast Report.” National Insurance Crime Bureau. 2012 United States Hail Loss Claims and QCs. 25 June 2013. Print.

Foote, G. Brant and Charles G. Wade. “Case Study of a Hailstorm in Colorado. Part I: Radar Echo Structure and Evolution.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 39 (1982): 2828-2846. Print.

Foote, G. Brant and Charles G. Wade. “Case Study of a Hailstorm in Colorado. Part III: Airflow from Triple-Doppler Measurements.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 40 (1983): 686- 707. Print.

Foote, G. Brant. “A Study of Hail Growth Utilizing Observed Storm Conditions.” Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 23 (1984): 84-101. Print.

Forest Products Laboratory (US). Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-113 24 (1999).

Foster, Donald S. and Ferdinand C. Bates. “ A Hail Size Forecasting Technique.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 37.4 (1956): 135-141. Print.

179

Foster, James L. “The Devastating Hailstorm Near Washington D.C.” Weatherwise 29.3 (1976): 132-145. Print.

Fraile, R., Castro, A., Sanchez, J.L. “Analysis of Hailstone Size Distributions from a Hailpad Network.” Atmospheric Research 28 (1992): 311-326. Print.

Fraile, Roberto, Palencia, Covadonga, Castro, Amaya, Giaiotti, Dario, Stel, Fulvio. “Fitting an Exponential Distribution: Effect of Discretization.” Atmospheric Research 93 (2009): 636- 640. Print.

Fransson, Lennart. “Ice Handbook for Engineers.” Lulea University of Technology 1.2 (2009) 1- 31. Print.

Frost, Walter, Long, B.H., Turner, R.E. Engineering Handbook on the Atmospheric Environmental Guidelines for Use in Wind Turbine Generator Development. Tennessee Univ., Tullahoma (USA). Space Inst.; National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Huntsville, AL (USA). George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, 1978. Print.

Garcia-Garcia, F. and Roland List. “Laboratory Measurements and Parameterizations of Supercooled Water Skin Temperatures and Bulk Properties of Gyrating Hailstones.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 49.22 (1992): 2058-2073. Print.

Geresdi, I. “Effect of Nucleus Size and Vapor Fluctuations on Hail Stone Formation.” Atmospheric Research 47-48 (1998) 377-387. Print.

Gertzman, Henry S. and David Atlas. “Sampling Errors in the Measurement of Rain and Hail Parameters.” Journal of Geophysical Research 82.31 (1977): 4955-4966. Print.

Giaiotti, Dario B. and Fulvio Stel. “The Effects of Environmental Water Vapor on Hailstone Size Distributions.” Atmospheric Research 82 (2006): 455-462. Print.

Giammanco, Ian M PhD, and Tanya M. Brown, PhD. “ 2013 IBHS Characteristics of Serve Hail Field Research Summary.” Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (2014): 2-41. Print.

180

Giammanco, Ian M PhD, and Tanya M. Brown, Ph.D. “Evaluating the Compressive strength Characteristics of Hail through Compressive Strength Measurements, 2015, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Volume 32

Gitlin, Sonia N., Goyer, Guy G., Henderson, Thomas J. “The Liquid Water Content of Hailstones.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 25 (1968): 97-99. Print.

Gold, L.W. 2004. “Building Ships From Ice: Habbakuk and After”. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 2004, Vol. 29, No. 4 pp. 373-384.

Gokhale, Narayan R. Hailstorms and Hailstone Growth. Albany: State University of New York Press. 1975.

Gonzalez, C. "Hail Risk Model for Solar Collectors." Institute of Environmental Sciences, Fort Worth, TX (1978). Print.

Gonzales, Charles. "Environmental Hail Model for Assessing Risk to Solar Collectors." Jet Propulsion Laboratory Report 5101.45 (1977). Print.

Goyer, Guy G., “The Difficulties and Applications of Hailfall Measurements.” Atmosphere-Ocean 16 (1978): 2-5. Print.

Greenan, Blair J. and Roland List. “Experimental Closure of the Heat and Mass Transfer Theory of Spheroidal Hailstones.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 52.21 (1995): 3797-3815. Print.

Greenfeld, Sidney H. Hail resistance of roofing products. NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS WASHINGTON DC INST FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY, 1969. Print.

Grenier, Jean-Claude, Admirat, Pierre, Zair, Sadok. “Hailstone Growth Trajectories in the Dynamic Evolution of a Moderation Hailstorm.” Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 22 (1983): 1008-1021. Print.

Grigor’ev, A.I., Kornienko, D.O., Shiryaeva, S.O. “Nonlinear Analysis of the Finite-Amplitude Oscillations of a Charged Liquid Layer on a Rigid Spherical Core for the Multimodal Initial Deformation of the Free Surface.” Fluid Dynamics 47.3 (2012): 301-310. Print.

181

Gringorten, Irving I. “Hailstone Extremes for Design.” No. AFCRL-72-0081. AIR FORCE CAMBRIDGE RESEARCH LABS HANSCOM AFB MA, 1971. Print.

Guegan, Pierrick; Ramzi Othma, Daniel Lebreton, Franck Pasco, Philippe Villedieu, Jacques Meyssonnier, Sylvie. “Experimental Investigation of Kinematics of Post-Impact Ice Fragments.” International Journal of Impact Engineering 38 (2011): 786-795. Print.

Guo, Xueliang and Meiyuan Huang. “Hail Formation and Growth in a 3D Cloud Model with Hail- Bin Microphysics.” Atmospheric Research 63 (2002): 59-99. Print.

“Hail.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 30 October 2013. Web. 2 November 2013.

Hallett, John. “Discussion of Douglas’ Paper.” Meteorological Monographs 5.27 (1963) 168-172. Print.

Heymsfield, Andrew J. “The Characteristics of Graupel Particles in Northeastern Colorado Cumulus Congestus Clouds.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 35 (1978): 284-295. Print.

Heymsfield, Andrew J., Giammanco, Ian M., Wright, Robert. “Terminal Velocities and Kinetic Energies of Natural Hailstones.” AGU Publications, Geophysical Research Letters 41 (2014): 8666-8672. Print.

Heymsfield, Andrew J and Dennis J. Musil. “Case Study of a Hailstorm in Colorado. Part II: Particle Growth Processes at Mid-Levels Deduced from in-situ Measurements.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 39 (1982): 2847-2866. Print.

Heymsfield, Andrew J. “Case Study of a Hailstorm in Colorado. Part IV: Graupel and Hail Growth Mechanisms Deduced through Particle Trajectory Calculations.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 40 (1983): 1482-1509. Print.

Heymsfield, Andrew J., Temperature dependence of secondary ice crystal production during soft hail growth by riming. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, July 1984.

Heymsfield, Andrew J. “A Technique for Investigating Graupel and Hail Development.” Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 22.7 (1983): 1143-1160. Print.

182

aHeymsfield, Andrew and Robert Wright. “Graupel and Hail Terminal Velocities: Does a “Supercritical” Reynolds Number Apply?” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 71 (2014): 3392-3403. Print. bHeymsfield, Andrew J., Giammanco, Ian M., Wright, Robert. “Terminal Velocities and Kinetic Energies of Natural Hailstones.” AGU Publications, Geophysical Research Letters 41 (2014): 8666-8672. Print.

Hillaker, Jr., Harry J. and Paul J. Waite. “Aspects of the Climatology of Crop-Damaging Hail in the United States Midwest.” 17th Conference on Agricultural and Forest Meteorology and 7th Conference on Biometeorology and Aerobiology, Scottsdale, AZ. 21-24 (1985): 165- 166. Print.

Hillaker, Harry J. and Paul J. Waite. “Crop-Hail Damage in the Midwest Corn Belt.” Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 24.1 (1985): 3-15. Print.

Hitschfeld, Walter and Matthew Stauder. “The Temperature of Hailstones.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 24 (1967): 293-297. Print.

Hobbs, Peter V., Ice Physics, 2010, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-958771-1

Howell, Wallace E. “Conceptual Models that Guide Applied Cloud Seeding.” Bulletin American Meteorological Society 47.5 (1966): 397-400. Print.

Huggins, Arlen, Crow, Edwin L., Long, Alexis B. “Errors in Hailpad Data Reduction.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 19 (1980): 733-747. Print.

Hughes, Patrick, and Richard Wood. "Hail: The White." Weatherwise 46.2 (1993): 16-21. Print.

“Ice.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 5 October 2013. Web. 13 October 2013.

“Impact Force.” The Engineering ToolBox. Web. 5 March 2015. www.engineeringtoolbox.com/impact-force-d_1780.html.

Index of Refraction of Ice, https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MunifHussain.shtml, accessed on 7.8.2017.

Insurance Information Institute. 2015. www.iii.org/fact-statistic/hail, accessed on 3.13.2015.

183

International ASTM. E907-96: Standard Test Method for Field Testing Uplift Resistance of Fully Adhered Membrane Roofing Systems. 2004. Print.

International ASTM. E119-07a: Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials. 2007. Print.

International ASTM. E3746-85: Standard Test Methods for Impact Resistance of Bituminous Roofing Systems. 2008. Print.

International ASTM. E822-92 Standard Practice for Determining Resistance of Solar Collector Covers to Hail by Impact With Propelled Ice Balls 2004. Print.

ASTM C39 / C39M-18, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018, www.astm.org

ASTM D4761-13, Standard Test Methods for Mechanical Properties of Lumber and Wood-Base Structural Material, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013, www.astm.org

International ASTM. E108-11: Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests on Roof Coverings. 2011. Print.

International ASTM. E751-06: Standard Test Methods for Coated Fabrics. 2011. Print.

International ASTM. Proposed Standard Test Method for Determining Impact Resistance of Roof Membranes Using Steel Balls (Z8295Z). 2013. Print.

International ASTM. E1038-10: Standard Test Method for Determining Resistance of Photovoltaic Modules to Hail by Impact with Propelled Ice Balls. 2014. Print.

International Organizational for Standardization. ISO 11343: Adhesives – Determination of Dynamic Resistance to Cleavage of High-Strength Adhesive Bonds Under Impact Conditions – Wedge Impact Method. 2003.

Johnson, David B. and Roy M. Rasmussen. “Hail Growth Hysteresis.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 49.24 (1992): 2525-2532. Print.

Johnson, Gary N. and Paul L. Smith, Jr. “Measurement of Hailfall Intensity with a Self-Contained Hailstone Momentum Sensor.” Atmosphere-Ocean 16 (1978): 86-93. Print.

184

Jones, Keith. “The Application of Mathematical Ecology and Spatial Clustering Analysis Techniques to Hailpad Measurements”, A Dissertation in Industrial Engineering at Texas Tech University (2008). Print.

Jones, Stephen J. “High Strain-Rate Compression Tests on Ice.” J. Phys. Chem. B 101(1997): 6099-6101. Print.

Jury, William A., Gardner, Wilford R., Gardner, Walter H. Soil Physics. John Wiley & Sons. 1991.

Kashiwagi, Dean T., and Manoj K. Pandey. "Standards for "Oversized" and "Severe" Hail Resistance of Elastomeric Coated Sprayed Polyurethane Foam (SPF) Roofing Systems." ASTM SPECIAL TECHNICAL PUBLICATION 1349 (1999): 73-92. Print.

Keegan, Mark Hugh, David Nash, and Margaret Stack. "Numerical Modelling of Hailstone Impact on the Leading Edge of a Wind Turbine Blade." EWEA Annual Wind Energy Event 2013 (2013). Print.

Kennedy, Patrick C. and Andrew G. Detwiler. “A Case Study of the Origin of Hail in a Multicell Thunderstorm Using In Situ Aircraft and Polarimetric Radar Data.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 42 (2003): 1679-1690. Print.

Khvorostyanov, Vitaly I. and Judith A. Curry. “Fall Velocities of Hydrometeors in the Atmosphere: Refinements to a Continuous Analytical Power Law.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 62 (2005): 4343-4357. Print.

Kim, Hyonny, Welch, Douglas A., Kedward, Keith T. “Experimental Investigation of High Velocity Ice Impacts on Woven Carbon/Epoxy Composite Panels.” Composites Part A: applied science and manufacturing 34.1 (2003): 25-41. Print.

Kim Hyonny and John N. Keune. “Compressive Strength of Ice Impact Strain Rates.” Journal of Materials Science 42.8 (2007): 2802-2806. Print.

Kim, Hyonny and Halpin. “Does An Appropriate Test Protocol Exists for Characterizing the Hail Ice Threat Environment in Support of the Damage Tolerance Requirements?” (2007) MS PowerPoint file.

185

Knight, Charles A. and Nancy C. Knight. “The Falling Behavior of Hailstones.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 27 (1970): 672-681. Print.

Knight, Nancy C. and Andrew J. Heymsfield. “Measurement and Interpretation of Hailstorm Density and Terminal Velocity.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 40 (1983): 1510- 1516. Print.

Knight, Charles A., Abbott, Charles E., Knight, Nancy C. “Comments on ‘Air Bubbles in Artificial Hailstones.’” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 31 (1974): 2236-2238. Print.

Knight, Charles A., Ashworth, T., Knight, Nancy C. “Cylindrical Ice Accretions as Simulations of Hail Growth: II The Structure of Fresh and Annealed Accretions.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 35 (1978): 1997-2009. Print.

Knight, Charles A., and Nancy C. Knight. "Hailstorms." Severe Convective Storms. American Meteorological Society (2001) 223-254. Print.

Knight, Nancy C. and Charles A. Knight. “Some Observations on Foreign Material in Hailstones.” Bulletin American Meteorological Society 59.3 (1978): 282-286. Print.

Knight, Nancy C. “Hailstone Shape Factor and Its Relation to Radar Interpretation of Hail.” Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 25 (1986): 1956-1958. Print.

Koontz, Jim D. “The Effects of Hail on Residential Roofing Products.” 1991 International Symposium on Roofing Technology (1991): 206-215. Print.

Kuna, Meinhard, Finite Elements in Fracture Mechanics, Theory – Numerics – Applications. Springer.2013. Print. ISBN 978-94-007-6679-2.

Landis, D.S. “The Structure of Hailstones.” Monthly Weather Review (1906): 277-278. Print.

Lane, Frank W. “Hail” The Violent Earth. (1986): 70-215. Print.

Latham, J. and R. Warwicker. “Charge Transfer Accompanying the Splashing of Supercooled Raindrops on Hailstones.” Quart. J. R. Met. Soc. 106 (1980): 559-568. Print.

Learn about Electronics – Circuits and Resistors. www.learnabout- electronics.org/Resistors/resistors_01a.php Accessed on 7.7.2017.

186

Lee, K., Kevin, et al, Effect of size and roughness on light transmission in a Si/SiO2Si/SiO2 waveguide: Experiments and model, Letter 1617, Applied Physics Letters, 2000.

Lessens, G.B. and Roland List. “Sponginess and Drop Shedding of Gyrating Hailstones in a Pressure-Controlled Icing Wind Tunnel.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 43.23 (1986): 2813-2825. Print.

Levi, Laura and Luisa Lubart. “Analysis of Hailstones from a Severe Storm and Their Simulated Evolution.” Atmospheric Research 26 (1991): 191-211. Print.

Levi, Laura, Lubart, Luisa, Lassig, Jorge. “Study of a Convective Storm Series and of Precipitated Hail in South Argentina.” Atmospheric Research 33 (1994): 75-91. Print.

Light, Wikipedia, On-line encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light, accessed on 7.13.2017.

List, Roland and Thomas A. Agnew. “Air Bubbles in Artificial Hailstones.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 30 (1973): 1158-1165. Print.

List, Roland, Murray, William A., Dyck, Carole. “Air Bubbles in Hailstones.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 29 (1972): 916-920. Print.

List, Roland. “Physical Methods and Instruments for Characterizing Hailstones.” Bulletin American Meteorological Society 42.7 (1961): 452-466. Print.

List, Roland, Cantin, Jean-Guy, Ferland, Michael G. “Structural Properties of Two Hailstone Samples.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 27 (1970): 1080-1090. Print.

List, Roland. “New Hailstone Physics. Part I: Heat and Mass Transfer (HMT) and Growth.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 71 (2014): 1508-1520. Print.

List, Roland. “New Hailstone Physics. Part II: Interaction of the Variables.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 71 (2014): 2114-2129. Print.

Lloyd, F.E. “Structure of Hailstones of Exceptional Form and Size.” Monthly Weather Review (1917): 412. Print.

Locatelli, John D., Hobbs, Peter V. “Fall Speeds and Masses of Solid Precipitation Particles.” Journal of Geophysical Research 79.15 (1974): 2184-2197. Print.

187

Löf, George OG, and Robert R. French. "Hail Resistance of Solar Collectors with Tempered Glass Covers." Solar Energy 25.6 (1980): 555-561. Print.

Loffler-Mang, Martin, Schon, Dominik, Landry, Markus. “Characteristics of a New Automatic Hail Recorder.” Atmospheric Research 100 (2011): 439-446. Print.

Logan, Daryl, L., Mechanics of Materials. 1991. HarperCollins Publishers Inc. Print. ISBN 0-06- 044108-9.

Long, Alexis B. “Design of Hail Measurement Networks.” Atmosphere-Ocean 16 (1978): 35-48. Print.

Long, Alexis B. “On Estimating Hail Frequency and Hailfall Area.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 19 (1980): 1351-1362. Print.

Lowe, A.B. “Some Unusual Hailstones.” Weatherwise 18.2 (1965): 87. Print.

Lozowski, E.P. “Comments on ‘The Hailpad Calibration for Italian Hail Damage Documentation.’” Journal of Applied Meteorology 16 (1977): 668-669. Print.

Lozowski, E.P. and G.S. Strong. “Further Reflections on the Calibration of Hailpads.” Atmosphere-Ocean 16.1 (1978): 69-80. Print.

Lozowski, E.P., Erb, R., Wojtiw, L, Wong, M., Strong, G.S., Matson, R., Long, A., Vento, D., Admirat, P. “The Hail Sensor Intercomparison Experiment.” Atmosphere-Ocean 16 (1978): 94-106. Print.

Lozowski, E.P. and G.S. Strong. “On the Calibration of Hailpads.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 17 (1978): 521-528. Print.

Ludlam, F.H. “Severe Local Storms: A Review.” Meteorological Monographs 5.27 (1963): 25- 30. Print.

MacGregor, Lorne, Marshall, Hal G., Knight, Nancy C., Westberg, Hal. “Hailstones as Cloud Water Composition Probes: An Initial Assessment.” Atmospheric Environment 24.8 (1990): 2247-2251. Print.

Macklin, W.C. and F.H. Ludlam. “The Fallspeeds of Hailstones.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 87.371 (1961): 72-81. Print.

188

Macklin, William C., Knight, Charles A., Moore, Howard E., Knight, Nancy C., Pollock, Walter H. “Isotopic, Crystal and Air Bubble Structures of Hailstones.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 34 (1977): 961-967. Print.

Makkonen, Lasse. “Salinity and Growth Rate of Ice Formed by Sea Spray.” Cold Regions Science and Technology 14 (1987): 163-171. Print.

Marshall, Timothy P., Herzog, Richard F., Morrison, Scott J., Smith, Steven R. “Hail Damage Threshold Sizes for Common Roofing Materials.” 21st Conference on Severe Local Storms, San Antonio, TX 25 (2002). Print.

Marshall, Timothy P., Herzog, Richard F. Morrison, Scott J. “Hail Damage to Asphalt Roof Shingles.” 22nd Conference on Severe Local Storms. 2004.

Marshall, Timothy P., and Scott J. Morrison. “Hail Damage to Built-Up Roofing.” 22nd Conference on Severe Local Storms. 2004.

Marshall, T., Morrison, S., Herzog. R., Spruiell, J., Green, J. “Ice Ball Impact Testing of Roofing Materials.” Materials Science and Technology (2010): 1399-1408. Print.

Martínez-Frías, Jesús. "Compositional Heterogeneity of Hailstones: Atmospheric Conditions and Possible Environmental Implications." AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 30.7 (2001): 452-454. Print.

Matson, Richard J. and Arlen W. Huggins. “The Direct Measurement of the Sizes, Shapes and Kinematics of Falling Hailstones.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 37 (1980): 1107- 1125. Print.

Measurements: The ANELFA Scale.” Atmospheric Research 83 (2007): 132-139. Print.

Mellor, Malcolm and David M. Cole. “Deformation and Failure of Ice Under Constant Stress or Constant Strain-Rate.” Cold Regions Science and Technology 5 (1982): 201-219. Print.

Mexeix, J.F. “Comments on ‘Hail in Southwestern France. Part II: Results of a 30-Year Hail Prevention Project with Silver Iodide Seeding from the Ground.’” Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 26 (1987): 1774-1776. Print.

189

Mexeix, Jean-Francois and Pierre Admirat. “The Measurement of Hail at Ground Level.” Atmosphere-Ocean 16 (1978): 61-68. Print.

Mexeix, Jean Francois and Nadie Doras. “Various Kinetic Energy Characteristics of Hailpatterns in the Grossversuch IV Experiment.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 20 (1981): 377-385. Print.

Michaud, Alexander B., Dore, John E., Leslie, Deborah, Lyons, W. Berry, Sands, David C., Priscu, John C. “Biological Ice Nucleation Initiates Hailstone Formation.” AGU Publications, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 199.12 (2014): 186-197. Print.

Mitchell, David L. and Andrew J. Heymsfield. “Refinements in the Treatment of Ice Particle Terminal Velocities, Highlighting Aggregates.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 62 (2005): 1637-1644. Print.

Montgomery, Douglas C., Design and Analysis of Experiments 8th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2013. ISBN 978-1118-14692-7

Moor, G. "K voprosu o twerdosti l'da (On ice compressive strength)." Problemy Arktiki 5 (1940)

Morgan, Griffith M. and Neil G. Towery. “On the Role of Strong Winds in Damage to Crops by Hail and its Estimation with a Simple Instrument.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 15 (1976): 891-898. Print.

Morgan, Jr., Griffith M. “Results of Fine-Scale Studies of Surface Hailfall with Some Remarks on the Calibration of Hailpads: Recommendations for Further Research.” Atmosphere-Ocean 16 (1978): 49-60. Print.

Morgan, Griffith M. “Observation and Measurement of Hailfall.” Thunderstorms: A Social, Scientific and Technological Documentary 3 (1982): 119-135. Print.

Morrison, Scott J. “Long-Term Effects of Hail Impact on Asphalt Shingles – An Interim Report.” Proceedings of the North American Conference on Roofing Technology (1990): 30-39. Print.

190

Musil, Dennis J., Christopher, Sundar A., Deola, Regina A., Smith, Paul L. “Some Interior Observations of Southern Montana Hailstorms.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 30 (1991): 1596-1612. Print.

Myers, T.G. and J.P.F. Charpin. “A Mathematical Model for Atmospheric Ice Accretion and Water Flow on a Cold Surface.” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 47 (2004) 5483- 5500. Print.

National Weather Service, NOAA. Severe Weather Safety. www.nws.noaa.gov/os/severeweather/. Last accessed on 2.25.2016.

National Weather Service Storm Prediction Center. 2015. www.spc.noaa.gov. Accessed on 6.13.2015.

Neill, J.C. “An Approach to Crop-Hail Insurance Rate Revision.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 20 (1981): 1391-1399. Print.

Nelson, Stephan P. and Nancy C. Knight. “Variations in Hailstone Growth Characteristics in a Supercell Storm.” Prepr. Conf. Severe Local Storms, 12th. 1982. Print.

New World Encyclopedia. Thermoelectric effect. www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/thermoelectric_effect. Last accessed on 7.7.2017.

Oliver, John E. “Violent Storms: Perceptions and Adjustments.” Climatology: Selected Applications (1981): 137-163. Print.

Palencia, Covadonga, Castro, Amaya, Giaiotti, Dario, Stel, Fulvio, Vinet, Freddy, Fraile, Roberto.” Atmospheric Research 93 (2009): 664-670. Print.

Palencia, Covadonga, Giaiotti, Dario, Stel, Fulvio, Castro, Amaya, Fraile, Roberto. “Maximum Hailstone Size: Relationship with Meteorological Variables.” Atmospheric Research 96 (2010): 256-265. Print.

Patton, Don. “How to Convert a Durometer to Young’s Modulus.” eHow. Web. 13 October 2013.

Paul, Alexander H. “Regional Variation in Two Fundamental Properties of Hailfalls.” Weather 23.10 (1968): 424-429. Print.

191

Paul, Alec H. “Hailstorms in Southern Saskatchewan.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 19 (1980): 305-314. Print.

Pell, J. "Computer Analysis of Intermittency in Alberta Point-Hailfall." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 48.7 (1967): 9-15. Print.

Pell, Jerry, Summers, P.W., Paul, A.H., Vali, Gabor. “Alberta Hail Studies 1967.” McGill University, Montreal. 1967. Print.

Pflaum, John C. “Hail Formation via Microphysical Recycling.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 37 (1980): 160-173. Print.

Pflaum, John C. “New Clues for Decoding Hailstone Structure.” Bulletin American Meteorological Society 65.6 (1984): 583-593. Print.

Phelps, M.B. 2014. Measurement of Uncertainty for Laboratories Accredited by the International Accreditation Service, Unpublished, TTU IE5319 Fall 2014. aPhelps, M.B. Fedler, Cliff. Smith, Milton. Giammanco, Ian. 2018. Evaluating the Compressive Strength of Hail and Hail Direct Relationship to Freezer Iceballs, dissertation, Texas Tech University bPhelps, M.B. Fedler, Cliff. Smith, Milton. Heymsfield, Andrew. 2018. Hailstone and Freezer Iceball Non-Destructive Test Method Using Opacity and Air Bubble Recovery, dissertation, Texas Tech University cPhelps, M.B. Fedler, Cliff. Smith, Milton. Heymsfield, Andrew. J. Spradling, Donald. J. 2018 Fracture Mechanics and Finite Element Analysis of Natural Hailstones and Freezer Iceball Compressive Stress Response Relationship, dissertation, Texas Tech University

Pocakal, Damir, Vecenaj, Zeljko, Stalec, Janez. “Hail Characteristics of Different Regions in Continental Part of Croatia Based on Influence of Orography.” Atmospheric Research 93 (2009) 516-525. Print.

Poirier, Louis, Lozowski, Edward P., Thompson, Robert I. “Ice Hardness in Winter Sports.” Cold Regions Science and Technology 37 (2011) 129-134. Print.

192

Prakash, P. Jish and P. Pradeep Kumar. “Laboratory Experiments on the Effect of Trace Chemicals on Charge Transfer During Ice-Hail Collision.” Atmospheric Research 93 (2009): 655-663. Print.

Prodi, Franco. “X-Ray Images of Hailstones.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 8 (1969): 458-459. Print.

Prodi, F. “Laboratory Hail Studies.” Int. Conf. on Agrometeorology (1987) 111-133. Print.

Prodi, Franco. “Measurements of Local Density in Artificial and Natural Hailstones.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 9 (1970): 903-910. Print.

Prodi, F. and Wang Ang-Sheng. “The Preliminary Study on Artificial and Natural Hailstones.” Agrometeorology: 2nd International Cesena Agricultura Conference, Cesena, 8-9 October 1987/edited by Franco Prodi, Federica Rossi, Graziella Cristoferi: Fondazione Cesena Agricultura (1987): 356-360. Print.

Proposed Standards for the Collection, Storage and Measurement of Hail Stones. State Climate Extremes Committee. 9 December 2009.

Refractive Index, Wikipedia, On-line encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index, accessed on 7.8.2017.

Render, P.M. and H. Pan. “Experimental Studies into Hail Impact Characteristics.” Journal of Propulsion and Power 11.6 (1995): 1224-1230. Print.

Reuter, Gerhard W., Brimelow, Julian C., Goodson, Ron, Krauss, Terrence W. “Forecasting Hail Size by Combining a NWP Model with a Hail Growth Model.” 21st Conference on Weather Analysis and Forecasting/17th Conference on Numerical Weather Prediction. 2005. Print.

Rhymer, Jennifer D. and Hyonny Kim. “Prediction of Delamination Onset and Critical Force in Carbon/Epoxy Panels Impacted by Ice Spheres.” CMC 35.2 (2013): 87-117. Print.

Robinson, W.D. and R.C. Srivastava. “Calculations of Hailstone Growth in a Sloping Steady Updraft.” Atmosphere-Ocean 20 (1981): 76-89. Print.

193

Rogers, Steven, “Hail Damage: Physical Meteorology and Crop Losses.” Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 109 (1996): 97-103. Print.

Roofing Subrogation Handbook. Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP. 2000, 2001 Claims Conferences of the Property Loss Research Bureau. Web. 10 March 2013.

Roos, D.V.D.S. “Hailstone Size Inferred from Dents in Cold-Rolled Aluminum Sheet.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 17 (1978): 1234-1239. Print.

Rosinski, J., Browning, K.A., Langer, G., Nagamoto, C.T. “On the Distribution of Water-Insoluble Aerosol Particles in Hailstones and Its Possible Value as an Indication of the Hail Growth History.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 33 (1976): 530-536. Print.

Rosinski, Jan, Knight, Charles A., Nagamoto, Clarence T., Morgan, Griffith M., Knight, Nancy C. “Further Studies of Large, Water-Insoluble Particles Within Hailstones.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 36 (1979): 882-891. Print.

Ryzhkov, Alexander V., Kumjian, Matthew R., Ganson, Scott M., Khain, Alexander P. “Polarimetric Radar Characteristics of Melting Hail. Part I: Theoretical Simulations Using Spectral Microphysical Modeling.” Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 52 (2013): 2849-2870. Print.

Ryzhkov, Alexander V., Kumjian, Matthew R., Ganson, Scott M., Zhang, Pengfei. “Polarimetric Radar Characteristics of Melting Hail. Part II: Practical Implications.” Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 52 (2013): 2871-2886. Print.

Sanchez, J.L., Fraile, R., De La Madrid, J.L., De La Fuente, M.T., Rodriguez, P., Castro A. “Crop Damage: The Hail Size Factor.” American Meteorological Society 35 (1996): 1535-1541. Print.

Sanchez, J.L., Gil-Robles, B., Dessens, J., Martin, E., Lopez, L., Marcos, J.L., Berthet, C., Fernandez, J.T., Garcia-Ortega, E. “Characterization of Hailstone Size Spectra in Hailpad Networks in France, Spain, and Argentina.” Atmospheric Research 93 (2009): 641-654. Print.

Sanchez, J.L., Lopez, L., Garcia-Ortega, E., Gil, B. “Nowcasting of Kinetic Energy of Hail Precipitation Using Radar.” Atmospheric Research 123 (2013): 48-60. Print.

194

Santi-Temkiv, Tina, Finster, Kai, Dittmar, Thorsten, Hansen, Bjame Munk, Thyrhaugt, Runar, Nielsen, Niels Woetmann, Karlson, Ulrich Gosewinkel. “Hailstones: A Window into the Microbial and Chemical Inventory of a Storm Cloud.” Plos One. 23 January 2013. Web. 9 June 2015.

Saunders, C.P.R., and Keith W.D., and Mitzeva, R.P., “The effect of liquid water on thunderstorm charging”. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. Volume 96, Issue D6. June 1991.

Schleusener, Richard A. and Paul C. Jennings. “An Energy Method for Relative Estimates of Hail Intensity.” Bulletin American Meteorological Society 41.7 (1960): 372-376. Print.

Schleusener, Richard A. “Hailstorm Characterization and the Crystal Structure of Hail.” Meteorological Monographs 5.27 (1963): 173-176. Print.

Schiesser, H.H. “Hailfall: The Relationship between Radar Measurements and Crop Damage.” Atmospheric Research 25 (1990): 559-582. Print.

Schmid, W., Schiesser, H.H., Waldvogel, A. “The Kinetic Energy of Hailfalls. Part IV: Patterns of Hailpad and Radar Data.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 31 (1992): 1165-1178. Print.

Schulson, Erland M. “The Structure and Mechanical Behavior of Ice.” JOM 51.2 (1999) 21-27. Print.

Schulson, Erland, M., Duval, Paul, Creep and Fracture of Ice. 2009. Cambridge University Press. Print. ISBN 978-0-521-80620-6.

Shazly, Mostafa, Vikas Prakash, Bradley A. Lerch. “High Strain-Rate of Ice Under Uniaxial Compression.” International Journal of Solids and Structures 46 (2009): 1499-1515. Print.

Shimek, Evan, Stephen Ekwaro-Osire, and Jahan Raspy. "Probabilistic Analysis of Steel Roof Damage From Hail Strike." ASME 2011 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2011. Print.

Semenov, Petio. “An Overview of Crop Hail Damage and Evaluation of Hail Suppression Efficiency in Bulgaria.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 35 (1996): 1574-1581. Print.

195

Sioutas, Michalis, Meaden, Terence, Webb, Jonathan D.C. “Hail Frequency, Distribution and Intensity in Northern Greece.” Atmospheric Research 93 (2009): 526-533. Print.

Sissenwine, N. and R.V. Cormier. “Synopsis of Background Material.” Climatic Extremes for Military Equipment (1974): 105-111. Print.

Slocum, Giles. “The Hailstorm of April 1938 at Washington D.C.” Monthly Weather Review (1938): 275-277. Print.

Smith, Paul L. and Albert Waldvogel. “Notes and Correspondence On Determinations of Maximum Hailstone Sizes from Hailpad Observations.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 28 (1989): 71-76. Print.

Smith, Paul L., Johnson, L. Ronald, Priegnitz, David L., Boe, Bruce A., Mielke, Jr., Paul W. “An Exploratory Analysis of Crop Hail Insurance Data for Evidence of Cloud Seeding Effects in North Dakota.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 36 (1997): 463-473. Print.

Stanley, Matthew. “Hail Formation in Florida.” University of South Florida Scholar Commons (2014) 1-113. Print.

Strong, G.S. and E.P. Lozowski. “An Alberta Study to Objectively Measure Hailfall Intensity.” Atmosphere 15.1 (1977): 33-53. Print.

Summers, Peter W. and Alec H. Paul. “Some Climatological Characteristics of Hailfall in Central Alberta.” Preprints, 5th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, St. Louis, MO, Amer. Meteor. Soc. 1967. Print.

Summers, Peter W. and Lubomir Wojtiw. “The Economic Impact of Hail Damage in Alberta, Canada and its Dependence on Various Hailfall Parameters.” Seventh Conference on Severe Local Storms (1971): 158-163. Print.

Swift, Jonathan M. “Simulated Hail Ice Mechanical Properties and Failure Mechanism at Quasi- Static Strain Rates.” MS thesis of University of Washington, 2013. Print.

Takemi, Tetsuya. “Dependence of the Precipitation Intensity in Mesoscale Convective Systems to Temperature Lapse Rate.” Atmospheric Research 96 (2010): 273-285. Print.

196

Tilley, Richard, J., D., Defects in Solids. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2008 Print. ISBN 978-0-470- 07794-8.

Tilley, J.D.,. Colour and the Optical Properties of Materials. 2nd Edition. 2011.Wiley. Print. ISBN 978-0-470-74696-7.

Tilley, Richard, J., D., Understanding Solids, The Science of Materials. 2nd Edition. 2013. Print. ISBN 978-1-118-42328-8.

Tippmann, Jeffery D., Hyonny Kim, Jennifer D. Rhymer. “Experimentally Validated Strain Rate Dependent Material Model for Spherical Ice Impact Simulation.” International Journal of Impact Engineering 57 (2013): 43-54 Print.

Thermal Edge, Inc., “Temperature Control for Electrical Enclosures: Why You Can’t Ignore it, Print 2017

Tlisov, M.I. and N.A. Berezinskii. “Spectrum of Sizes and Ice-Forming Properties of Aerosol Particles Contained in Hailstones.” Meteorologiya Gidrologiya 3 (1984): 40-45. Print.

Tomczyk, John. “The Professor: Hard Ice vs. Soft Ice.” ACHR News. 4 June 2012. Web. 15 October 2013.

Towery, Neil G., Changnon, Jr., Stanley A., Morgan, Jr., Griffith M. “A Review of Hail-Measuring Instruments.” Bulletin American Meteorological Society 57.9 (1976): 1132-1140. Print.

Ulbrich, Carlton W., and David Atlas. “Hail Parameter Relations: A Comprehensive Digest.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 21 (1982): 22-43. Print.

Vasquez, Tim, 2010, Severe Storm Forecasting, 1st Edition, Weather Graphics Technologies, ISBN 0-9706840-9-6

Vasquez, Tim, 2015, Weather Radar Handbook, 1st Edition, Weather Graphics Technologies, ISBN 978-0996942317

Vento, D. “The Hailpad Calibration for Italian Hail Damage Documentation.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 15 (1976): 1018-1022. Print.

Vermeesch, Kevin and Ernest Agee. “The Mechanics of Falling Hailstones and Hailswaths.” 12th Conference on Cloud Physics. 2006. Print.

197

Vinet, Freddy. “Climatology of Hail in France.” Atmospheric Research 56 (2001): 309-323. Print.

Waldvogel, A., Schmid, W., Federer, B. “The Kinetic Energy of Hailfalls. Part I: Hailstone Spectra.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 17 (1978): 515-520. Print.

Waldvogel, A., Federer, B., Schmid, W., Mezeix, J.F. “The Kinetic Energy of Hailfalls. Part II: Radar and Hailpads.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 17 (1978): 1680-1693. Print.

Waldvogel, A. and W. Schmid. “The Kinetic Energy of Hailfalls. Part III: Sampling Errors Inferred from Radar Data.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 21 (1982): 1228-1238. Print.

Wallace, Mike. “GR 6753 Satellite and Radar Meteorology. Radar Principals BW ” Mississippi State University (Spring 2016) Distance Class On Line.

Wang, Pao K., Greenwald, Thomas J., Wang, Jianlu. “A Three Parameter Representation of the Shape and Size Distributions of Hailstones – A Case Study.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 44.7 (1987): 1062-1070. Print.

Weast, Robert, C., and Selby, Samuel, M., CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 48th Edition.1967. The Chemical Rubber Company. Cleveland. Print.

Webb, Jonathan D.C. and Derek M. Elsom. “The Great Hailstorm of August 1843: The Severest Recorded in Britain?” Weather 49.8 (1994): 266-273. Print.

Webb, J.D.C., Elsom, D.M., Meaden, G.T. “Severe Hailstorms in Britain and Ireland, a Climatological Survey and Hazard Assessment.” Atmospheric Research 93 (2009) 587- 606. Print.

Wikipedia On Line Encyclopedia. 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graupel. Accessed on 7/3/2015.

Wirth, E., Zoltan, Cs., Szekely, Cs. “On a Sampling Error in Hailpad Measurements.” Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology 22 (1983): 2100-2102. Print.

Witt, Arthur and Stephan P. Nelson. “The Use of Single-Doppler Radar for Estimation Maximum Hailstone Size.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 30 (1991): 425-431. Print.

198

Wojtiw, Lubomir and Peter W. Summers. “The Economic Impact and Regional Variation of Hail Damage in Alberta.” Sixth Annual Congress Canadian Meteorological Society, Edmonton. 1972. Print.

Wojtiw, L. and J.H. Renick. “Hailfall and Crop Damage in Alberta.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 54.6 (1973): 7-10. Print.

Wojtiw, L. and E.P. Lozowski. “Sampling Statistics of Alberta Hailpad Data.” Atmosphere-Ocean 16.1 (1978): 17-34. Print.

Wong, Raymond K.W., Chidambaram, Norman, Cheng, Lawrence, English, Marianne. “The Sampling Variations of Hailstone Size Distributions.” Journal of Applied Meteorology 27 (1988): 254-260. Print.

Wyser, Klaus and Ping Yang. “Average Ice Crystal Size and Bulk Short-Wave Single-Scattering Properties of Cirrus Clouds.” Atmospheric Research 49 (1998): 315-335. Print.

Xu, Jia-Liu. “Some Hail Research in China.” Bulletin American Meteorological Society 64.2 (1983): 124-132. Print.

Young, Kenneth C. “On the Role of Mixing in Promoting Competition between Growing Hailstones.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 35 (1978): 2190-2193. Print.

Zakinyan, G. “On the Theory of Formation of a Sandwich Structure of a Spherical Hailstone.” Inzenerno-fiziceskij zurnas 76.2 (2003): 42-47. Print.

Zakinyan, R.G. “On the Theory of Hailstone Growth.” Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics 44.2 (2008): 207-212. Print.

199

Texas Tech University, Matt B. Phelps, P.E., December 2018

APPENDIX A. Natural hailstone data

Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05707 15 10 18 18 0.709 7.2 14.3 22.5 254.6 0.395 1.30 3.055 0.426 13.83 35.049 75.72 6/6/2014_8:43 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05707 12 12 9 12 0.472 5.5 11.0 17.3 113.1 0.175 0.70 0.905 0.773 11.88 67.742 81.32 6/6/2014_8:42 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05707 12 12 3 12 0.472 4.5 9.0 14.1 113.1 0.175 0.20 0.905 0.221 9.82 55.995 61.13 6/6/2014_8:42 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 20 20 9 20 0.787 8.2 16.3 25.7 314.3 0.487 1.10 4.190 0.263 18.05 37.053 57.02 6/6/2014_8:41 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05707 18 18 12 18 0.709 8.0 16.0 25.1 254.6 0.395 2.10 3.055 0.687 24.97 63.281 71.23 6/6/2014_8:41 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 10 10 6 10 0.394 4.3 8.7 13.6 78.6 0.122 0.50 0.524 0.955 11.12 91.308 130.51 6/6/2014_8:41 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 21 21 9 21 0.827 8.5 17.0 26.7 346.5 0.537 1.10 4.851 0.227 22.81 42.471 63.73 6/6/2014_8:40 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 17 17 11 17 0.669 7.5 15.0 23.6 227.1 0.352 2.00 2.573 0.777 30.60 86.941 86.98 6/6/2014_8:40 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 16 14 10 16 0.630 6.7 13.3 21.0 201.1 0.312 1.30 2.146 0.606 19.35 62.065 70.94 6/6/2014_8:40 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 28 28 17 28 1.102 12.2 24.3 38.2 616.0 0.955 5.20 11.499 0.452 60.90 63.783 81.21 6/6/2014_8:39 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 26 24 14 26 1.024 10.7 21.3 33.5 531.1 0.823 4.40 9.206 0.478 45.64 55.437 60.08 6/6/2014_8:39 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 14 14 11 14 0.551 6.5 13.0 20.4 154.0 0.239 1.20 1.437 0.835 29.30 122.748 122.80 6/6/2014_8:39 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 12 10 9 12 0.472 5.2 10.3 16.2 113.1 0.175 0.60 0.905 0.663 16.97 96.766 116.13 6/6/2014_8:39 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 26 24 20 26 1.024 11.7 23.3 36.7 531.1 0.823 6.20 9.206 0.673 47.05 57.150 61.93 6/6/2014_8:38 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 16 16 12 16 0.630 7.3 14.7 23.0 201.1 0.312 1.40 2.146 0.653 18.70 59.980 73.84 6/6/2014_8:38 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 14 14 9 14 0.551 6.2 12.3 19.4 154.0 0.239 1.10 1.437 0.765 22.92 96.020 96.04 6/6/2014_8:38 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 14 14 9 14 0.551 6.2 12.3 19.4 154.0 0.239 0.80 1.437 0.557 16.75 70.172 89.34 6/6/2014_8:38 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 25 25 13 25 0.984 10.5 21.0 33.0 491.1 0.761 3.60 8.185 0.440 54.30 71.338 81.10 6/6/2014_8:37 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 19 19 13 19 0.748 8.5 17.0 26.7 283.6 0.440 2.40 3.593 0.668 30.06 68.373 68.40 6/6/2014_8:37 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 15 15 14 15 0.591 7.3 14.7 23.0 176.8 0.274 1.60 1.768 0.905 27.25 99.446 106.57 6/6/2014_8:37 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 38 26 13 38 1.496 12.8 25.7 40.3 1134.6 1.759 7.60 28.742 0.264 45.86 26.078 38.13 6/6/2014_8:36 PM T2 7A2 T2 7 -101.268 38.05706 24 24 14 24 0.945 10.3 20.7 32.5 452.6 0.701 3.40 7.241 0.470 40.45 57.663 72.86 6/6/2014_8:36 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.0463 16 14 5 16 0.630 5.8 11.7 18.3 201.1 0.312 0.60 2.146 0.280 17.40 55.810 63.80 6/6/2014_8:33 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 14 7 9 14 0.551 5.0 10.0 15.7 154.0 0.239 0.60 1.437 0.417 16.10 67.449 134.95 6/6/2014_8:33 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 13 13 9 13 0.512 5.8 11.7 18.3 132.8 0.206 0.40 1.151 0.348 15.02 72.977 86.27 6/6/2014_8:32 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 12 12 6 12 0.472 5.0 10.0 15.7 113.1 0.175 0.40 0.905 0.442 11.55 65.860 112.99 6/6/2014_8:32 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 31 31 12 31 1.220 12.3 24.7 38.8 755.1 1.170 4.50 15.605 0.288 34.50 29.478 41.55 6/6/2014_8:31 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 25 23 19 25 0.984 11.2 22.3 35.1 491.1 0.761 6.00 8.185 0.733 54.19 71.194 77.41 6/6/2014_8:31 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 19 19 11 19 0.748 8.2 16.3 25.7 283.6 0.440 1.80 3.593 0.501 22.38 50.904 60.46 6/6/2014_8:31 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 14 13 10 14 0.551 6.2 12.3 19.4 154.0 0.239 1.10 1.437 0.765 26.60 111.437 120.04 6/6/2014_8:31 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 26 25 16 26 1.024 11.2 22.3 35.1 531.1 0.823 6.50 9.206 0.706 94.12 114.324 118.94 6/6/2014_8:30 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 24 24 19 24 0.945 11.2 22.3 35.1 452.6 0.701 5.40 7.241 0.746 52.67 75.083 78.39 6/6/2014_8:30 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 14 14 9 14 0.551 6.2 12.3 19.4 154.0 0.239 0.60 1.437 0.417 17.51 73.356 93.38 6/6/2014_8:30 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 31 24 16 31 1.220 11.8 23.7 37.2 755.1 1.170 7.30 15.605 0.468 62.74 53.607 69.27 6/6/2014_8:29 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 22 22 16 22 0.866 10.0 20.0 31.4 380.3 0.589 2.90 5.578 0.520 39.80 67.521 87.41 6/6/2014_8:29 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 17 14 9 17 0.669 6.7 13.3 21.0 227.1 0.352 1.20 2.573 0.466 14.69 41.738 50.71 6/6/2014_8:29 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 30 30 13 30 1.181 12.2 24.3 38.2 707.1 1.096 4.00 14.143 0.283 27.35 24.953 35.67 6/6/2014_8:28 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04628 24 24 12 24 0.945 10.0 20.0 31.4 452.6 0.701 2.50 7.241 0.345 23.57 33.600 53.77 6/6/2014_8:28 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 21 21 16 21 0.827 9.7 19.3 30.4 346.5 0.537 2.80 4.851 0.577 44.88 83.564 87.78 6/6/2014_8:28 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04629 15 15 9 15 0.591 6.5 13.0 20.4 176.8 0.274 0.90 1.768 0.509 16.42 59.923 74.95 6/6/2014_8:28 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04628 24 24 20 24 0.945 11.3 22.7 35.6 452.6 0.701 4.50 7.241 0.621 40.55 57.806 73.06 6/6/2014_8:27 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04628 24 24 15 24 0.945 10.5 21.0 33.0 452.6 0.701 3.60 7.241 0.497 35.14 50.094 63.31 6/6/2014_8:27 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04628 18 18 9 18 0.709 7.5 15.0 23.6 254.6 0.395 1.90 3.055 0.622 31.14 78.918 83.60 6/6/2014_8:27 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04628 26 26 19 26 1.024 11.8 23.7 37.2 531.1 0.823 6.30 9.206 0.684 60.03 72.916 72.95 6/6/2014_8:26 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04628 25 25 20 25 0.984 11.7 23.3 36.7 491.1 0.761 6.20 8.185 0.758 54.41 71.483 74.49 6/6/2014_8:26 PM T2 7A1 T2 7 -101.267 38.04628 20 20 7 20 0.787 7.8 15.7 24.6 314.3 0.487 1.60 4.190 0.382 24.97 51.258 60.33 6/6/2014_8:26 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03894 23.92 19.69 13.82 23.92 0.942 9.6 19.1 30.1 449.6 0.697 3.90 7.169 0.544 47.16 67.679 82.26 6/6/2014_8:02 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03895 22.74 13.96 14.44 22.74 0.895 8.5 17.0 26.8 406.3 0.630 2.40 6.159 0.390 25.68 40.777 66.44 6/6/2014_8:02 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03895 25.68 19.66 16.45 25.68 1.011 10.3 20.6 32.4 518.1 0.803 4.30 8.871 0.485 59.29 73.823 96.47 6/6/2014_8:01 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03895 23.49 18.72 10.95 23.49 0.925 8.9 17.7 27.8 433.5 0.672 2.50 6.789 0.368 33.98 50.566 63.48 6/6/2014_8:01 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03895 33.94 28.47 14.68 33.94 1.336 12.8 25.7 40.4 905.1 1.403 7.60 20.479 0.371 54.42 38.792 46.26 6/6/2014_8:00 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03895 28.56 22.59 14.87 28.56 1.124 11.0 22.0 34.6 640.9 0.993 4.50 12.202 0.369 48.50 48.823 61.75 6/6/2014_8:00 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03895 23.97 19.56 9.92 23.97 0.944 8.9 17.8 28.0 451.4 0.700 2.60 7.214 0.360 53.56 76.543 93.84 6/6/2014_8:00 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03895 30.92 26.74 17.73 30.92 1.217 12.6 25.1 39.5 751.2 1.164 7.40 15.484 0.478 47.54 40.830 47.24 6/6/2014_7:59 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03895 27.72 22.32 15.53 27.72 1.091 10.9 21.9 34.3 603.7 0.936 4.20 11.157 0.376 35.32 37.743 46.89 6/6/2014_7:59 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03895 18.3 17.95 11.8 18.3 0.720 8.0 16.0 25.2 263.1 0.408 2.10 3.210 0.654 33.51 82.163 83.79 6/6/2014_7:59 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03895 36.33 29.9 23.2 36.33 1.430 14.9 29.8 46.8 1037.0 1.607 12.30 25.117 0.490 85.07 52.923 64.33 6/6/2014_7:58 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03895 24.64 24.64 13.93 24.64 0.970 10.5 21.1 33.1 477.0 0.739 3.80 7.836 0.485 55.09 74.506 78.65 6/6/2014_7:58 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03895 19.96 18.04 11.84 19.96 0.786 8.3 16.6 26.1 313.0 0.485 2.16 4.165 0.519 35.70 73.578 81.45 6/6/2014_7:58 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03896 31.66 25.32 20.31 31.66 1.246 12.9 25.8 40.5 787.6 1.221 7.60 16.623 0.457 68.07 55.762 69.76 6/6/2014_7:57 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03896 31.21 22.81 10.84 31.21 1.229 10.8 21.6 34.0 765.3 1.186 3.40 15.924 0.214 26.73 22.533 30.84 6/6/2014_7:57 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03896 27.52 25.52 14.25 27.52 1.083 11.2 22.4 35.2 595.1 0.922 5.20 10.917 0.476 22.33 24.210 26.12 6/6/2014_7:57 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03896 17.4 16.67 11.54 17.4 0.685 7.6 15.2 23.9 237.9 0.369 1.80 2.759 0.652 25.10 68.073 71.09 6/6/2014_7:57 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03896 32.37 21.97 31.26 32.37 1.274 14.3 28.5 44.8 823.3 1.276 12.00 17.766 0.675 61.87 48.484 71.46 6/6/2014_7:56 PM T1 7A2 T1 7 -101.267 38.03896 26.46 21.81 12.35 26.46 1.042 10.1 20.2 31.8 550.1 0.853 3.80 9.704 0.392 44.58 52.283 63.46 slush 6/6/2014_7:56 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 40.38 32.29 19.29 40.38 1.590 15.3 30.7 48.2 1281.1 1.986 12.00 34.488 0.348 266.51 134.210 167.90 6/6/2014_7:46 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03168 18.38 16.8 8.91 18.38 0.724 7.3 14.7 23.1 265.4 0.411 1.80 3.252 0.553 31.60 76.807 84.06 6/6/2014_7:45 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 15.55 12.59 9.58 15.55 0.612 6.3 12.6 19.8 190.0 0.294 1.10 1.970 0.559 20.71 70.327 86.90 6/6/2014_7:45 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03168 21.62 18.92 10.11 21.62 0.851 8.4 16.9 26.5 367.3 0.569 2.20 5.293 0.416 22.43 39.402 45.04 6/6/2014_7:44 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03168 14.91 12.33 6.9 14.91 0.587 5.7 11.4 17.9 174.7 0.271 1.00 1.736 0.576 19.85 73.318 88.70 slush 6/6/2014_7:44 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 27.72 21.56 12.3 27.72 1.091 10.3 20.5 32.3 603.7 0.936 2.90 11.157 0.260 34.56 36.931 47.50 6/6/2014_7:43 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03168 17.13 15.18 10.72 17.13 0.674 7.2 14.3 22.5 230.6 0.357 1.40 2.633 0.532 21.57 60.358 68.14 6/6/2014_7:43 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 22.84 20.75 11.75 22.84 0.899 9.2 18.4 29.0 409.9 0.635 3.00 6.241 0.481 42.96 67.620 74.46 6/6/2014_7:42 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 19.17 13.19 11.43 19.17 0.755 7.3 14.6 22.9 288.7 0.448 1.60 3.690 0.434 28.35 63.345 92.10 6/6/2014_7:42 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 26.07 21.82 19.17 26.07 1.026 11.2 22.4 35.1 534.0 0.828 5.80 9.281 0.625 28.25 34.130 40.80 6/6/2014_7:41 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 21.75 19.49 9.52 21.75 0.856 8.5 16.9 26.6 371.7 0.576 2.80 5.390 0.520 30.74 53.357 59.56 6/6/2014_7:41 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 18.03 14.61 14.77 18.03 0.710 7.9 15.8 24.8 255.4 0.396 2.10 3.070 0.684 29.59 74.741 92.28 6/6/2014_7:41 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 24.32 16.27 17.61 24.32 0.957 9.7 19.4 30.5 464.7 0.720 3.60 7.535 0.478 39.33 54.601 81.65 6/6/2014_7:40 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 23.3 20.32 13.11 23.3 0.917 9.5 18.9 29.7 426.6 0.661 2.90 6.626 0.438 37.61 56.885 65.26 6/6/2014_7:40 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 22.46 19.05 13.91 22.46 0.884 9.2 18.5 29.0 396.4 0.614 3.50 5.935 0.590 33.32 54.236 63.96 6/6/2014_7:40 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 21.34 20.46 14.72 21.34 0.840 9.4 18.8 29.6 357.8 0.555 3.50 5.090 0.688 38.66 69.707 72.74 6/6/2014_7:40 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03166 27.9 22.92 11.52 27.9 1.098 10.4 20.8 32.7 611.6 0.948 4.10 11.376 0.360 55.85 58.914 71.75 6/6/2014_7:39 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 26.94 20.04 10.78 26.94 1.061 9.6 19.3 30.3 570.2 0.884 2.90 10.242 0.283 67.22 76.051 102.27 6/6/2014_7:39 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03166 22.7 19.67 14.63 22.7 0.894 9.5 19.0 29.9 404.9 0.628 3.70 6.127 0.604 92.33 147.128 169.86 6/6/2014_7:39 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03166 28.02 26.16 17.87 28.02 1.103 12.0 24.0 37.7 616.9 0.956 6.20 11.523 0.538 82.69 86.481 92.66 6/6/2014_7:38 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 26.45 21.75 14.58 26.45 1.041 10.5 20.9 32.9 549.7 0.852 4.50 9.693 0.464 55.47 65.104 79.20 6/6/2014_7:38 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03166 21.65 19.95 18 21.65 0.852 9.9 19.9 31.2 368.3 0.571 3.70 5.316 0.696 51.36 89.973 97.69 6/6/2014_7:38 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03166 21.09 18.05 10.76 21.09 0.830 8.3 16.6 26.1 349.5 0.542 2.40 4.914 0.488 35.99 66.440 77.66 6/6/2014_7:38 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 37.64 32.04 14.59 37.64 1.482 14.0 28.1 44.1 1113.2 1.725 8.90 27.933 0.319 55.76 32.317 37.98 6/6/2014_7:37 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03167 28.72 27.95 18.47 28.72 1.131 12.5 25.0 39.4 648.1 1.005 8.70 12.409 0.701 70.18 69.863 71.81 6/6/2014_7:37 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03168 24.02 18.84 15.91 24.02 0.946 9.8 19.6 30.8 453.3 0.703 3.90 7.259 0.537 41.15 58.563 74.69 6/6/2014_7:37 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03168 27.75 24.9 18.17 27.75 1.093 11.8 23.6 37.1 605.0 0.938 6.40 11.193 0.572 49.65 52.941 59.02 6/6/2014_7:36 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03169 24.53 20.53 12.8 24.53 0.966 9.6 19.3 30.3 472.8 0.733 3.70 7.732 0.479 44.49 60.711 72.57 6/6/2014_7:36 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03168 21.38 18.64 13.68 21.38 0.842 9.0 17.9 28.1 359.2 0.557 3.10 5.119 0.606 38.95 69.967 80.28 6/6/2014_7:36 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03169 39.2 30.26 24.38 39.2 1.543 15.6 31.3 49.2 1207.4 1.871 15.10 31.552 0.479 121.46 64.903 84.11 6/6/2014_7:35 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.0317 22.8 20.9 17.24 22.8 0.898 10.2 20.3 31.9 408.4 0.633 3.80 6.208 0.612 54.71 86.417 94.30 6/6/2014_7:35 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03169 27.82 25.52 21.46 27.82 1.095 12.5 24.9 39.2 608.1 0.943 7.80 11.278 0.692 49.84 52.877 57.66 6/6/2014_7:34 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03169 24.22 16.45 17.94 24.22 0.954 9.8 19.5 30.7 460.9 0.714 4.40 7.442 0.591 44.97 62.947 92.71 6/6/2014_7:33 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03171 26.72 21.59 14.42 26.72 1.052 10.5 20.9 32.9 561.0 0.870 4.40 9.993 0.440 77.91 89.603 110.94 6/6/2014_7:32 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03171 33.22 28.18 10.72 33.22 1.308 12.0 24.0 37.8 867.1 1.344 5.00 19.203 0.260 35.03 26.064 30.74 6/6/2014_7:31 PM T1 7A1 T1 7 -101.268 38.03171 28.07 23.05 18.06 28.07 1.105 11.5 23.1 36.2 619.1 0.960 5.90 11.585 0.509 56.62 59.005 71.88 6/6/2014_7:31 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47357 15.58 12.65 6.91 15.58 0.613 5.9 11.7 18.4 190.7 0.296 0.80 1.981 0.404 19.37 65.524 80.75 6/5/2014_9:15 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47357 15.63 11.62 8.79 15.63 0.615 6.0 12.0 18.9 191.9 0.298 1.00 2.000 0.500 19.76 66.416 89.35 slush 6/5/2014_9:14 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47357 14.5 11.68 7.88 14.5 0.571 5.7 11.4 17.8 165.2 0.256 0.90 1.597 0.564 9.44 36.867 45.80 slush 6/5/2014_9:14 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47357 13.77 11.97 17.48 17.48 0.688 7.2 14.4 22.6 240.1 0.372 0.80 2.798 0.286 19.57 52.591 97.51 6/5/2014_9:14 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47357 18.34 15.17 8.7 18.34 0.722 7.0 14.1 22.1 264.3 0.410 1.50 3.231 0.464 22.81 55.684 67.35 6/5/2014_9:13 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47358 16.64 14.74 8.13 16.64 0.655 6.6 13.2 20.7 217.6 0.337 1.20 2.413 0.497 44.77 132.765 149.96 6/5/2014_9:13 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47358 21.07 16.17 12.84 21.07 0.830 8.3 16.7 26.2 348.8 0.541 2.60 4.900 0.531 49.74 91.998 119.93 6/5/2014_9:12 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47358 18.75 14.29 6.97 18.75 0.738 6.7 13.3 21.0 276.2 0.428 1.50 3.453 0.434 16.13 37.673 49.44 slush 6/5/2014_9:12 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47358 16.5 13.71 10.7 16.5 0.650 6.8 13.6 21.4 213.9 0.332 1.70 2.353 0.722 20.04 60.441 72.78 6/5/2014_9:12 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47358 27.71 24.13 8.28 27.71 1.091 10.0 20.0 31.5 603.3 0.935 3.30 11.145 0.296 47.16 50.432 57.94 6/5/2014_9:11 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47359 15.94 11.6 5.73 15.94 0.628 5.5 11.1 17.4 199.6 0.309 0.70 2.121 0.330 13.26 42.852 58.92 slush 6/5/2014_9:11 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47359 17.59 14.96 6.4 17.59 0.693 6.5 13.0 20.4 243.1 0.377 0.90 2.851 0.316 22.81 60.534 71.21 slush 6/5/2014_9:10 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47359 11.26 9.39 4.81 11.26 0.443 4.2 8.5 13.3 99.6 0.154 0.40 0.748 0.535 69.32 448.936 538.53 6/5/2014_9:10 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47359 25.69 21.39 12.3 25.69 1.011 9.9 19.8 31.1 518.6 0.804 2.10 8.881 0.236 23.96 29.810 35.81 slush 6/5/2014_9:09 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47359 20.71 16.67 9.43 20.71 0.815 7.8 15.6 24.5 337.0 0.522 1.80 4.653 0.387 42.67 81.689 101.54 6/5/2014_9:09 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47359 24.01 19.05 14.8 24.01 0.945 9.6 19.3 30.3 452.9 0.702 4.00 7.250 0.552 28.83 41.064 51.77 slush 6/5/2014_9:08 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47359 20.23 15.67 11.68 20.23 0.796 7.9 15.9 24.9 321.6 0.498 1.60 4.337 0.369 14.89 29.875 38.57 slush 6/5/2014_9:08 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47359 15.59 13.44 6.02 15.59 0.614 5.8 11.7 18.4 191.0 0.296 0.70 1.985 0.353 29.69 100.305 116.39 slush 6/5/2014_9:08 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.4736 17.28 17.09 5.2 17.28 0.680 6.6 13.2 20.7 234.6 0.364 1.10 2.703 0.407 23.96 65.887 66.64 slush 6/5/2014_9:07 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.47359 12.79 11.62 6.96 12.79 0.504 5.2 10.5 16.4 128.5 0.199 0.60 1.096 0.547 18.99 95.321 104.97 slush 6/5/2014_9:07 PM T1 6A3 T1 6 -103.107 38.4736 20.87 15.71 6.51 20.87 0.822 7.2 14.4 22.6 342.2 0.530 1.10 4.761 0.231 60.24 113.565 150.94 6/5/2014_9:06 PM T2 6A3 T2 6 -103.701 38.92991 14 14 6 14 0.551 5.7 11.3 17.8 154.0 0.239 0.60 1.437 0.417 6.79 28.446 33.22 6/5/2014_8:21 PM T2 6A3 T2 6 -103.701 38.92991 11 10 9 11 0.433 5.0 10.0 15.7 95.1 0.147 0.50 0.697 0.717 8.42 57.139 62.85 6/5/2014_8:21 PM T2 6A3 T2 6 -103.701 38.92992 11 11 5 11 0.433 4.5 9.0 14.1 95.1 0.147 0.20 0.697 0.287 4.09 27.755 38.16 6/5/2014_8:21 PM T2 6A3 T2 6 -103.701 38.9299 16 16 5 16 0.630 6.2 12.3 19.4 201.1 0.312 0.70 2.146 0.326 5.71 18.315 19.55 6/5/2014_8:20 PM T2 6A3 T2 6 -103.701 38.9299 11 11 4 11 0.433 4.3 8.7 13.6 95.1 0.147 0.20 0.697 0.287 3.87 26.262 48.19 6/5/2014_8:20 PM T2 6A3 T2 6 -103.701 38.92989 17 14 4 17 0.669 5.8 11.7 18.3 227.1 0.352 0.60 2.573 0.233 8.20 23.298 28.30 6/5/2014_8:19 PM T2 6A3 T2 6 -103.701 38.9299 12 12 9 12 0.472 5.5 11.0 17.3 113.1 0.175 0.60 0.905 0.663 10.69 60.956 60.98 6/5/2014_8:19 PM T2 6A3 T2 6 -103.701 38.9299 12 9 6 12 0.472 4.5 9.0 14.1 113.1 0.175 0.30 0.905 0.331 6.58 37.520 50.02 6/5/2014_8:19 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T2 6A3 T2 6 -103.701 38.92989 19 19 10 19 0.748 8.0 16.0 25.1 283.6 0.440 1.40 3.593 0.390 8.96 20.380 27.66 6/5/2014_8:18 PM T2 6A3 T2 6 -103.701 38.92989 17 17 10 17 0.669 7.3 14.7 23.0 227.1 0.352 1.30 2.573 0.505 4.85 13.780 16.72 6/5/2014_8:18 PM T2 6A3 T2 6 -103.701 38.92989 12 12 10 12 0.472 5.7 11.3 17.8 113.1 0.175 0.80 0.905 0.884 10.04 57.250 68.73 6/5/2014_8:18 PM T2 6A3 T2 6 -103.701 38.92989 19 19 13 19 0.748 8.5 17.0 26.7 283.6 0.440 2.20 3.593 0.612 11.55 26.271 31.22 6/5/2014_8:17 PM T2 6A2 T2 6 -103.701 38.93896 9 9 4 9 0.354 3.7 7.3 11.5 63.6 0.099 0.10 0.382 0.262 4.74 48.050 54.05 6/5/2014_8:14 PM T2 6A2 T2 6 -103.701 38.93896 16 16 4 16 0.630 6.0 12.0 18.9 201.1 0.312 0.10 2.146 0.047 8.20 26.301 42.10 6/5/2014_8:13 PM T2 6A2 T2 6 -103.701 38.93896 13 7 9 13 0.512 4.8 9.7 15.2 132.8 0.206 0.40 1.151 0.348 6.04 29.346 54.49 6/5/2014_8:13 PM T2 6A2 T2 6 -103.701 38.93896 10 10 7 10 0.394 4.5 9.0 14.1 78.6 0.122 0.10 0.524 0.191 6.14 50.416 63.09 6/5/2014_8:13 PM T2 6A2 T2 6 -103.701 38.93896 13 13 6 13 0.512 5.3 10.7 16.8 132.8 0.206 0.40 1.151 0.348 13.18 64.037 138.78 6/5/2014_8:12 PM T2 6A2 T2 6 -103.701 38.93896 7 7 5 7 0.276 3.2 6.3 10.0 38.5 0.060 0.10 0.180 0.557 4.30 72.057 72.16 6/5/2014_8:12 PM T2 6A2 T2 6 -103.701 38.93896 13 7 6 13 0.512 4.3 8.7 13.6 132.8 0.206 0.10 1.151 0.087 5.06 24.585 45.69 6/5/2014_8:11 PM T2 6A2 T2 6 -103.701 38.93896 8 8 9 9 0.354 4.2 8.3 13.1 63.6 0.099 0.20 0.382 0.524 8.20 83.125 140.33 6/5/2014_8:11 PM T2 6A2 T2 6 -103.701 38.93895 16 12 10 16 0.630 6.3 12.7 19.9 201.1 0.312 1.00 2.146 0.466 22.16 71.078 94.81 6/5/2014_8:10 PM T2 6A2 T2 6 -103.701 38.93896 13 13 10 13 0.512 6.0 12.0 18.9 132.8 0.206 0.60 1.151 0.521 5.39 26.188 30.94 6/5/2014_8:10 PM T2 6A2 T2 6 -103.701 38.93896 11 11 10 11 0.433 5.3 10.7 16.8 95.1 0.147 0.50 0.697 0.717 14.37 97.516 119.22 6/5/2014_8:10 PM T2 6A2 T2 6 -103.701 38.93895 15 12 10 15 0.591 6.2 12.3 19.4 176.8 0.274 0.90 1.768 0.509 17.29 63.098 78.90 6/5/2014_8:09 PM T2 6A2 T2 6 -103.701 38.93895 14 14 9 14 0.551 6.2 12.3 19.4 154.0 0.239 0.70 1.437 0.487 6.14 25.723 36.05 6/5/2014_8:09 PM T2 6A2 T2 6 -103.701 38.93895 13 11 15 15 0.591 6.5 13.0 20.4 176.8 0.274 0.90 1.768 0.509 9.50 34.669 54.56 6/5/2014_8:09 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94729 9 5 11 11 0.433 4.2 8.3 13.1 95.1 0.147 0.30 0.697 0.430 6.90 46.824 125.99 6/5/2014_8:05 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94729 12 12 9 12 0.472 5.5 11.0 17.3 113.1 0.175 0.30 0.905 0.331 6.69 38.148 65.38 6/5/2014_8:04 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94729 10 6 5 10 0.394 3.5 7.0 11.0 78.6 0.122 0.10 0.524 0.191 4.85 39.824 66.34 6/5/2014_8:04 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94728 10 9 11 11 0.433 5.0 10.0 15.7 95.1 0.147 0.50 0.697 0.717 12.74 86.454 116.33 6/5/2014_8:03 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94728 8 8 5 8 0.315 3.5 7.0 11.0 50.3 0.078 0.10 0.268 0.373 12.53 160.758 160.80 6/5/2014_8:03 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94728 12 10 7 12 0.472 4.8 9.7 15.2 113.1 0.175 0.60 0.905 0.663 6.04 34.441 41.32 6/5/2014_8:02 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94728 10 10 4 10 0.394 4.0 8.0 12.6 78.6 0.122 0.10 0.524 0.191 10.47 85.971 86.03 6/5/2014_8:02 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94728 9 9 6 9 0.354 4.0 8.0 12.6 63.6 0.099 0.30 0.382 0.786 7.44 75.421 84.91 6/5/2014_8:02 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94728 15 7 8 15 0.591 5.0 10.0 15.7 176.8 0.274 0.70 1.768 0.396 11.77 42.953 92.09 6/5/2014_8:01 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94727 16 16 8 16 0.630 6.7 13.3 21.0 201.1 0.312 0.80 2.146 0.373 4.74 15.203 18.71 6/5/2014_8:00 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94727 10 10 9 10 0.394 4.8 9.7 15.2 78.6 0.122 0.40 0.524 0.764 3.33 27.343 30.40 6/5/2014_8:00 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94725 16 16 11 16 0.630 7.2 14.3 22.5 201.1 0.312 1.10 2.146 0.513 29.95 96.064 102.51 6/5/2014_7:59 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94725 14 14 8 14 0.551 6.0 12.0 18.9 154.0 0.239 0.70 1.437 0.487 11.34 47.507 55.44 6/5/2014_7:59 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94726 13 13 9 13 0.512 5.8 11.7 18.3 132.8 0.206 0.30 1.151 0.261 4.41 21.427 30.98 6/5/2014_7:59 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94726 14 14 12 14 0.551 6.7 13.3 21.0 154.0 0.239 1.10 1.437 0.765 9.07 37.997 48.36 6/5/2014_7:58 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94725 11 11 9 11 0.433 5.2 10.3 16.2 95.1 0.147 0.20 0.697 0.287 5.39 36.577 44.70 6/5/2014_7:58 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94726 11 11 6 11 0.433 4.7 9.3 14.7 95.1 0.147 0.40 0.697 0.574 278.18 1887.745 1978.46 6/5/2014_7:57 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94726 11 10 7.5 11 0.433 4.8 9.5 14.9 95.1 0.147 0.50 0.697 0.717 160.78 1091.062 1200.62 6/5/2014_7:57 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94725 13 13 8 13 0.512 5.7 11.3 17.8 132.8 0.206 0.80 1.151 0.695 161.97 786.956 930.39 6/5/2014_7:56 PM T2 6A1 T2 6 -103.701 38.94724 13 13 7 13 0.512 5.5 11.0 17.3 132.8 0.206 0.60 1.151 0.521 83.95 407.884 442.04 6/5/2014_7:55 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.084 38.48179 14 10 5 14 0.551 4.8 9.7 15.2 154.0 0.239 0.40 1.437 0.278 7.23 30.289 42.40 6/5/2014_10:19 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.084 38.48178 15 15 10 15 0.591 6.7 13.3 21.0 176.8 0.274 1.10 1.768 0.622 15.13 55.215 75.30 6/5/2014_10:18 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.084 38.48179 11 11 7 11 0.433 4.8 9.7 15.2 95.1 0.147 0.50 0.697 0.717 11.66 79.125 79.18 6/5/2014_10:18 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.084 38.48178 10 10 9 10 0.394 4.8 9.7 15.2 78.6 0.122 0.40 0.524 0.764 12.42 101.982 113.36 6/5/2014_10:18 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.084 38.48177 15 15 13 15 0.591 7.2 14.3 22.5 176.8 0.274 1.20 1.768 0.679 23.78 86.782 108.53 6/5/2014_10:17 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.084 38.48179 14 14 11 14 0.551 6.5 13.0 20.4 154.0 0.239 1.00 1.437 0.696 20.10 84.206 98.30 6/5/2014_10:17 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.084 38.48178 14 14 13 14 0.551 6.8 13.7 21.5 154.0 0.239 1.30 1.437 0.904 19.78 82.865 96.71 6/5/2014_10:17 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.084 38.48178 14 14 10 14 0.551 6.3 12.7 19.9 154.0 0.239 1.20 1.437 0.835 19.78 82.865 82.89 6/5/2014_10:17 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.085 38.4816 17 16 11 17 0.669 7.3 14.7 23.0 227.1 0.352 1.60 2.573 0.622 15.77 44.806 47.64 6/5/2014_10:16 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.096 38.47755 25 25 16 25 0.984 11.0 22.0 34.6 491.1 0.761 4.70 8.185 0.574 45.75 60.105 68.33 6/5/2014_10:13 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.096 38.47755 12 12 6 12 0.472 5.0 10.0 15.7 113.1 0.175 0.50 0.905 0.552 19.35 110.337 120.39 6/5/2014_10:13 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.096 38.47756 17 17 7 17 0.669 6.8 13.7 21.5 227.1 0.352 0.50 2.573 0.194 39.15 111.234 118.23 6/5/2014_10:12 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.096 38.47756 11 11 5 11 0.433 4.5 9.0 14.1 95.1 0.147 0.20 0.697 0.287 13.72 93.105 146.35 6/5/2014_10:12 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.096 38.47757 16 13 5 16 0.630 5.7 11.3 17.8 201.1 0.312 0.50 2.146 0.233 29.30 93.979 115.72 6/5/2014_10:11 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.096 38.47755 16 16 6 16 0.630 6.3 12.7 19.9 201.1 0.312 1.00 2.146 0.466 21.40 68.640 78.48 6/5/2014_10:10 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.096 38.47753 21 15 10 21 0.827 7.7 15.3 24.1 346.5 0.537 1.40 4.851 0.289 19.56 36.419 51.01 6/5/2014_10:05 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.096 38.47753 21 16 13 21 0.827 8.3 16.7 26.2 346.5 0.537 2.10 4.851 0.433 41.42 77.121 101.26 6/5/2014_10:04 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.096 38.47753 14 10 10 14 0.551 5.7 11.3 17.8 154.0 0.239 0.90 1.437 0.626 17.61 73.774 103.35 6/5/2014_10:04 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.096 38.47754 16 16 11 16 0.630 7.2 14.3 22.5 201.1 0.312 1.70 2.146 0.792 44.99 144.304 144.37 6/5/2014_10:03 PM T2 6A4 T2 6 -103.096 38.47754 14 12 11 14 0.551 6.2 12.3 19.4 154.0 0.239 1.00 1.437 0.696 25.41 106.451 124.22 6/5/2014_10:03 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 21 21 13 21 0.827 9.2 18.3 28.8 346.5 0.537 2.20 4.851 0.454 46.43 86.450 100.89 6/4/2014_9:59 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 19 19 8 19 0.748 7.7 15.3 24.1 283.6 0.440 1.60 3.593 0.445 41.71 94.872 106.08 6/4/2014_9:59 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69509 11.85 11.85 11.6 11.85 0.467 5.9 11.8 18.5 110.3 0.171 0.60 0.872 0.688 227.32 1329.241 1996.00 6/4/2014_9:59 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69509 20.08 20.08 13.01 20.08 0.791 8.9 17.7 27.9 316.8 0.491 2.40 4.241 0.566 37.85 77.080 110.36 6/4/2014_9:58 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 18 18 13 18 0.709 8.2 16.3 25.7 254.6 0.395 1.80 3.055 0.589 26.09 66.120 85.05 6/4/2014_9:58 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69509 16.12 16.12 13.69 16.12 0.635 7.7 15.3 24.1 204.2 0.316 0.60 2.194 0.273 155.58 491.617 1773.63 6/4/2014_9:58 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 16 16 14 16 0.630 7.7 15.3 24.1 201.1 0.312 1.90 2.146 0.886 27.56 88.398 101.08 6/4/2014_9:58 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 21 18 15 21 0.827 9.0 18.0 28.3 346.5 0.537 2.70 4.851 0.557 31.99 59.563 69.51 6/4/2014_9:57 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 19 19 8 19 0.748 7.7 15.3 24.1 283.6 0.440 1.60 3.593 0.445 21.96 49.949 55.86 6/4/2014_9:57 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 18 18 14 18 0.709 8.3 16.7 26.2 254.6 0.395 1.70 3.055 0.556 22.85 57.909 65.17 6/4/2014_9:57 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69509 16.58 15.24 13.6 16.58 0.653 7.6 15.1 23.8 216.0 0.335 1.50 2.387 0.628 14.91 44.536 48.47 6/4/2014_9:57 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 24 24 12 24 0.945 10.0 20.0 31.4 452.6 0.701 3.10 7.241 0.428 34.34 48.953 61.87 6/4/2014_9:56 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 21 21 13 21 0.827 9.2 18.3 28.8 346.5 0.537 3.00 4.851 0.618 46.43 86.450 90.80 6/4/2014_9:56 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 17 15 12 17 0.669 7.3 14.7 23.0 227.1 0.352 2.20 2.573 0.855 32.87 93.391 105.88 6/4/2014_9:56 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69509 13.53 13.53 7.13 13.53 0.533 5.7 11.4 17.9 143.8 0.223 0.60 1.297 0.462 25.84 115.904 118.93 6/4/2014_9:56 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 22 22 14 22 0.866 9.7 19.3 30.4 380.3 0.589 3.60 5.578 0.645 49.37 83.757 108.45 6/4/2014_9:55 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 22 22 16 22 0.866 10.0 20.0 31.4 380.3 0.589 3.70 5.578 0.663 32.28 54.763 57.39 6/4/2014_9:55 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69966 24 24 18 24 0.945 11.0 22.0 34.6 452.6 0.701 3.40 7.241 0.470 42.89 61.142 69.91 6/4/2014_9:54 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69966 23 23 12 23 0.906 9.7 19.3 30.4 415.6 0.644 2.70 6.373 0.424 31.69 49.189 75.46 6/4/2014_9:54 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 23 22 15 23 0.906 10.0 20.0 31.4 415.6 0.644 4.30 6.373 0.675 32.87 51.021 53.36 6/4/2014_9:54 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69966 25 25 14 25 0.984 10.7 21.3 33.5 491.1 0.761 3.50 8.185 0.428 46.43 60.999 72.64 6/4/2014_9:53 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69966 17 17 10 17 0.669 7.3 14.7 23.0 227.1 0.352 1.70 2.573 0.661 27.27 77.480 82.36 6/4/2014_9:53 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69966 20 15 11 20 0.787 7.7 15.3 24.1 314.3 0.487 1.30 4.190 0.310 31.40 64.457 85.97 6/4/2014_9:52 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 10 9 7 10 0.394 4.3 8.7 13.6 78.6 0.122 0.30 0.524 0.573 14.60 119.882 133.22 soft 6/4/2014_9:52 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 21 20 12 21 0.827 8.8 17.7 27.8 346.5 0.537 2.50 4.851 0.515 38.17 71.070 74.66 6/4/2014_9:51 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 19 19 12 19 0.748 8.3 16.7 26.2 283.6 0.440 1.80 3.593 0.501 39.94 90.846 101.58 6/4/2014_9:51 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 16 10 15 16 0.630 6.8 13.7 21.5 201.1 0.312 1.40 2.146 0.653 28.74 92.183 147.57 6/4/2014_9:51 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 21 20 18 21 0.827 9.8 19.7 30.9 346.5 0.537 3.10 4.851 0.639 26.09 48.578 51.03 6/4/2014_9:50 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 15 15 11 15 0.591 6.8 13.7 21.5 176.8 0.274 1.10 1.768 0.622 23.14 84.447 90.53 6/4/2014_9:50 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69508 22.75 14.11 23.63 23.63 0.930 10.1 20.2 31.7 438.7 0.680 3.80 6.911 0.550 36.23 53.277 92.70 6/4/2014_9:49 PM T3 5A3 T3 5 -102.6 42.69965 20 20 20 20 0.787 10.0 20.0 31.4 314.3 0.487 3.10 4.190 0.740 26.39 54.173 57.04 6/4/2014_9:49 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69508 15.2 14.43 3.65 15.2 0.598 5.5 11.1 17.4 181.5 0.281 0.40 1.840 0.217 73.88 262.568 276.70 6/4/2014_9:49 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76268 21.39 3.51 11.67 21.39 0.842 6.1 12.2 19.2 359.5 0.557 0.90 5.126 0.176 35.03 62.867 383.32 slush 6/4/2014_9:48 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76271 18.24 15.25 13.16 18.24 0.718 7.8 15.6 24.4 261.4 0.405 2.20 3.179 0.692 29.59 73.029 87.39 6/4/2014_9:48 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69508 14.34 14.34 12.29 14.34 0.565 6.8 13.7 21.5 161.6 0.250 1.00 1.545 0.647 18.05 72.075 82.84 6/4/2014_9:48 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76269 14.14 8.57 13.13 14.14 0.557 6.0 11.9 18.8 157.1 0.243 1.00 1.481 0.675 10.49 43.080 71.13 slush 6/4/2014_9:48 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69508 13.27 10.01 14.15 14.15 0.557 6.2 12.5 19.6 157.3 0.244 1.20 1.484 0.809 20.64 84.645 127.67 6/4/2014_9:48 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69508 17.4 17.02 16.71 17.4 0.685 8.5 17.0 26.8 237.9 0.369 2.00 2.759 0.725 28.00 75.939 77.67 6/4/2014_9:47 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76271 15.38 12.38 13.35 15.38 0.606 6.9 13.7 21.5 185.9 0.288 1.30 1.906 0.682 27.30 94.766 117.78 6/4/2014_9:47 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76269 15.34 10.66 13 15.34 0.604 6.5 13.0 20.4 184.9 0.287 1.30 1.891 0.688 23.19 80.919 116.51 6/4/2014_9:47 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69509 33.29 33.29 25.02 33.29 1.311 15.3 30.5 48.0 870.7 1.350 6.50 19.325 0.336 47.91 35.498 47.90 6/4/2014_9:46 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69508 27.52 23.61 17.42 27.52 1.083 11.4 22.9 35.9 595.1 0.922 5.50 10.917 0.504 44.78 48.550 56.61 6/4/2014_9:46 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76268 19.2 11.81 13.68 19.2 0.756 7.4 14.9 23.4 289.6 0.449 1.60 3.707 0.432 25.01 55.708 90.60 6/4/2014_9:46 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76267 19.12 13.2 12.86 19.12 0.753 7.5 15.1 23.7 287.2 0.445 1.90 3.661 0.519 8.11 18.216 26.38 6/4/2014_9:46 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76268 14.25 11.91 14.6 14.6 0.575 6.8 13.6 21.4 167.5 0.260 1.50 1.630 0.920 37.33 143.799 180.66 6/4/2014_9:46 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76268 15.93 11.9 14.02 15.93 0.627 7.0 14.0 21.9 199.4 0.309 1.60 2.117 0.756 17.27 55.881 74.85 6/4/2014_9:45 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76269 15.75 13.66 15.13 15.75 0.620 7.4 14.8 23.3 194.9 0.302 1.70 2.047 0.831 54.90 181.725 209.60 slush 6/4/2014_9:45 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76268 10.93 7.05 9.82 10.93 0.430 4.6 9.3 14.6 93.9 0.145 0.50 0.684 0.731 14.98 102.961 159.71 slush 6/4/2014_9:45 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76264 17.14 12.11 13.61 17.14 0.675 7.1 14.3 22.5 230.8 0.358 1.60 2.638 0.607 22.43 62.692 88.77 6/4/2014_9:44 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76269 14.12 11.17 13.83 14.12 0.556 6.5 13.0 20.5 156.7 0.243 1.20 1.475 0.814 15.55 64.042 81.01 6/4/2014_9:44 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76269 13.6 11.3 11.55 13.6 0.535 6.1 12.2 19.1 145.3 0.225 1.10 1.318 0.835 23.10 102.550 123.46 6/4/2014_9:44 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76263 21 13.85 19.57 21 0.827 9.1 18.1 28.5 346.5 0.537 2.80 4.851 0.577 32.74 60.960 92.48 6/4/2014_9:43 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76264 12.52 7.74 10.12 12.52 0.493 5.1 10.1 15.9 123.2 0.191 0.70 1.028 0.681 11.35 59.455 96.23 slush 6/4/2014_9:43 PM T3 5A2 T3 5 -102.636 42.69064 10 9 7 10 0.394 4.3 8.7 13.6 78.6 0.122 0.20 0.524 0.382 22.55 185.161 205.85 Manual Caliper6/4/2014_9:43 PM T3 5A2 T3 5 -102.636 42.69064 6 6 3 6 0.236 2.5 5.0 7.9 28.3 0.044 0.10 0.113 0.884 11.94 272.336 272.53 Manual Caliper6/4/2014_9:43 PM T3 5A2 T3 5 -102.636 42.69064 15 15 11 15 0.591 6.8 13.7 21.5 176.8 0.274 0.70 1.768 0.396 15.19 55.434 83.16 Manual Caliper6/4/2014_9:42 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76264 14.9 13.55 15.25 15.25 0.600 7.3 14.6 22.9 182.7 0.283 1.60 1.858 0.861 19.57 69.096 79.60 6/4/2014_9:42 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76269 14.09 6.62 12.14 14.09 0.555 5.5 11.0 17.2 156.0 0.242 0.70 1.465 0.478 18.23 75.399 160.53 6/4/2014_9:42 PM T3 5A2 T3 5 -102.636 42.69064 13 13 9 13 0.512 5.8 11.7 18.3 132.8 0.206 0.80 1.151 0.695 21.67 105.287 114.11 Manual Caliper6/4/2014_9:42 PM T3 5A2 T3 5 -102.636 42.69064 13 11 12 13 0.512 6.0 12.0 18.9 132.8 0.206 0.70 1.151 0.608 15.78 76.670 90.62 Manual Caliper6/4/2014_9:42 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76266 12.25 8.64 12.13 12.25 0.482 5.5 11.0 17.3 117.9 0.183 0.80 0.963 0.831 18.32 100.243 142.21 6/4/2014_9:42 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76266 19.31 12.56 18.55 19.31 0.760 8.4 16.8 26.4 293.0 0.454 2.50 3.772 0.663 39.24 86.411 132.89 6/4/2014_9:41 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76267 17.6 13.8 12.52 17.6 0.693 7.3 14.6 23.0 243.4 0.377 1.90 2.856 0.665 24.53 65.024 82.96 6/4/2014_9:41 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76263 17.22 7.77 16.5 17.22 0.678 6.9 13.8 21.7 233.0 0.361 1.40 2.675 0.523 38.76 107.330 237.96 6/4/2014_9:41 PM T3 5A2 T3 5 -102.636 42.69064 15 15 11 15 0.591 6.8 13.7 21.5 176.8 0.274 1.30 1.768 0.735 20.79 75.871 87.56 Manual Caliper6/4/2014_9:41 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76266 28.88 18.5 22.9 28.88 1.137 11.7 23.4 36.8 655.3 1.016 6.20 12.617 0.491 52.70 51.882 81.03 6/4/2014_9:40 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76268 16.39 12.51 15.56 16.39 0.645 7.4 14.8 23.3 211.1 0.327 1.90 2.306 0.824 40.29 123.152 161.40 6/4/2014_9:40 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76266 12.35 8.69 10.2 12.35 0.486 5.2 10.4 16.4 119.8 0.186 0.70 0.987 0.709 10.02 53.943 76.66 slush 6/4/2014_9:40 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76268 19.21 10.37 16.96 19.21 0.756 7.8 15.5 24.4 289.9 0.449 2.10 3.713 0.566 25.49 56.718 105.09 6/4/2014_9:39 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76268 17.43 11.98 16.2 17.43 0.686 7.6 15.2 23.9 238.7 0.370 2.00 2.774 0.721 15.00 40.541 59.01 actual 15 lbs6/4/2014_9:38 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76269 13.2 10.55 13.05 13.2 0.520 6.1 12.3 19.3 136.9 0.212 1.20 1.205 0.996 16.99 80.066 100.20 6/4/2014_9:38 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76268 18.6 15.28 16.9 18.6 0.732 8.5 16.9 26.6 271.8 0.421 2.40 3.371 0.712 30.36 72.057 87.74 6/4/2014_9:37 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76268 16.46 8.7 15.6 16.46 0.648 6.8 13.6 21.4 212.9 0.330 1.50 2.336 0.642 24.05 72.888 137.98 6/4/2014_9:37 PM T1 5A6 T1 5 -102.696 42.76268 15 13.25 13.77 15 0.591 7.0 14.0 22.0 176.8 0.274 1.50 1.768 0.848 26.63 97.183 110.07 6/4/2014_9:37 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74422 21.79 14 18.26 21.79 0.858 9.0 18.0 28.3 373.1 0.578 3.10 5.419 0.572 26.06 45.067 70.17 6/4/2014_9:29 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74422 21.56 12.32 18.14 21.56 0.849 8.7 17.3 27.2 365.2 0.566 2.60 5.250 0.495 33.51 59.194 103.62 6/4/2014_9:29 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74421 15.03 12.78 14.27 15.03 0.592 7.0 14.0 22.0 177.5 0.275 1.40 1.778 0.787 9.06 32.932 38.75 slush 6/4/2014_9:29 PM T2 5A1 T2 5 102.7343 42.70119 9.63 5.63 11.31 11.31 0.445 4.4 8.9 13.9 100.5 0.156 0.40 0.758 0.528 7.44 47.758 112.76 6/4/2014_9:29 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74421 21.78 14.14 19.05 21.78 0.857 9.2 18.3 28.8 372.7 0.578 3.30 5.412 0.610 23.58 40.816 62.88 6/4/2014_9:28 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74421 12.94 9 13.06 13.06 0.514 5.8 11.7 18.3 134.0 0.208 1.10 1.167 0.943 20.90 100.615 147.43 6/4/2014_9:28 PM T2 5A1 T2 5 102.7343 42.7012 9.02 8.9 4.74 9.02 0.355 3.8 7.6 11.9 63.9 0.099 0.20 0.384 0.520 154.72 1561.479 1583.13 6/4/2014_9:28 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74421 21.46 14.43 18.6 21.46 0.845 9.1 18.2 28.5 361.8 0.561 3.10 5.177 0.599 42.48 75.740 112.69 6/4/2014_9:27 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74422 20.7 12.38 19.04 20.7 0.815 8.7 17.4 27.3 336.7 0.522 2.60 4.646 0.560 33.03 63.295 105.87 6/4/2014_9:27 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74422 14.99 7.21 13.22 14.99 0.590 5.9 11.8 18.6 176.6 0.274 0.90 1.764 0.510 13.26 48.455 100.80 slush 6/4/2014_9:27 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69014 11 11 7 11 0.433 4.8 9.7 15.2 95.1 0.147 0.40 0.697 0.574 16.95 115.024 140.67 6/4/2014_9:27 PM T2 5A1 T2 5 102.7344 42.70117 8.1 7.84 9.16 9.16 0.361 4.2 8.4 13.1 65.9 0.102 0.30 0.403 0.745 25.62 250.721 331.43 6/4/2014_9:27 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74423 21.34 13.18 17.92 21.34 0.840 8.7 17.5 27.5 357.8 0.555 2.40 5.090 0.471 25.68 46.303 74.99 6/4/2014_9:26 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74421 19.46 14.71 17.92 19.46 0.766 8.7 17.4 27.3 297.5 0.461 2.70 3.860 0.699 42.29 91.697 121.36 6/4/2014_9:26 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74422 16.72 12.05 14.6 16.72 0.658 7.2 14.5 22.7 219.7 0.340 1.70 2.448 0.694 20.52 60.271 83.66 6/4/2014_9:26 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69013 12 12 6 12 0.472 5.0 10.0 15.7 113.1 0.175 0.50 0.905 0.552 26.09 148.770 162.36 6/4/2014_9:26 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69014 12 12 12 12 0.472 6.0 12.0 18.9 113.1 0.175 0.80 0.905 0.884 13.42 76.523 76.54 6/4/2014_9:26 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69014 10.5 9 7 10.5 0.413 4.4 8.8 13.9 86.6 0.134 0.30 0.606 0.495 10.76 80.138 93.57 6/4/2014_9:26 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74422 23.01 17.45 19.15 23.01 0.906 9.9 19.9 31.2 416.0 0.645 3.80 6.382 0.595 32.36 50.185 66.20 6/4/2014_9:25 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74423 21.22 17.62 19.84 21.22 0.835 9.8 19.6 30.7 353.8 0.548 3.90 5.005 0.779 30.83 56.219 67.74 6/4/2014_9:25 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74423 16.43 9.6 13.75 16.43 0.647 6.6 13.3 20.8 212.1 0.329 1.30 2.323 0.560 20.42 62.113 106.37 6/4/2014_9:25 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69013 16 16 7 16 0.630 6.5 13.0 20.4 201.1 0.312 0.60 2.146 0.280 26.98 86.538 106.53 6/4/2014_9:25 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69012 13 13 9 13 0.512 5.8 11.7 18.3 132.8 0.206 0.80 1.151 0.695 13.71 66.612 78.77 6/4/2014_9:25 PM T2 5A1 T2 5 102.7344 42.70116 9.46 9.46 7.63 9.46 0.372 4.4 8.9 13.9 70.3 0.109 0.10 0.443 0.226 127.56 1170.402 1355.70 6/4/2014_9:25 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74422 22.02 17.21 19.1 22.02 0.867 9.7 19.4 30.6 381.0 0.591 3.50 5.593 0.626 42.67 72.259 92.50 6/4/2014_9:24 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74421 21.6 15.22 14.8 21.6 0.850 8.6 17.2 27.0 366.6 0.568 2.70 5.279 0.511 19.57 34.442 48.89 6/4/2014_9:24 PM T2 5A1 T2 5 102.7344 42.70115 15.6 15.6 15 15.6 0.614 7.7 15.4 24.2 191.2 0.296 1.40 1.989 0.704 21.51 72.576 73.98 6/4/2014_9:24 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74422 14 9.25 10.17 14 0.551 5.6 11.1 17.5 154.0 0.239 0.90 1.437 0.626 11.54 48.345 73.22 slush 6/4/2014_9:24 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69011 14 13 9 14 0.551 6.0 12.0 18.9 154.0 0.239 0.70 1.437 0.487 18.43 77.210 83.17 6/4/2014_9:24 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69012 10.5 10.5 11 11 0.433 5.3 10.7 16.8 95.1 0.147 0.50 0.697 0.717 12.83 87.065 95.58 6/4/2014_9:24 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74421 24.72 19 22.12 24.72 0.973 11.0 21.9 34.5 480.1 0.744 5.60 7.913 0.708 28.25 37.960 49.42 6/4/2014_9:23 PM T1 5A5 T1 5 -102.692 42.74421 15.01 12.36 13.74 15.01 0.591 6.9 13.7 21.5 177.0 0.274 1.60 1.771 0.903 12.69 46.249 56.19 slush 6/4/2014_9:23 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69011 14 14 11 14 0.551 6.5 13.0 20.4 154.0 0.239 0.70 1.437 0.487 15.19 63.636 81.00 6/4/2014_9:23 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69011 14 14 10 14 0.551 6.3 12.7 19.9 154.0 0.239 0.80 1.437 0.557 15.78 66.108 71.20 6/4/2014_9:23 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69011 16 16 12 16 0.630 7.3 14.7 23.0 201.1 0.312 1.30 2.146 0.606 18.13 58.151 77.58 6/4/2014_9:22 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69011 15 13 10 15 0.591 6.3 12.7 19.9 176.8 0.274 1.00 1.768 0.566 19.02 69.411 80.11 6/4/2014_9:22 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69011 13 13 11 13 0.512 6.2 12.3 19.4 132.8 0.206 0.90 1.151 0.782 14.89 72.345 72.38 6/4/2014_9:22 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69011 15 14 10 15 0.591 6.5 13.0 20.4 176.8 0.274 1.00 1.768 0.566 20.20 73.718 79.00 6/4/2014_9:21 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.6901 13 11 16 16 0.630 6.7 13.3 21.0 201.1 0.312 1.50 2.146 0.699 26.39 84.645 151.57 6/4/2014_9:21 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.6901 16 14 16 16 0.630 7.7 15.3 24.1 201.1 0.312 1.60 2.146 0.746 26.09 83.683 95.68 6/4/2014_9:20 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.6901 14 13 9 14 0.551 6.0 12.0 18.9 154.0 0.239 0.90 1.437 0.626 14.60 61.165 65.88 6/4/2014_9:20 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.69009 19 10 21 21 0.827 8.3 16.7 26.2 346.5 0.537 1.20 4.851 0.247 18.43 34.315 79.67 6/4/2014_9:19 PM T3 5A1 T3 5 -102.715 42.6901 14 13 10 14 0.551 6.2 12.3 19.4 154.0 0.239 0.70 1.437 0.487 17.54 73.481 79.18 6/4/2014_9:19 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73607 19.2 11 16.5 19.2 0.756 7.8 15.6 24.5 289.6 0.449 1.90 3.707 0.512 22.72 50.607 88.35 6/4/2014_9:17 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73607 18.66 12.99 16.25 18.66 0.735 8.0 16.0 25.1 273.6 0.424 2.30 3.403 0.676 33.41 78.787 113.23 6/4/2014_9:17 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73607 17.65 9.75 15.92 17.65 0.695 7.2 14.4 22.7 244.8 0.379 1.60 2.880 0.556 21.09 55.589 100.69 6/4/2014_9:17 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73607 19.83 9.44 16.84 19.83 0.781 7.7 15.4 24.2 309.0 0.479 1.60 4.085 0.392 27.87 58.196 122.31 6/4/2014_9:16 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73607 18.37 9.75 16.87 18.37 0.723 7.5 15.0 23.6 265.1 0.411 1.70 3.247 0.524 29.02 70.613 133.09 6/4/2014_9:16 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73608 18.28 8.75 16.4 18.28 0.720 7.2 14.5 22.7 262.6 0.407 1.70 3.200 0.531 19.85 48.777 101.95 6/4/2014_9:16 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73607 16.93 13.14 16.35 16.93 0.667 7.7 15.5 24.3 225.2 0.349 2.00 2.542 0.787 31.22 89.438 115.26 6/4/2014_9:15 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73607 16.42 12.78 15.75 16.42 0.646 7.5 15.0 23.5 211.8 0.328 1.90 2.319 0.819 25.49 77.629 99.76 6/4/2014_9:15 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73606 16.2 8.27 14.04 16.2 0.638 6.4 12.8 20.2 206.2 0.320 1.30 2.227 0.584 42.20 132.034 258.72 6/4/2014_9:15 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73607 21.52 11.83 19.29 21.52 0.847 8.8 17.5 27.6 363.9 0.564 3.30 5.220 0.632 30.07 53.315 97.02 6/4/2014_9:14 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73607 17.97 9.965 16.16 17.97 0.707 7.3 14.7 23.1 253.7 0.393 1.80 3.040 0.592 30.16 76.690 138.37 6/4/2014_9:14 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73608 21.1 8.26 19.28 21.1 0.831 8.1 16.2 25.5 349.8 0.542 2.20 4.921 0.447 63.68 117.447 300.15 6/4/2014_9:13 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73608 22.34 8.87 15.543 22.34 0.880 7.8 15.6 24.5 392.1 0.608 1.50 5.840 0.257 47.26 77.755 195.90 6/4/2014_9:12 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73606 19.97 14.65 20.12 20.12 0.792 9.1 18.2 28.7 318.1 0.493 2.90 4.266 0.680 39.52 80.161 110.97 6/4/2014_9:12 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73605 21.73 13.37 19.17 21.73 0.856 9.0 18.1 28.4 371.0 0.575 3.00 5.375 0.558 52.32 90.981 147.93 slush 6/4/2014_9:11 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73605 14.93 8.26 13.09 14.93 0.588 6.0 12.1 19.0 175.1 0.271 1.10 1.743 0.631 15.17 55.882 101.06 slush 6/4/2014_9:11 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73605 12.01 8.33 11.62 12.01 0.473 5.3 10.7 16.7 113.3 0.176 0.80 0.907 0.882 7.53 42.866 61.85 slush 6/4/2014_9:11 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73604 24.19 13.81 9.66 24.19 0.952 7.9 15.9 25.0 459.8 0.713 3.70 7.414 0.499 33.22 46.616 81.69 19.66 mm y6/4/2014_9:10 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73607 12.71 11.09 14.36 14.36 0.565 6.4 12.7 20.0 162.0 0.251 1.10 1.551 0.709 19.37 77.130 112.91 6/4/2014_9:10 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73607 19.5 19 18.5 19.5 0.768 9.5 19.0 29.9 298.8 0.463 3.70 3.884 0.953 31.98 69.058 70.90 6/4/2014_9:09 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73607 13.78 9.73 12.77 13.78 0.543 6.0 12.1 19.0 149.2 0.231 1.00 1.371 0.730 10.59 45.793 64.87 slush 6/4/2014_9:09 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73607 20.94 12.75 19.4 20.94 0.824 8.8 17.7 27.8 344.5 0.534 2.90 4.810 0.603 42.96 80.448 132.18 6/4/2014_9:08 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73608 18.4 17.32 17 18.4 0.724 8.8 17.6 27.6 266.0 0.412 3.10 3.263 0.950 51.75 125.510 133.38 6/4/2014_9:08 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73607 13.01 13.01 11.95 13.01 0.512 6.3 12.7 19.9 133.0 0.206 1.10 1.153 0.954 19.66 95.374 100.11 6/4/2014_9:08 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73609 23.57 17.05 19.17 23.57 0.928 10.0 19.9 31.3 436.5 0.677 4.10 6.859 0.598 44.20 65.329 90.35 6/4/2014_9:07 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73608 17.9 11.35 15.76 17.9 0.705 7.5 15.0 23.6 251.8 0.390 1.70 3.004 0.566 37.23 95.409 150.53 6/4/2014_9:07 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73609 16.93 12 17.4 17.4 0.685 7.7 15.4 24.3 237.9 0.369 2.10 2.759 0.761 47.93 129.991 193.78 6/4/2014_9:07 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73609 24.89 22.91 21.1 24.89 0.980 11.5 23.0 36.1 486.8 0.754 6.70 8.077 0.830 35.89 47.569 51.71 6/4/2014_9:06 PM T1 5A4 T1 5 -102.693 42.73609 16.82 15.62 14.9 16.82 0.662 7.9 15.8 24.8 222.3 0.345 2.30 2.493 0.923 29.97 86.984 93.72 6/4/2014_9:06 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 20.1 17.66 18.05 20.1 0.791 9.3 18.6 29.2 317.4 0.492 3.40 4.254 0.799 33.98 69.061 78.64 6/4/2014_8:59 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73045 19.6 16.58 17.81 19.6 0.772 9.0 18.0 28.3 301.8 0.468 3.00 3.944 0.761 37.61 80.389 95.08 6/4/2014_8:59 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 22.88 13.35 20.6 22.88 0.901 9.5 18.9 29.8 411.3 0.638 3.30 6.274 0.526 27.30 42.821 73.42 6/4/2014_8:58 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 20.79 17.41 19.22 20.79 0.819 9.6 19.1 30.1 339.6 0.526 3.30 4.707 0.701 33.12 62.919 75.18 6/4/2014_8:58 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 20.56 16.75 18 20.56 0.809 9.2 18.4 29.0 332.1 0.515 3.30 4.552 0.725 41.34 80.302 98.60 6/4/2014_8:58 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 21.21 14.6 16.05 21.21 0.835 8.6 17.3 27.2 353.5 0.548 2.40 4.998 0.480 28.16 51.399 74.70 6/4/2014_8:57 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 20.68 16.06 17 20.68 0.814 9.0 17.9 28.1 336.0 0.521 2.80 4.633 0.604 36.85 70.752 91.14 6/4/2014_8:57 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 19.26 12.45 18.55 19.26 0.758 8.4 16.8 26.3 291.5 0.452 2.50 3.742 0.668 35.03 77.541 120.02 6/4/2014_8:57 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 21.81 17.76 17.91 21.81 0.859 9.6 19.2 30.1 373.7 0.579 3.40 5.434 0.626 27.78 47.954 58.91 6/4/2014_8:56 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 21.78 13.22 19.9 21.78 0.857 9.2 18.3 28.8 372.7 0.578 3.50 5.412 0.647 42.58 73.704 121.47 6/4/2014_8:56 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 20.2 15.8 17.47 20.2 0.795 8.9 17.8 28.0 320.6 0.497 3.00 4.317 0.695 32.36 65.119 83.29 6/4/2014_8:56 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 25.86 17.09 20.78 25.86 1.018 10.6 21.2 33.4 525.4 0.814 4.80 9.059 0.530 38.00 46.658 70.63 actual 38: soft6/4/2014_8:55 internal PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 20.47 12.64 17.94 20.47 0.806 8.5 17.0 26.7 329.2 0.510 2.70 4.493 0.601 43.06 84.380 136.69 6/4/2014_8:55 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73047 24.23 19.62 22.82 24.23 0.954 11.1 22.2 34.9 461.3 0.715 5.30 7.451 0.711 47.16 65.958 81.49 6/4/2014_8:54 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 21.16 10.47 19.09 21.16 0.833 8.5 16.9 26.6 351.8 0.545 2.20 4.963 0.443 31.02 56.887 115.03 6/4/2014_8:54 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73048 19.16 13.53 17.55 19.16 0.754 8.4 16.7 26.3 288.4 0.447 2.50 3.684 0.679 64.35 143.933 203.91 6/4/2014_8:54 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73047 25.66 17.57 24.37 25.66 1.010 11.3 22.5 35.4 517.3 0.802 5.80 8.850 0.655 82.97 103.469 151.17 6/4/2014_8:53 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73048 23.1 17.57 21.23 23.1 0.909 10.3 20.6 32.4 419.3 0.650 4.50 6.457 0.697 58.33 89.758 118.07 6/4/2014_8:53 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73048 22.4 13.14 18.72 22.4 0.882 9.0 18.1 28.4 394.2 0.611 2.50 5.887 0.425 38.38 62.808 107.10 6/4/2014_8:53 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73047 19.5 15.08 17.47 19.5 0.768 8.7 17.4 27.3 298.8 0.463 3.00 3.884 0.772 26.92 58.131 75.19 6/4/2014_8:52 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73047 19.3 16.24 18.24 19.3 0.760 9.0 17.9 28.2 292.7 0.454 2.70 3.766 0.717 24.63 54.294 64.54 6/4/2014_8:52 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 14.13 8.82 13.5 14.13 0.556 6.1 12.2 19.1 156.9 0.243 1.30 1.478 0.880 28.92 118.937 190.64 6/4/2014_8:52 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 24.5 19.2 21.4 24.5 0.965 10.9 21.7 34.1 471.6 0.731 5.80 7.703 0.753 40.00 54.718 69.85 actual 40 6/4/2014_8:51 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73046 18.22 11.92 14.73 18.22 0.717 7.5 15.0 23.5 260.8 0.404 1.70 3.168 0.537 71.99 178.065 272.29 slush 6/4/2014_8:51 PM T1 5A3 T1 5 -102.693 42.73045 24.7 17.77 22.32 24.7 0.972 10.8 21.6 33.9 479.4 0.743 4.80 7.893 0.608 50.00 67.294 93.58 actual 50 6/4/2014_8:50 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.7122 13.93 10.35 11.96 13.93 0.548 6.0 12.1 19.0 152.5 0.236 0.90 1.416 0.636 53.85 227.870 306.79 6/4/2014_8:43 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.7122 12.39 8.9 10.64 12.39 0.488 5.3 10.6 16.7 120.6 0.187 0.70 0.996 0.703 8.49 45.412 63.23 slush 6/4/2014_8:43 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.7122 11.76 7.22 7.62 11.76 0.463 4.4 8.9 13.9 108.7 0.168 0.40 0.852 0.470 18.61 110.493 180.05 6/4/2014_8:43 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.7122 15.9 9.91 16.3 16.3 0.642 7.0 14.0 22.1 208.8 0.324 1.60 2.268 0.705 24.15 74.635 125.89 6/4/2014_8:42 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.7122 13.91 6.67 12.85 13.91 0.548 5.6 11.1 17.5 152.0 0.236 0.80 1.410 0.567 20.23 85.851 179.14 6/4/2014_8:42 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.7122 11.23 9.44 11.5 11.5 0.453 5.4 10.7 16.9 103.9 0.161 0.70 0.797 0.879 8.39 52.092 65.03 slush 6/4/2014_8:42 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71219 18 10.63 14.45 18 0.709 7.2 14.4 22.6 254.6 0.395 1.30 3.055 0.426 20.00 50.686 83.00 actual 20\0A6/4/2014_8:41 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.7122 14.05 12.52 10.93 14.05 0.553 6.3 12.5 19.6 155.1 0.240 1.10 1.453 0.757 27.20 113.141 127.04 \0A 6/4/2014_8:41 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71218 14.62 13.09 12.89 14.62 0.576 6.8 13.5 21.3 167.9 0.260 1.40 1.637 0.855 23.86 91.660 102.42 6/4/2014_8:40 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71219 13.03 11.73 12.31 13.03 0.513 6.2 12.4 19.4 133.4 0.207 0.90 1.159 0.777 15.17 73.367 81.54 6/4/2014_8:40 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71219 20.96 12.12 17.23 20.96 0.825 8.4 16.8 26.4 345.2 0.535 2.30 4.823 0.477 30.93 57.810 100.01 6/4/2014_8:39 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71219 20.59 14.74 17.6 20.59 0.811 8.8 17.6 27.7 333.1 0.516 3.00 4.572 0.656 38.28 74.142 103.61 6/4/2014_8:39 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71219 19.81 12.69 16.74 19.81 0.780 8.2 16.4 25.8 308.3 0.478 2.40 4.072 0.589 28.83 60.322 94.20 6/4/2014_8:39 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71219 17.63 9.31 16.4 17.63 0.694 7.2 14.4 22.7 244.2 0.379 1.50 2.870 0.523 25.58 67.577 128.02 6/4/2014_8:39 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71219 21.17 16.65 19.14 21.17 0.833 9.5 19.0 29.8 352.1 0.546 3.30 4.970 0.664 19.76 36.203 46.04 6/4/2014_8:38 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71219 20.87 14.33 20.21 20.87 0.822 9.2 18.5 29.0 342.2 0.530 3.10 4.761 0.651 31.12 58.667 85.48 6/4/2014_8:38 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71219 18.5 13.56 19.21 19.21 0.756 8.5 17.1 26.9 289.9 0.449 2.50 3.713 0.673 19.18 42.677 62.82 6/4/2014_8:38 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71219 20.95 11.26 17.57 20.95 0.825 8.3 16.6 26.1 344.9 0.535 2.40 4.816 0.498 39.24 73.411 136.63 6/4/2014_8:37 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71219 20.15 15.4 20.2 20.2 0.795 9.3 18.6 29.2 320.6 0.497 3.20 4.317 0.741 40.76 82.023 107.91 6/4/2014_8:37 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71219 18.86 10.67 18.59 18.86 0.743 8.0 16.0 25.2 279.5 0.433 2.10 3.514 0.598 38.76 89.475 158.21 6/4/2014_8:37 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71218 23.41 17.55 22.83 23.41 0.922 10.6 21.3 33.4 430.6 0.667 4.80 6.720 0.714 46.02 68.952 92.00 6/4/2014_8:36 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71217 22.44 19.71 20.4 22.44 0.883 10.4 20.9 32.8 395.6 0.613 4.50 5.919 0.760 59.29 96.680 110.12 6/4/2014_8:36 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71218 24.36 20.4 23.15 24.36 0.959 11.3 22.6 35.6 466.3 0.723 5.90 7.572 0.779 85.45 118.239 141.26 6/4/2014_8:35 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71217 22.3 15.19 21.55 22.3 0.878 9.8 19.7 30.9 390.7 0.606 4.20 5.809 0.723 53.27 87.958 129.19 6/4/2014_8:35 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71217 19.41 13.32 18.18 19.41 0.764 8.5 17.0 26.7 296.0 0.459 2.70 3.830 0.705 38.38 83.648 121.93 6/4/2014_8:35 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71218 21.75 13.45 20.14 21.75 0.856 9.2 18.4 29.0 371.7 0.576 3.70 5.390 0.687 55.47 96.281 155.76 6/4/2014_8:34 PM T1 5A2 T1 5 -102.693 42.71219 21.22 17.82 19.53 21.22 0.835 9.8 19.5 30.7 353.8 0.548 3.60 5.005 0.719 47.54 86.690 103.28 6/4/2014_8:34 PM T1 5A1 T1 5 -102.695 42.69348 13.19 5.52 12.57 13.19 0.519 5.2 10.4 16.4 136.7 0.212 0.60 1.202 0.499 18.61 87.833 209.96 slush 6/4/2014_8:26 PM T1 5A1 T1 5 -102.695 42.69348 16.6 9.75 10.3 16.6 0.654 6.1 12.2 19.2 216.5 0.336 1.10 2.396 0.459 23.96 71.396 121.59 6/4/2014_8:25 PM T1 5A1 T1 5 -102.695 42.6935 17.25 14.86 15.96 17.25 0.679 8.0 16.0 25.2 233.8 0.362 2.00 2.689 0.744 32.17 88.772 103.09 6/4/2014_8:24 PM T1 5A1 T1 5 -102.695 42.69349 15.16 7.55 14.08 15.16 0.597 6.1 12.3 19.3 180.6 0.280 1.10 1.825 0.603 18.51 66.132 132.88 6/4/2014_8:24 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T1 5A1 T1 5 -102.695 42.69349 14.71 9.02 13.45 14.71 0.579 6.2 12.4 19.5 170.0 0.264 1.20 1.667 0.720 20.04 76.046 124.08 6/4/2014_8:24 PM T1 5A1 T1 5 -102.695 42.6935 17.36 12.68 16.63 17.36 0.683 7.8 15.6 24.4 236.8 0.367 2.00 2.740 0.730 35.89 97.786 133.95 6/4/2014_8:23 PM T1 5A1 T1 5 -102.695 42.69349 15.97 11.46 15.86 15.97 0.629 7.2 14.4 22.7 200.4 0.311 1.50 2.133 0.703 12.88 41.468 57.81 6/4/2014_8:23 PM T1 5A1 T1 5 -102.695 42.6935 17.25 9.74 15.6 17.25 0.679 7.1 14.2 22.3 233.8 0.362 1.60 2.689 0.595 29.21 80.604 142.81 6/4/2014_8:22 PM T1 5A1 T1 5 -102.695 42.69351 17.17 8.63 16.85 17.17 0.676 7.1 14.2 22.3 231.6 0.359 1.50 2.651 0.566 28.83 80.298 159.81 6/4/2014_8:22 PM T1 5A1 T1 5 -102.695 42.6935 15.71 11.05 14.4 15.71 0.619 6.9 13.7 21.6 193.9 0.301 1.30 2.031 0.640 17.08 56.825 80.83 6/4/2014_8:22 PM T1 5A1 T1 5 -102.695 42.6935 27.57 15.47 22.9 27.57 1.085 11.0 22.0 34.5 597.2 0.926 5.10 10.977 0.465 279.49 301.923 538.30 ductile compression6/4/2014_8:21 PM T2 5A5 T2 5 -102.478 42.74531 8.36 6.12 5.43 8.36 0.329 3.3 6.6 10.4 54.9 0.085 0.10 0.306 0.327 156.12 1834.209 2506.61 6/4/2014_10:37 PM T2 5A5 T2 5 -102.478 42.74533 13.42 13.42 7.4 13.42 0.528 5.7 11.4 17.9 141.5 0.219 0.80 1.266 0.632 59.49 271.232 288.32 6/4/2014_10:36 PM T2 5A5 T2 5 -102.478 42.74533 10.79 9.86 10.07 10.79 0.425 5.1 10.2 16.1 91.5 0.142 0.50 0.658 0.760 9.39 66.226 72.50 6/4/2014_10:36 PM T2 5A5 T2 5 -102.478 42.74533 9.71 9.22 9.07 9.71 0.382 4.7 9.3 14.7 74.1 0.115 0.30 0.480 0.626 231.00 2011.761 2119.57 6/4/2014_10:35 PM T3 5A5 T3 5 -102.478 42.73397 10 4 7 10 0.394 3.5 7.0 11.0 78.6 0.122 0.10 0.524 0.191 11.06 90.815 227.12 6/4/2014_10:33 PM T3 5A5 T3 5 -102.478 42.73397 9 9 7 9 0.354 4.2 8.3 13.1 63.6 0.099 0.10 0.382 0.262 16.66 168.886 168.95 6/4/2014_10:32 PM T3 5A5 T3 5 -102.478 42.73397 8 8 7 8 0.315 3.8 7.7 12.0 50.3 0.078 0.20 0.268 0.746 14.30 183.467 183.56 6/4/2014_10:32 PM T3 5A5 T3 5 -102.478 42.73397 16 11 8 16 0.630 5.8 11.7 18.3 201.1 0.312 0.70 2.146 0.326 15.78 50.614 73.63 6/4/2014_10:31 PM T3 5A5 T3 5 -102.478 42.73397 12 11 7 12 0.472 5.0 10.0 15.7 113.1 0.175 0.20 0.905 0.221 18.43 105.091 114.68 6/4/2014_10:31 PM T3 5A5 T3 5 -102.478 42.73397 19 17 9 19 0.748 7.5 15.0 23.6 283.6 0.440 1.50 3.593 0.418 17.54 39.896 44.62 6/4/2014_10:30 PM T2 5A4 T2 5 -102.538 42.70952 11.94 11.94 6.37 11.94 0.470 5.0 10.1 15.8 112.0 0.174 0.40 0.892 0.449 177.76 1023.831 1235.33 6/4/2014_10:20 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70399 14 12 4 14 0.551 5.0 10.0 15.7 154.0 0.239 0.40 1.437 0.278 13.71 57.436 67.05 6/4/2014_10:17 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.704 9 8 10 10 0.394 4.5 9.0 14.1 78.6 0.122 0.50 0.524 0.955 11.06 90.815 126.18 6/4/2014_10:17 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.704 15 15 9 15 0.591 6.5 13.0 20.4 176.8 0.274 1.00 1.768 0.566 14.60 53.281 57.09 6/4/2014_10:16 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70399 14 14 9 14 0.551 6.2 12.3 19.4 154.0 0.239 1.10 1.437 0.765 31.10 130.289 130.35 6/4/2014_10:16 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70399 13 13 10 13 0.512 6.0 12.0 18.9 132.8 0.206 0.90 1.151 0.782 16.95 82.354 97.39 6/4/2014_10:16 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70399 14 14 9 14 0.551 6.2 12.3 19.4 154.0 0.239 1.20 1.437 0.835 24.03 100.670 108.45 6/4/2014_10:15 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70401 19 12 10 19 0.748 6.8 13.7 21.5 283.6 0.440 1.10 3.593 0.306 19.61 44.604 70.64 6/4/2014_10:14 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70401 9 9 5 9 0.354 3.8 7.7 12.0 63.6 0.099 0.10 0.382 0.262 16.36 165.844 165.96 6/4/2014_10:14 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.704 8 8 6 8 0.315 3.7 7.3 11.5 50.3 0.078 0.10 0.268 0.373 13.42 172.177 196.81 6/4/2014_10:14 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70402 16 16 11 16 0.630 7.2 14.3 22.5 201.1 0.312 1.40 2.146 0.653 25.50 81.791 109.10 6/4/2014_10:13 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70403 16 16 13 16 0.630 7.5 15.0 23.6 201.1 0.312 1.80 2.146 0.839 20.20 64.791 74.06 6/4/2014_10:13 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70401 13 13 6 13 0.512 5.3 10.7 16.8 132.8 0.206 0.70 1.151 0.608 12.53 60.879 71.99 6/4/2014_10:13 PM T2 5A3 T2 5 -102.557 42.70688 9.12 9.12 9.74 9.74 0.383 4.7 9.3 14.7 74.5 0.116 0.20 0.484 0.413 15.34 132.773 178.08 6/4/2014_10:13 PM T2 5A3 T2 5 -102.557 42.7069 7.44 4.01 8.89 8.89 0.350 3.4 6.8 10.7 62.1 0.096 0.30 0.368 0.815 82.97 862.026 2284.53 6/4/2014_10:13 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70407 16 16 7 16 0.630 6.5 13.0 20.4 201.1 0.312 1.30 2.146 0.606 19.31 61.936 66.10 6/4/2014_10:12 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70405 13 13 10 13 0.512 6.0 12.0 18.9 132.8 0.206 0.90 1.151 0.782 15.78 76.670 83.07 6/4/2014_10:12 PM T2 5A3 T2 5 -102.557 42.70688 11.51 11.51 11.24 11.51 0.453 5.7 11.4 17.9 104.1 0.161 0.30 0.799 0.376 35.14 217.798 619.30 6/4/2014_10:12 PM T2 5A3 T2 5 -102.557 42.70688 9.46 9.46 9.12 9.46 0.372 4.7 9.3 14.7 70.3 0.109 0.30 0.443 0.677 8.20 75.238 130.89 6/4/2014_10:12 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70406 17 17 9 17 0.669 7.2 14.3 22.5 227.1 0.352 1.70 2.573 0.661 24.03 68.275 72.56 6/4/2014_10:11 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70406 14 13 11 14 0.551 6.3 12.7 19.9 154.0 0.239 1.10 1.437 0.765 17.84 74.738 80.51 6/4/2014_10:11 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70406 14 13 10 14 0.551 6.2 12.3 19.4 154.0 0.239 1.40 1.437 0.974 14.01 58.693 63.22 6/4/2014_10:11 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70404 20 20 20 20 0.787 10.0 20.0 31.4 314.3 0.487 3.50 4.190 0.835 31.40 64.457 67.87 6/4/2014_10:10 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70404 18 18 14 18 0.709 8.3 16.7 26.2 254.6 0.395 2.30 3.055 0.753 24.03 60.899 78.32 6/4/2014_10:10 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70405 16 14 12 16 0.630 7.0 14.0 22.0 201.1 0.312 1.70 2.146 0.792 22.55 72.328 82.71 6/4/2014_10:10 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70404 21 21 14 21 0.827 9.3 18.7 29.3 346.5 0.537 3.10 4.851 0.639 25.50 47.479 49.88 6/4/2014_10:09 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70403 20 20 16.5 20 0.787 9.4 18.8 29.6 314.3 0.487 3.30 4.190 0.788 50.55 103.768 109.28 6/4/2014_10:09 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70404 20 20 17 20 0.787 9.5 19.0 29.9 314.3 0.487 3.30 4.190 0.788 34.34 70.493 74.24 6/4/2014_10:09 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70402 23 17 19 23 0.906 9.8 19.7 30.9 415.6 0.644 4.30 6.373 0.675 39.65 61.545 83.30 6/4/2014_10:08 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70402 17 17 16 17 0.669 8.3 16.7 26.2 227.1 0.352 2.10 2.573 0.816 24.32 69.098 73.45 6/4/2014_10:08 PM T3 5A4 T3 5 -102.577 42.70402 17 17 11.5 17 0.669 7.6 15.2 23.8 227.1 0.352 1.90 2.573 0.738 23.73 67.422 67.46 6/4/2014_10:08 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69509 25.21 25.21 16.47 25.21 0.993 11.1 22.3 35.0 499.4 0.774 4.30 8.393 0.512 43.58 56.305 67.95 6/4/2014_10:01 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69509 15.25 15.25 9.02 15.25 0.600 6.6 13.2 20.7 182.7 0.283 1.00 1.858 0.538 20.75 73.262 73.83 6/4/2014_10:01 PM T2 5A2 T2 5 -102.616 42.69509 10.8 8.71 10.36 10.8 0.425 5.0 10.0 15.6 91.6 0.142 0.50 0.660 0.758 90.44 636.672 789.76 6/4/2014_10:00 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 38.21 22.31 33.23 38.21 1.504 15.6 31.3 49.1 1147.1 1.778 13.40 29.222 0.459 95.29 53.592 91.82 6/3/2014_9:59 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 21.26 14.48 20.47 21.26 0.837 9.4 18.7 29.4 355.1 0.550 3.40 5.033 0.675 39.62 71.977 105.72 6/3/2014_9:59 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 25.25 21.28 22.28 25.25 0.994 11.5 22.9 36.0 500.9 0.776 5.90 8.433 0.700 54.80 70.577 83.78 6/3/2014_9:58 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 24.43 18.37 21.63 24.43 0.962 10.7 21.5 33.7 468.9 0.727 5.00 7.637 0.655 73.52 101.149 134.57 6/3/2014_9:58 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 34.65 17.76 25.8 34.65 1.364 13.0 26.1 41.0 943.3 1.462 8.70 21.791 0.399 82.11 56.156 109.61 6/3/2014_9:57 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 22.25 17.1 22.43 22.43 0.883 10.3 20.6 32.4 395.3 0.613 3.90 5.911 0.660 46.49 75.876 100.38 6/3/2014_9:57 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 36.17 21 30.57 36.17 1.424 14.6 29.2 46.0 1027.9 1.593 12.40 24.787 0.500 65.69 41.229 71.04 6/3/2014_9:56 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 35.35 26.04 26.31 35.35 1.392 14.6 29.2 45.9 981.8 1.522 12.30 23.139 0.532 28.83 18.944 25.73 fracture then6/3/2014_9:56 seconrdary fracture PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6417 41.1789 34.49 17.76 29.15 34.49 1.358 13.6 27.1 42.6 934.7 1.449 10.90 21.491 0.507 104.46 72.105 140.08 6/3/2014_9:55 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6417 41.1789 34.03 15.96 31.12 34.03 1.340 13.5 27.0 42.5 909.9 1.410 10.10 20.642 0.489 40.29 28.568 60.93 6/3/2014_9:55 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6417 41.1789 25.7 17.15 22.74 25.7 1.012 10.9 21.9 34.4 519.0 0.804 5.10 8.891 0.574 65.88 81.901 122.78 6/3/2014_9:54 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6417 41.1789 45.7 25.9 35.25 45.7 1.799 17.8 35.6 56.0 1641.0 2.543 21.40 49.994 0.428 415.38 163.311 288.27 6/3/2014_9:53 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6417 41.1789 34 17.9 26.69 34 1.339 13.1 26.2 41.2 908.3 1.408 9.20 20.588 0.447 216.95 154.101 292.82 6/3/2014_9:53 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6417 41.1789 38.62 17.46 31.94 38.62 1.520 14.7 29.3 46.1 1171.9 1.816 12.40 30.172 0.411 326.48 179.736 397.72 6/3/2014_9:52 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 28.99 8.94 22.33 28.99 1.141 10.0 20.1 31.6 660.3 1.024 3.00 12.762 0.235 75.00 73.277 237.71 6/3/2014_9:42 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 20.71 13.07 18.13 20.71 0.815 8.7 17.3 27.2 337.0 0.522 3.00 4.653 0.645 47.35 90.649 143.70 6/3/2014_9:42 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 28.06 8.85 20.62 28.06 1.105 9.6 19.2 30.1 618.6 0.959 2.90 11.573 0.251 36.56 38.127 120.94 6/3/2014_9:41 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 26.88 15.81 21.46 26.88 1.058 10.7 21.4 33.6 567.7 0.880 4.50 10.173 0.442 26.44 30.047 51.11 6/3/2014_9:40 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 26.07 14.8 23.4 26.07 1.026 10.7 21.4 33.7 534.0 0.828 5.00 9.281 0.539 31.50 38.057 67.07 6/3/2014_9:40 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 27.89 8.89 23.12 27.89 1.098 10.0 20.0 31.4 611.2 0.947 3.30 11.364 0.290 22.43 23.677 74.31 6/3/2014_9:39 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 24.53 14.96 23.93 24.53 0.966 10.6 21.1 33.2 472.8 0.733 4.30 7.732 0.556 44.39 60.575 99.37 6/3/2014_9:39 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 27.89 15.81 20.24 27.89 1.098 10.7 21.3 33.5 611.2 0.947 4.50 11.364 0.396 23.96 25.293 44.63 6/3/2014_9:38 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 26.93 17.25 22.12 26.93 1.060 11.1 22.1 34.7 569.8 0.883 5.60 10.230 0.547 30.26 34.261 53.51 6/3/2014_9:38 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 24.33 13.24 23.67 24.33 0.958 10.2 20.4 32.1 465.1 0.721 4.20 7.544 0.557 41.91 58.135 106.87 6/3/2014_9:38 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 26.11 15.35 21.8 26.11 1.028 10.5 21.1 33.1 535.6 0.830 4.90 9.324 0.526 46.88 56.465 96.08 6/3/2014_9:37 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 37.18 15.84 30.51 37.18 1.464 13.9 27.8 43.8 1086.1 1.684 9.80 26.922 0.364 66.83 39.697 93.22 6/3/2014_9:36 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 28.65 12.52 23.79 28.65 1.128 10.8 21.7 34.0 644.9 1.000 5.50 12.318 0.446 44.20 44.216 101.23 6/3/2014_9:36 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 28.45 14.79 29.98 29.98 1.180 12.2 24.4 38.4 706.2 1.095 6.70 14.115 0.475 55.66 50.849 108.66 6/3/2014_9:36 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 36.06 13.38 30.32 36.06 1.420 13.3 26.6 41.8 1021.7 1.584 8.90 24.561 0.362 46.88 29.603 79.81 6/3/2014_9:35 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 31.83 10.66 23.51 31.83 1.253 11.0 22.0 34.6 796.0 1.234 4.50 16.892 0.266 28.06 22.741 67.94 6/3/2014_9:35 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 45.32 27.96 36.31 45.32 1.784 18.3 36.5 57.4 1613.8 2.501 21.30 48.758 0.437 113.43 45.347 73.53 6/3/2014_9:34 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 34.69 19.35 27.29 34.69 1.366 13.6 27.1 42.6 945.5 1.466 9.30 21.867 0.425 65.59 44.754 80.27 6/3/2014_9:34 PM T1 4B1 T1 4 -99.672 41.1789 34.13 16.36 27.45 34.13 1.344 13.0 26.0 40.8 915.2 1.419 7.80 20.825 0.375 80.97 57.076 119.11 6/3/2014_9:34 PM T3 4A2 T3 4 -99.8497 41.21099 44 36.3 29.4 44 1.732 18.3 36.6 57.5 1521.1 2.358 23.00 44.620 0.515 151.35 64.192 77.84 Supercell, slush6/3/2014_9:03 PM T3 4A2 T3 4 -99.8497 41.21098 14.7 12 8.5 14.7 0.579 5.9 11.7 18.4 169.8 0.263 0.80 1.664 0.481 21.67 82.343 100.91 Supercell, slush6/3/2014_9:02 PM T3 4A2 T3 4 -99.8497 41.21096 34.5 27.4 14.6 34.5 1.358 12.8 25.5 40.1 935.2 1.450 7.50 21.510 0.349 58.22 40.164 50.59 Supercell 6/3/2014_9:00 PM T3 4A2 T3 4 -99.8497 41.21095 30.4 28.9 22.8 30.4 1.197 13.7 27.4 43.0 726.1 1.125 10.30 14.716 0.700 39.94 35.487 37.35 Supercell 6/3/2014_9:00 PM T3 4A2 T3 4 -99.8497 41.21096 20.5 20.2 12.25 20.5 0.807 8.8 17.7 27.7 330.2 0.512 2.40 4.513 0.532 30.22 59.046 59.94 Supercell 6/3/2014_9:00 PM T3 4A2 T3 4 -99.8497 41.21097 23.5 20 12.5 23.5 0.925 9.3 18.7 29.3 433.9 0.673 3.00 6.798 0.441 27.56 40.978 48.18 Supercell, crushed6/3/2014_8:59 PM T3 4A2 T3 4 -99.8497 41.21096 19.5 19.5 10.8 19.5 0.768 8.3 16.6 26.1 298.8 0.463 1.90 3.884 0.489 21.96 47.420 50.56 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:59 PM T3 4A2 T3 4 -99.8497 41.211 50 44 28 50 1.969 20.3 40.7 63.9 1964.3 3.045 34.00 65.476 0.519 154.30 50.679 57.61 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:58 PM T3 4A2 T3 4 -99.8497 41.21099 24.75 24.75 22 24.75 0.974 11.9 23.8 37.5 481.3 0.746 6.80 7.941 0.856 56.15 75.267 76.07 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:58 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8233 41.18432 11.2 11.2 8 11.2 0.441 5.1 10.1 15.9 98.6 0.153 0.40 0.736 0.544 28.74 188.128 193.41 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:45 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8233 41.18432 13 13 9.5 13 0.512 5.9 11.8 18.6 132.8 0.206 0.90 1.151 0.782 204.11 991.700 1031.79 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:44 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8233 41.18431 15.5 12.3 6.3 15.5 0.610 5.7 11.4 17.9 188.8 0.293 0.60 1.951 0.308 68.53 234.218 295.28 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:43 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8233 41.18432 13 9 5.4 13 0.512 4.6 9.1 14.4 132.8 0.206 0.40 1.151 0.348 178.47 867.124 1253.01 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:43 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8233 41.18431 14.5 11.48 11.3 14.5 0.571 6.2 12.4 19.5 165.2 0.256 1.20 1.597 0.751 28.74 112.242 141.84 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:42 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8233 41.18431 20.2 16 13.2 20.2 0.795 8.2 16.5 25.9 320.6 0.497 2.30 4.317 0.533 45.84 92.245 116.50 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:41 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8234 41.18432 15.75 13.2 10 15.75 0.620 6.5 13.0 20.4 194.9 0.302 0.90 2.047 0.440 36.70 121.481 145.01 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:41 PM T2 4A1 T2 4 -99.8163 41.1789 17.3 9.2 13.8 17.3 0.681 6.7 13.4 21.1 235.2 0.364 0.90 2.712 0.332 219.32 601.712 1131.92 6/3/2014_8:40 PM T2 4A1 T2 4 -99.8164 41.1789 13.9 11.8 8.5 13.9 0.547 5.7 11.4 17.9 151.8 0.235 0.80 1.407 0.569 198.43 843.297 993.79 6/3/2014_8:40 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8234 41.1843 23 22.5 8.8 23 0.906 9.1 18.1 28.4 415.6 0.644 2.30 6.373 0.361 59.69 92.651 94.75 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:39 PM T2 4A1 T2 4 -99.8163 41.1789 9.5 8.8 5.1 9.5 0.374 3.9 7.8 12.3 70.9 0.110 0.20 0.449 0.445 254.92 2319.314 2504.80 6/3/2014_8:39 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8234 41.18429 25 19 17 25 0.984 10.2 20.3 32.0 491.1 0.761 3.90 8.185 0.477 42.89 56.348 74.17 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:38 PM T2 4A1 T2 4 -99.8163 41.1789 14.9 14.9 10.9 14.9 0.587 6.8 13.6 21.3 174.4 0.270 1.10 1.733 0.635 21.62 79.962 94.59 6/3/2014_8:38 PM T2 4A1 T2 4 -99.8163 41.1789 24.2 18.8 6.4 24.2 0.953 8.2 16.5 25.9 460.1 0.713 1.50 7.424 0.202 261.09 366.068 471.40 6/3/2014_8:37 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8233 41.18434 23.3 17.4 12.3 23.3 0.917 8.8 17.7 27.8 426.6 0.661 2.30 6.626 0.347 45.54 68.879 92.28 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:37 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8233 41.18438 19 17 10.5 19 0.748 7.8 15.5 24.4 283.6 0.440 1.70 3.593 0.473 314.64 715.665 800.17 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:36 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8233 41.18439 18.75 18 14.5 18.75 0.738 8.5 17.1 26.8 276.2 0.428 2.20 3.453 0.637 22.55 52.668 54.89 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:36 PM T2 4A1 T2 4 -99.8163 41.1789 9.3 9.3 4 9.3 0.366 3.8 7.5 11.8 68.0 0.105 0.10 0.421 0.237 111.97 1063.013 1267.99 6/3/2014_8:36 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8233 41.18434 17.8 17.8 11.6 17.8 0.701 7.9 15.7 24.7 248.9 0.386 1.10 2.954 0.372 24.91 64.556 69.93 Supercell, slush6/3/2014_8:35 PM T2 4A1 T2 4 -99.8163 41.1789 11.8 11.8 8 11.8 0.465 5.3 10.5 16.6 109.4 0.170 0.20 0.861 0.232 27.14 160.047 222.25 6/3/2014_8:35 PM T2 4A1 T2 4 -99.8163 41.1789 10.1 7.8 4.9 10.1 0.398 3.8 7.6 11.9 80.2 0.124 0.20 0.540 0.371 244.64 1969.189 2550.86 6/3/2014_8:35 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8233 41.18435 31.5 31.5 23.7 31.5 1.240 14.5 28.9 45.4 779.6 1.208 9.20 16.372 0.562 70.89 58.663 59.83 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:34 PM T2 4A1 T2 4 -99.8163 41.1789 19.3 14.3 18.4 19.3 0.760 8.7 17.3 27.2 292.7 0.454 2.30 3.766 0.611 27.03 59.585 80.45 6/3/2014_8:34 PM T2 4A1 T2 4 -99.8163 41.1789 12.2 12.2 6 12.2 0.480 5.1 10.1 15.9 116.9 0.181 0.40 0.951 0.421 20.00 110.335 120.20 6/3/2014_8:34 PM T3 4A1 T3 4 -99.8233 41.18436 41.24 38.9 35 41.24 1.624 19.2 38.4 60.3 1336.3 2.071 24.80 36.739 0.675 116.87 56.425 59.84 Supercell 6/3/2014_8:33 PM T2 4A1 T2 4 -99.8163 41.1789 14.6 13.6 10 14.6 0.575 6.4 12.7 20.0 167.5 0.260 0.90 1.630 0.552 9.61 37.019 39.74 6/3/2014_8:33 PM T2 4A1 T2 4 -99.8163 41.1789 22.2 19 13.4 22.2 0.874 9.1 18.2 28.6 387.2 0.600 3.00 5.731 0.523 52.03 86.686 101.32 6/3/2014_8:32 PM T2 4A1 T2 4 -99.8163 41.1789 21.6 14.2 20 21.6 0.850 9.3 18.6 29.2 366.6 0.568 2.60 5.279 0.493 29.73 52.323 79.63 6/3/2014_8:32 PM T1 4A3 T1 4 -99.8571 41.1789 17.55 10.28 16.41 17.55 0.691 7.4 14.7 23.2 242.0 0.375 1.60 2.831 0.565 30.26 80.671 137.78 6/3/2014_8:08 PM T1 4A3 T1 4 -99.8572 41.1789 16.27 9 13.69 16.27 0.641 6.5 13.0 20.4 208.0 0.322 0.70 2.256 0.310 16.32 50.623 91.54 6/3/2014_8:08 PM T1 4A3 T1 4 -99.8572 41.1789 18.42 8.93 14.38 18.42 0.725 7.0 13.9 21.9 266.6 0.413 1.40 3.274 0.428 46.49 112.508 232.18 6/3/2014_8:07 PM T1 4A2 T1 4 -99.8389 41.1789 13.74 8.54 14.61 14.61 0.575 6.1 12.3 19.3 167.7 0.260 1.00 1.634 0.612 18.32 70.474 128.28 6/3/2014_8:00 PM T1 4A2 T1 4 -99.8389 41.1789 19.61 12.2 14.18 19.61 0.772 7.7 15.3 24.1 302.1 0.468 2.20 3.950 0.557 32.55 69.502 111.77 6/3/2014_7:59 PM T1 4A2 T1 4 -99.8389 41.1789 19.41 9.48 15.7 19.41 0.764 7.4 14.9 23.4 296.0 0.459 1.60 3.830 0.418 29.02 63.248 129.55 6/3/2014_7:59 PM T1 4A2 T1 4 -99.8389 41.1789 21.91 16.51 19.74 21.91 0.863 9.7 19.4 30.5 377.2 0.585 3.80 5.509 0.690 45.06 77.074 102.33 6/3/2014_7:58 PM T1 4A2 T1 4 -99.8389 41.1789 19.28 11.05 17.36 19.28 0.759 7.9 15.9 25.0 292.1 0.453 2.20 3.754 0.586 19.47 43.009 75.07 6/3/2014_7:58 PM T1 4A2 T1 4 -99.8389 41.1789 19.14 12.03 18.45 19.14 0.754 8.3 16.5 26.0 287.8 0.446 2.50 3.673 0.681 38.57 86.451 137.59 6/3/2014_7:58 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T1 4A2 T1 4 -99.8389 41.1789 24.41 15.37 21.67 24.41 0.961 10.2 20.5 32.2 468.2 0.726 5.00 7.619 0.656 50.79 69.992 111.20 6/3/2014_7:57 PM T1 4A2 T1 4 -99.8389 41.1789 25.43 16.24 19 25.43 1.001 10.1 20.2 31.8 508.1 0.788 4.70 8.614 0.546 81.63 103.648 162.38 6/3/2014_7:56 PM T1 4A2 T1 4 -99.8389 41.1789 22.81 16.9 19.75 22.81 0.898 9.9 19.8 31.1 408.8 0.634 4.30 6.217 0.692 33.03 52.127 70.38 6/3/2014_7:56 PM T1 4A1 T1 4 -99.8075 41.1726 12.66 10.81 12.32 12.66 0.498 6.0 11.9 18.7 125.9 0.195 0.80 1.063 0.753 328.00 1680.387 1968.78 actual 10 lbs6/3/2014_7:46 PM T1 4A1 T1 4 -99.8075 41.1726 14.84 10.55 13.53 14.84 0.584 6.5 13.0 20.4 173.0 0.268 1.20 1.712 0.701 17.75 66.181 93.13 6/3/2014_7:45 PM T1 4A1 T1 4 -99.8075 41.1726 14.15 11.42 12.53 14.15 0.557 6.4 12.7 20.0 157.3 0.244 1.00 1.484 0.674 13.45 55.158 68.39 6/3/2014_7:45 PM T1 4A1 T1 4 -99.8075 41.1726 17.03 13.62 13.33 17.03 0.670 7.3 14.7 23.0 227.9 0.353 1.80 2.587 0.696 27.68 78.368 98.03 6/3/2014_7:44 PM T1 4A1 T1 4 -99.8075 41.1726 16.9 11.46 15.97 16.9 0.665 7.4 14.8 23.2 224.4 0.348 1.70 2.528 0.672 23.96 68.884 101.61 6/3/2014_7:44 PM T1 4A1 T1 4 -99.8075 41.1726 14.99 9.88 13.91 14.99 0.590 6.5 12.9 20.3 176.6 0.274 1.10 1.764 0.623 10.49 38.333 58.20 6/3/2014_7:44 PM T1 4A1 T1 4 -99.8075 41.1726 23.84 12.2 21.15 23.84 0.939 9.5 19.1 30.0 446.6 0.692 3.00 7.097 0.423 267.27 386.136 754.86 6/3/2014_7:43 PM T1 4A1 T1 4 -99.8075 41.1726 21.8 14.59 19.64 21.8 0.858 9.3 18.7 29.3 373.4 0.579 3.30 5.427 0.608 39.71 68.610 102.57 6/3/2014_7:43 PM T1 4A1 T1 4 -99.8075 41.1726 19.72 14.61 18.05 19.72 0.776 8.7 17.5 27.4 305.5 0.474 2.70 4.017 0.672 2.57 5.427 7.32 6/3/2014_7:42 PM T1 4A1 T1 4 -99.8075 41.1726 26.19 11.88 19.27 26.19 1.031 9.6 19.1 30.0 538.9 0.835 3.30 9.410 0.351 32.55 38.966 85.94 6/3/2014_7:41 PM T1 4A1 T1 4 -99.8075 41.1726 26.95 16.5 23.09 26.95 1.061 11.1 22.2 34.9 570.7 0.885 4.30 10.253 0.419 42.67 48.240 78.83 6/3/2014_7:40 PM T1 4A1 T1 4 -99.8075 41.1726 24.82 16.37 23.9 24.82 0.977 10.8 21.7 34.1 484.0 0.750 5.20 8.009 0.649 150.77 200.962 304.82 6/3/2014_7:40 PM T1 4A1 T1 4 -99.8075 41.1726 23.46 15.86 19.32 23.46 0.924 9.8 19.5 30.7 432.4 0.670 4.30 6.763 0.636 350.64 523.128 774.11 6/3/2014_7:39 PM T1 4A1 T1 4 -99.8075 41.1726 25.73 23.25 25.43 25.73 1.013 12.4 24.8 39.0 520.2 0.806 7.00 8.923 0.785 214.66 266.241 294.75 6/3/2014_7:38 PM T2 4B3 T2 4 -99.5734 41.401 23.5 18.9 7.5 23.5 0.925 8.3 16.6 26.1 433.9 0.673 1.70 6.798 0.250 22.81 33.915 42.18 6/3/2014_11:32 PM T2 4B3 T2 4 -99.5734 41.401 13.1 11.4 9.4 13.1 0.516 5.7 11.3 17.8 134.8 0.209 0.80 1.178 0.679 12.96 62.010 71.29 6/3/2014_11:32 PM T2 4B3 T2 4 -99.5734 41.401 12.9 12.9 8.4 12.9 0.508 5.7 11.4 17.9 130.8 0.203 0.60 1.124 0.534 22.48 110.923 139.00 6/3/2014_11:32 PM T2 4B3 T2 4 -99.5734 41.401 15.1 15.1 9.8 15.1 0.594 6.7 13.3 21.0 179.2 0.278 0.80 1.803 0.444 11.12 40.045 47.64 6/3/2014_11:31 PM T2 4B3 T2 4 -99.5734 41.401 13 10.8 6.2 13 0.512 5.0 10.0 15.7 132.8 0.206 0.40 1.151 0.348 11.12 54.028 65.07 6/3/2014_11:31 PM T2 4B3 T2 4 -99.5734 41.401 28.6 8.7 15.9 28.6 1.126 8.9 17.7 27.9 642.7 0.996 2.00 12.254 0.163 115.11 115.554 380.02 6/3/2014_11:30 PM T2 4B3 T2 4 -99.5734 41.401 13.2 13.2 7.8 13.2 0.520 5.7 11.4 17.9 136.9 0.212 0.60 1.205 0.498 57.22 269.651 306.96 6/3/2014_11:30 PM T2 4B3 T2 4 -99.5734 41.401 27.5 22.6 16.2 27.5 1.083 11.1 22.1 34.7 594.2 0.921 5.10 10.894 0.468 36.98 40.152 48.88 6/3/2014_11:29 PM T2 4B3 T2 4 -99.5734 41.401 14.7 12.7 11.3 14.7 0.579 6.5 12.9 20.3 169.8 0.263 1.20 1.664 0.721 12.10 45.978 53.22 6/3/2014_11:29 PM T2 4B3 T2 4 -99.5734 41.401 14.6 14.6 7.7 14.6 0.575 6.2 12.3 19.3 167.5 0.260 0.60 1.630 0.368 35.69 137.481 182.53 6/3/2014_11:29 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 35 26 14 35 1.378 12.5 25.0 39.3 962.5 1.492 6.50 22.458 0.289 29.33 19.660 26.48 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:21 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 30.5 30 17 30.5 1.201 12.9 25.8 40.6 730.9 1.133 7.80 14.862 0.525 59.10 52.166 53.06 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:21 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 33 30 21 33 1.299 14.0 28.0 44.0 855.6 1.326 9.20 18.824 0.489 74.43 56.121 61.76 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:20 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 29 23 17.5 29 1.142 11.6 23.2 36.4 660.8 1.024 5.90 12.775 0.462 34.64 33.821 42.66 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:20 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 20 20 12 20 0.787 8.7 17.3 27.2 314.3 0.487 2.40 4.190 0.573 118.34 242.926 243.03 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:20 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 40 33 24 40 1.575 16.2 32.3 50.8 1257.1 1.949 14.90 33.524 0.444 99.48 51.053 61.91 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:19 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 39 21 27 39 1.535 14.5 29.0 45.6 1195.1 1.852 10.00 31.072 0.322 66.47 35.884 66.67 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:19 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 35 34 22 35 1.378 15.2 30.3 47.7 962.5 1.492 13.30 22.458 0.592 115.10 77.151 79.45 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:18 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 41 33 23.5 41 1.614 16.3 32.5 51.1 1320.8 2.047 15.60 36.101 0.432 87.69 42.834 53.24 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:17 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 31.5 23 24.5 31.5 1.240 13.2 26.3 41.4 779.6 1.208 8.60 16.372 0.525 61.75 51.100 70.02 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:17 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 22 20 21 22 0.866 10.5 21.0 33.0 380.3 0.589 4.10 5.578 0.735 49.67 84.266 92.73 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:17 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 32 18 20 32 1.260 11.7 23.3 36.7 804.6 1.247 6.20 17.164 0.361 44.95 36.044 64.11 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:16 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 30 25 14 30 1.181 11.5 23.0 36.1 707.1 1.096 4.50 14.143 0.318 48.49 44.240 53.11 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:16 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 40 32 25.5 40 1.575 16.3 32.5 51.1 1257.1 1.949 15.40 33.524 0.459 100.95 51.807 64.79 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:15 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 24 21 25 25 0.984 11.7 23.3 36.7 491.1 0.761 5.50 8.185 0.672 41.71 54.798 67.98 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:15 PM T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4015 21.5 18.2 14.3 21.5 0.846 9.0 18.0 28.3 363.2 0.563 2.60 5.206 0.499 19.67 34.941 41.29 6/3/2014_11:15 PM T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4015 18.7 15.6 9.4 18.7 0.736 7.3 14.6 22.9 274.8 0.426 1.70 3.425 0.496 25.19 59.149 70.93 6/3/2014_11:15 PM T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4015 15.4 15.4 20.3 20.3 0.799 8.5 17.0 26.8 323.8 0.502 1.20 4.382 0.274 23.24 46.307 84.91 6/3/2014_11:15 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 40 34 13.5 40 1.575 14.6 29.2 45.8 1257.1 1.949 9.50 33.524 0.283 74.72 38.346 45.13 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:14 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 24.5 24 20 24.5 0.965 11.4 22.8 35.9 471.6 0.731 4.30 7.703 0.558 46.13 63.104 64.45 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:14 PM T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4015 21.1 19.3 14 21.1 0.831 9.1 18.1 28.5 349.8 0.542 3.00 4.921 0.610 31.79 58.631 64.12 6/3/2014_11:14 PM T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4015 20.8 18.9 16 20.8 0.819 9.3 18.6 29.2 339.9 0.527 3.90 4.714 0.827 32.55 61.777 68.01 6/3/2014_11:14 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 40 30.5 20 40 1.575 15.1 30.2 47.4 1257.1 1.949 11.60 33.524 0.346 76.49 39.254 51.50 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:13 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 34 31 22 34 1.339 14.5 29.0 45.6 908.3 1.408 10.80 20.588 0.525 77.08 54.750 60.07 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:13 PM T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4015 22.8 18.7 16 22.8 0.898 9.6 19.2 30.1 408.4 0.633 3.50 6.208 0.564 34.39 54.321 66.25 6/3/2014_11:13 PM T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4015 21.5 21.5 17.4 21.5 0.846 10.1 20.1 31.6 363.2 0.563 2.70 5.206 0.519 29.30 52.047 62.19 6/3/2014_11:13 PM T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4015 20 20 17.4 20 0.787 9.6 19.1 30.1 314.3 0.487 3.50 4.190 0.835 47.70 97.918 98.44 6/3/2014_11:13 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 45 37 30 45 1.772 18.7 37.3 58.7 1591.1 2.466 21.40 47.732 0.448 113.33 45.954 55.91 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:12 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 42 36 22 42 1.654 16.7 33.3 52.4 1386.0 2.148 15.90 38.808 0.410 68.53 31.900 37.23 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:12 PM T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4015 35.1 28 20.9 35.1 1.382 14.0 28.0 44.0 968.0 1.500 10.40 22.651 0.459 68.69 45.781 57.41 6/3/2014_11:12 PM T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4014 21.6 20.5 16.4 21.6 0.850 9.8 19.5 30.6 366.6 0.568 3.70 5.279 0.701 40.23 70.802 74.63 6/3/2014_11:12 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 39.8 37.5 25.8 39.8 1.567 17.2 34.4 54.0 1244.6 1.929 17.20 33.023 0.521 111.86 57.984 61.56 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:11 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 48.4 44.2 36.8 48.4 1.906 21.6 43.1 67.8 1840.6 2.853 10.00 59.389 0.168 65.88 23.092 25.30 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:10 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 37 32 26.5 37 1.457 15.9 31.8 50.0 1075.6 1.667 15.00 26.533 0.565 87.69 52.596 60.84 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:10 PM T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4015 9.6 9.6 10.1 10.1 0.398 4.9 9.8 15.3 80.2 0.124 0.20 0.540 0.371 145.19 1168.683 1098.90 6/3/2014_11:10 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 48 34.7 24.1 48 1.890 17.8 35.6 55.9 1810.3 2.806 16.60 57.929 0.287 100.95 35.977 49.79 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:09 PM T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4015 34.8 28.1 15.9 34.8 1.370 13.1 26.3 41.3 951.5 1.475 8.80 22.076 0.399 61.44 41.658 51.61 6/3/2014_11:09 PM T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4015 18.5 15.4 6.3 18.5 0.728 6.7 13.4 21.1 268.9 0.417 1.00 3.317 0.302 143.14 343.416 412.70 6/3/2014_11:09 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4015 16.8 15.3 11.6 16.8 0.661 7.3 14.6 22.9 221.8 0.344 1.80 2.484 0.725 25.84 75.176 82.57 6/3/2014_11:09 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 41.1 26.1 11.6 41.1 1.618 13.1 26.3 41.3 1327.2 2.057 11.30 36.366 0.311 70.89 34.459 54.29 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:08 PM T2 4B2 T2 4 -99.631 4.4015 15.7 15.7 11.2 15.7 0.618 7.1 14.2 22.3 193.7 0.300 1.10 2.027 0.543 96.72 322.196 344.24 6/3/2014_11:08 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 32 24.7 13.8 32 1.260 11.8 23.5 36.9 804.6 1.247 16.70 17.164 0.973 91.23 73.154 94.81 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:06 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 33.9 23.3 17.4 33.9 1.335 12.4 24.9 39.1 903.0 1.400 12.90 20.407 0.632 52.32 37.383 54.41 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:05 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 28.4 25.5 14.5 28.4 1.118 11.4 22.8 35.8 633.7 0.982 9.90 11.999 0.825 37.00 37.668 41.96 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:05 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 39.5 32.8 21 39.5 1.555 15.6 31.1 48.9 1225.9 1.900 11.60 32.282 0.359 80.62 42.428 51.11 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:04 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 38.54 31.4 25.2 38.54 1.517 15.9 31.7 49.8 1167.0 1.809 15.20 29.985 0.507 107.73 59.555 73.13 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:04 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 37.1 29.75 20.65 37.1 1.461 14.6 29.2 45.8 1081.5 1.676 11.10 26.748 0.415 49.37 29.452 36.75 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:04 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 45.75 43.2 23.4 45.75 1.801 18.7 37.5 58.9 1644.5 2.549 16.90 50.159 0.337 96.83 37.987 40.24 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:03 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 36.8 31.6 24.7 36.8 1.449 15.5 31.0 48.8 1064.0 1.649 15.00 26.105 0.575 95.65 57.995 67.56 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:03 PM T3 4B2 T3 4 -99.6188 41.4015 43.6 43.6 34.7 43.6 1.717 20.3 40.6 63.9 1493.6 2.315 20.00 43.414 0.461 99.48 42.970 49.71 Unknown 6/3/2014_11:02 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 40.8 34.6 25.3 40.8 1.606 16.8 33.6 52.7 1307.9 2.027 16.20 35.576 0.455 68.53 33.804 39.88 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:50 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 26.4 26.4 23.6 26.4 1.039 12.7 25.5 40.0 547.6 0.849 6.60 9.638 0.685 71.19 83.871 93.85 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:50 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 23.7 21.5 13.2 23.7 0.933 9.7 19.5 30.6 441.3 0.684 3.60 6.973 0.516 32.87 48.051 52.99 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:49 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 26.35 23.5 12.8 26.35 1.037 10.4 20.9 32.8 545.5 0.846 3.70 9.583 0.386 25.21 29.814 33.44 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:48 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 26.1 23.5 19 26.1 1.028 11.4 22.9 35.9 535.2 0.830 5.80 9.313 0.623 61.46 74.082 82.31 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:48 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 23.5 21 14.5 23.5 0.925 9.8 19.7 30.9 433.9 0.673 4.00 6.798 0.588 37.00 55.013 61.58 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:47 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 21.4 20.8 17.1 21.4 0.843 9.9 19.8 31.1 359.8 0.558 4.70 5.134 0.916 40.53 72.669 74.80 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:47 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 26.6 26.6 16.2 26.6 1.047 11.6 23.1 36.4 555.9 0.862 5.30 9.859 0.538 38.17 44.296 52.16 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:46 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 25.6 25.6 10.7 25.6 1.008 10.3 20.6 32.4 514.9 0.798 2.30 8.788 0.262 39.06 48.939 56.71 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:46 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 28.5 25 21.3 28.5 1.122 12.5 24.9 39.2 638.2 0.989 7.60 12.126 0.627 48.20 48.726 55.57 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:45 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 25.9 22.7 17.3 25.9 1.020 11.0 22.0 34.5 527.1 0.817 5.10 9.101 0.560 45.54 55.744 63.63 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:45 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 24.8 23 16 24.8 0.976 10.6 21.3 33.4 483.2 0.749 4.70 7.990 0.588 49.67 66.312 71.53 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:44 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 21 21 15 21 0.827 9.5 19.0 29.9 346.5 0.537 3.00 4.851 0.618 24.62 45.841 48.63 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:44 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 47.3 43 36 47.3 1.862 21.1 42.1 66.2 1757.9 2.725 4.50 55.432 0.081 39.65 14.552 16.01 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:43 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 62.7 51.9 41.3 62.7 2.469 26.0 52.0 81.7 3088.9 4.788 13.50 129.115 0.105 87.10 18.192 21.99 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:42 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 61.3 53.9 41.3 61.3 2.413 26.1 52.2 82.0 2952.5 4.576 13.40 120.658 0.111 105.37 23.025 26.20 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:42 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 50.8 44.7 39 50.8 2.000 22.4 44.8 70.5 2027.6 3.143 6.50 68.670 0.095 49.08 15.616 17.75 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:42 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 56 47.6 43.4 56 2.205 24.5 49.0 77.0 2464.0 3.819 10.90 91.989 0.118 73.84 19.334 22.75 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:41 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 55.2 48.6 42 55.2 2.173 24.3 48.6 76.4 2394.1 3.711 10.40 88.103 0.118 69.71 18.785 21.35 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:41 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 67.6 53.25 61.2 67.6 2.661 30.3 60.7 95.4 3590.5 5.565 28.70 161.813 0.177 144.57 25.977 32.99 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:40 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 51.75 38.3 46.6 51.75 2.037 22.8 45.6 71.6 2104.2 3.262 7.00 72.595 0.096 85.92 26.344 35.61 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:40 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 60.9 53.7 48.4 60.9 2.398 27.2 54.3 85.4 2914.1 4.517 17.70 118.311 0.150 70.30 15.564 17.66 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:39 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 59 54.5 42.8 59 2.323 26.1 52.1 81.9 2735.1 4.239 12.90 107.579 0.120 84.45 19.920 21.57 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:39 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 67 58 44 67 2.638 28.2 56.3 88.5 3527.1 5.467 17.60 157.543 0.112 89.16 16.309 18.85 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:38 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 59.4 52.6 40.3 59.4 2.339 25.4 50.8 79.8 2772.3 4.297 12.60 109.782 0.115 81.50 18.967 21.43 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:38 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 57 50 27 57 2.244 22.3 44.7 70.2 2552.8 3.957 25.80 97.006 0.266 109.21 27.600 31.48 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:37 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 53.5 49.1 37.7 53.5 2.106 23.4 46.8 73.5 2248.9 3.486 14.20 80.211 0.177 99.48 28.538 31.11 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:37 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 41 36 26 41 1.614 17.2 34.3 54.0 1320.8 2.047 18.00 36.101 0.499 105.67 51.616 58.81 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:36 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 51 42 31 51 2.008 20.7 41.3 65.0 2043.6 3.168 24.00 69.484 0.345 70.89 22.379 27.19 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:35 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6536 41.4017 47 34 12 47 1.850 15.5 31.0 48.7 1735.6 2.690 10.50 54.383 0.193 43.19 16.054 22.20 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:35 PM T3 4B1 T3 4 -99.6537 41.4017 50 41.5 25 50 1.969 19.4 38.8 61.0 1964.3 3.045 26.60 65.476 0.406 171.39 56.292 67.85 Unknown 6/3/2014_10:34 PM T1 4B4 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 31.94 4.94 24.26 31.94 1.257 10.2 20.4 32.0 801.6 1.242 2.20 17.068 0.129 41.15 33.121 214.21 Supercell 6/3/2014_10:34 PM T1 4B4 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 21.87 13.16 18.22 21.87 0.861 8.9 17.8 27.9 375.8 0.582 2.60 5.479 0.475 23.58 40.481 67.29 ductile compression6/3/2014_10:33 PM T1 4B4 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 19.51 8.29 14.26 19.51 0.768 7.0 14.0 22.0 299.1 0.464 1.30 3.890 0.334 13.64 29.424 69.30 ductile compression6/3/2014_10:33 PM T1 4B4 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 18.61 5.08 13.27 18.61 0.733 6.2 12.3 19.4 272.1 0.422 0.60 3.376 0.178 87.08 206.456 756.62 ductile compression6/3/2014_10:32 PM T1 4B4 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 17.22 9.54 15.1 17.22 0.678 7.0 14.0 21.9 233.0 0.361 1.30 2.675 0.486 56.62 156.786 283.10 ductile compression6/3/2014_10:32 PM T1 4B4 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 12.88 7.95 12.54 12.88 0.507 5.6 11.1 17.5 130.3 0.202 0.70 1.119 0.625 5.72 28.312 45.88 ductile compression6/3/2014_10:32 PM T1 4B4 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 13.8 7.23 12.77 13.8 0.543 5.6 11.3 17.7 149.6 0.232 0.80 1.377 0.581 151.15 651.708 1244.45 ductile compression6/3/2014_10:31 PM T1 4B4 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 13.14 4.87 10.21 13.14 0.517 4.7 9.4 14.8 135.7 0.210 0.40 1.188 0.337 48.69 231.554 625.02 6/3/2014_10:31 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 36.9 13.88 32.41 36.9 1.453 13.9 27.7 43.6 1069.8 1.658 9.40 26.318 0.357 68.07 41.049 109.18 6/3/2014_10:21 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 35.79 21.24 29.88 35.79 1.409 14.5 29.0 45.5 1006.4 1.560 11.90 24.014 0.496 58.53 37.520 63.24 6/3/2014_10:21 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 28.18 14.69 25.59 28.18 1.109 11.4 22.8 35.9 623.9 0.967 5.00 11.722 0.427 33.79 34.939 67.06 6/3/2014_10:21 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 29.3 12.2 28.9 29.3 1.154 11.7 23.5 36.9 674.5 1.046 5.90 13.176 0.448 82.21 78.631 188.91 6/3/2014_10:20 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 22.81 6.8 15.62 22.81 0.898 7.5 15.1 23.7 408.8 0.634 1.60 6.217 0.257 26.34 41.569 139.52 6/3/2014_10:20 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 22.47 10.97 16.36 22.47 0.885 8.3 16.6 26.1 396.7 0.615 2.00 5.943 0.337 21.00 34.152 69.97 6/3/2014_10:20 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 34.38 19.23 29.2 34.38 1.354 13.8 27.6 43.4 928.7 1.439 9.80 21.286 0.460 50.50 35.082 62.75 6/3/2014_10:19 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 19.42 9.85 17.78 19.42 0.765 7.8 15.7 24.6 296.3 0.459 2.00 3.836 0.521 21.95 47.790 94.27 6/3/2014_10:19 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 32.52 19.77 27.22 32.52 1.280 13.3 26.5 41.6 830.9 1.288 8.90 18.015 0.494 86.12 66.866 110.04 6/3/2014_10:18 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 30.51 16.81 27.1 30.51 1.201 12.4 24.8 39.0 731.4 1.134 8.00 14.876 0.538 57.00 50.280 91.29 6/3/2014_10:18 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 26.17 16.01 22.9 26.17 1.030 10.8 21.7 34.1 538.1 0.834 5.10 9.388 0.543 58.05 69.598 113.81 6/3/2014_10:18 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 30.15 16.14 25.8 30.15 1.187 12.0 24.0 37.8 714.2 1.107 6.50 14.356 0.453 43.15 38.977 72.84 6/3/2014_10:17 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 27.53 12.96 19.52 27.53 1.084 10.0 20.0 31.4 595.5 0.923 3.90 10.929 0.357 40.57 43.954 93.41 6/3/2014_10:17 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 22.47 10.91 18.86 22.47 0.885 8.7 17.4 27.4 396.7 0.615 2.70 5.943 0.454 68.36 111.173 229.07 6/3/2014_10:17 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 35.02 18.44 14.2 35.02 1.379 11.3 22.6 35.4 963.6 1.494 10.10 22.497 0.449 101.88 68.212 129.59 6/3/2014_10:16 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 33.56 21.7 28.48 33.56 1.321 14.0 27.9 43.9 884.9 1.372 10.70 19.799 0.540 91.28 66.548 102.96 6/3/2014_10:16 PM T1 4B3 T1 4 -99.631 41.1789 24.9 10.35 12.1 24.9 0.980 7.9 15.8 24.8 487.2 0.755 2.80 8.087 0.346 28.06 37.161 89.45 6/3/2014_10:16 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 18.37 13.61 17.68 18.37 0.723 8.3 16.6 26.0 265.1 0.411 2.30 3.247 0.708 17.46 42.484 57.38 6/3/2014_10:04 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 15.52 7.72 12.1 15.52 0.611 5.9 11.8 18.5 189.3 0.293 0.90 1.958 0.460 11.26 38.385 77.18 6/3/2014_10:04 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 15.34 9.43 14.37 15.34 0.604 6.5 13.0 20.5 184.9 0.287 1.40 1.891 0.740 15.17 52.934 86.16 6/3/2014_10:04 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 25.19 15.95 21.56 25.19 0.992 10.5 20.9 32.8 498.6 0.773 4.30 8.373 0.514 36.37 47.064 74.36 6/3/2014_10:03 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 23.22 17.04 20.06 23.22 0.914 10.1 20.1 31.6 423.6 0.657 3.80 6.558 0.579 45.54 69.354 94.54 6/3/2014_10:03 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 25.03 15.18 24.61 25.03 0.985 10.8 21.6 34.0 492.3 0.763 4.20 8.214 0.511 45.54 59.686 98.45 6/3/2014_10:02 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 23.27 16.4 20.71 23.27 0.916 10.1 20.1 31.6 425.5 0.659 4.40 6.600 0.667 202.91 307.690 436.76 6/3/2014_10:02 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 27.698 19.93 26.05 27.698 1.090 12.3 24.6 38.6 602.8 0.934 7.50 11.131 0.674 83.64 89.520 124.46 6/3/2014_10:01 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 22.3 12.03 19.39 22.3 0.878 9.0 17.9 28.1 390.7 0.606 2.70 5.809 0.465 28.64 47.290 87.69 6/3/2014_10:01 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 29.3 19.96 24.9 29.3 1.154 12.4 24.7 38.8 674.5 1.046 7.30 13.176 0.554 70.75 67.670 99.37 6/3/2014_10:00 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 23.1 13.38 20.43 23.1 0.909 9.5 19.0 29.8 419.3 0.650 3.50 6.457 0.542 30.26 46.564 80.42 6/3/2014_10:00 PM T1 4B2 T1 4 -99.6416 41.1789 18.99 14.92 18.4 18.99 0.748 8.7 17.4 27.4 283.3 0.439 2.80 3.587 0.781 23.48 53.463 68.07 6/3/2014_10:00 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 20 11 20 0.787 7.8 15.5 24.4 314.3 0.487 2.00 4.190 0.477 18.41 37.792 68.74 6/3/2013_10:45 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 25 13 25 0.984 9.5 19.0 29.9 491.1 0.761 2.70 8.185 0.330 19.92 26.171 50.34 6/3/2013_10:44 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 18 17 18 0.709 8.8 17.5 27.5 254.6 0.395 2.20 3.055 0.720 32.39 82.086 86.95 6/3/2013_10:44 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 22 12 22 0.866 8.5 17.0 26.7 380.3 0.589 2.20 5.578 0.394 9.86 16.728 30.68 6/3/2013_10:43 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 19.5 11 19.5 0.768 7.6 15.3 24.0 298.8 0.463 2.00 3.884 0.515 53.62 115.787 205.32 6/3/2013_10:43 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 18 16.5 18 0.709 8.6 17.3 27.1 254.6 0.395 2.70 3.055 0.884 17.40 44.097 48.13 6/3/2013_10:43 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 20 13 20 0.787 8.3 16.5 25.9 314.3 0.487 2.10 4.190 0.501 25.05 51.422 79.14 6/3/2013_10:42 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 18 14 18 0.709 8.0 16.0 25.1 254.6 0.395 2.00 3.055 0.655 4.73 11.987 15.42 6/3/2013_10:42 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 23 14 23 0.906 9.3 18.5 29.1 415.6 0.644 2.90 6.373 0.455 22.83 35.437 58.25 6/3/2013_10:41 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 22 16.5 22 0.866 9.6 19.3 30.3 380.3 0.589 3.20 5.578 0.574 34.70 58.869 78.53 6/3/2013_10:41 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 20.5 13 20.5 0.807 8.4 16.8 26.3 330.2 0.512 2.50 4.513 0.554 17.60 34.388 54.26 6/3/2013_10:41 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 23 17 23 0.906 10.0 20.0 31.4 415.6 0.644 2.50 6.373 0.392 30.48 47.311 64.03 6/3/2013_10:40 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 23 12 23 0.906 8.8 17.5 27.5 415.6 0.644 1.70 6.373 0.267 25.65 39.814 76.35 6/3/2013_10:40 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 25.5 13 25.5 1.004 9.6 19.3 30.3 510.9 0.792 3.00 8.685 0.345 18.51 23.374 45.86 6/3/2013_10:39 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 23 19 23 0.906 10.5 21.0 33.0 415.6 0.644 4.30 6.373 0.675 18.00 27.940 33.84 6/3/2013_10:39 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 21 18 21 0.827 9.8 19.5 30.6 346.5 0.537 2.60 4.851 0.536 30.78 57.310 66.89 6/3/2013_10:38 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 18 14 18 0.709 8.0 16.0 25.1 254.6 0.395 2.30 3.055 0.753 11.57 29.322 37.71 6/3/2013_10:38 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 21 15.5 21 0.827 9.1 18.3 28.7 346.5 0.537 3.30 4.851 0.680 113.46 211.255 286.33 6/3/2013_10:37 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 20 15 20 0.787 8.8 17.5 27.5 314.3 0.487 2.70 4.190 0.644 20.72 42.534 56.74 6/3/2013_10:37 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 23 21 23 0.906 11.0 22.0 34.6 415.6 0.644 4.30 6.373 0.675 49.99 77.594 85.02 6/3/2013_10:36 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 20 17 20 0.787 9.3 18.5 29.1 314.3 0.487 2.60 4.190 0.620 12.68 26.029 30.62 6/3/2013_10:36 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 19.5 11 19.5 0.768 7.6 15.3 24.0 298.8 0.463 2.00 3.884 0.515 19.52 42.152 74.74 6/3/2013_10:36 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 37 19 37 1.457 14.0 28.0 44.0 1075.6 1.667 4.30 26.533 0.162 25.25 15.145 29.50 6/3/2013_10:35 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 24 14 24 0.945 9.5 19.0 29.9 452.6 0.701 2.60 7.241 0.359 27.16 38.718 66.40 6/3/2013_10:35 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 22 11.5 22 0.866 8.4 16.8 26.3 380.3 0.589 2.40 5.578 0.430 11.17 18.950 36.26 6/3/2013_10:35 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 32 15 32 1.260 11.8 23.5 36.9 804.6 1.247 1.80 17.164 0.105 28.27 22.669 48.38 6/3/2013_10:34 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 21 14 21 0.827 8.8 17.5 27.5 346.5 0.537 3.50 4.851 0.722 29.07 54.126 81.22 6/3/2013_10:34 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 22 14 22 0.866 9.0 18.0 28.3 380.3 0.589 3.50 5.578 0.628 157.62 267.405 420.37 6/3/2013_10:33 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 21 12 21 0.827 8.3 16.5 25.9 346.5 0.537 2.80 4.851 0.577 13.08 24.354 42.63 6/3/2013_10:33 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 25 15 25 0.984 10.0 20.0 31.4 491.1 0.761 4.80 8.185 0.586 21.72 28.535 47.59 6/3/2013_10:32 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 24 15.5 24 0.945 9.9 19.8 31.0 452.6 0.701 3.40 7.241 0.470 26.86 38.290 59.30 6/3/2013_10:32 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 24 20 24 0.945 11.0 22.0 34.6 452.6 0.701 5.30 7.241 0.732 40.93 58.347 70.05 6/3/2013_10:30 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 23 19 23 0.906 10.5 21.0 33.0 415.6 0.644 3.90 6.373 0.612 36.61 56.826 68.82 6/3/2013_10:30 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 30 19 30 1.181 12.3 24.5 38.5 707.1 1.096 7.60 14.143 0.537 24.73 22.562 35.65 6/3/2013_10:29 PM 7A1 T1 7 -100.613 36.61634 23 17 23 0.906 10.0 20.0 31.4 415.6 0.644 4.80 6.373 0.753 24.14 37.470 50.71 6/3/2013_10:29 PM 8A2 T1 8 -104.31 39.2924 20.14 17.32 12.42 20.14 0.793 8.3 16.6 26.1 318.7 0.494 1.49 4.279 0.348 15.08 30.521 6/13/2016_5:42 PM 8A2 T1 8 -104.31 39.2924 15.36 15.36 6.69 15.36 0.605 6.2 12.5 19.6 185.4 0.287 0.33 1.898 0.174 40.52 141.028 6/13/2016_5:42 PM 8A2 T1 8 -104.31 39.2924 30.56 23.44 9.88 30.56 1.203 10.6 21.3 33.5 733.8 1.137 6.46 14.950 0.432 14.67 12.902 6/13/2016_5:41 PM 8A2 T1 8 -104.31 39.2924 18.48 13.6 9.05 18.48 0.728 6.9 13.7 21.5 268.3 0.416 0.67 3.306 0.203 29.56 71.071 6/13/2016_5:41 PM 8A2 T1 8 -104.31 39.2924 33.41 29.59 18.23 33.41 1.315 13.5 27.1 42.5 877.0 1.359 3.60 19.535 0.184 22.02 16.195 6/13/2016_5:40 PM 8A2 T1 8 -104.31 39.2924 23.32 13.94 18.12 23.32 0.918 9.2 18.5 29.0 427.3 0.662 2.77 6.643 0.417 17.29 26.105 6/13/2016_5:40 PM 8A2 T1 8 -104.31 39.2924 36.3 23.6 11.7 36.3 1.429 11.9 23.9 37.5 1035.3 1.605 4.34 25.055 0.173 19.50 12.153 6/13/2016_5:39 PM 8A1 T1 8 -104.328 39.297 39.89 17.99 5.17 39.89 1.570 10.5 21.0 33.0 1250.2 1.938 0.87 33.248 0.026 17.99 9.285 6/13/2016_5:38 PM 8A1 T1 8 -104.328 39.297 36.05 15.52 12.94 36.05 1.419 10.8 21.5 33.8 1021.1 1.583 2.29 24.541 0.093 12.26 7.747 6/13/2016_5:38 PM 8A1 T1 8 -104.328 39.297 35.43 16.5 12.87 35.43 1.395 10.8 21.6 33.9 986.3 1.529 1.31 23.296 0.056 20.81 13.612 6/13/2016_5:37 PM 8A1 T1 8 -104.328 39.297 17.33 14.8 6.29 17.33 0.682 6.4 12.8 20.1 236.0 0.366 0.61 2.726 0.224 9.85 26.922 6/13/2016_5:37 PM 8A1 T1 8 -104.328 39.297 19.83 18.55 11.04 19.83 0.781 8.2 16.5 25.9 309.0 0.479 1.23 4.085 0.301 14.37 30.012 6/13/2016_5:36 PM 8A1 T1 8 -104.328 39.297 19.3 16.92 6.14 19.3 0.760 7.1 14.1 22.2 292.7 0.454 0.70 3.766 0.186 29.16 64.273 6/13/2016_5:26 PM 8A1 T1 8 -104.328 39.297 37.46 18.25 18.23 37.46 1.475 12.3 24.6 38.7 1102.6 1.709 2.87 27.534 0.104 17.89 10.470 6/13/2016_5:25 PM 8A1 T1 8 -104.328 39.297 29.61 23.74 10.48 29.61 1.166 10.6 21.3 33.4 688.9 1.068 2.67 13.598 0.196 20.51 19.206 6/13/2016_5:24 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 8A1 T1 8 -104.328 39.297 22.57 22.57 12.9 22.57 0.889 9.7 19.3 30.4 400.2 0.620 1.90 6.022 0.315 18.09 29.166 6/13/2016_5:24 PM 8A1 T1 8 -104.328 39.297 23.65 20.39 8.02 23.65 0.931 8.7 17.4 27.3 439.5 0.681 1.45 6.929 0.209 57.22 83.996 6/13/2016_5:23 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 21 21 16 21 0.827 9.7 19.3 30.4 346.5 0.537 3.18 4.851 0.656 15.38 28.634 6/13/2016_5:22 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 19.5 18 13.5 19.5 0.768 8.5 17.0 26.7 298.8 0.463 2.11 3.884 0.543 40.82 88.153 6/13/2016_5:20 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 22 18 15 22 0.866 9.2 18.3 28.8 380.3 0.589 2.53 5.578 0.454 18.50 31.379 6/13/2016_5:18 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 18 18 14 18 0.709 8.3 16.7 26.2 254.6 0.395 1.92 3.055 0.629 15.18 38.464 6/13/2016_5:18 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 12 12 8.5 12 0.472 5.4 10.8 17.0 113.1 0.175 0.63 0.905 0.696 29.16 166.257 6/13/2016_5:10 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 20 20 15 20 0.787 9.2 18.3 28.8 314.3 0.487 2.48 4.190 0.592 22.42 46.020 6/13/2016_5:09 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 20.5 20.5 15 20.5 0.807 9.3 18.7 29.3 330.2 0.512 2.70 4.513 0.598 66.97 130.854 6/13/2016_5:08 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 24.5 17 15 24.5 0.965 9.4 18.8 29.6 471.6 0.731 2.61 7.703 0.339 45.35 62.035 6/13/2016_5:07 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 26 23 10 26 1.024 9.8 19.7 30.9 531.1 0.823 3.08 9.206 0.335 14.98 18.191 6/13/2016_5:05 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 19 19 13 19 0.748 8.5 17.0 26.7 283.6 0.440 1.91 3.593 0.532 17.49 39.783 6/13/2016_5:04 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 16 16 13.5 16 0.630 7.6 15.2 23.8 201.1 0.312 1.44 2.146 0.671 21.11 67.713 6/13/2016_5:04 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 22.5 22.5 13.5 22.5 0.886 9.8 19.5 30.6 397.8 0.617 2.56 5.967 0.429 40.42 65.561 6/13/2016_4:56 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 20 20 14 20 0.787 9.0 18.0 28.3 314.3 0.487 2.54 4.190 0.606 21.21 43.543 6/13/2016_4:55 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 19 19 15 19 0.748 8.8 17.7 27.8 283.6 0.440 2.46 3.593 0.685 22.42 50.992 6/13/2016_4:55 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 22.5 20.5 18.5 22.5 0.886 10.3 20.5 32.2 397.8 0.617 3.73 5.967 0.625 20.31 32.936 6/13/2016_4:54 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 20 20 13 20 0.787 8.8 17.7 27.8 314.3 0.487 2.27 4.190 0.542 31.67 65.014 6/13/2016_4:54 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 23 18 10.5 23 0.906 8.6 17.2 27.0 415.6 0.644 1.61 6.373 0.253 18.09 28.085 6/13/2016_4:53 PM 7A3 T1 7 -104.893 42.76 21.5 15.5 15 21.5 0.846 8.7 17.3 27.2 363.2 0.563 1.93 5.206 0.371 19.00 33.749 6/13/2016_4:52 PM 7A2 T1 7 -104.873 42.7607 20.5 20.5 20 20.5 0.807 10.2 20.3 32.0 330.2 0.512 2.64 4.513 0.585 61.74 120.636 6/13/2016_4:52 PM 7A2 T1 7 -104.874 42.7607 14.5 14.5 12 14.5 0.571 6.8 13.7 21.5 165.2 0.256 1.51 1.597 0.946 50.58 197.530 6/13/2016_4:50 PM 7A2 T1 7 -104.874 42.7607 20 20 12.5 20 0.787 8.8 17.5 27.5 314.3 0.487 1.47 4.190 0.351 56.41 115.801 6/13/2016_4:49 PM 7A2 T1 7 -104.874 42.7607 11 10 10 11 0.433 5.2 10.3 16.2 95.1 0.147 0.44 0.697 0.631 30.87 209.462 6/13/2016_4:47 PM 7A2 T1 7 -104.874 42.7607 20.5 20.5 16.5 20.5 0.807 9.6 19.2 30.1 330.2 0.512 2.74 4.513 0.607 10.55 20.615 6/13/2016_4:39 PM 7A2 T1 7 -104.874 42.7607 20 20 14.5 20 0.787 9.1 18.2 28.5 314.3 0.487 2.21 4.190 0.527 32.48 66.665 6/13/2016_4:38 PM 7A2 T1 7 -104.874 42.7607 16.5 16.5 11 16.5 0.650 7.3 14.7 23.0 213.9 0.332 0.84 2.353 0.357 36.70 110.687 6/13/2016_4:38 PM 7A2 T1 7 -104.874 42.7607 21 20.5 19.5 21 0.827 10.2 20.3 32.0 346.5 0.537 3.41 4.851 0.703 10.45 19.458 6/13/2016_4:37 PM 7A2 T1 7 -104.874 42.7607 20 12.5 12 20 0.787 7.4 14.8 23.3 314.3 0.487 1.70 4.190 0.406 11.46 23.517 6/13/2016_4:36 PM 7A2 T1 7 -104.874 42.7607 14.5 14.5 11.5 14.5 0.571 6.8 13.5 21.2 165.2 0.256 1.02 1.597 0.639 17.79 69.486 6/13/2016_4:35 PM 7A2 T1 7 -104.874 42.7607 20 20 20 20 0.787 10.0 20.0 31.4 314.3 0.487 2.73 4.190 0.651 42.03 86.278 6/13/2016_4:34 PM 7A2 T1 7 -104.874 42.7607 20 19.5 15.5 20 0.787 9.2 18.3 28.8 314.3 0.487 2.17 4.190 0.518 22.02 45.194 6/13/2016_4:33 PM 7A1 T1 7 -104.853 42.7599 11 11 10 11 0.433 5.3 10.7 16.8 95.1 0.147 0.39 0.697 0.559 25.13 170.560 6/13/2016_4:32 PM 7A1 T1 7 -104.853 42.7599 10.5 10.5 7.5 10.5 0.413 4.8 9.5 14.9 86.6 0.134 0.27 0.606 0.445 12.46 92.813 6/13/2016_4:31 PM 5A3 T3 5 -98.3443 38.2541 16.83 15.95 7 16.83 0.663 6.6 13.3 20.8 222.6 0.345 0.59 2.497 0.236 21.31 61.782 6/11/2016_7:39 PM 5A3 T3 5 -98.3443 38.2541 8.66 6.63 4.3 8.66 0.341 3.3 6.5 10.3 58.9 0.091 0.01 0.340 0.029 21.92 239.950 6/11/2016_7:37 PM 5A3 T3 5 -98.3443 38.2541 16.29 15.24 7.02 16.29 0.641 6.4 12.9 20.2 208.5 0.323 0.20 2.264 0.088 22.22 68.747 6/11/2016_7:36 PM 5A3 T3 5 -98.3443 38.2541 17.61 12.51 11.96 17.61 0.693 7.0 14.0 22.0 243.7 0.378 1.21 2.861 0.423 19.20 50.838 6/11/2016_7:35 PM 5A3 T3 5 -98.3443 38.2541 16.22 14.1 7.94 16.22 0.639 6.4 12.8 20.0 206.7 0.320 0.15 2.235 0.067 37.20 116.111 6/11/2016_7:33 PM 5A3 T3 5 -98.3443 38.2541 13.29 11.47 3.42 13.29 0.523 4.7 9.4 14.8 138.8 0.215 0.70 1.230 0.569 30.87 143.496 6/11/2016_7:32 PM 5A2 T1 5 -97.2594 38.3625 18.21 17.8 8.36 18.21 0.717 7.4 14.8 23.2 260.5 0.404 1.48 3.163 0.468 18.40 45.551 6/11/2016_7:31 PM 5A2 T1 5 -97.2594 38.3625 13.84 13.44 7 13.84 0.545 5.7 11.4 18.0 150.5 0.233 0.95 1.389 0.684 33.78 144.820 6/11/2016_7:30 PM 5A2 T1 5 -97.2594 38.3625 21.35 21.19 3.2 21.35 0.841 7.6 15.2 24.0 358.1 0.555 1.04 5.098 0.204 66.67 120.098 6/11/2016_7:29 PM 5A2 T1 5 -97.2594 38.3625 14.95 14.25 6.82 14.95 0.589 6.0 12.0 18.9 175.6 0.272 0.96 1.750 0.548 25.23 92.708 6/11/2016_7:28 PM 5A2 T1 5 -97.2594 38.3625 21.51 16.38 5.46 21.51 0.847 7.2 14.5 22.7 363.5 0.563 1.07 5.213 0.205 17.09 30.326 6/11/2016_7:27 PM 5A2 T1 5 -97.2594 38.3625 14.15 13.88 2.21 14.15 0.557 5.0 10.1 15.8 157.3 0.244 0.30 1.484 0.202 31.67 129.883 6/11/2016_7:26 PM 5A2 T1 5 -97.2594 38.3625 24.63 16.82 4.26 24.63 0.970 7.6 15.2 23.9 476.6 0.739 1.38 7.826 0.176 93.42 126.451 6/11/2016_7:25 PM 5A2 T1 5 -97.2594 38.3625 14.62 12.94 6.51 14.62 0.576 5.7 11.4 17.8 167.9 0.260 0.70 1.637 0.428 37.20 142.916 6/11/2016_7:24 PM 5A2 T1 5 -97.2594 38.3625 10.85 9.15 7.12 10.85 0.427 4.5 9.0 14.2 92.5 0.143 0.42 0.669 0.628 12.46 86.922 6/11/2016_7:23 PM 5A2 T1 5 -97.2594 38.3625 14.82 12.88 7.46 14.82 0.583 5.9 11.7 18.4 172.6 0.267 0.81 1.705 0.475 40.32 150.740 6/11/2016_7:22 PM 5A2 T1 5 -97.2594 38.3625 13.75 11.9 7.49 13.75 0.541 5.5 11.0 17.4 148.5 0.230 0.64 1.362 0.470 28.25 122.699 6/11/2016_7:22 PM 5A2 T1 5 -97.2594 38.3625 12.79 11.2 9.65 12.79 0.504 5.6 11.2 17.6 128.5 0.199 0.71 1.096 0.648 65.06 326.574 6/11/2016_7:20 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.2876 38.362 14.53 13.93 10.41 14.53 0.572 6.5 13.0 20.4 165.9 0.257 1.10 1.607 0.685 24.83 96.580 6/11/2016_7:17 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.2876 38.362 14.22 12.92 8.74 14.22 0.560 6.0 12.0 18.8 158.9 0.246 0.96 1.506 0.637 73.51 298.499 6/11/2016_7:16 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.2876 38.362 13.12 13.12 7.66 13.12 0.517 5.7 11.3 17.8 135.2 0.210 0.78 1.183 0.659 31.57 150.597 6/11/2016_7:15 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.3432 38.3624 13.82 12.04 11.78 13.82 0.544 6.3 12.5 19.7 150.1 0.233 1.25 1.383 0.904 47.76 205.340 6/11/2016_6:50 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.5866 38.3767 14.84 14.65 3 14.84 0.584 5.4 10.8 17.0 173.0 0.268 0.38 1.712 0.222 40.62 151.459 6/11/2016_6:49 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.6621 38.3697 12.92 12.63 7.09 12.92 0.509 5.4 10.9 17.1 131.2 0.203 0.67 1.130 0.593 62.85 309.151 6/11/2016_6:48 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.8782 38.3773 10.96 9.83 7.7 10.96 0.431 4.7 9.5 14.9 94.4 0.146 0.54 0.690 0.783 59.63 407.611 6/11/2016_6:47 PM 4B2 T3 4 -100.529 36.4343 16.74 12.89 3.1 16.74 0.659 5.5 10.9 17.1 220.2 0.341 0.02 2.457 0.008 25.84 75.709 6/11/2016_6:46 PM 4B2 T3 4 -100.529 36.4343 16.31 13.09 7.4 16.31 0.642 6.1 12.3 19.3 209.0 0.324 0.04 2.273 0.018 41.12 126.940 6/11/2016_6:46 4B2 T3 4 -100.529 36.4343 18.24 13.18 3.4 18.24 0.718 5.8 11.6 18.2 261.4 0.405 0.20 3.179 0.063 83.16 205.252 6/11/2016_6:44 PM 4B2 T3 4 -100.529 36.4343 15 14.42 8.24 15 0.591 6.3 12.6 19.7 176.8 0.274 0.90 1.768 0.509 22.32 81.447 6/11/2016_6:26 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 19 12 19 0.748 7.8 15.5 24.4 283.6 0.440 2.50 3.593 0.696 69.00 156.944 248.61 6/1/2013_9:01 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 18 10.5 18 0.709 7.1 14.3 22.4 254.6 0.395 1.90 3.055 0.622 34.40 87.180 149.53 6/1/2013_9:00 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 16 9 16 0.630 6.3 12.5 19.6 201.1 0.312 1.30 2.146 0.606 27.06 86.794 154.38 6/1/2013_9:00 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 21 10 21 0.827 7.8 15.5 24.4 346.5 0.537 2.00 4.851 0.412 23.44 43.644 91.69 6/1/2013_8:59 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 17 11 17 0.669 7.0 14.0 22.0 227.1 0.352 1.80 2.573 0.699 149.00 423.342 654.50 6/1/2013_8:59 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 30 13 30 1.181 10.8 21.5 33.8 707.1 1.096 2.70 14.143 0.191 80.17 73.143 168.86 6/1/2013_8:58 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 20.5 15.5 20.5 0.807 9.0 18.0 28.3 330.2 0.512 2.70 4.513 0.598 33.30 65.064 86.08 6/1/2013_8:58 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 17 13 17 0.669 7.5 15.0 23.6 227.1 0.352 2.10 2.573 0.816 19.52 55.461 72.54 6/1/2013_8:58 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 23.5 23.5 23.5 0.925 11.8 23.5 36.9 433.9 0.673 3.20 6.798 0.471 31.79 47.267 50.50 6/1/2013_8:57 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 20 9 20 0.787 7.3 14.5 22.8 314.3 0.487 2.10 4.190 0.501 36.92 75.789 168.48 6/1/2013_8:57 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 19 17 19 0.748 9.0 18.0 28.3 283.6 0.440 1.40 3.593 0.390 227.63 517.756 578.90 6/1/2013_8:56 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 18 10.5 18 0.709 7.1 14.3 22.4 254.6 0.395 1.70 3.055 0.556 23.84 60.418 103.63 6/1/2013_8:55 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 15.5 11 15.5 0.610 6.6 13.3 20.8 188.8 0.293 1.90 1.951 0.974 40.24 137.530 193.86 6/1/2013_8:55 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 15 12 15 0.591 6.8 13.5 21.2 176.8 0.274 1.60 1.768 0.905 35.31 128.860 161.14 6/1/2013_8:55 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 20 7 20 0.787 6.8 13.5 21.2 314.3 0.487 1.40 4.190 0.334 186.99 383.850 1097.17 6/1/2013_8:54 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 19.5 9.5 19.5 0.768 7.3 14.5 22.8 298.8 0.463 1.80 3.884 0.463 58.24 125.764 258.26 6/1/2013_8:53 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 19 14 19 0.748 8.3 16.5 25.9 283.6 0.440 2.90 3.593 0.807 86.20 196.066 266.21 6/1/2013_8:53 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 20 12 20 0.787 8.0 16.0 25.1 314.3 0.487 2.90 4.190 0.692 23.84 48.938 81.60 6/1/2013_8:52 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 17 12 17 0.669 7.3 14.5 22.8 227.1 0.352 2.40 2.573 0.933 141.22 401.237 568.66 6/1/2013_8:52 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 22 13 22 0.866 8.8 17.5 27.5 380.3 0.589 3.70 5.578 0.663 44.26 75.088 127.11 6/1/2013_8:51 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 20 16 20 0.787 9.0 18.0 28.3 314.3 0.487 2.90 4.190 0.692 41.24 84.657 105.87 6/1/2013_8:51 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 22 14 22 0.866 9.0 18.0 28.3 380.3 0.589 3.60 5.578 0.645 21.53 36.526 57.41 6/1/2013_8:50 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 20 14 20 0.787 8.5 17.0 26.7 314.3 0.487 2.60 4.190 0.620 53.61 110.050 157.29 6/1/2013_8:50 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 19 14 19 0.748 8.3 16.5 25.9 283.6 0.440 3.00 3.593 0.835 46.87 106.608 144.75 6/1/2013_8:50 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 20 15 20 0.787 8.8 17.5 27.5 314.3 0.487 2.50 4.190 0.597 29.27 60.085 80.15 6/1/2013_8:49 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 16 8 16 0.630 6.0 12.0 18.9 201.1 0.312 1.20 2.146 0.559 122.32 392.338 784.97 6/1/2013_8:49 PM 6A1 T1 6 -99.2944 30.77467 23 20.5 23 0.906 10.9 21.8 34.2 415.6 0.644 4.60 6.373 0.722 36.11 56.050 62.91 6/1/2013_8:48 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 17 11.5 17 0.669 7.1 14.3 22.4 227.1 0.352 2.20 2.573 0.855 21.13 60.035 88.77 6/1/2013_10:55 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 20 7 20 0.787 6.8 13.5 21.2 314.3 0.487 1.80 4.190 0.430 162.00 332.551 950.50 6/1/2013_10:54 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 18 12 18 0.709 7.5 15.0 23.6 254.6 0.395 1.60 3.055 0.524 13.99 35.455 53.19 6/1/2013_10:54 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 20.5 17 20.5 0.807 9.4 18.8 29.5 330.2 0.512 2.30 4.513 0.510 87.91 171.764 207.22 6/1/2013_10:53 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 20 11.5 20 0.787 7.9 15.8 24.8 314.3 0.487 2.40 4.190 0.573 13.38 27.466 47.79 6/1/2013_10:53 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 19 9 19 0.748 7.0 14.0 22.0 283.6 0.440 1.50 3.593 0.418 177.74 404.279 853.81 6/1/2013_10:53 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 23 10 23 0.906 8.3 16.5 25.9 415.6 0.644 2.70 6.373 0.424 33.80 52.464 120.71 6/1/2013_10:52 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 18.5 10 18.5 0.728 7.1 14.3 22.4 268.9 0.417 2.20 3.317 0.663 112.05 268.826 497.55 6/1/2013_10:52 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 28 17 28 1.102 11.3 22.5 35.4 616.0 0.955 3.30 11.499 0.287 19.61 20.538 33.85 6/1/2013_10:51 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 20 8 20 0.787 7.0 14.0 22.0 314.3 0.487 1.50 4.190 0.358 35.11 72.073 180.25 6/1/2013_10:51 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 30 13 30 1.181 10.8 21.5 33.8 707.1 1.096 3.10 14.143 0.219 13.78 12.572 29.03 6/1/2013_10:50 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 18 10.5 18 0.709 7.1 14.3 22.4 254.6 0.395 1.80 3.055 0.589 28.47 72.151 123.74 6/1/2013_10:50 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 26 10 26 1.024 9.0 18.0 28.3 531.1 0.823 3.40 9.206 0.369 87.91 106.781 277.75 6/1/2013_10:49 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 19.5 18 19.5 0.768 9.4 18.8 29.5 298.8 0.463 2.80 3.884 0.721 51.80 111.857 121.23 6/1/2013_10:49 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 25 13 25 0.984 9.5 19.0 29.9 491.1 0.761 4.00 8.185 0.489 67.39 88.536 170.33 6/1/2013_10:48 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 23 11.5 23 0.906 8.6 17.3 27.1 415.6 0.644 2.10 6.373 0.330 43.25 67.133 134.33 6/1/2013_10:48 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 21 13.5 21 0.827 8.6 17.3 27.1 346.5 0.537 2.80 4.851 0.577 35.31 65.745 102.30 6/1/2013_10:48 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 27 12.5 27 1.063 9.9 19.8 31.0 572.8 0.888 3.90 10.310 0.378 44.16 49.740 107.47 6/1/2013_10:47 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 25.5 14 25.5 1.004 9.9 19.8 31.0 510.9 0.792 3.80 8.685 0.438 76.04 96.021 174.97 6/1/2013_10:47 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 26 13 26 1.024 9.8 19.5 30.6 531.1 0.823 4.10 9.206 0.445 300.95 365.553 731.40 6/1/2013_10:46 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 23 12 23 0.906 8.8 17.5 27.5 415.6 0.644 3.00 6.373 0.471 13.18 20.458 39.22 6/1/2013_10:46 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 29 15.5 29 1.142 11.1 22.3 35.0 660.8 1.024 5.80 12.775 0.454 64.07 62.555 117.08 6/1/2013_10:45 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 24 15.5 24 0.945 9.9 19.8 31.0 452.6 0.701 3.60 7.241 0.497 37.32 53.201 82.40 6/1/2013_10:45 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 36 10.5 36 1.417 11.6 23.3 36.5 1018.3 1.578 4.10 24.439 0.168 283.95 179.904 617.06 6/1/2013_10:44 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 27 15 27 1.063 10.5 21.0 33.0 572.8 0.888 3.90 10.310 0.378 40.13 45.201 81.40 6/1/2013_10:44 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 35 21 35 1.378 14.0 28.0 44.0 962.5 1.492 10.00 22.458 0.445 71.00 47.591 79.35 6/1/2013_10:43 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 28.5 20 28.5 1.122 12.1 24.3 38.1 638.2 0.989 6.50 12.126 0.536 59.54 60.190 85.80 6/1/2013_10:43 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 32 17 32 1.260 12.3 24.5 38.5 804.6 1.247 6.70 17.164 0.390 25.24 20.239 38.11 6/1/2013_10:42 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 27 14 27 1.063 10.3 20.5 32.2 572.8 0.888 3.30 10.310 0.320 19.11 21.525 41.53 6/1/2013_10:42 PM 6B1 T1 6 -99.5225 30.58101 28 14 28 1.102 10.5 21.0 33.0 616.0 0.955 5.60 11.499 0.487 72.32 75.743 151.54 6/1/2013_10:41 PM T1 1B1 T1 1 -98.8093 33.781 28.17 14.4 NaN 28.17 1.109 10.6 21.3 33.4 623.5 0.966 5.30 11.709 0.453 53.42 55.276 108.17 5/7/2014_7:36 PM T1 1B1 T1 1 -98.8093 33.781 15.4 14.33 NaN 15.4 0.606 7.4 14.9 23.4 186.3 0.289 1.60 1.913 0.836 31.99 110.758 119.09 plastic deformation5/7/2014_7:29 PM T1 1B1 T1 1 -98.8093 33.781 18.82 7.51 NaN 18.82 0.741 6.6 13.2 20.7 278.3 0.431 1.10 3.492 0.315 28.88 66.952 167.82 5/7/2014_7:28 PM T1 1B1 T1 1 -98.8093 33.781 13.44 9.62 NaN 13.44 0.529 5.8 11.5 18.1 141.9 0.220 0.80 1.272 0.629 17.91 81.414 113.80 5/7/2014_7:26 PM T1 1B1 T1 1 -98.8093 33.781 16.34 9.82 NaN 16.34 0.643 6.5 13.1 20.6 209.8 0.325 1.00 2.285 0.438 42.96 132.118 219.91 5/7/2014_7:25 PM T1 1B1 T1 1 -98.8093 33.781 16.13 7.3 NaN 16.13 0.635 5.9 11.7 18.4 204.4 0.317 0.80 2.198 0.364 44.27 139.715 308.80 5/7/2014_7:24 PM T1 1B1 T1 1 -98.8093 33.781 16.22 15.21 NaN 16.22 0.639 7.9 15.7 24.7 206.7 0.320 1.80 2.235 0.805 34.61 108.020 115.24 5/7/2014_7:23 PM T1 1B1 T1 1 -98.8093 33.781 13.96 11.3 NaN 13.96 0.550 6.3 12.6 19.8 153.1 0.237 1.00 1.425 0.702 22.44 94.549 116.84 5/7/2014_7:23 PM T1 1B1 T1 1 -98.8093 33.781 13.68 8.93 NaN 13.68 0.539 5.7 11.3 17.8 147.0 0.228 0.60 1.341 0.447 22.64 99.336 152.23 5/7/2014_7:09 PM T1 1B1 T1 1 -98.8093 33.781 10.7 6.57 NaN 10.7 0.421 4.3 8.6 13.6 90.0 0.139 0.40 0.642 0.623 18.82 134.975 219.88 5/7/2014_7:09 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T1 1A1 T1 1 -98.7922 33.7835 28.86 7.13 NaN 28.86 1.136 9.0 18.0 28.3 654.4 1.014 3.10 12.591 0.246 311.22 306.816 1242.38 5/7/2014_5:02 PM T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 50.2 33.16 NaN 50.2 1.976 20.8 41.7 65.5 1980.0 3.069 35.40 66.265 0.534 187.83 61.201 92.69 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 49.1 49.1 NaN 49.1 1.933 24.6 49.1 77.2 1894.2 2.936 24.20 62.004 0.390 136.43 46.468 63.40 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 48 25.6 NaN 48 1.890 18.4 36.8 57.8 1810.3 2.806 22.60 57.929 0.390 133.83 47.695 89.47 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 47.8 30.9 NaN 47.8 1.882 19.7 39.4 61.8 1795.2 2.783 34.40 57.208 0.601 154.82 55.638 86.11 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 47.6 47.6 NaN 47.6 1.874 23.8 47.6 74.8 1780.2 2.759 19.50 56.493 0.345 158.29 57.364 91.05 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 47.3 47.3 NaN 47.3 1.862 23.7 47.3 74.3 1757.9 2.725 24.80 55.432 0.447 136.43 50.071 68.28 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 46.14 46.14 NaN 46.14 1.817 23.1 46.1 72.5 1672.7 2.593 35.70 51.452 0.694 90.66 34.967 38.98 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 45.8 22.8 NaN 45.8 1.803 17.2 34.3 53.9 1648.1 2.555 16.60 50.323 0.330 74.32 29.092 58.46 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 45.7 45.7 NaN 45.7 1.799 22.9 45.7 71.8 1641.0 2.543 32.00 49.994 0.640 96.17 37.810 45.14 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 45.4 45.4 NaN 45.4 1.787 22.7 45.4 71.3 1619.5 2.510 23.30 49.016 0.475 111.43 44.391 58.95 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 45.3 45.3 NaN 45.3 1.783 22.7 45.3 71.2 1612.4 2.499 35.40 48.693 0.727 132.53 53.030 64.95 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 45 45 NaN 45 1.772 22.5 45.0 70.7 1591.1 2.466 34.90 47.732 0.731 115.00 46.631 65.60 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 44.9 44.9 NaN 44.9 1.768 22.5 44.9 70.6 1584.0 2.455 15.70 47.415 0.331 85.35 34.763 54.03 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 44.7 39.9 NaN 44.7 1.760 21.2 42.3 66.5 1569.9 2.433 26.50 46.784 0.566 98.01 40.277 45.14 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 44.6 44.6 NaN 44.6 1.756 22.3 44.6 70.1 1562.9 2.423 29.80 46.471 0.641 110.89 45.775 59.72 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 44.3 30.96 NaN 44.3 1.744 18.8 37.6 59.1 1542.0 2.390 31.60 45.539 0.694 101.26 42.368 60.65 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 44.3 22.9 NaN 44.3 1.744 16.8 33.6 52.8 1542.0 2.390 21.80 45.539 0.479 187.29 78.363 151.65 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 44.2 31.8 NaN 44.2 1.740 19.0 38.0 59.7 1535.0 2.379 32.40 45.231 0.716 205.03 86.174 119.83 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 43.9 43.9 NaN 43.9 1.728 22.0 43.9 69.0 1514.2 2.347 33.80 44.317 0.763 200.71 85.515 118.10 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 43.7 43.7 NaN 43.7 1.720 21.9 43.7 68.7 1500.5 2.326 35.70 43.714 0.817 102.02 43.866 51.59 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 43.4 32.07 NaN 43.4 1.709 18.9 37.7 59.3 1479.9 2.294 24.00 42.820 0.560 96.93 42.255 57.21 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 43.4 43.4 NaN 43.4 1.709 21.7 43.4 68.2 1479.9 2.294 3.50 42.820 0.082 45.75 19.944 81.69 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 43.3 43.3 NaN 43.3 1.705 21.7 43.3 68.0 1473.1 2.283 24.20 42.524 0.569 134.37 58.848 73.25 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 43.2 31 NaN 43.2 1.701 18.6 37.1 58.3 1466.3 2.273 29.10 42.230 0.689 112.95 49.696 69.28 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 42.9 33.9 NaN 42.9 1.689 19.2 38.4 60.3 1446.0 2.241 28.60 41.357 0.692 139.24 62.123 78.65 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 42.6 42.6 NaN 42.6 1.677 21.3 42.6 66.9 1425.9 2.210 13.40 40.495 0.331 70.85 32.057 60.72 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 42.6 29.6 NaN 42.6 1.677 18.1 36.1 56.7 1425.9 2.210 22.40 40.495 0.553 82.11 37.152 53.49 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 41.9 9.5 NaN 41.9 1.650 12.9 25.7 40.4 1379.4 2.138 6.50 38.531 0.169 39.26 18.362 81.01 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 41.8 41.8 NaN 41.8 1.646 20.9 41.8 65.7 1372.8 2.128 13.90 38.256 0.363 68.15 32.027 77.41 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 41.6 41.6 NaN 41.6 1.638 20.8 41.6 65.4 1359.7 2.108 28.60 37.710 0.758 145.95 69.250 90.63 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 41.5 41.5 NaN 41.5 1.634 20.8 41.5 65.2 1353.2 2.097 28.50 37.438 0.761 166.84 79.544 90.23 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 41.5 23.15 NaN 41.5 1.634 16.2 32.3 50.8 1353.2 2.097 17.20 37.438 0.459 115.22 54.933 98.52 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 41.4 22.4 NaN 41.4 1.630 16.0 31.9 50.1 1346.7 2.087 18.30 37.168 0.492 143.46 68.728 127.08 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 41 20.4 NaN 41 1.614 15.4 30.7 48.2 1320.8 2.047 14.10 36.101 0.391 109.59 53.531 107.63 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 40.8 40.8 NaN 40.8 1.606 20.4 40.8 64.1 1307.9 2.027 21.30 35.576 0.599 112.84 55.660 77.01 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 40.6 33.1 NaN 40.6 1.598 18.4 36.9 57.9 1295.1 2.007 25.90 35.055 0.739 115.76 57.665 70.76 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 40.6 25.6 NaN 40.6 1.598 16.6 33.1 52.0 1295.1 2.007 20.90 35.055 0.596 106.67 53.137 84.31 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 40.4 32.6 NaN 40.4 1.591 18.3 36.5 57.4 1282.4 1.988 27.90 34.540 0.808 175.17 88.125 109.25 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 40.4 24.9 NaN 40.4 1.591 16.3 32.7 51.3 1282.4 1.988 21.70 34.540 0.628 126.91 63.846 103.63 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 40.4 40.4 NaN 40.4 1.591 20.2 40.4 63.5 1282.4 1.988 18.10 34.540 0.524 133.18 67.001 87.92 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 40 40 NaN 40 1.575 20.0 40.0 62.9 1257.1 1.949 10.00 33.524 0.298 86.44 44.361 114.52 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 39.8 39.8 NaN 39.8 1.567 19.9 39.8 62.5 1244.6 1.929 17.20 33.023 0.521 81.78 42.392 54.10 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 39.4 39.4 NaN 39.4 1.551 19.7 39.4 61.9 1219.7 1.891 10.10 32.038 0.315 17.18 9.087 16.90 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 39.4 39.4 NaN 39.4 1.551 19.7 39.4 61.9 1219.7 1.891 28.00 32.038 0.874 114.57 60.601 61.09 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 39.38 31.7 NaN 39.38 1.550 17.8 35.5 55.8 1218.5 1.889 25.90 31.989 0.810 147.47 78.083 97.04 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 39.2 39 NaN 39.2 1.543 19.6 39.1 61.4 1207.4 1.871 28.90 31.552 0.916 82.11 43.876 44.12 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 39.2 39.2 NaN 39.2 1.543 19.6 39.2 61.6 1207.4 1.871 13.10 31.552 0.415 90.33 48.268 93.71 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 39 39 NaN 39 1.535 19.5 39.0 61.3 1195.1 1.852 18.50 31.072 0.595 85.89 46.368 60.31 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 38.9 28.4 NaN 38.9 1.531 16.8 33.7 52.9 1189.0 1.843 14.50 30.833 0.470 129.94 70.509 96.61 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 38.9 38.9 NaN 38.9 1.531 19.5 38.9 61.1 1189.0 1.843 14.50 30.833 0.470 118.79 64.459 119.45 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 38.7 38.7 NaN 38.7 1.524 19.4 38.7 60.8 1176.8 1.824 13.80 30.360 0.455 43.15 23.657 28.36 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 38.6 33.6 NaN 38.6 1.520 18.1 36.1 56.7 1170.7 1.815 27.20 30.126 0.903 117.06 64.511 74.14 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 38.4 33.3 NaN 38.4 1.512 17.9 35.9 56.3 1158.6 1.796 25.60 29.660 0.863 115.87 64.523 74.43 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 38.3 35.4 NaN 38.3 1.508 18.4 36.9 57.9 1152.6 1.786 27.10 29.429 0.921 107.43 60.135 65.09 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 37.8 36.2 NaN 37.8 1.488 18.5 37.0 58.1 1122.7 1.740 25.30 28.291 0.894 134.37 77.219 80.67 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 37.8 11.9 NaN 37.8 1.488 12.4 24.9 39.1 1122.7 1.740 9.90 28.291 0.350 26.70 15.344 48.77 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 37.6 37.6 NaN 37.6 1.480 18.8 37.6 59.1 1110.8 1.722 26.60 27.844 0.955 126.15 73.268 83.77 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 37.6 27.6 NaN 37.6 1.480 16.3 32.6 51.2 1110.8 1.722 21.00 27.844 0.754 110.78 64.341 87.69 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 37.4 30.3 NaN 37.4 1.472 16.9 33.9 53.2 1099.0 1.703 21.80 27.402 0.796 107.64 63.188 78.03 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 37.2 37.2 NaN 37.2 1.465 18.6 37.2 58.5 1087.3 1.685 22.00 26.965 0.816 129.29 76.715 82.75 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 37.2 25.2 NaN 37.2 1.465 15.6 31.2 49.0 1087.3 1.685 20.40 26.965 0.757 94.23 55.912 82.57 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 36.5 19.9 NaN 36.5 1.437 14.1 28.2 44.3 1046.8 1.622 14.20 25.471 0.557 86.87 53.541 98.24 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 36.06 35.35 NaN 36.06 1.420 17.9 35.7 56.1 1021.7 1.584 21.60 24.561 0.879 61.76 38.999 39.80 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 35.9 35.9 NaN 35.9 1.413 18.0 35.9 56.4 1012.6 1.570 16.70 24.236 0.689 38.50 24.529 38.30 5/7/2014_00:00 Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 35.3 35.3 NaN 35.3 1.390 17.7 35.3 55.5 979.1 1.518 16.50 23.041 0.716 109.05 71.859 122.59 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 35.2 35.2 NaN 35.2 1.386 17.6 35.2 55.3 973.5 1.509 11.50 22.846 0.503 28.76 19.059 22.08 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 35 20.8 NaN 35 1.378 14.0 27.9 43.8 962.5 1.492 14.40 22.458 0.641 102.45 68.672 115.60 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 34.7 30.2 NaN 34.7 1.366 16.2 32.5 51.0 946.1 1.466 16.60 21.886 0.758 91.85 62.636 72.00 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 34.4 34.4 NaN 34.4 1.354 17.2 34.4 54.1 929.8 1.441 7.70 21.323 0.361 59.71 41.432 56.58 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 34.3 28.6 NaN 34.3 1.350 15.7 31.5 49.4 924.4 1.433 16.80 21.138 0.795 72.15 50.356 60.42 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 33.4 16.97 NaN 33.4 1.315 12.6 25.2 39.6 876.5 1.359 11.00 19.517 0.564 98.45 72.465 142.68 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 33.2 20.4 NaN 33.2 1.307 13.4 26.8 42.1 866.0 1.342 12.50 19.168 0.652 53.86 40.123 65.33 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 32.6 32.6 NaN 32.6 1.283 16.3 32.6 51.2 835.0 1.294 15.10 18.148 0.832 79.40 61.346 76.36 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 32.5 23.75 NaN 32.5 1.280 14.1 28.1 44.2 829.9 1.286 11.90 17.981 0.662 47.48 36.910 50.53 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 32.5 25.6 NaN 32.5 1.280 14.5 29.1 45.7 829.9 1.286 15.00 17.981 0.834 68.15 52.979 67.28 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 31.7 31.7 NaN 31.7 1.248 15.9 31.7 49.8 789.6 1.224 10.30 16.686 0.617 54.41 44.459 63.79 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 31.7 31.7 NaN 31.7 1.248 15.9 31.7 49.8 789.6 1.224 7.20 16.686 0.432 54.30 44.369 89.62 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 31.6 31.6 NaN 31.6 1.244 15.8 31.6 49.7 784.6 1.216 9.70 16.529 0.587 58.19 47.849 61.24 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 30.6 19.6 NaN 30.6 1.205 12.6 25.1 39.4 735.7 1.140 9.40 15.009 0.626 73.13 64.129 100.15 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 30.2 30.2 NaN 30.2 1.189 15.1 30.2 47.5 716.6 1.111 14.10 14.428 0.977 63.06 56.773 60.19 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 30.1 30.1 NaN 30.1 1.185 15.1 30.1 47.3 711.9 1.103 8.60 14.285 0.602 38.61 34.992 48.11 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 30.1 30.1 NaN 30.1 1.185 15.1 30.1 47.3 711.9 1.103 12.40 14.285 0.868 56.35 51.070 55.92 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 29.4 29.4 NaN 29.4 1.157 14.7 29.4 46.2 679.1 1.053 8.40 13.311 0.631 85.46 81.184 123.72 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 29.3 29.3 NaN 29.3 1.154 14.7 29.3 46.0 674.5 1.046 7.00 13.176 0.531 22.05 21.090 30.60 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 29.2 14.9 NaN 29.2 1.150 11.0 22.1 34.7 669.9 1.038 5.10 13.041 0.391 27.03 26.031 51.03 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 28.8 28.8 NaN 28.8 1.134 14.4 28.8 45.3 651.7 1.010 5.50 12.513 0.440 54.19 53.646 104.43 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 28.8 28.8 NaN 28.8 1.134 14.4 28.8 45.3 651.7 1.010 10.50 12.513 0.839 70.64 69.931 82.91 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 28.7 28.7 NaN 28.7 1.130 14.4 28.7 45.1 647.2 1.003 6.20 12.383 0.501 101.80 101.481 184.41 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 27.8 27.8 NaN 27.8 1.094 13.9 27.8 43.7 607.2 0.941 8.50 11.254 0.755 31.57 33.542 43.39 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 27.1 27.1 NaN 27.1 1.067 13.6 27.1 42.6 577.0 0.894 8.30 10.425 0.796 49.21 55.020 58.50 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 26.6 26.6 NaN 26.6 1.047 13.3 26.6 41.8 555.9 0.862 8.90 9.859 0.903 40.66 47.185 48.30 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C1 T2 1 -97.9821 34.20283 26.34 26.34 NaN 26.34 1.037 13.2 26.3 41.4 545.1 0.845 6.70 9.572 0.700 45.75 54.145 63.44 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 26.3 26.3 NaN 26.3 1.035 13.2 26.3 41.3 543.5 0.842 6.90 9.529 0.724 55.92 66.383 80.86 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 26 19 NaN 26 1.024 11.3 22.5 35.4 531.1 0.823 7.30 9.206 0.793 75.94 92.242 126.28 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1A1 T2 1 -98.7776 33.7888 24.75 4 NaN 24.75 0.974 7.2 14.4 22.6 481.3 0.746 0.90 7.941 0.113 46.07 61.755 382.29 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B1 T2 1 -98.5554 33.8127 24.5 24.5 NaN 24.5 0.965 12.3 24.5 38.5 471.6 0.731 3.70 7.703 0.480 34.93 47.783 70.33 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 24.4 24.4 NaN 24.4 0.961 12.2 24.4 38.3 467.8 0.725 3.30 7.609 0.434 26.27 36.231 69.64 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 23.8 23.8 NaN 23.8 0.937 11.9 23.8 37.4 445.1 0.690 1.60 7.062 0.227 67.39 97.689 270.46 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 22.9 22.9 NaN 22.9 0.902 11.5 22.9 36.0 412.0 0.639 2.90 6.290 0.461 33.74 52.830 100.02 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B1 T2 1 -98.5554 33.8127 22.13 16.95 NaN 22.13 0.871 9.8 19.5 30.7 384.8 0.596 5.60 5.677 0.986 49.86 83.597 109.19 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C2 T2 1 -97.9822 34.21235 21.3 21.3 NaN 21.3 0.839 10.7 21.3 33.5 356.5 0.553 3.20 5.062 0.632 35.58 64.395 95.95 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 21.3 16.4 NaN 21.3 0.839 9.4 18.9 29.6 356.5 0.553 4.60 5.062 0.909 43.48 78.692 102.24 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B1 T2 1 -98.5554 33.8127 21 15 NaN 21 0.827 9.0 18.0 28.3 346.5 0.537 3.40 4.851 0.701 29.30 54.555 76.41 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 20.4 20.4 NaN 20.4 0.803 10.2 20.4 32.1 327.0 0.507 1.80 4.447 0.405 22.38 44.157 50.06 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 19.9 19.9 NaN 19.9 0.783 10.0 19.9 31.3 311.2 0.482 2.20 4.128 0.533 33.41 69.274 124.26 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 19.8 13.6 NaN 19.8 0.780 8.4 16.7 26.2 308.0 0.477 2.90 4.066 0.713 47.05 98.544 143.52 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 18.3 18.3 NaN 18.3 0.720 9.2 18.3 28.8 263.1 0.408 1.30 3.210 0.405 32.55 79.809 211.74 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1A1 T2 1 -98.7776 33.7888 17.25 8.25 NaN 17.25 0.679 6.4 12.8 20.0 233.8 0.362 1.60 2.689 0.595 16.86 46.525 97.30 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 16.9 7.9 NaN 16.9 0.665 6.2 12.4 19.5 224.4 0.348 0.60 2.528 0.237 30.82 88.606 189.60 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 16.7 16.7 NaN 16.7 0.657 8.4 16.7 26.2 219.1 0.340 0.80 2.440 0.328 12.96 38.157 61.90 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B1 T2 1 -98.5554 33.8127 16.07 7.8 NaN 16.07 0.633 6.0 11.9 18.8 202.9 0.315 1.10 2.174 0.506 16.32 51.891 106.92 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B2 T2 1 -98.4593 33.8072 15.4 7.7 NaN 15.4 0.606 5.8 11.6 18.2 186.3 0.289 1.00 1.913 0.523 6.79 23.509 47.06 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 15.2 10.3 NaN 15.2 0.598 6.4 12.8 20.0 181.5 0.281 1.30 1.840 0.707 17.83 63.368 93.56 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 13.4 8.7 NaN 13.4 0.528 5.5 11.1 17.4 141.1 0.219 0.40 1.260 0.317 18.37 84.004 129.45 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B1 T2 1 -98.5554 33.8127 13.25 4.23 NaN 13.25 0.522 4.4 8.7 13.7 137.9 0.214 0.40 1.218 0.328 22.81 106.683 334.29 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B2 T2 1 -98.4593 33.8072 13.2 2.2 NaN 13.2 0.520 3.9 7.7 12.1 136.9 0.212 0.70 1.205 0.581 7.98 37.606 225.83 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B2 T2 1 -98.4593 33.8072 13 5.5 NaN 13 0.512 4.6 9.3 14.5 132.8 0.206 0.20 1.151 0.174 13.83 67.195 158.86 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B2 T2 1 -98.4593 33.8072 12.8 5.05 NaN 12.8 0.504 4.5 8.9 14.0 128.7 0.200 0.90 1.099 0.819 9.50 47.611 120.71 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 12.8 12.8 NaN 12.8 0.504 6.4 12.8 20.1 128.7 0.200 0.60 1.099 0.546 13.61 68.209 130.37 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B2 T2 1 -98.4593 33.8072 12.4 8.23 NaN 12.4 0.488 5.2 10.3 16.2 120.8 0.187 0.40 0.999 0.401 12.74 68.034 102.59 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B2 T2 1 -98.4593 33.8072 12.2 4.9 NaN 12.2 0.480 4.3 8.6 13.4 116.9 0.181 0.40 0.951 0.421 13.39 73.869 184.05 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1C3 T2 1 -97.9822 34.22065 11.4 11.4 NaN 11.4 0.449 5.7 11.4 17.9 102.1 0.158 0.40 0.776 0.515 5.06 31.970 39.65 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B1 T2 1 -98.5554 33.8127 11.3 3.97 NaN 11.3 0.445 3.8 7.6 12.0 100.3 0.156 0.50 0.756 0.662 17.51 112.598 320.55 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B2 T2 1 -98.4593 33.8072 9.9 3.75 NaN 9.9 0.390 3.4 6.8 10.7 77.0 0.119 0.20 0.508 0.394 13.61 114.022 301.16 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B2 T2 1 -98.4593 33.8072 9.8 3 NaN 9.8 0.386 3.2 6.4 10.1 75.5 0.117 0.30 0.493 0.609 10.04 85.839 280.51 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B2 T2 1 -98.4593 33.8072 9.19 9.19 NaN 9.19 0.362 4.6 9.2 14.4 66.4 0.103 0.10 0.407 0.246 6.25 60.765 145.54 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1A1 T2 1 -98.7776 33.7888 9 7 NaN 9 0.354 4.0 8.0 12.6 63.6 0.099 0.20 0.382 0.524 9.82 99.547 128.08 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B1 T2 1 -98.5554 33.8127 8.4 8.4 NaN 8.4 0.331 4.2 8.4 13.2 55.4 0.086 0.10 0.310 0.322 6.58 76.572 82.99 5/7/2014_00:00 T2 1B2 T2 1 -98.4593 33.8072 7.5 5.08 NaN 7.5 0.295 3.1 6.3 9.9 44.2 0.069 0.10 0.221 0.453 5.49 80.141 118.47 5/7/2014_00:00 Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 28 13 28 1.102 10.3 20.5 32.2 616.0 0.955 3.60 11.499 0.313 13.38 14.013 30.19 5/30/2013_8:41 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 21 12 21 0.827 8.3 16.5 25.9 346.5 0.537 2.50 4.851 0.515 51.70 96.262 168.54 5/30/2013_8:41 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 27 17 27 1.063 11.0 22.0 34.6 572.8 0.888 3.80 10.310 0.369 27.16 30.592 48.60 5/30/2013_8:39 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 25 17 25 0.984 10.5 21.0 33.0 491.1 0.761 4.70 8.185 0.574 45.06 59.199 87.09 5/30/2013_8:39 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 45 35 45 1.772 20.0 40.0 62.9 1591.1 2.466 8.80 47.732 0.184 39.82 16.147 20.77 5/30/2013_8:38 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 29.5 17 29.5 1.161 11.6 23.3 36.5 683.8 1.060 6.80 13.447 0.506 16.49 15.559 27.01 5/30/2013_8:37 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 60 33.5 60 2.362 23.4 46.8 73.5 2828.6 4.384 50.00 113.143 0.442 361.70 82.499 147.82 5/30/2013_8:36 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 32 18 32 1.260 12.5 25.0 39.3 804.6 1.247 8.40 17.164 0.489 52.39 42.010 74.72 5/30/2013_8:35 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 39 24.5 39 1.535 15.9 31.8 49.9 1195.1 1.852 12.90 31.072 0.415 61.74 33.330 53.08 5/30/2013_8:34 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 33 17 33 1.299 12.5 25.0 39.3 855.6 1.326 8.60 18.824 0.457 72.11 54.371 105.58 5/30/2013_8:34 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 43.5 26 43.5 1.713 17.4 34.8 54.6 1486.8 2.304 20.10 43.116 0.466 68.66 29.794 49.87 5/30/2013_8:33 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 46.5 18.5 46.5 1.831 16.3 32.5 51.1 1698.9 2.633 10.10 52.666 0.192 190.49 72.338 181.90 5/30/2013_8:32 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 40.5 23 40.5 1.594 15.9 31.8 49.9 1288.8 1.998 17.50 34.797 0.503 114.13 57.134 100.65 5/30/2013_8:32 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 58.5 28 58.5 2.303 21.6 43.3 68.0 2688.9 4.168 24.00 104.868 0.229 77.10 18.499 38.67 5/30/2013_8:31 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 38.5 23.5 38.5 1.516 15.5 31.0 48.7 1164.6 1.805 13.50 29.892 0.452 34.48 19.101 31.30 5/30/2013_8:31 PM 5B2 T1 5 -97.4047 34.464 107 58 107 4.213 41.3 82.5 129.6 8995.6 13.943 163.30 641.689 0.254 341.64 24.502 45.22 5/30/2013_8:30 PM 5B1 T1 5 -97.4048 34.44001 34 11 34 1.339 11.3 22.5 35.4 908.3 1.408 2.70 20.588 0.131 22.33 15.861 49.05 5/30/2013_8:17 PM 5B1 T1 5 -97.4048 34.44001 15 12.5 15 0.591 6.9 13.8 21.6 176.8 0.274 1.40 1.768 0.792 18.31 66.820 80.22 5/30/2013_8:17 PM 5B1 T1 5 -97.4048 34.44001 30 14.5 30 1.181 11.1 22.3 35.0 707.1 1.096 5.00 14.143 0.354 20.31 18.530 38.36 5/30/2013_8:16 PM 5B1 T1 5 -97.4048 34.44001 23.5 12.5 23.5 0.925 9.0 18.0 28.3 433.9 0.673 3.10 6.798 0.456 3.12 4.639 8.72 5/30/2013_8:16 PM 5B1 T1 5 -97.4048 34.44001 27 17 27 1.063 11.0 22.0 34.6 572.8 0.888 4.50 10.310 0.436 70.01 78.856 125.28 5/30/2013_8:15 PM 5B1 T1 5 -97.4048 34.44001 25 12.5 25 0.984 9.4 18.8 29.5 491.1 0.761 2.50 8.185 0.305 68.10 89.468 179.00 5/30/2013_8:14 PM 5B1 T1 5 -97.4048 34.44001 22.5 10.5 22.5 0.886 8.3 16.5 25.9 397.8 0.617 3.00 5.967 0.503 164.26 266.422 571.12 5/30/2013_8:13 PM 5B1 T1 5 -97.4048 34.44001 46.5 24.5 46.5 1.831 17.8 35.5 55.8 1698.9 2.633 19.00 52.666 0.361 102.26 38.833 73.73 5/30/2013_8:12 PM 5B1 T1 5 -97.4048 34.44001 27 27 27 1.063 13.5 27.0 42.4 572.8 0.888 3.90 10.310 0.378 14.79 16.659 17.64 5/30/2013_8:11 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.6428 35.14544 34 26.8 34 1.339 15.2 30.4 47.8 908.3 1.408 6.80 20.588 0.330 13.67 9.710 12.33 5/30/2013_4:38 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.6428 35.14544 39.5 10.5 39.5 1.555 12.5 25.0 39.3 1225.9 1.900 3.20 32.282 0.099 117.79 61.989 233.28 5/30/2013_4:37 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.6428 35.14544 25 14.5 25 0.984 9.9 19.8 31.0 491.1 0.761 3.70 8.185 0.452 33.80 44.406 76.58 5/30/2013_4:35 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.6428 35.14544 33 10 33 1.299 10.8 21.5 33.8 855.6 1.326 3.40 18.824 0.181 67.29 50.737 167.50 5/30/2013_4:34 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.6428 35.14544 30 9.5 30 1.181 9.9 19.8 31.0 707.1 1.096 3.10 14.143 0.219 19.31 17.617 55.67 5/30/2013_4:34 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.6428 35.14544 20.5 13 20.5 0.807 8.4 16.8 26.3 330.2 0.512 2.50 4.513 0.554 17.50 34.193 53.95 5/30/2013_4:33 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.6428 35.14544 20.5 12.7 20.5 0.807 8.3 16.6 26.1 330.2 0.512 2.70 4.513 0.598 16.60 32.434 52.37 5/30/2013_4:33 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.6428 35.14544 24 14 24 0.945 9.5 19.0 29.9 452.6 0.701 3.50 7.241 0.483 24.34 34.698 59.51 5/30/2013_4:32 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.6428 35.14544 26 13 26 1.024 9.8 19.5 30.6 531.1 0.823 3.00 9.206 0.326 24.64 29.929 59.89 5/30/2013_4:31 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.6428 35.14544 40 12 40 1.575 13.0 26.0 40.9 1257.1 1.949 6.00 33.524 0.179 55.82 28.647 95.53 5/30/2013_4:28 PM 5A1 T1 5 -97.6428 35.14544 26 18 26 1.024 11.0 22.0 34.6 531.1 0.823 4.30 9.206 0.467 58.14 70.621 102.04 5/30/2013_4:28 PM 3B1 T1 3 -100.61 35.192 17.8 15.72 10.13 17.8 0.701 7.3 14.6 22.9 248.9 0.386 1.69 2.954 0.572 76.73 198.843 5/24/2016_8:06 PM 3B1 T1 3 -100.61 35.192 16.45 14.91 2.67 16.45 0.648 5.7 11.3 17.8 212.6 0.330 0.56 2.332 0.240 84.67 256.928 5/24/2016_8:02 PM 4A1 T1 4 -100.827 37.0882 29.81 22.76 11.62 29.81 1.174 10.7 21.4 33.6 698.2 1.082 3.33 13.876 0.240 5.72 5.289 5.72 5/24/2016_10:18 PM 4A1 T1 4 -100.827 37.0882 22.39 16.22 4.66 22.39 0.881 7.2 14.4 22.7 393.9 0.611 1.00 5.879 0.170 7.43 12.175 7.43 5/24/2016_10:15 PM 1A3 T2 1 -102.519 36.0655 27.34 27.34 19.52 27.34 1.076 12.4 24.7 38.9 587.3 0.910 4.57 10.705 0.427 9.44 10.375 5/21/2016_11:45 PM 1A2 T1 1 -102.508 36.0746 27.75 21.42 11.13 27.75 1.093 10.1 20.1 31.6 605.0 0.938 3.17 11.193 0.283 16.18 17.256 5/21/2016_11:40 PM 1A2 T1 1 -102.508 36.0745 24.43 20.5 8.09 24.43 0.962 8.8 17.7 27.8 468.9 0.727 2.53 7.637 0.331 1.50 2.063 5/21/2016_11:37 PM 1A2 T1 1 -102.508 36.0745 14.78 12.6 10.96 14.78 0.582 6.4 12.8 20.1 171.6 0.266 1.36 1.691 0.804 17.49 65.744 5/21/2016_11:34 PM 1A2 T1 1 -102.508 36.0745 23.96 16.12 13.1 23.96 0.943 8.9 17.7 27.9 451.1 0.699 2.37 7.205 0.329 23.63 33.791 5/21/2016_11:33 PM 1A2 T1 1 -102.508 36.0745 19.67 19.67 13.56 19.67 0.774 8.8 17.6 27.7 304.0 0.471 2.70 3.986 0.677 5.12 10.866 5/21/2016_11:32 PM 1A1 T1 1 -102.495 36.0824 12.77 10.03 8.5 12.77 0.503 5.2 10.4 16.4 128.1 0.199 0.58 1.091 0.532 37.10 186.817 5/21/2016_11:29 PM 1A1 T1 1 -102.495 36.0824 13.75 11.67 7.53 13.75 0.541 5.5 11.0 17.3 148.5 0.230 0.68 1.362 0.499 1.80 7.823 5/21/2016_11:28 PM 1A1 T1 1 -102.495 36.0824 17.63 15.28 7.36 17.63 0.694 6.7 13.4 21.1 244.2 0.379 0.94 2.870 0.327 11.56 30.531 5/21/2016_11:27 PM 1A1 T1 1 -102.495 36.0824 15.06 12.17 7.77 15.06 0.593 5.8 11.7 18.3 178.2 0.276 0.81 1.789 0.453 8.94 32.373 5/21/2016_11:16 PM 1A1 T1 1 -102.495 36.0824 13.87 12.04 12.51 13.87 0.546 6.4 12.8 20.1 151.2 0.234 1.15 1.398 0.823 60.84 259.667 5/21/2016_11:15 PM 1A1 T1 1 -102.495 36.0824 17.87 17.87 11.82 17.87 0.704 7.9 15.9 24.9 250.9 0.389 0.11 2.989 0.037 48.67 125.139 5/21/2016_11:11 PM 1A1 T1 1 -102.495 36.0824 16.02 13.79 12.55 16.02 0.631 7.1 14.1 22.2 201.6 0.313 0.17 2.154 0.079 4.72 15.095 5/21/2016_11:11 PM 1A5 T2 1 -99.4061 34.22426 31 27 21 31 1.220 13.2 26.3 41.4 755.1 1.170 9.80 15.605 0.628 27.25 23.280 5/21/2016_11:09 PM 1A5 T2 1 -99.4061 34.22426 21 21 9 21 0.827 8.5 17.0 26.7 346.5 0.537 2.30 4.851 0.474 73.01 135.932 5/21/2016_11:08 PM 1A5 T2 1 -99.4061 34.22426 26 25 23 26 1.024 12.3 24.7 38.8 531.1 0.823 8.10 9.206 0.880 6.73 8.174 5/21/2016_11:07 PM 1A5 T2 1 -99.4061 34.22426 39 39 23 39 1.535 16.8 33.7 52.9 1195.1 1.852 18.50 31.072 0.595 69.99 37.783 5/21/2016_10:52 PM 1A4 T2 1 -99.4204 34.22777 19 19 10 19 0.748 8.0 16.0 25.1 283.6 0.440 1.40 3.593 0.390 31.77 72.266 5/21/2016_10:51 PM 1A4 T2 1 -99.4204 34.22777 32 32 25 32 1.260 14.8 29.7 46.6 804.6 1.247 11.90 17.164 0.693 7.43 5.961 5/21/2016_10:49 PM 1A4 T2 1 -99.4204 34.22777 39 39 27 39 1.535 17.5 35.0 55.0 1195.1 1.852 15.80 31.072 0.508 55.00 29.694 5/21/2016_10:47 PM 1A4 T2 1 -99.4204 34.22777 21 21 21 21 0.827 10.5 21.0 33.0 346.5 0.537 3.70 4.851 0.763 38.11 70.954 5/21/2016_10:46 PM 1A4 T2 1 -99.4204 34.22777 35 35 21 35 1.378 15.2 30.3 47.7 962.5 1.492 15.60 22.458 0.695 129.12 86.552 5/21/2016_10:45 PM 1A4 T2 1 -99.4204 34.22777 49 48 50 50 1.969 24.5 49.0 77.0 1964.3 3.045 58.90 65.476 0.900 4.92 1.616 5/21/2016_10:44 PM 1A4 T2 1 -99.4204 34.22777 51 46 46 51 2.008 23.8 47.7 74.9 2043.6 3.168 55.00 69.484 0.792 72.20 22.793 5/21/2016_10:43 PM 1A4 T2 1 -99.4204 34.22777 53 53 38 53 2.087 24.0 48.0 75.4 2207.1 3.421 45.00 77.983 0.577 32.07 9.376 5/21/2016_10:42 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 1A3 T2 1 -99.4307 34.23038 23 23 23 23 0.906 11.5 23.0 36.1 415.6 0.644 5.90 6.373 0.926 135.96 211.042 5/21/2016_10:40 PM 1A3 T2 1 -99.4307 34.23038 17 16 7 17 0.669 6.7 13.3 21.0 227.1 0.352 1.60 2.573 0.622 381.96 1085.237 5/21/2016_10:39 PM 4A8 T2 4 -97.4053 34.81276 28 14 28 1.102 10.5 21.0 33.0 616.0 0.955 4.30 11.499 0.374 39.14 40.993 82.02 5/20/2013_6:51 PM 4A8 T2 4 -97.4053 34.81276 18 18 18 0.709 9.0 18.0 28.3 254.6 0.395 2.50 3.055 0.818 25.83 65.461 84.21 5/20/2013_6:50 PM 4A8 T2 4 -97.4053 34.81276 16 15 16 0.630 7.8 15.5 24.4 201.1 0.312 1.50 2.146 0.699 15.56 49.908 53.24 5/20/2013_6:50 PM 4A8 T2 4 -97.4053 34.81276 15 6 15 0.591 5.3 10.5 16.5 176.8 0.274 0.80 1.768 0.453 22.16 80.870 202.23 5/20/2013_6:50 PM 4A8 T2 4 -97.4053 34.81276 15 10 15 0.591 6.3 12.5 19.6 176.8 0.274 0.90 1.768 0.509 10.90 39.778 59.71 5/20/2013_6:49 PM 4A8 T2 4 -97.4053 34.81276 12 12 12 0.472 6.0 12.0 18.9 113.1 0.175 0.60 0.905 0.663 2.46 14.027 24.09 5/20/2013_6:49 PM 4A8 T2 4 -97.4053 34.81276 12 7 12 0.472 4.8 9.5 14.9 113.1 0.175 0.80 0.905 0.884 13.61 77.607 133.08 5/20/2013_6:48 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 15 8 15 0.591 5.8 11.5 18.1 176.8 0.274 1.10 1.768 0.622 13.72 50.070 93.89 5/20/2013_6:42 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 26 9 26 1.024 8.8 17.5 27.5 531.1 0.823 2.20 9.206 0.239 58.08 70.548 203.89 5/20/2013_6:41 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 19 10 19 0.748 7.3 14.5 22.8 283.6 0.440 1.60 3.593 0.445 36.87 83.863 159.41 5/20/2013_6:41 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 17 13 17 0.669 7.5 15.0 23.6 227.1 0.352 2.10 2.573 0.816 22.26 63.246 82.75 5/20/2013_6:41 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 15 10 15 0.591 6.3 12.5 19.6 176.8 0.274 1.50 1.768 0.848 15.45 56.383 84.59 5/20/2013_6:41 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 26 13 26 1.024 9.8 19.5 30.6 531.1 0.823 3.50 9.206 0.380 46.17 56.081 112.22 5/20/2013_6:40 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 27 11 27 1.063 9.5 19.0 29.9 572.8 0.888 1.90 10.310 0.184 11.98 13.494 33.14 5/20/2013_6:39 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 25 18 25 0.984 10.8 21.5 33.8 491.1 0.761 5.50 8.185 0.672 38.49 50.567 70.25 5/20/2013_6:39 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 18 13 18 0.709 7.8 15.5 24.4 254.6 0.395 2.60 3.055 0.851 42.17 106.871 148.04 5/20/2013_6:38 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 18 18 18 0.709 9.0 18.0 28.3 254.6 0.395 1.90 3.055 0.622 22.26 56.413 78.15 5/20/2013_6:38 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 25 23 25 0.984 12.0 24.0 37.7 491.1 0.761 6.10 8.185 0.745 82.85 108.847 118.36 5/20/2013_6:37 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 20 9 20 0.787 7.3 14.5 22.8 314.3 0.487 1.30 4.190 0.310 22.48 46.147 102.59 5/20/2013_6:37 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 18 9 18 0.709 6.8 13.5 21.2 254.6 0.395 1.30 3.055 0.426 24.00 60.823 121.67 5/20/2013_6:37 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 17 17 17 0.669 8.5 17.0 26.7 227.1 0.352 1.80 2.573 0.699 20.10 57.109 64.75 5/20/2013_6:37 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 17 17 17 0.669 8.5 17.0 26.7 227.1 0.352 2.50 2.573 0.971 38.60 109.671 124.35 5/20/2013_6:36 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 17 17 17 0.669 8.5 17.0 26.7 227.1 0.352 1.70 2.573 0.661 24.10 68.473 105.88 5/20/2013_6:36 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 14 11 14 0.551 6.3 12.5 19.6 154.0 0.239 1.20 1.437 0.835 18.37 76.958 97.98 5/20/2013_6:36 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 19 13 19 0.748 8.0 16.0 25.1 283.6 0.440 1.80 3.593 0.501 22.80 51.860 75.84 5/20/2013_6:35 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 16 16 16 0.630 8.0 16.0 25.1 201.1 0.312 0.70 2.146 0.326 12.42 39.837 63.76 5/20/2013_6:35 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 14 12 14 0.551 6.5 13.0 20.4 154.0 0.239 1.40 1.437 0.974 6.79 28.446 33.20 5/20/2013_6:35 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 18 13 18 0.709 7.8 15.5 24.4 254.6 0.395 2.00 3.055 0.655 25.40 64.371 89.17 5/20/2013_6:34 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 17 14 17 0.669 7.8 15.5 24.4 227.1 0.352 1.60 2.573 0.622 19.99 56.796 69.00 5/20/2013_6:34 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 16 10 16 0.630 6.5 13.0 20.4 201.1 0.312 1.50 2.146 0.699 22.37 71.751 114.86 5/20/2013_6:34 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 26 12 26 1.024 9.5 19.0 29.9 531.1 0.823 3.90 9.206 0.424 27.89 33.877 73.42 5/20/2013_6:33 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 21 19 21 0.827 10.0 20.0 31.4 346.5 0.537 4.50 4.851 0.928 32.00 59.582 65.87 5/20/2013_6:33 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 16 16 16 0.630 8.0 16.0 25.1 201.1 0.312 1.70 2.146 0.792 34.49 110.626 118.05 5/20/2013_6:33 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 23 23 23 0.906 11.5 23.0 36.1 415.6 0.644 3.00 6.373 0.471 37.84 58.735 90.10 5/20/2013_6:32 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 22 15 22 0.866 9.3 18.5 29.1 380.3 0.589 4.60 5.578 0.825 47.90 81.263 119.24 5/20/2013_6:32 PM 4A7 T2 4 -97.4054 34.78277 19 13 19 0.748 8.0 16.0 25.1 283.6 0.440 2.80 3.593 0.779 23.45 53.338 77.99 5/20/2013_6:32 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 23 12 23 0.906 8.8 17.5 27.5 415.6 0.644 2.80 6.373 0.439 22.69 35.219 67.54 5/20/2013_6:25 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 33 25 33 1.299 14.5 29.0 45.6 855.6 1.326 11.70 18.824 0.622 91.71 69.150 91.32 5/20/2013_6:24 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 25 17 25 0.984 10.5 21.0 33.0 491.1 0.761 6.30 8.185 0.770 48.22 63.350 93.21 5/20/2013_6:24 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 35 25 35 1.378 15.0 30.0 47.1 962.5 1.492 12.10 22.458 0.539 75.37 50.520 70.76 5/20/2013_6:23 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 30 20 30 1.181 12.5 25.0 39.3 707.1 1.096 6.50 14.143 0.460 45.73 41.722 62.61 5/20/2013_6:23 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 30 21 30 1.181 12.8 25.5 40.1 707.1 1.096 10.20 14.143 0.721 87.06 79.429 113.52 5/20/2013_6:23 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 27 17 27 1.063 11.0 22.0 34.6 572.8 0.888 4.60 10.310 0.446 32.86 37.012 58.81 5/20/2013_6:22 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 21 10 21 0.827 7.8 15.5 24.4 346.5 0.537 2.20 4.851 0.454 42.71 79.523 167.08 5/20/2013_6:22 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 18 10 18 0.709 7.0 14.0 22.0 254.6 0.395 1.70 3.055 0.556 32.76 83.024 149.50 5/20/2013_6:22 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 14 6 14 0.551 5.0 10.0 15.7 154.0 0.239 0.90 1.437 0.626 15.66 65.605 153.19 5/20/2013_6:22 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 24 19 24 0.945 10.8 21.5 33.8 452.6 0.701 5.60 7.241 0.773 48.12 68.597 86.68 5/20/2013_6:21 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 21 15 21 0.827 9.0 18.0 28.3 346.5 0.537 3.90 4.851 0.804 52.67 98.068 137.34 5/20/2013_6:21 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 25 14 25 0.984 9.8 19.5 30.6 491.1 0.761 4.70 8.185 0.574 63.59 83.543 149.25 5/20/2013_6:20 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 25 20 25 0.984 11.3 22.5 35.4 491.1 0.761 5.80 8.185 0.709 47.79 62.786 78.52 5/20/2013_6:20 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 19 12 19 0.748 7.8 15.5 24.4 283.6 0.440 2.60 3.593 0.724 40.77 92.733 146.87 5/20/2013_6:20 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 16 16 16 0.630 8.0 16.0 25.1 201.1 0.312 2.00 2.146 0.932 32.33 103.698 110.64 5/20/2013_6:20 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 26 13 26 1.024 9.8 19.5 30.6 531.1 0.823 4.20 9.206 0.456 27.67 33.610 67.24 5/20/2013_6:19 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 20 7 20 0.787 6.8 13.5 21.2 314.3 0.487 1.20 4.190 0.286 25.29 51.915 148.42 5/20/2013_6:19 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 17 8 17 0.669 6.3 12.5 19.6 227.1 0.352 1.40 2.573 0.544 22.37 63.558 135.13 5/20/2013_6:19 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 22 14 22 0.866 9.0 18.0 28.3 380.3 0.589 4.10 5.578 0.735 42.49 72.085 113.33 5/20/2013_6:18 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 19 7 19 0.748 6.5 13.0 20.4 283.6 0.440 1.70 3.593 0.473 15.23 34.641 94.07 5/20/2013_6:18 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 16 4 16 0.630 5.0 10.0 15.7 201.1 0.312 0.80 2.146 0.373 18.69 59.948 239.95 5/20/2013_6:18 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 16 11 16 0.630 6.8 13.5 21.2 201.1 0.312 1.80 2.146 0.839 23.56 75.568 109.97 5/20/2013_6:17 PM 4A6 T2 4 -97.405 34.76824 15 10 15 0.591 6.3 12.5 19.6 176.8 0.274 1.30 1.768 0.735 13.07 47.698 71.56 5/20/2013_6:17 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 29 17 29 1.142 11.5 23.0 36.1 660.8 1.024 8.00 12.775 0.626 76.46 74.652 127.40 5/20/2013_6:07 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 25 22 25 0.984 11.8 23.5 36.9 491.1 0.761 7.60 8.185 0.929 52.12 68.474 77.84 5/20/2013_6:07 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 39 25 39 1.535 16.0 32.0 50.3 1195.1 1.852 15.80 31.072 0.508 104.26 56.285 87.84 5/20/2013_6:06 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 36 23 36 1.417 14.8 29.5 46.4 1018.3 1.578 17.30 24.439 0.708 96.24 60.975 95.48 5/20/2013_6:06 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 22 19 22 0.866 10.3 20.5 32.2 380.3 0.589 5.50 5.578 0.986 54.50 92.460 107.11 5/20/2013_6:06 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 42 17 42 1.654 14.8 29.5 46.4 1386.0 2.148 10.30 38.808 0.265 92.26 42.945 106.14 5/20/2013_6:05 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 29 19 29 1.142 12.0 24.0 37.7 660.8 1.024 9.70 12.775 0.759 102.43 100.008 152.70 5/20/2013_6:05 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 16 10 16 0.630 6.5 13.0 20.4 201.1 0.312 2.10 2.146 0.979 15.45 49.555 79.30 5/20/2013_6:05 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 32 21.5 32 1.260 13.4 26.8 42.0 804.6 1.247 12.90 17.164 0.752 124.06 99.480 148.13 5/20/2013_6:04 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 30 23 30 1.181 13.3 26.5 41.6 707.1 1.096 11.40 14.143 0.806 78.19 71.336 93.08 5/20/2013_6:04 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 29 20 29 1.142 12.3 24.5 38.5 660.8 1.024 9.60 12.775 0.751 85.22 83.205 120.70 5/20/2013_6:04 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 27 16 27 1.063 10.8 21.5 33.8 572.8 0.888 5.50 10.310 0.533 71.27 80.275 135.53 5/20/2013_6:03 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 20 20 20 0.787 10.0 20.0 31.4 314.3 0.487 3.10 4.190 0.740 28.75 59.017 69.47 5/20/2013_6:03 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 16 16 16 0.630 8.0 16.0 25.1 201.1 0.312 2.00 2.146 0.932 25.40 81.470 86.94 5/20/2013_6:03 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 32 14 32 1.260 11.5 23.0 36.1 804.6 1.247 5.90 17.164 0.344 18.03 14.458 33.07 5/20/2013_6:02 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 25 17 25 0.984 10.5 21.0 33.0 491.1 0.761 5.90 8.185 0.721 56.23 73.874 108.69 5/20/2013_6:02 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 23 17 23 0.906 10.0 20.0 31.4 415.6 0.644 4.50 6.373 0.706 29.18 45.293 61.31 5/20/2013_6:02 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 30 27 30 1.181 14.3 28.5 44.8 707.1 1.096 6.20 14.143 0.438 52.66 48.044 53.40 5/20/2013_6:01 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 25 17 25 0.984 10.5 21.0 33.0 491.1 0.761 5.80 8.185 0.709 37.73 49.569 72.92 5/20/2013_6:01 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 22 19 22 0.866 10.3 20.5 32.2 380.3 0.589 4.70 5.578 0.843 55.04 93.376 108.17 5/20/2013_6:01 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 31 17 31 1.220 12.0 24.0 37.7 755.1 1.170 6.70 15.605 0.429 57.64 49.250 89.84 5/20/2013_6:00 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 26 26 26 1.024 13.0 26.0 40.9 531.1 0.823 7.50 9.206 0.815 68.02 82.621 107.46 5/20/2013_6:00 PM 4A5 T2 4 -97.4049 34.72955 20 19 20 0.787 9.8 19.5 30.6 314.3 0.487 3.00 4.190 0.716 25.62 52.592 55.37 5/20/2013_6:00 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 16 4 16 0.630 5.0 10.0 15.7 201.1 0.312 0.60 2.146 0.280 14.69 47.118 188.57 5/20/2013_5:57 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 30 20 30 1.181 12.5 25.0 39.3 707.1 1.096 7.90 14.143 0.559 51.68 47.150 70.76 5/20/2013_5:56 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 24 14 24 0.945 9.5 19.0 29.9 452.6 0.701 5.10 7.241 0.704 63.05 89.880 154.15 5/20/2013_5:56 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 22 17 22 0.866 9.8 19.5 30.6 380.3 0.589 4.40 5.578 0.789 37.84 64.196 83.11 5/20/2013_5:56 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 40 28 40 1.575 17.0 34.0 53.4 1257.1 1.949 20.30 33.524 0.606 117.12 60.105 85.90 5/20/2013_5:55 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 33 27 33 1.299 15.0 30.0 47.1 855.6 1.326 11.20 18.824 0.595 84.14 63.442 77.57 5/20/2013_5:55 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 21 7 21 0.827 7.0 14.0 22.0 346.5 0.537 2.50 4.851 0.515 2.24 4.171 12.53 5/20/2013_5:55 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 32 22 32 1.260 13.5 27.0 42.4 804.6 1.247 11.60 17.164 0.676 111.52 89.424 130.12 5/20/2013_5:54 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 28 15 28 1.102 10.8 21.5 33.8 616.0 0.955 7.20 11.499 0.626 12.30 12.882 24.05 5/20/2013_5:54 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 40 32 40 1.575 18.0 36.0 56.6 1257.1 1.949 14.00 33.524 0.418 118.00 60.557 75.73 5/20/2013_5:53 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 30 17 30 1.181 11.8 23.5 36.9 707.1 1.096 6.20 14.143 0.438 38.70 35.308 62.34 5/20/2013_5:53 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 23 23 23 0.906 11.5 23.0 36.1 415.6 0.644 4.00 6.373 0.628 49.53 76.880 84.23 5/20/2013_5:53 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 22.1 13.7 22.1 0.870 9.0 17.9 28.1 383.8 0.595 3.00 5.654 0.531 2.82 4.741 7.64 5/20/2013_5:53 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 34 22 34 1.339 14.0 28.0 44.0 908.3 1.408 6.60 20.588 0.321 48.33 34.329 53.08 5/20/2013_5:52 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 32.4 19.8 32.4 1.276 13.1 26.1 41.0 824.8 1.278 5.30 17.816 0.297 189.10 147.912 242.13 5/20/2013_5:52 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 29 17 29 1.142 11.5 23.0 36.1 660.8 1.024 7.10 12.775 0.556 51.14 49.931 85.22 5/20/2013_5:52 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 26.1 13.9 26.1 1.028 10.0 20.0 31.4 535.2 0.830 3.60 9.313 0.387 11.97 14.428 27.10 5/20/2013_5:52 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 26 17 26 1.024 10.8 21.5 33.8 531.1 0.823 7.20 9.206 0.782 72.68 88.282 135.07 5/20/2013_5:52 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 25 10.9 25 0.984 9.0 18.0 28.2 491.1 0.761 2.50 8.185 0.305 4.23 5.557 12.74 5/20/2013_5:52 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 37 19 37 1.457 14.0 28.0 44.0 1075.6 1.667 8.80 26.533 0.332 68.56 41.122 80.11 5/20/2013_5:51 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 27.7 12.2 27.7 1.091 10.0 20.0 31.4 602.9 0.934 3.40 11.133 0.305 12.27 13.131 29.83 5/20/2013_5:51 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 27 25 27 1.063 13.0 26.0 40.9 572.8 0.888 10.00 10.310 0.970 58.93 66.376 71.71 5/20/2013_5:51 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 24 13 24 0.945 9.3 18.5 29.1 452.6 0.701 4.30 7.241 0.594 57.97 82.639 152.62 5/20/2013_5:51 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 23 15 23 0.906 9.5 19.0 29.9 415.6 0.644 5.00 6.373 0.785 40.44 62.771 96.28 5/20/2013_5:51 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 20.5 12.9 20.5 0.807 8.4 16.7 26.2 330.2 0.512 2.70 4.513 0.598 158.02 308.750 490.85 5/20/2013_5:51 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 25.1 20.1 25.1 0.988 11.3 22.6 35.5 495.0 0.767 5.20 8.283 0.628 14.68 19.133 23.90 5/20/2013_5:50 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 21.8 12.2 21.8 0.858 8.5 17.0 26.7 373.4 0.579 3.00 5.427 0.553 5.13 8.864 15.85 5/20/2013_5:50 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 21.6 15.8 21.6 0.850 9.4 18.7 29.4 366.6 0.568 3.00 5.279 0.568 8.55 15.047 20.58 5/20/2013_5:50 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 21.1 14.5 21.1 0.831 8.9 17.8 28.0 349.8 0.542 3.60 4.921 0.732 33.80 62.338 90.74 5/20/2013_5:50 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 20 12 20 0.787 8.0 16.0 25.1 314.3 0.487 2.90 4.190 0.692 50.40 103.460 172.49 5/20/2013_5:50 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 16 11 16 0.630 6.8 13.5 21.2 201.1 0.312 1.30 2.146 0.606 14.91 47.823 69.57 5/20/2013_5:50 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 28.1 11.1 28.1 1.106 9.8 19.6 30.8 620.4 0.962 4.30 11.622 0.370 11.16 11.605 29.40 5/20/2013_5:49 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 23 11 23 0.906 8.5 17.0 26.7 415.6 0.644 3.70 6.373 0.581 35.14 54.544 114.08 5/20/2013_5:49 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 22.5 18.1 22.5 0.886 10.2 20.3 31.9 397.8 0.617 4.70 5.967 0.788 10.96 17.777 22.11 5/20/2013_5:49 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 21.6 15.9 21.6 0.850 9.4 18.8 29.5 366.6 0.568 3.30 5.279 0.625 15.59 27.437 37.29 5/20/2013_5:49 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 16 16 16 0.630 8.0 16.0 25.1 201.1 0.312 1.40 2.146 0.653 15.66 50.229 53.61 5/20/2013_5:49 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 12 12 12 0.472 6.0 12.0 18.9 113.1 0.175 0.80 0.905 0.884 21.40 122.026 162.77 5/20/2013_5:49 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 29.1 19.8 29.1 1.146 12.2 24.5 38.4 665.4 1.031 5.00 12.908 0.387 22.43 21.749 31.97 5/20/2013_5:48 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 26 18.9 26 1.024 11.2 22.5 35.3 531.1 0.823 5.30 9.206 0.576 23.63 28.703 39.51 5/20/2013_5:48 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 23.3 15.8 23.3 0.917 9.8 19.6 30.7 426.6 0.661 3.30 6.626 0.498 28.87 43.665 64.42 5/20/2013_5:48 PM 4A4 T2 4 -97.4053 34.7258 16 12 16 0.630 7.0 14.0 22.0 201.1 0.312 1.30 2.146 0.606 19.34 62.033 82.76 5/20/2013_5:48 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 30.1 15.9 30.1 1.185 11.5 23.0 36.1 711.9 1.103 5.70 14.285 0.399 8.44 7.649 14.49 5/20/2013_5:47 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 28.7 15.6 28.7 1.130 11.1 22.2 34.8 647.2 1.003 4.10 12.383 0.331 18.51 18.452 33.95 5/20/2013_5:47 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 27.1 18.1 27.1 1.067 11.3 22.6 35.5 577.0 0.894 7.20 10.425 0.691 42.34 47.339 70.90 5/20/2013_5:47 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 28.1 22.8 28.1 1.106 12.7 25.5 40.0 620.4 0.962 6.70 11.622 0.576 97.86 101.764 125.47 5/20/2013_5:46 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 27.2 19.5 27.2 1.071 11.7 23.4 36.7 581.3 0.901 6.40 10.541 0.607 30.87 34.261 47.81 5/20/2013_5:46 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 26.1 26.1 26.1 1.028 13.1 26.1 41.0 535.2 0.830 8.00 9.313 0.859 28.05 33.811 38.22 5/20/2013_5:46 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 37.1 17.1 37.1 1.461 13.6 27.1 42.6 1081.5 1.676 6.20 26.748 0.232 14.28 8.519 18.49 5/20/2013_5:45 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 30.1 22.5 30.1 1.185 13.2 26.3 41.3 711.9 1.103 11.10 14.285 0.777 51.99 47.118 63.05 5/20/2013_5:45 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 29 21.1 29 1.142 12.5 25.1 39.4 660.8 1.024 6.50 12.775 0.509 36.91 36.037 49.55 5/20/2013_5:45 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 34.1 18.9 34.1 1.343 13.3 26.5 41.6 913.6 1.416 8.90 20.770 0.429 43.74 30.887 55.75 5/20/2013_5:43 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 33 20.3 33 1.299 13.3 26.7 41.9 855.6 1.326 9.00 18.824 0.478 117.67 88.724 144.29 5/20/2013_5:43 PM 4A3 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7952 31.1 20.9 31.1 1.224 13.0 26.0 40.9 760.0 1.178 8.50 15.756 0.539 33.28 28.253 42.06 5/20/2013_5:43 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 27.1 19.9 27.1 1.067 11.8 23.5 36.9 577.0 0.894 4.40 10.425 0.422 17.00 19.007 25.89 5/20/2013_5:26 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 24.1 15.6 24.1 0.949 9.9 19.9 31.2 456.4 0.707 3.90 7.332 0.532 18.41 26.027 40.22 5/20/2013_5:26 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 31.5 15.2 31.5 1.240 11.7 23.4 36.7 779.6 1.208 6.60 16.372 0.403 37.61 31.123 64.53 5/20/2013_5:25 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 30.3 22.9 30.3 1.193 13.3 26.6 41.8 721.4 1.118 4.00 14.571 0.275 15.59 13.943 18.46 5/20/2013_5:25 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 24.1 13.9 24.1 0.949 9.5 19.0 29.9 456.4 0.707 4.00 7.332 0.546 11.87 16.781 29.10 5/20/2013_5:25 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 27.1 17.8 27.1 1.067 11.2 22.5 35.3 577.0 0.894 5.60 10.425 0.537 28.36 31.708 48.29 5/20/2013_5:24 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 26.2 18.9 26.2 1.031 11.3 22.6 35.4 539.3 0.836 5.00 9.421 0.531 26.25 31.400 43.54 5/20/2013_5:24 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 30.3 15.9 30.3 1.193 11.6 23.1 36.3 721.4 1.118 5.30 14.571 0.364 12.87 11.511 21.95 5/20/2013_5:23 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 27 27 27 1.063 13.5 27.0 42.4 572.8 0.888 7.00 10.310 0.679 17.49 19.700 25.22 5/20/2013_5:23 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 26.8 16.9 26.8 1.055 10.9 21.9 34.3 564.3 0.875 5.00 10.083 0.496 49.99 57.150 90.66 5/20/2013_5:23 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 26.1 26.1 26.1 1.028 13.1 26.1 41.0 535.2 0.830 6.10 9.313 0.655 6.83 8.233 10.39 5/20/2013_5:23 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 36.5 21.1 36.5 1.437 14.4 28.8 45.3 1046.8 1.622 7.90 25.471 0.310 4.01 2.472 4.28 5/20/2013_5:22 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 32.2 20.9 32.2 1.268 13.3 26.6 41.7 814.7 1.263 7.50 17.488 0.429 54.51 43.169 66.53 5/20/2013_5:22 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 33.1 21.8 33.1 1.303 13.7 27.5 43.1 860.8 1.334 8.80 18.996 0.463 69.69 52.230 79.34 5/20/2013_5:21 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 26.2 21.3 26.2 1.031 11.9 23.8 37.3 539.3 0.836 7.90 9.421 0.839 14.27 17.070 21.01 5/20/2013_5:21 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 25.8 18.7 25.8 1.016 11.1 22.3 35.0 523.0 0.811 7.00 8.996 0.778 7.94 9.795 13.52 5/20/2013_5:21 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 41.2 27.9 41.2 1.622 17.3 34.6 54.3 1333.7 2.067 14.40 36.632 0.393 52.88 25.580 37.79 5/20/2013_5:20 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 35.6 25.9 35.6 1.402 15.4 30.8 48.3 995.8 1.543 12.70 23.633 0.537 45.65 29.576 40.67 5/20/2013_5:20 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 31.1 22.1 31.1 1.224 13.3 26.6 41.8 760.0 1.178 9.20 15.756 0.584 61.95 52.592 74.04 5/20/2013_5:20 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 41.1 17.9 41.1 1.618 14.8 29.5 46.4 1327.2 2.057 12.70 36.366 0.349 53.69 26.098 59.95 5/20/2013_5:19 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 39.1 22.3 39.1 1.539 15.4 30.7 48.2 1201.2 1.862 13.40 31.311 0.428 52.89 28.407 49.82 5/20/2013_5:19 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 37.8 37.8 37.8 1.488 18.9 37.8 59.4 1122.7 1.740 14.40 28.291 0.509 64.05 36.808 53.95 5/20/2013_5:19 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 44.2 22.6 44.2 1.740 16.7 33.4 52.5 1535.0 2.379 19.20 45.231 0.424 56.49 23.743 46.46 5/20/2013_5:18 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 38.2 38.2 38.2 1.504 19.1 38.2 60.0 1146.5 1.777 18.60 29.199 0.637 70.28 39.546 57.68 5/20/2013_5:18 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 37.1 18.7 37.1 1.461 14.0 27.9 43.8 1081.5 1.676 9.00 26.748 0.336 28.15 16.793 33.33 5/20/2013_5:18 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 48.1 10.9 48.1 1.894 14.8 29.5 46.4 1817.8 2.818 16.00 58.292 0.274 65.55 23.264 102.71 5/20/2013_5:17 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 28.6 28.6 28.6 1.126 14.3 28.6 44.9 642.7 0.996 9.80 12.254 0.800 61.95 62.189 85.13 5/20/2013_5:17 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 48.1 25.9 48.1 1.894 18.5 37.0 58.1 1817.8 2.818 26.00 58.292 0.446 80.22 28.471 52.89 5/20/2013_5:16 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 45.3 16.8 45.3 1.783 15.5 31.1 48.8 1612.4 2.499 26.60 48.693 0.546 97.21 38.897 104.93 5/20/2013_5:16 PM 4A2 T1 4 -97.4054 34.7538 33.2 23.8 33.2 1.307 14.3 28.5 44.8 866.0 1.342 14.90 19.168 0.777 43.23 32.204 44.94 5/20/2013_5:16 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 21.1 21.1 21.1 0.831 10.6 21.1 33.2 349.8 0.542 3.30 4.921 0.671 20.12 37.108 46.62 5/20/2013_5:06 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 23.1 23.1 23.1 0.909 11.6 23.1 36.3 419.3 0.650 5.10 6.457 0.790 32.79 50.457 53.24 5/20/2013_5:05 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 22.1 20.9 22.1 0.870 10.8 21.5 33.8 383.8 0.595 5.20 5.654 0.920 9.05 15.215 16.09 5/20/2013_5:05 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 21 14.9 21 0.827 9.0 18.0 28.2 346.5 0.537 3.50 4.851 0.722 3.92 7.299 10.30 5/20/2013_5:05 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 33.1 12.7 33.1 1.303 11.5 22.9 36.0 860.8 1.334 6.20 18.996 0.326 16.69 12.508 32.62 5/20/2013_5:04 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 24.1 15.2 24.1 0.949 9.8 19.7 30.9 456.4 0.707 5.10 7.332 0.696 43.95 62.134 98.56 5/20/2013_5:04 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 23.5 15.2 23.5 0.925 9.7 19.4 30.4 433.9 0.673 4.20 6.798 0.618 47.17 70.135 108.48 5/20/2013_5:04 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 23.3 23.3 23.3 0.917 11.7 23.3 36.6 426.6 0.661 5.10 6.626 0.770 56.53 85.501 119.33 5/20/2013_5:04 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 36.5 12.5 36.5 1.437 12.3 24.5 38.5 1046.8 1.622 6.50 25.471 0.255 32.58 20.080 58.66 5/20/2013_5:03 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 32.1 19.8 32.1 1.264 13.0 26.0 40.8 809.6 1.255 4.50 17.326 0.260 52.91 42.163 68.38 5/20/2013_5:03 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 29.1 20.1 29.1 1.146 12.3 24.6 38.7 665.4 1.031 9.00 12.908 0.697 29.16 28.275 40.95 5/20/2013_5:03 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 33.5 18.9 33.5 1.319 13.1 26.2 41.2 881.8 1.367 8.40 19.693 0.427 54.91 40.176 71.24 5/20/2013_5:02 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 29.1 21.5 29.1 1.146 12.7 25.3 39.8 665.4 1.031 7.20 12.908 0.558 63.46 61.534 83.32 5/20/2013_5:02 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 33.2 18.9 33.2 1.307 13.0 26.1 40.9 866.0 1.342 9.60 19.168 0.501 28.75 21.417 37.64 5/20/2013_5:01 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 31.1 18.5 31.1 1.224 12.4 24.8 39.0 760.0 1.178 7.50 15.756 0.476 1.10 0.934 1.57 5/20/2013_5:01 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 30.8 22.1 30.8 1.213 13.2 26.5 41.6 745.4 1.155 7.80 15.305 0.510 24.84 21.501 29.97 5/20/2013_5:00 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 29.1 22.6 29.1 1.146 12.9 25.9 40.6 665.4 1.031 7.90 12.908 0.612 11.56 11.209 14.44 5/20/2013_5:00 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 41.2 24.6 41.2 1.622 16.5 32.9 51.7 1333.7 2.067 11.30 36.632 0.308 52.49 25.391 42.54 5/20/2013_4:59 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 35.1 22.6 35.1 1.382 14.4 28.9 45.3 968.0 1.500 11.10 22.651 0.490 24.83 16.549 25.71 5/20/2013_4:59 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 34.1 18.7 34.1 1.343 13.2 26.4 41.5 913.6 1.416 9.20 20.770 0.443 46.86 33.090 60.36 5/20/2013_4:58 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 38 26.2 38 1.496 16.1 32.1 50.4 1134.6 1.759 15.10 28.742 0.525 71.09 40.424 58.65 5/20/2013_4:57 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 37.2 22.6 37.2 1.465 15.0 29.9 47.0 1087.3 1.685 12.00 26.965 0.445 57.52 34.130 56.20 5/20/2013_4:57 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 34.1 18.5 34.1 1.343 13.2 26.3 41.3 913.6 1.416 9.70 20.770 0.467 28.05 19.807 36.52 5/20/2013_4:57 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 31.7 20.9 31.7 1.248 13.2 26.3 41.3 789.6 1.224 10.70 16.686 0.641 17.08 13.956 21.18 5/20/2013_4:57 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 46.2 19.8 46.2 1.819 16.5 33.0 51.9 1677.1 2.599 11.10 51.653 0.215 43.03 16.554 38.64 5/20/2013_4:56 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 45 20.9 45 1.772 16.5 33.0 51.8 1591.1 2.466 12.90 47.732 0.270 52.99 21.487 46.28 5/20/2013_4:56 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 40.1 25.7 40.1 1.579 16.5 32.9 51.7 1263.4 1.958 16.00 33.776 0.474 50.57 25.823 40.31 5/20/2013_4:56 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 42 24.6 42 1.654 16.7 33.3 52.3 1386.0 2.148 16.60 38.808 0.428 143.61 66.848 114.17 5/20/2013_4:55 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 34.1 28 34.1 1.343 15.5 31.1 48.8 913.6 1.416 12.80 20.770 0.616 59.32 41.889 51.04 5/20/2013_4:55 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 41 25.9 41 1.614 16.7 33.5 52.6 1320.8 2.047 19.10 36.101 0.529 170.26 83.166 131.70 5/20/2013_4:54 PM 4A1 T1 4 -97.4055 34.7393 40.2 20 40.2 1.583 15.1 30.1 47.3 1269.7 1.968 14.70 34.029 0.432 5.00 2.541 5.11 5/20/2013_4:54 PM 3D1 T2 3 -96.6218 36.68173 19 10 19 0.748 7.3 14.5 22.8 283.6 0.440 1.80 3.593 0.501 39.04 88.798 168.77 5/20/2013_12:21 AM 3D1 T2 3 -96.6218 36.68173 15 7 15 0.591 5.5 11.0 17.3 176.8 0.274 0.60 1.768 0.339 17.94 65.470 140.33 5/20/2013_12:21 AM 3D1 T2 3 -96.6218 36.68173 12 12 12 0.472 6.0 12.0 18.9 113.1 0.175 0.60 0.905 0.663 10.69 60.956 104.52 5/20/2013_12:21 AM 3D1 T2 3 -96.6218 36.68173 18 12.5 18 0.709 7.6 15.3 24.0 254.6 0.395 2.20 3.055 0.720 26.48 67.108 96.68 5/20/2013_12:20 AM 3D1 T2 3 -96.6218 36.68173 11 6 11 0.433 4.3 8.5 13.4 95.1 0.147 0.50 0.697 0.717 14.48 98.262 180.16 5/20/2013_12:20 AM 3D1 T2 3 -96.6218 36.68173 22 13 22 0.866 8.8 17.5 27.5 380.3 0.589 3.20 5.578 0.574 39.68 67.318 113.97 5/20/2013_12:19 AM 3D1 T2 3 -96.6218 36.68173 17 5 17 0.669 5.5 11.0 17.3 227.1 0.352 0.70 2.573 0.272 18.26 51.881 176.49 5/20/2013_12:19 AM 3D1 T2 3 -96.6218 36.68173 10 7 10 0.394 4.3 8.5 13.4 78.6 0.122 0.30 0.524 0.573 6.36 52.223 74.63 5/20/2013_12:18 AM 3D1 T2 3 -96.6218 36.68173 12 7 12 0.472 4.8 9.5 14.9 113.1 0.175 0.90 0.905 0.994 15.23 86.844 148.95 5/20/2013_12:16 AM 3C4 T1 3 -96.5045 37.1086 25.1 15.2 25.1 0.988 10.1 20.2 31.7 495.0 0.767 4.30 8.283 0.519 19.61 25.558 42.23 5/19/2013_9:47 PM 3C4 T1 3 -96.5045 37.1086 20.1 20.1 20.1 0.791 10.1 20.1 31.6 317.4 0.492 3.30 4.254 0.776 3.72 7.561 8.05 5/19/2013_9:47 PM 3C4 T1 3 -96.5045 37.1086 22.1 13.9 22.1 0.870 9.0 18.0 28.3 383.8 0.595 2.80 5.654 0.495 1.91 3.211 5.11 5/19/2013_9:46 PM 3C4 T1 3 -96.5045 37.1086 25.4 18.2 25.4 1.000 10.9 21.8 34.3 506.9 0.786 3.90 8.584 0.454 18.51 23.558 32.89 5/19/2013_9:45 PM 3C4 T1 3 -96.5045 37.1086 22.6 22.6 22.6 0.890 11.3 22.6 35.5 401.3 0.622 3.00 6.046 0.496 25.15 40.432 47.36 5/19/2013_9:45 PM 3C4 T1 3 -96.5045 37.1086 21.6 14.5 21.6 0.850 9.0 18.1 28.4 366.6 0.568 3.70 5.279 0.701 28.16 49.560 73.87 5/19/2013_9:44 PM 3C4 T1 3 -96.5045 37.1086 21.3 12.3 21.3 0.839 8.4 16.8 26.4 356.5 0.553 2.70 5.062 0.533 4.73 8.561 14.83 5/19/2013_9:44 PM 3C4 T1 3 -96.5045 37.1086 19.1 7.2 19.1 0.752 6.6 13.2 20.7 286.6 0.444 1.70 3.650 0.466 9.16 20.617 54.70 5/19/2013_9:44 PM 3C4 T1 3 -96.5045 37.1086 25.1 18.9 25.1 0.988 11.0 22.0 34.6 495.0 0.767 5.10 8.283 0.616 33.69 43.909 58.34 5/19/2013_9:43 PM 3C4 T1 3 -96.5045 37.1086 22.1 14.5 22.1 0.870 9.2 18.3 28.8 383.8 0.595 4.00 5.654 0.707 14.58 24.512 37.38 5/19/2013_9:43 PM 3C4 T1 3 -96.5045 37.1086 19 7 19 0.748 6.5 13.0 20.4 283.6 0.440 1.50 3.593 0.418 8.35 18.992 51.59 5/19/2013_9:43 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 25.3 25.3 25.3 0.996 12.7 25.3 39.8 502.9 0.780 3.00 8.483 0.354 11.17 14.329 10.98 5/19/2013_9:35 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 25.1 11.9 25.1 0.988 9.3 18.5 29.1 495.0 0.767 2.50 8.283 0.302 21.43 27.930 58.93 5/19/2013_9:35 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 23.1 19.6 23.1 0.909 10.7 21.4 33.6 419.3 0.650 3.70 6.457 0.573 15.79 24.297 28.65 5/19/2013_9:34 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 23.1 15.1 23.1 0.909 9.6 19.1 30.0 419.3 0.650 2.60 6.457 0.403 5.43 8.356 12.80 5/19/2013_9:34 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 27.8 16.4 27.8 1.094 11.1 22.1 34.7 607.2 0.941 3.30 11.254 0.293 10.96 11.645 19.75 5/19/2013_9:33 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 22.3 16.2 22.3 0.878 9.6 19.3 30.3 390.7 0.606 3.60 5.809 0.620 42.85 70.753 97.43 5/19/2013_9:33 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 26.5 15.5 26.5 1.043 10.5 21.0 33.0 551.8 0.855 4.00 9.748 0.410 30.07 35.160 60.14 5/19/2013_9:32 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 25.6 14.2 25.6 1.008 10.0 19.9 31.3 514.9 0.798 2.80 8.788 0.319 15.99 20.034 36.14 5/19/2013_9:32 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 25.1 17.8 25.1 0.988 10.7 21.5 33.7 495.0 0.767 4.30 8.283 0.519 26.45 34.473 48.63 5/19/2013_9:32 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 26.1 13.2 26.1 1.028 9.8 19.7 30.9 535.2 0.830 2.80 9.313 0.301 5.84 7.039 13.91 5/19/2013_9:31 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 21.1 14.9 21.1 0.831 9.0 18.0 28.3 349.8 0.542 4.10 4.921 0.833 14.28 26.337 37.32 5/19/2013_9:31 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 19.1 9.8 19.1 0.752 7.2 14.5 22.7 286.6 0.444 1.60 3.650 0.438 9.66 21.743 42.40 5/19/2013_9:30 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 25.1 16.5 25.1 0.988 10.4 20.8 32.7 495.0 0.767 5.30 8.283 0.640 18.00 23.460 35.70 5/19/2013_9:28 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 26.5 17.7 26.5 1.043 11.1 22.1 34.7 551.8 0.855 6.20 9.748 0.636 30.47 35.627 53.36 5/19/2013_9:27 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 26.1 17.5 26.1 1.028 10.9 21.8 34.3 535.2 0.830 4.80 9.313 0.515 7.34 8.847 13.20 5/19/2013_9:27 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 21.3 13.2 21.3 0.839 8.6 17.3 27.1 356.5 0.553 4.30 5.062 0.849 21.42 38.767 62.59 5/19/2013_9:27 PM 3C6 T2 3 -97.2826 36.81144 14 7 14 0.551 5.3 10.5 16.5 154.0 0.239 0.70 1.437 0.487 12.09 50.649 101.37 5/19/2013_9:27 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 28.1 18.8 28.1 1.106 11.7 23.5 36.9 620.4 0.962 5.00 11.622 0.430 23.13 24.053 35.97 5/19/2013_9:26 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 26.1 16.5 26.1 1.028 10.7 21.3 33.5 535.2 0.830 4.80 9.313 0.515 13.68 16.490 26.09 5/19/2013_9:26 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 24.2 19.8 24.2 0.953 11.0 22.0 34.6 460.1 0.713 5.40 7.424 0.727 45.96 64.439 78.80 5/19/2013_9:26 PM 3C6 T2 3 -97.2826 36.81144 14 9 14 0.551 5.8 11.5 18.1 154.0 0.239 1.00 1.437 0.696 8.63 36.154 56.27 5/19/2013_9:26 PM 3C6 T2 3 -97.2826 36.81144 14 7 14 0.551 5.3 10.5 16.5 154.0 0.239 0.60 1.437 0.417 10.69 44.784 89.58 5/19/2013_9:26 PM 3C6 T2 3 -97.2826 36.81144 13 9 13 0.512 5.5 11.0 17.3 132.8 0.206 0.60 1.151 0.521 11.12 54.028 78.08 5/19/2013_9:26 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 24.5 18.2 24.5 0.965 10.7 21.4 33.6 471.6 0.731 5.50 7.703 0.714 63.77 87.234 117.47 5/19/2013_9:25 PM 3C3 T1 3 -96.5074 37.1102 31.1 17.8 31.1 1.224 12.2 24.5 38.4 760.0 1.178 5.40 15.756 0.343 14.18 12.038 21.04 5/19/2013_9:24 PM 3C2 T1 3 -97.0527 36.8903 11.2 6.6 11.2 0.441 4.5 8.9 14.0 98.6 0.153 0.40 0.736 0.544 20.02 131.048 222.51 5/19/2013_8:29 PM 3C2 T1 3 -97.0527 36.8903 13.1 13.1 13.1 0.516 6.6 13.1 20.6 134.8 0.209 0.90 1.178 0.764 2.72 13.015 19.18 5/19/2013_8:28 PM 3C2 T1 3 -97.0527 36.8903 15.2 15.2 15.2 0.598 7.6 15.2 23.9 181.5 0.281 0.90 1.840 0.489 14.29 50.786 70.84 5/19/2013_8:27 PM 3C2 T1 3 -97.0527 36.8903 15.2 7.9 15.2 0.598 5.8 11.6 18.2 181.5 0.281 0.80 1.840 0.435 10.57 37.566 72.29 5/19/2013_8:27 PM 3C2 T1 3 -97.0527 36.8903 14.3 14.3 14.3 0.563 7.2 14.3 22.5 160.7 0.249 0.80 1.532 0.522 19.92 79.987 101.27 5/19/2013_8:27 PM 3C2 T1 3 -97.0527 36.8903 12.2 6.9 12.2 0.480 4.8 9.6 15.0 116.9 0.181 0.60 0.951 0.631 18.21 100.460 177.72 5/19/2013_8:27 PM 3C2 T1 3 -97.0527 36.8903 15.2 10.8 15.2 0.598 6.5 13.0 20.4 181.5 0.281 0.90 1.840 0.489 1.11 3.945 5.57 5/19/2013_8:26 PM 3C2 T1 3 -97.0527 36.8903 14.2 14.2 14.2 0.559 7.1 14.2 22.3 158.4 0.246 0.80 1.500 0.533 7.75 31.559 65.94 5/19/2013_8:26 PM 3C2 T1 3 -97.0527 36.8903 18.2 16.3 18.2 0.717 8.6 17.3 27.1 260.3 0.403 1.10 3.158 0.348 20.93 51.883 57.95 5/19/2013_8:25 PM 3C2 T1 3 -97.0527 36.8903 14.3 14.3 14.3 0.563 7.2 14.3 22.5 160.7 0.249 1.20 1.532 0.783 11.67 46.860 61.52 5/19/2013_8:25 PM 3C2 T1 3 -97.0527 36.8903 25.1 10.7 25.1 0.988 9.0 17.9 28.1 495.0 0.767 1.70 8.283 0.205 13.58 17.699 41.54 5/19/2013_8:24 PM 3B2 T2 3 -97.0391 37.05146 12 7 12 0.472 4.8 9.5 14.9 113.1 0.175 0.60 0.905 0.663 15.12 86.217 147.90 5/19/2013_8:18 PM 3B2 T2 3 -97.0391 37.05146 15 15 15 0.591 7.5 15.0 23.6 176.8 0.274 1.10 1.768 0.622 13.93 50.836 63.58 5/19/2013_8:17 PM 3B2 T2 3 -97.0391 37.05146 15 10.5 15 0.591 6.4 12.8 20.0 176.8 0.274 1.60 1.768 0.905 18.80 68.609 98.06 5/19/2013_8:17 PM 3B2 T2 3 -97.0391 37.05146 14.5 14.5 14.5 0.571 7.3 14.5 22.8 165.2 0.256 1.50 1.597 0.939 21.40 83.576 121.23 5/19/2013_8:17 PM 3B2 T2 3 -97.0391 37.05146 19 12 19 0.748 7.8 15.5 24.4 283.6 0.440 1.00 3.593 0.278 8.63 19.629 31.10 5/19/2013_8:16 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 3B2 T2 3 -97.0391 37.05146 14 13 14 0.551 6.8 13.5 21.2 154.0 0.239 1.20 1.437 0.835 13.61 57.017 61.42 5/19/2013_8:16 PM 3C1 T1 3 -97.0626 36.8756 8.6 8.6 8.6 0.339 4.3 8.6 13.5 58.1 0.090 0.30 0.333 0.900 5.51 61.173 77.40 5/19/2013_8:15 PM 3C1 T1 3 -97.0626 36.8756 10.1 10.1 10.1 0.398 5.1 10.1 15.9 80.2 0.124 0.50 0.540 0.926 3.73 30.024 42.71 5/19/2013_8:14 PM 3C1 T1 3 -97.0626 36.8756 15.2 7.2 15.2 0.598 5.6 11.2 17.6 181.5 0.281 1.20 1.840 0.652 16.50 58.641 123.86 5/19/2013_8:13 PM 3B1 T1 3 -97.0392 37.05162 21.9 12.9 21.9 0.862 8.7 17.4 27.3 376.8 0.584 2.50 5.502 0.454 4.43 7.584 12.88 5/19/2013_7:17 PM 3B1 T1 3 -97.0392 37.05162 20 14.6 20 0.787 8.7 17.3 27.2 314.3 0.487 2.20 4.190 0.525 3.83 7.862 10.76 5/19/2013_7:17 PM 3B1 T1 3 -97.0392 37.05162 17.8 10.9 17.8 0.701 7.2 14.4 22.6 248.9 0.386 1.60 2.954 0.542 5.13 13.295 21.74 5/19/2013_7:17 PM 3B1 T1 3 -97.0392 37.05162 26.1 13.5 26.1 1.028 9.9 19.8 31.1 535.2 0.830 2.20 9.313 0.236 9.96 12.006 23.22 5/19/2013_7:16 PM 3B1 T1 3 -97.0392 37.05162 22.1 7.9 22.1 0.870 7.5 15.0 23.6 383.8 0.595 1.70 5.654 0.301 21.53 36.196 101.29 5/19/2013_7:16 PM 3B1 T1 3 -97.0392 37.05162 34.2 16.8 34.2 1.346 12.8 25.5 40.1 919.0 1.424 3.60 20.953 0.172 28.67 20.127 40.98 5/19/2013_7:15 PM 3A9 T2 3 -97.5537 37.62173 18 7 18 0.709 6.3 12.5 19.6 254.6 0.395 1.30 3.055 0.426 19.34 49.013 126.10 5/19/2013_6:22 PM 3A9 T2 3 -97.5537 37.62173 21 13 21 0.827 8.5 17.0 26.7 346.5 0.537 3.60 4.851 0.742 27.24 50.719 81.96 5/19/2013_6:21 PM 3A9 T2 3 -97.5537 37.62173 20 20 20 0.787 10.0 20.0 31.4 314.3 0.487 2.20 4.190 0.525 56.02 114.997 153.40 5/19/2013_6:21 PM 3A9 T2 3 -97.5537 37.62173 20 13 20 0.787 8.3 16.5 25.9 314.3 0.487 2.10 4.190 0.501 21.29 43.704 67.26 5/19/2013_6:21 PM 3A9 T2 3 -97.5537 37.62173 18 10 18 0.709 7.0 14.0 22.0 254.6 0.395 2.50 3.055 0.818 30.49 77.271 139.12 5/19/2013_6:21 PM 3A8 T2 3 -97.5169 37.62163 25 17 25 0.984 10.5 21.0 33.0 491.1 0.761 6.60 8.185 0.806 57.96 76.147 112.03 5/19/2013_6:14 PM 3A8 T2 3 -97.5169 37.62163 27 14 27 1.063 10.3 20.5 32.2 572.8 0.888 5.30 10.310 0.514 32.43 36.528 70.47 5/19/2013_6:13 PM 3A8 T2 3 -97.5169 37.62163 21 11 21 0.827 8.0 16.0 25.1 346.5 0.537 2.40 4.851 0.495 20.21 37.630 71.85 5/19/2013_6:13 PM 3A8 T2 3 -97.5169 37.62163 20 20 20 0.787 10.0 20.0 31.4 314.3 0.487 3.00 4.190 0.716 7.44 15.273 19.09 5/19/2013_6:13 PM 3A8 T2 3 -97.5169 37.62163 32 13 32 1.260 11.3 22.5 35.4 804.6 1.247 5.30 17.164 0.309 17.28 13.856 34.12 5/19/2013_6:12 PM 3A8 T2 3 -97.5169 37.62163 19 11 19 0.748 7.5 15.0 23.6 283.6 0.440 1.70 3.593 0.473 8.95 20.357 35.19 5/19/2013_6:12 PM 3A8 T2 3 -97.5169 37.62163 17 10 17 0.669 6.8 13.5 21.2 227.1 0.352 1.90 2.573 0.738 19.45 55.262 93.98 5/19/2013_6:12 PM 3A8 T2 3 -97.5169 37.62163 19 19 19 0.748 9.5 19.0 29.9 283.6 0.440 2.70 3.593 0.752 8.09 18.401 20.56 5/19/2013_6:11 PM 3A8 T2 3 -97.5169 37.62163 16 7 16 0.630 5.8 11.5 18.1 201.1 0.312 1.50 2.146 0.699 4.30 13.792 31.55 5/19/2013_6:11 PM 3A8 T2 3 -97.5169 37.62163 18 12 18 0.709 7.5 15.0 23.6 254.6 0.395 2.00 3.055 0.655 27.46 69.592 104.42 5/19/2013_6:10 PM 3A7 T2 3 -97.4987 37.61945 24 16 24 0.945 10.0 20.0 31.4 452.6 0.701 5.00 7.241 0.690 11.98 17.078 25.62 5/19/2013_6:03 PM 3A7 T2 3 -97.4987 37.61945 21 11 21 0.827 8.0 16.0 25.1 346.5 0.537 2.80 4.851 0.577 8.52 15.864 30.29 5/19/2013_6:03 PM 3A7 T2 3 -97.4987 37.61945 23 16 23 0.906 9.8 19.5 30.6 415.6 0.644 3.90 6.373 0.612 34.92 54.203 77.95 5/19/2013_6:02 PM 3A7 T2 3 -97.4987 37.61945 15 7.5 15 0.591 5.6 11.3 17.7 176.8 0.274 1.40 1.768 0.792 4.84 17.663 35.36 5/19/2013_6:02 PM 3A7 T2 3 -97.4987 37.61945 25 17 25 0.984 10.5 21.0 33.0 491.1 0.761 4.90 8.185 0.599 22.26 29.245 43.02 5/19/2013_6:01 PM 3A7 T2 3 -97.4987 37.61945 18 12 18 0.709 7.5 15.0 23.6 254.6 0.395 1.80 3.055 0.589 11.01 27.903 41.87 5/19/2013_6:01 PM 3A7 T2 3 -97.4987 37.61945 17.5 17.5 17.5 0.689 8.8 17.5 27.5 240.6 0.373 1.40 2.807 0.499 8.20 21.986 27.48 5/19/2013_6:01 PM 3A7 T2 3 -97.4987 37.61945 17 7 17 0.669 6.0 12.0 18.9 227.1 0.352 1.10 2.573 0.427 5.17 14.689 35.67 5/19/2013_6:00 PM 3A7 T2 3 -97.4987 37.61945 15 9 15 0.591 6.0 12.0 18.9 176.8 0.274 1.10 1.768 0.622 4.84 17.663 29.47 5/19/2013_6:00 PM 3A7 T2 3 -97.4987 37.61945 15 7 15 0.591 5.5 11.0 17.3 176.8 0.274 1.30 1.768 0.735 19.78 72.185 154.71 5/19/2013_5:59 PM 3A6 T2 3 -97.4439 37.62247 25 15 25 0.984 10.0 20.0 31.4 491.1 0.761 3.30 8.185 0.403 4.51 5.925 9.89 5/19/2013_5:46 PM 3A6 T2 3 -97.4439 37.62247 22 11.5 22 0.866 8.4 16.8 26.3 380.3 0.589 2.80 5.578 0.502 15.55 26.381 50.50 5/19/2013_5:46 PM 3A6 T2 3 -97.4439 37.62247 17 7.5 17 0.669 6.1 12.3 19.3 227.1 0.352 0.60 2.573 0.233 5.06 14.377 32.61 5/19/2013_5:46 PM 3A6 T2 3 -97.4439 37.62247 17 5 17 0.669 5.5 11.0 17.3 227.1 0.352 0.60 2.573 0.233 5.71 16.223 55.18 5/19/2013_5:45 PM 3A6 T2 3 -97.4439 37.62247 17 7 17 0.669 6.0 12.0 18.9 227.1 0.352 0.80 2.573 0.311 0.19 0.540 1.32 5/19/2013_5:45 PM 3A6 T2 3 -97.4439 37.62247 22 17 22 0.866 9.8 19.5 30.6 380.3 0.589 3.80 5.578 0.681 5.16 8.754 11.34 5/19/2013_5:44 PM 3A6 T2 3 -97.4439 37.62247 17 5 17 0.669 5.5 11.0 17.3 227.1 0.352 1.10 2.573 0.427 22.05 62.649 213.08 5/19/2013_5:44 PM 3A6 T2 3 -97.4439 37.62247 16 10 16 0.630 6.5 13.0 20.4 201.1 0.312 1.30 2.146 0.606 5.38 17.256 27.64 5/19/2013_5:44 PM 3A6 T2 3 -97.4439 37.62247 15 10 15 0.591 6.3 12.5 19.6 176.8 0.274 1.50 1.768 0.848 4.19 15.291 22.96 5/19/2013_5:44 PM 3A6 T2 3 -97.4439 37.62247 13 11 13 0.512 6.0 12.0 18.9 132.8 0.206 1.00 1.151 0.869 5.93 28.812 34.04 5/19/2013_5:43 PM 3A6 T2 3 -97.4439 37.62247 14 9 14 0.551 5.8 11.5 18.1 154.0 0.239 1.20 1.437 0.835 14.47 60.620 94.36 5/19/2013_5:42 PM 3A6 T2 3 -97.4439 37.62247 13 13 13 0.512 6.5 13.0 20.4 132.8 0.206 1.10 1.151 0.956 6.14 29.832 35.28 5/19/2013_5:42 PM 3A6 T2 3 -97.4439 37.62247 16 5 16 0.630 5.3 10.5 16.5 201.1 0.312 0.70 2.146 0.326 47.26 151.585 485.29 5/19/2013_5:41 PM 3A6 T2 3 -97.4439 37.62247 14 14 14 0.551 7.0 14.0 22.0 154.0 0.239 0.90 1.437 0.626 7.98 33.431 46.83 5/19/2013_5:41 PM 3A5 T2 3 -97.4077 37.62264 17 10 17 0.669 6.8 13.5 21.2 227.1 0.352 2.10 2.573 0.816 43.04 122.286 207.97 5/19/2013_5:32 PM 3A5 T2 3 -97.4077 37.62264 23 12 23 0.906 8.8 17.5 27.5 415.6 0.644 3.00 6.373 0.471 51.15 79.395 152.24 5/19/2013_5:31 PM 3A5 T2 3 -97.4077 37.62264 27 27 27 1.063 13.5 27.0 42.4 572.8 0.888 5.00 10.310 0.485 12.73 14.338 17.61 5/19/2013_5:30 PM 3A5 T2 3 -97.4077 37.62264 20 20 20 0.787 10.0 20.0 31.4 314.3 0.487 3.50 4.190 0.835 21.94 45.038 60.06 5/19/2013_5:30 PM 3A5 T2 3 -97.4077 37.62264 19 19 19 0.748 9.5 19.0 29.9 283.6 0.440 2.50 3.593 0.696 9.71 22.086 29.98 5/19/2013_5:29 PM 3A5 T2 3 -97.4077 37.62264 18 11 18 0.709 7.3 14.5 22.8 254.6 0.395 1.90 3.055 0.622 13.28 33.655 55.10 5/19/2013_5:29 PM 3A5 T2 3 -97.4077 37.62264 14 8 14 0.551 5.5 11.0 17.3 154.0 0.239 1.10 1.437 0.765 12.42 52.032 91.08 5/19/2013_5:28 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 21.1 7.9 21.1 0.831 7.3 14.5 22.8 349.8 0.542 1.20 4.921 0.244 21.73 40.077 107.09 5/19/2013_5:23 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 17.2 9.6 17.2 0.677 6.7 13.4 21.1 232.4 0.360 1.00 2.665 0.375 8.35 23.176 41.56 5/19/2013_5:23 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 21.1 9.8 21.1 0.831 7.7 15.5 24.3 349.8 0.542 1.40 4.921 0.285 10.36 19.107 41.18 5/19/2013_5:21 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 18.2 8.8 18.2 0.717 6.8 13.5 21.2 260.3 0.403 1.60 3.158 0.507 12.68 31.433 65.02 5/19/2013_5:21 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 30.1 8.7 30.1 1.185 9.7 19.4 30.5 711.9 1.103 2.30 14.285 0.161 4.03 3.652 12.63 5/19/2013_5:20 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 16.1 10.9 16.1 0.634 6.8 13.5 21.2 203.7 0.316 1.30 2.186 0.595 24.65 78.085 115.37 5/19/2013_5:20 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 22.1 10.1 22.1 0.870 8.1 16.1 25.3 383.8 0.595 2.20 5.654 0.389 3.62 6.086 13.34 5/19/2013_5:19 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 20.1 8.9 20.1 0.791 7.3 14.5 22.8 317.4 0.492 1.90 4.254 0.447 16.60 33.738 76.23 5/19/2013_5:19 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 23.1 11.9 23.1 0.909 8.8 17.5 27.5 419.3 0.650 2.40 6.457 0.372 12.58 19.358 37.58 5/19/2013_5:18 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 23.1 12.6 23.1 0.909 8.9 17.9 28.1 419.3 0.650 2.80 6.457 0.434 15.59 23.990 44.01 5/19/2013_5:18 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 23.1 10.9 23.1 0.909 8.5 17.0 26.7 419.3 0.650 2.60 6.457 0.403 19.11 29.406 62.36 5/19/2013_5:17 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 21 13.6 21 0.827 8.7 17.3 27.2 346.5 0.537 2.50 4.851 0.515 10.76 20.034 30.96 5/19/2013_5:17 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 23.1 19.8 23.1 0.909 10.7 21.5 33.7 419.3 0.650 3.20 6.457 0.496 43.15 66.399 77.50 5/19/2013_5:16 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 22.3 14.6 22.3 0.878 9.2 18.5 29.0 390.7 0.606 2.70 5.809 0.465 23.54 38.869 59.39 5/19/2013_5:16 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 25.6 12.6 25.6 1.008 9.6 19.1 30.0 514.9 0.798 2.90 8.788 0.330 29.67 37.174 75.57 5/19/2013_5:15 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 25.1 10.9 25.1 0.988 9.0 18.0 28.3 495.0 0.767 2.70 8.283 0.326 10.76 14.024 32.32 5/19/2013_5:15 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 31.2 12.7 31.2 1.228 11.0 22.0 34.5 764.8 1.186 3.40 15.909 0.214 37.72 31.817 78.20 5/19/2013_5:14 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 24.2 14.9 24.2 0.953 9.8 19.6 30.7 460.1 0.713 3.90 7.424 0.525 12.37 17.344 28.18 5/19/2013_5:14 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 25.1 15.6 25.1 0.988 10.2 20.4 32.0 495.0 0.767 4.80 8.283 0.579 42.65 55.587 89.46 5/19/2013_5:13 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 24.3 17.1 24.3 0.957 10.4 20.7 32.5 464.0 0.719 5.00 7.516 0.665 32.59 45.318 64.42 5/19/2013_5:13 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 24.2 17.8 24.2 0.953 10.5 21.0 33.0 460.1 0.713 4.00 7.424 0.539 26.86 37.660 51.21 5/19/2013_5:13 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 30.2 13.9 30.2 1.189 11.0 22.1 34.7 716.6 1.111 4.00 14.428 0.277 4.93 4.438 9.64 5/19/2013_5:12 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 28.1 18.9 28.1 1.106 11.8 23.5 36.9 620.4 0.962 6.40 11.622 0.551 29.67 30.854 45.89 5/19/2013_5:12 PM 3A3 T1 3 -97.5358 37.62143 25 13.8 25 0.984 9.7 19.4 30.5 491.1 0.761 3.90 8.185 0.477 9.45 12.415 22.51 5/19/2013_5:12 PM 3A4 T2 3 -97.3528 37.62232 12 9 12 0.472 5.3 10.5 16.5 113.1 0.175 0.70 0.905 0.773 48.78 278.152 371.00 5/19/2013_5:01 PM 3A4 T2 3 -97.3528 37.62232 11 7 11 0.433 4.5 9.0 14.1 95.1 0.147 0.40 0.697 0.574 36.12 245.112 385.30 5/19/2013_5:01 PM 3A4 T2 3 -97.3528 37.62232 19 5 19 0.748 6.0 12.0 18.9 283.6 0.440 0.80 3.593 0.223 43.26 98.397 374.05 5/19/2013_5:00 PM 3A4 T2 3 -97.3528 37.62232 15 10 15 0.591 6.3 12.5 19.6 176.8 0.274 0.90 1.768 0.509 32.76 119.554 179.41 5/19/2013_5:00 PM 3A4 T2 3 -97.3528 37.62232 24 12 24 0.945 9.0 18.0 28.3 452.6 0.701 3.90 7.241 0.539 34.49 49.167 98.36 5/19/2013_4:59 PM 3A4 T2 3 -97.3528 37.62232 22 11 22 0.866 8.3 16.5 25.9 380.3 0.589 2.90 5.578 0.520 48.12 81.636 163.35 5/19/2013_4:59 PM 3A4 T2 3 -97.3528 37.62232 17 10 17 0.669 6.8 13.5 21.2 227.1 0.352 1.40 2.573 0.544 39.69 112.768 191.76 5/19/2013_4:59 PM 3A4 T2 3 -97.3528 37.62232 20 7 20 0.787 6.8 13.5 21.2 314.3 0.487 1.60 4.190 0.382 106.30 218.211 623.69 5/19/2013_4:58 PM 3A2 T1 3 -97.4238 37.6229 25.3 8.9 25.3 0.996 8.6 17.1 26.9 502.9 0.780 1.80 8.483 0.212 5.54 7.107 20.20 5/19/2013_4:43 PM 3A2 T1 3 -97.4238 37.6229 26.1 9.6 26.1 1.028 8.9 17.9 28.1 535.2 0.830 2.60 9.313 0.279 8.35 10.065 27.38 5/19/2013_4:42 PM 3A2 T1 3 -97.4238 37.6229 18.1 10 18.1 0.713 7.0 14.1 22.1 257.4 0.399 2.20 3.106 0.708 20.52 51.431 93.14 5/19/2013_4:42 PM 3A2 T1 3 -97.4238 37.6229 17.1 12.8 17.1 0.673 7.5 15.0 23.5 229.8 0.356 1.90 2.619 0.725 12.78 35.887 47.95 5/19/2013_4:42 PM 3A2 T1 3 -97.4238 37.6229 22.1 13.7 22.1 0.870 9.0 17.9 28.1 383.8 0.595 2.70 5.654 0.478 20.12 33.826 54.58 5/19/2013_4:41 PM 3A2 T1 3 -97.4238 37.6229 23.1 13.9 23.1 0.909 9.3 18.5 29.1 419.3 0.650 2.80 6.457 0.434 43.25 66.553 110.65 5/19/2013_4:40 PM 3A2 T1 3 -97.4238 37.6229 22.2 19.8 22.2 0.874 10.5 21.0 33.0 387.2 0.600 2.30 5.731 0.401 22.53 37.537 42.11 5/19/2013_4:40 PM 3A2 T1 3 -97.4238 37.6229 18.7 18.2 18.7 0.736 9.2 18.5 29.0 274.8 0.426 3.10 3.425 0.905 21.12 49.592 50.98 5/19/2013_4:40 PM 3A2 T1 3 -97.4238 37.6229 19.4 14.8 19.4 0.764 8.6 17.1 26.9 295.7 0.458 2.40 3.825 0.628 60.25 131.449 172.38 5/19/2013_4:39 PM 3A2 T1 3 -97.4238 37.6229 22.1 12.3 22.1 0.870 8.6 17.2 27.0 383.8 0.595 2.80 5.654 0.495 70.61 118.709 213.38 5/19/2013_4:38 PM 3A2 T1 3 -97.4238 37.6229 24.1 17.8 24.1 0.949 10.5 21.0 32.9 456.4 0.707 3.60 7.332 0.491 36.71 51.898 70.30 5/19/2013_4:37 PM 3A2 T1 3 -97.4238 37.6229 20.8 14.8 20.8 0.819 8.9 17.8 28.0 339.9 0.527 3.00 4.714 0.636 13.68 25.963 36.51 5/19/2013_4:37 PM 3A2 T1 3 -97.4238 37.6229 25.6 11.8 25.6 1.008 9.4 18.7 29.4 514.9 0.798 2.80 8.788 0.319 71.62 89.734 194.75 5/19/2013_4:36 PM 3A2 T1 3 -97.4238 37.6229 21.3 13.9 21.3 0.839 8.8 17.6 27.7 356.5 0.553 2.20 5.062 0.435 16.60 30.044 46.06 5/19/2013_4:36 PM 3A1 T1 3 -97.3529 37.62225 16.1 16.1 16.1 0.634 8.1 16.1 25.3 203.7 0.316 1.50 2.186 0.686 8.25 26.134 30.73 5/19/2013_4:05 PM 3A1 T1 3 -97.3529 37.62225 18.2 12.8 18.2 0.717 7.8 15.5 24.4 260.3 0.403 1.80 3.158 0.570 18.31 45.389 64.56 5/19/2013_4:04 PM 3A1 T1 3 -97.3529 37.62225 17.1 4.8 17.1 0.673 5.5 11.0 17.2 229.8 0.356 0.50 2.619 0.191 25.45 71.466 254.75 5/19/2013_4:03 PM 3A1 T1 3 -97.3529 37.62225 15.4 13.6 15.4 0.606 7.3 14.5 22.8 186.3 0.289 1.40 1.913 0.732 19.42 67.237 76.16 5/19/2013_4:03 PM 3A1 T1 4 -97.3529 37.62225 21.3 14.3 21.3 0.839 8.9 17.8 28.0 356.5 0.553 2.60 5.062 0.514 64.28 116.337 173.34 5/19/2013_4:01 PM 3A1 T1 3 -97.3529 37.62225 18.1 11.6 18.1 0.713 7.4 14.9 23.3 257.4 0.399 1.50 3.106 0.483 29.98 75.141 117.29 5/19/2013_4:01 PM 3A1 T1 3 -97.3529 37.62225 16.2 12 16.2 0.638 7.1 14.1 22.2 206.2 0.320 1.90 2.227 0.853 16.80 52.563 70.99 5/19/2013_4:00 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 22.6 13.2 22.6 0.890 9.0 17.9 28.1 401.3 0.622 2.20 6.046 0.364 22.94 36.879 63.16 5/19/2013_10:17 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 16.6 10.9 16.6 0.654 6.9 13.8 21.6 216.5 0.336 1.50 2.396 0.626 17.31 51.580 78.56 5/19/2013_10:17 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 26.5 13.9 26.5 1.043 10.1 20.2 31.7 551.8 0.855 2.50 9.748 0.256 15.29 17.878 34.10 5/19/2013_10:16 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 21.3 21.3 21.3 0.839 10.7 21.3 33.5 356.5 0.553 3.10 5.062 0.612 12.67 22.931 36.75 5/19/2013_10:16 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 25.2 9.9 25.2 0.992 8.8 17.6 27.6 499.0 0.773 2.20 8.383 0.262 7.25 9.374 23.86 5/19/2013_10:15 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 23 23 23 0.906 11.5 23.0 36.1 415.6 0.644 3.60 6.373 0.565 18.11 28.110 37.59 5/19/2013_10:15 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 21.1 16.8 21.1 0.831 9.5 19.0 29.8 349.8 0.542 3.60 4.921 0.732 4.63 8.539 10.72 5/19/2013_10:15 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 25.1 13 25.1 0.988 9.5 19.1 29.9 495.0 0.767 3.70 8.283 0.447 23.03 30.016 57.99 5/19/2013_10:14 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 23 23 23 0.906 11.5 23.0 36.1 415.6 0.644 3.20 6.373 0.502 2.31 3.586 4.64 5/19/2013_10:14 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 34 13.6 34 1.339 11.9 23.8 37.4 908.3 1.408 3.80 20.588 0.185 9.76 6.933 17.33 5/19/2013_10:13 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 30 14.8 30 1.181 11.2 22.4 35.2 707.1 1.096 3.60 14.143 0.255 4.63 4.224 8.56 5/19/2013_10:13 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 22.6 11 22.6 0.890 8.4 16.8 26.4 401.3 0.622 3.10 6.046 0.513 2.31 3.714 7.65 5/19/2013_10:13 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 22 22 22 0.866 11.0 22.0 34.6 380.3 0.589 3.80 5.578 0.681 4.32 7.329 9.23 5/19/2013_10:13 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 30 11.9 30 1.181 10.5 21.0 32.9 707.1 1.096 4.00 14.143 0.283 15.99 14.588 36.80 5/19/2013_10:12 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 25 13.6 25 0.984 9.7 19.3 30.3 491.1 0.761 4.10 8.185 0.501 25.25 33.173 60.99 5/19/2013_10:12 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 30 16.9 30 1.181 11.7 23.5 36.9 707.1 1.096 5.80 14.143 0.410 7.54 6.879 12.21 5/19/2013_10:11 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 28 17.8 28 1.102 11.5 22.9 36.0 616.0 0.955 5.70 11.499 0.496 55.82 58.462 92.00 5/19/2013_10:11 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 27 18.8 27 1.063 11.5 22.9 36.0 572.8 0.888 5.60 10.310 0.543 27.56 31.042 44.59 5/19/2013_10:11 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 32 17.2 32 1.260 12.3 24.6 38.7 804.6 1.247 6.80 17.164 0.396 47.97 38.466 71.60 5/19/2013_10:10 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 30 11.3 30 1.181 10.3 20.7 32.5 707.1 1.096 7.10 14.143 0.502 68.29 62.304 165.47 5/19/2013_10:10 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 28 21.1 28 1.102 12.3 24.6 38.6 616.0 0.955 7.70 11.499 0.670 32.08 33.599 44.60 5/19/2013_10:10 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 36 25.3 36 1.417 15.3 30.7 48.2 1018.3 1.578 11.80 24.439 0.483 12.05 7.635 10.87 5/19/2013_10:09 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 31 23.5 31 1.220 13.6 27.3 42.8 755.1 1.170 9.10 15.605 0.583 15.28 13.056 17.23 5/19/2013_10:09 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 35 24.1 35 1.378 14.8 29.6 46.4 962.5 1.492 10.00 22.458 0.445 60.74 40.714 59.15 5/19/2013_10:08 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 30 30 30 1.181 15.0 30.0 47.1 707.1 1.096 9.10 14.143 0.643 49.88 45.508 50.58 5/19/2013_10:08 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 26 17.8 26 1.024 11.0 21.9 34.4 531.1 0.823 6.20 9.206 0.673 43.65 53.020 71.69 5/19/2013_10:08 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 37 24.5 37 1.457 15.4 30.8 48.3 1075.6 1.667 12.00 26.533 0.452 16.18 9.705 14.66 5/19/2013_10:07 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 27 19 27 1.063 11.5 23.0 36.1 572.8 0.888 7.00 10.310 0.679 35.20 39.648 56.36 5/19/2013_10:07 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 26 26 26 1.024 13.0 26.0 40.9 531.1 0.823 7.60 9.206 0.826 60.24 73.171 82.39 5/19/2013_10:07 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 40 23.4 40 1.575 15.9 31.7 49.8 1257.1 1.949 10.80 33.524 0.322 51.18 26.265 44.92 5/19/2013_10:06 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 36.1 19 36.1 1.421 13.8 27.6 43.3 1024.0 1.587 9.50 24.643 0.386 7.93 4.996 9.50 5/19/2013_10:06 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 37.1 14 37.1 1.461 12.8 25.6 40.2 1081.5 1.676 10.60 26.748 0.396 68.28 40.733 107.99 5/19/2013_10:05 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 32.1 25 32.1 1.264 14.3 28.6 44.9 809.6 1.255 11.30 17.326 0.652 51.38 40.944 52.59 5/19/2013_10:05 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 32 25.8 32 1.260 14.5 28.9 45.4 804.6 1.247 11.60 17.164 0.676 41.32 33.133 41.11 5/19/2013_10:05 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 36.2 24 36.2 1.425 15.1 30.1 47.3 1029.6 1.596 12.30 24.848 0.495 15.07 9.443 14.25 5/19/2013_10:04 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 34.5 23 34.5 1.358 14.4 28.8 45.2 935.2 1.450 13.30 21.510 0.618 54.19 37.384 56.10 5/19/2013_10:04 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 37.2 37 37.2 1.465 18.6 37.1 58.3 1087.3 1.685 14.10 26.965 0.523 40.81 24.215 24.36 5/19/2013_10:03 PM 3C5 T1 3 -96.4868 37.1064 35.1 20 35.1 1.382 13.8 27.6 43.3 968.0 1.500 13.30 22.651 0.587 107.50 71.647 125.80 5/19/2013_10:03 PM 2A1 T1 2 -98.9382 39.1359 18.2 15.7 18.2 0.717 8.5 17.0 26.6 260.3 0.403 3.00 3.158 0.950 14.38 35.647 41.35 5/18/2013_8:34 PM 1A6 T2 1 -101.755 42.0351 18 11 18 0.709 7.3 14.5 22.8 254.6 0.395 1.30 3.055 0.426 19.23 48.735 79.80 5/18/2013_12:59 AM 1A6 T2 1 -101.755 42.0351 14 9 14 0.551 5.8 11.5 18.1 154.0 0.239 1.10 1.437 0.765 19.34 81.022 126.11 5/18/2013_12:59 AM 1A6 T2 1 -101.755 42.0351 13 9 13 0.512 5.5 11.0 17.3 132.8 0.206 0.90 1.151 0.782 7.01 34.059 49.20 5/18/2013_12:59 AM 1A6 T2 1 -101.755 42.0351 16 10 16 0.630 6.5 13.0 20.4 201.1 0.312 1.50 2.146 0.699 7.98 25.596 40.97 5/18/2013_12:58 AM 1A5 T2 1 -101.755 42.0351 12 7 12 0.472 4.8 9.5 14.9 113.1 0.175 0.30 0.905 0.331 13.29 75.782 129.96 5/18/2013_12:47 AM 1A5 T2 1 -101.755 42.0351 14 6 14 0.551 5.0 10.0 15.7 154.0 0.239 0.60 1.437 0.417 17.83 74.696 174.35 5/18/2013_12:46 AM 1A5 T2 1 -101.755 42.0351 9 9 9 0.354 4.5 9.0 14.1 63.6 0.099 0.20 0.382 0.524 13.61 137.967 177.45 5/18/2013_12:44 AM 1A4 T2 1 -101.713 41.9995 10 8 10 0.394 4.5 9.0 14.1 78.6 0.122 0.40 0.524 0.764 12.74 104.610 130.86 5/18/2013_12:32 AM 1A4 T2 1 -101.713 41.9995 18 9 18 0.709 6.8 13.5 21.2 254.6 0.395 0.90 3.055 0.295 11.12 28.181 56.38 5/18/2013_12:29 AM 1A4 T2 1 -101.713 41.9995 25 13 25 0.984 9.5 19.0 29.9 491.1 0.761 3.30 8.185 0.403 39.14 51.421 98.93 5/18/2013_12:26 AM 1A3 T1 4 -101.747 42.06562 25 16.1 25 0.984 10.3 20.6 32.3 491.1 0.761 4.10 8.185 0.501 33.80 44.406 68.97 5/18/2013_12:12 AM 1A3 T1 4 -101.747 42.06562 21.2 13.8 21.2 0.835 8.8 17.5 27.5 353.1 0.547 2.60 4.991 0.521 2.52 4.604 7.07 5/18/2013_12:11 AM 1A3 T1 4 -101.747 42.06562 17.4 10.9 17.4 0.685 7.1 14.2 22.2 237.9 0.369 1.60 2.759 0.580 8.35 22.646 36.18 5/18/2013_12:11 AM 1A3 T1 1 -101.747 42.06562 25.1 14.2 25.1 0.988 9.8 19.7 30.9 495.0 0.767 3.80 8.283 0.459 33.59 43.779 77.43 5/18/2013_12:10 AM 1A3 T1 4 -101.747 42.06562 19.1 12.4 19.1 0.752 7.9 15.8 24.8 286.6 0.444 1.80 3.650 0.493 17.51 39.411 60.72 5/18/2013_12:10 AM 1A3 T1 4 -101.747 42.06562 18.2 14.3 18.2 0.717 8.1 16.3 25.5 260.3 0.403 2.50 3.158 0.792 19.31 47.868 60.96 5/18/2013_12:10 AM 1A3 T1 1 -101.747 42.06562 30.1 25.8 30.1 1.185 14.0 28.0 43.9 711.9 1.103 9.50 14.285 0.665 32.58 29.527 34.46 5/18/2013_12:09 AM 1A3 T1 1 -101.747 42.06562 26.1 19.2 26.1 1.028 11.3 22.7 35.6 535.2 0.830 7.00 9.313 0.752 21.22 25.578 34.78 5/18/2013_12:09 AM 1A3 T1 1 -101.747 42.06562 23.5 8.8 23.5 0.925 8.1 16.2 25.4 433.9 0.673 4.20 6.798 0.618 19.21 28.562 76.31 5/18/2013_12:07 AM 1A3 T1 1 -101.747 42.06562 17 12.3 17 0.669 7.3 14.7 23.0 227.1 0.352 2.30 2.573 0.894 12.07 34.294 47.43 5/18/2013_12:06 AM 1A3 T1 1 -101.747 42.06562 22.3 13.1 22.3 0.878 8.9 17.7 27.8 390.7 0.606 3.60 5.809 0.620 16.19 26.733 45.54 5/18/2013_12:05 AM 1A3 T1 1 -101.747 42.06562 41.2 22.8 41.2 1.622 16.0 32.0 50.3 1333.7 2.067 15.00 36.632 0.409 45.24 21.884 39.56 5/18/2013_12:04 AM 1A3 T1 1 -101.747 42.06562 29.1 24 29.1 1.146 13.3 26.6 41.7 665.4 1.031 6.50 12.908 0.504 41.64 40.376 48.97 5/18/2013_12:04 AM 1A3 T1 1 -101.747 42.06562 25.4 14.2 25.4 1.000 9.9 19.8 31.1 506.9 0.786 5.50 8.584 0.641 43.45 55.300 98.95 5/18/2013_12:03 AM 1A3 T1 1 -101.747 42.06562 15.1 8.7 15.1 0.594 6.0 11.9 18.7 179.2 0.278 1.40 1.803 0.776 17.20 61.941 107.58 5/18/2013_12:03 AM 1A3 T1 1 -101.747 42.06562 28.1 14.8 28.1 1.106 10.7 21.5 33.7 620.4 0.962 7.00 11.622 0.602 21.42 22.275 42.30 5/18/2013_12:02 AM 1A3 T1 1 -101.747 42.06562 22.6 15.3 22.6 0.890 9.5 19.0 29.8 401.3 0.622 5.00 6.046 0.827 41.94 67.424 99.64 5/18/2013_12:01 AM 1A3 T1 1 -101.747 42.06562 30.3 8.9 30.3 1.193 9.8 19.6 30.8 721.4 1.118 12.40 14.571 0.851 95.03 84.992 289.48 5/18/2013_12:00 AM 1A6 T2 1 -101.755 42.0351 20 15 20 0.787 8.8 17.5 27.5 314.3 0.487 3.30 4.190 0.788 22.69 46.578 62.14 5/18/2013_1:03 AM 1A6 T2 1 -101.755 42.0351 16 12 16 0.630 7.0 14.0 22.0 201.1 0.312 1.90 2.146 0.886 25.18 80.764 107.75 5/18/2013_1:02 AM 1A6 T2 1 -101.755 42.0351 15 7 15 0.591 5.5 11.0 17.3 176.8 0.274 1.10 1.768 0.622 12.74 46.493 99.69 5/18/2013_1:02 AM 1A6 T2 1 -101.755 42.0351 33 23 33 1.299 14.0 28.0 44.0 855.6 1.326 9.70 18.824 0.515 19.11 14.409 20.68 5/18/2013_1:01 AM 1A6 T2 1 -101.755 42.0351 32 22 32 1.260 13.5 27.0 42.4 804.6 1.247 10.80 17.164 0.629 55.25 44.303 64.46 5/18/2013_1:01 AM 1A6 T2 1 -101.755 42.0351 21 15 21 0.827 9.0 18.0 28.3 346.5 0.537 3.50 4.851 0.722 21.94 40.851 57.20 5/18/2013_1:01 AM 1A6 T2 1 -101.755 42.0351 12 7 12 0.472 4.8 9.5 14.9 113.1 0.175 0.60 0.905 0.663 20.43 116.495 199.75 5/18/2013_1:00 AM 1A2 T1 1 -101.761 42.02219 16.2 9.1 16.2 0.638 6.3 12.7 19.9 206.2 0.320 1.40 2.227 0.629 94.15 294.573 524.63 5/17/2013_11:45 PM 1A2 T1 1 -101.761 42.02219 14.4 12.2 14.4 0.567 6.7 13.3 20.9 162.9 0.253 1.40 1.564 0.895 7.15 28.313 33.41 5/17/2013_11:45 PM 1A2 T1 1 -101.761 42.02219 13.4 9.4 13.4 0.528 5.7 11.4 17.9 141.1 0.219 0.80 1.260 0.635 74.34 339.951 484.79 5/17/2013_11:45 PM 1A2 T1 1 -101.761 42.02219 11.2 11.2 11.2 0.441 5.6 11.2 17.6 98.6 0.153 0.60 0.736 0.815 10.47 68.535 71.08 5/17/2013_11:44 PM 1A2 T1 1 -101.761 42.02219 16.3 16.3 16.3 0.642 8.2 16.3 25.6 208.8 0.324 1.70 2.268 0.749 21.73 67.156 84.24 5/17/2013_11:43 PM 1A2 T1 1 -101.761 42.02219 15.2 13.1 15.2 0.598 7.1 14.2 22.2 181.5 0.281 1.30 1.840 0.707 3.53 12.546 14.54 5/17/2013_11:43 PM 1A2 T1 1 -101.761 42.02219 13.5 13.5 13.5 0.531 6.8 13.5 21.2 143.2 0.222 1.00 1.289 0.776 13.48 60.733 71.97 5/17/2013_11:42 PM 1A2 T1 1 -101.761 42.02219 15.3 9.6 15.3 0.602 6.2 12.5 19.6 183.9 0.285 1.40 1.876 0.746 47.18 165.492 263.85 5/17/2013_11:39 PM 1A2 T1 1 -101.761 42.02219 18.4 15.2 18.4 0.724 8.4 16.8 26.4 266.0 0.412 2.10 3.263 0.644 12.48 30.268 36.64 5/17/2013_11:38 PM 1A2 T1 1 -101.761 42.02219 18.2 17.5 18.2 0.717 8.9 17.9 28.1 260.3 0.403 0.40 3.158 0.127 3.13 7.759 8.06 5/17/2013_11:37 PM 1A1 T1 1 -101.764 42.001 25.1 21.3 25.1 0.988 11.6 23.2 36.5 495.0 0.767 5.40 8.283 0.652 41.64 54.271 63.98 5/17/2013_11:20 PM 1A1 T1 1 -101.764 42.001 22.5 17.5 22.5 0.886 10.0 20.0 31.4 397.8 0.617 4.00 5.967 0.670 67.09 108.817 139.96 5/17/2013_11:20 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 1A1 T1 1 -101.764 42.001 9.3 8.5 9.3 0.366 4.5 8.9 14.0 68.0 0.105 0.30 0.421 0.712 6.55 62.184 68.01 5/17/2013_11:19 PM 1A1 T1 1 -101.764 42.001 19.1 17.2 19.1 0.752 9.1 18.2 28.5 286.6 0.444 1.30 3.650 0.356 40.14 90.347 100.36 5/17/2013_11:18 PM 1A1 T1 1 -101.764 42.001 22.3 18.4 22.3 0.878 10.2 20.4 32.0 390.7 0.606 3.90 5.809 0.671 42.65 70.423 85.38 5/17/2013_11:17 PM 1A1 T1 1 -101.764 42.001 21 21 21 0.827 10.5 21.0 33.0 346.5 0.537 3.30 4.851 0.680 84.59 157.501 193.51 5/17/2013_11:16 PM 1A1 T1 1 -101.764 42.001 16.6 14.3 16.6 0.654 7.7 15.5 24.3 216.5 0.336 2.00 2.396 0.835 17.61 52.474 60.92 5/17/2013_11:16 PM 1A1 T1 1 -101.764 42.001 28.2 16.5 28.2 1.110 11.2 22.4 35.1 624.8 0.968 5.70 11.747 0.485 69.40 71.658 122.52 5/17/2013_11:10 PM 1A1 T1 1 -101.764 42.001 23.3 22.1 23.3 0.917 11.4 22.7 35.7 426.6 0.661 6.20 6.626 0.936 29.57 44.724 47.17 5/17/2013_11:09 PM T2 3B2 T2 3 -99.0224 38.15988 14.6 8.75 NaN 14.6 0.575 5.8 11.7 18.3 167.5 0.260 1.10 1.630 0.675 14.26 54.931 91.69 5/11/2014_9:00 PM T2 3B2 T2 3 -99.0224 38.15988 19.25 19.25 NaN 19.25 0.758 9.6 19.3 30.3 291.2 0.451 2.50 3.737 0.669 25.73 57.014 102.61 5/11/2014_8:59 PM T2 3B2 T2 3 -99.0224 38.15988 15.3 9.45 NaN 15.3 0.602 6.2 12.4 19.4 183.9 0.285 1.20 1.876 0.640 13.39 46.968 76.10 5/11/2014_8:59 PM T2 3B2 T2 3 -99.0224 38.15988 21.6 20.2 NaN 21.6 0.850 10.5 20.9 32.8 366.6 0.568 4.70 5.279 0.890 57.11 100.510 107.52 5/11/2014_8:57 PM T2 3B2 T2 3 -99.0224 38.15988 21.86 18.61 NaN 21.86 0.861 10.1 20.2 31.8 375.5 0.582 4.10 5.472 0.749 54.73 94.043 110.51 5/11/2014_8:56 PM T2 3B2 T2 3 -99.0224 38.15988 21.36 12.19 NaN 21.36 0.841 8.4 16.8 26.4 358.5 0.556 2.60 5.105 0.509 39.15 70.458 123.50 5/11/2014_8:56 PM T2 3B2 T2 3 -99.0224 38.15988 20.6 20.6 NaN 20.6 0.811 10.3 20.6 32.4 333.4 0.517 4.20 4.579 0.917 56.03 108.415 114.57 5/11/2014_8:56 PM T2 3B2 T2 3 -99.0224 38.15988 15.3 10 NaN 15.3 0.602 6.3 12.7 19.9 183.9 0.285 1.50 1.876 0.800 20.54 72.048 110.26 5/11/2014_8:56 PM T2 3B2 T2 3 -99.0224 38.15988 15.15 8.25 NaN 15.15 0.596 5.9 11.7 18.4 180.3 0.280 1.10 1.821 0.604 20.43 73.088 134.26 5/11/2014_8:55 PM T2 3B2 T2 3 -99.0224 38.15988 14.36 14.36 NaN 14.36 0.565 7.2 14.4 22.6 162.0 0.251 1.10 1.551 0.709 14.04 55.906 67.91 5/11/2014_8:55 PM T2 3B2 T2 3 -99.0224 38.15988 13.17 12.1 NaN 13.17 0.519 6.3 12.6 19.9 136.3 0.211 0.60 1.197 0.501 15.45 73.141 79.64 5/11/2014_8:55 PM T2 3B2 T2 3 -99.0224 38.15988 17.25 17.25 NaN 17.25 0.679 8.6 17.3 27.1 233.8 0.362 1.40 2.689 0.521 13.18 36.370 57.10 5/11/2014_8:54 PM T1 3B1 T1 3 -99.1154 38.1642 16.47 8.1 NaN 16.47 0.648 6.1 12.3 19.3 213.1 0.330 0.70 2.340 0.299 39.34 119.083 242.21 Supercell 5/11/2014_8:48 PM T1 3B1 T1 3 -99.1154 38.1642 19.42 13.17 NaN 19.42 0.765 8.1 16.3 25.6 296.3 0.459 2.30 3.836 0.600 53.92 117.396 173.18 Supercell 5/11/2014_8:47 PM T1 3B1 T1 3 -99.1154 38.1642 16.84 13.31 NaN 16.84 0.663 7.5 15.1 23.7 222.8 0.345 1.80 2.501 0.720 30.08 87.096 110.25 Supercell 5/11/2014_8:47 PM T1 3B1 T1 3 -99.1154 38.1642 13.96 7.37 NaN 13.96 0.550 5.3 10.7 16.8 153.1 0.237 0.90 1.425 0.632 24.35 102.596 194.41 Supercell 5/11/2014_8:46 PM T1 3B1 T1 3 -99.1154 38.1642 18.45 8.84 NaN 18.45 0.726 6.8 13.6 21.4 267.5 0.415 1.20 3.290 0.365 22.00 53.068 110.80 Supercell 5/11/2014_8:45 PM T1 3B1 T1 3 -99.1154 38.1642 17.32 8.34 NaN 17.32 0.682 6.4 12.8 20.2 235.7 0.365 1.10 2.722 0.404 32.80 89.780 186.52 Supercell 5/11/2014_8:45 PM T1 3B1 T1 3 -99.1154 38.1642 27.78 9.54 NaN 27.78 1.094 9.3 18.7 29.3 606.4 0.940 3.10 11.230 0.276 45.67 48.593 141.57 Supercell 5/11/2014_8:44 PM T1 3B1 T1 3 -99.1154 38.1642 16.68 9.68 NaN 16.68 0.657 6.6 13.2 20.7 218.6 0.339 1.40 2.431 0.576 35.72 105.420 181.70 Supercell 5/11/2014_8:44 PM T1 3B1 T1 3 -99.1154 38.1642 17.35 11.2 NaN 17.35 0.683 7.1 14.3 22.4 236.5 0.367 1.80 2.736 0.658 37.02 100.981 156.51 Supercell 5/11/2014_8:43 PM T1 3B1 T1 3 -99.1154 38.1642 22.8 19.93 NaN 22.8 0.898 10.7 21.4 33.6 408.4 0.633 6.20 6.208 0.999 76.75 121.230 138.75 Supercell 5/11/2014_8:42 PM T1 3B1 T1 3 -99.1154 38.1642 16.37 9.5 NaN 16.37 0.644 6.5 12.9 20.3 210.6 0.326 1.90 2.298 0.827 30.89 94.651 163.15 Supercell 5/11/2014_8:42 PM T2 3B1 T2 3 -99.1318 38.15249 15.17 15.17 NaN 15.17 0.597 7.6 15.2 23.8 180.8 0.280 1.10 1.829 0.602 5.06 18.054 19.94 5/11/2014_8:41 PM T2 3B1 T2 3 -99.1318 38.15249 14.7 7.05 NaN 14.7 0.579 5.4 10.9 17.1 169.8 0.263 0.80 1.664 0.481 17.18 65.282 136.19 5/11/2014_8:41 PM T2 3B1 T2 3 -99.1318 38.15249 9.36 8.61 NaN 9.36 0.369 4.5 9.0 14.1 68.8 0.107 0.30 0.430 0.698 6.47 60.639 65.94 5/11/2014_8:41 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 9.27 4.75 NaN 9.27 0.365 3.5 7.0 11.0 67.5 0.105 0.30 0.417 0.719 8.96 85.615 167.11 5/11/2014_7:46 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 12.07 5.44 NaN 12.07 0.475 4.4 8.8 13.8 114.5 0.177 0.50 0.921 0.543 12.42 70.002 155.38 5/11/2014_7:45 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 11.4 8.5 NaN 11.4 0.449 5.0 10.0 15.6 102.1 0.158 0.50 0.776 0.644 11.34 71.648 96.12 5/11/2014_7:45 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 9.98 7.71 NaN 9.98 0.393 4.4 8.8 13.9 78.3 0.121 0.30 0.521 0.576 8.96 73.867 95.63 5/11/2014_7:45 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 12.22 5.8 NaN 12.22 0.481 4.5 9.0 14.2 117.3 0.182 0.50 0.956 0.523 14.69 80.776 170.29 5/11/2014_7:44 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 11.28 3.47 NaN 11.28 0.444 3.7 7.4 11.6 100.0 0.155 0.50 0.752 0.665 10.47 67.566 219.78 5/11/2014_7:44 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 9.03 4.7 NaN 9.03 0.356 3.4 6.9 10.8 64.1 0.099 0.20 0.386 0.519 15.45 155.581 299.04 5/11/2014_7:44 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 16.2 11.2 NaN 16.2 0.638 6.9 13.7 21.5 206.2 0.320 1.50 2.227 0.674 13.83 43.271 62.60 5/11/2014_7:43 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 15.5 7.7 NaN 15.5 0.610 5.8 11.6 18.2 188.8 0.293 0.80 1.951 0.410 11.77 40.227 81.02 5/11/2014_7:42 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 16.7 14.2 NaN 16.7 0.657 7.7 15.5 24.3 219.1 0.340 1.40 2.440 0.574 17.72 52.172 61.39 5/11/2014_7:41 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 13.8 7.75 NaN 13.8 0.543 5.4 10.8 16.9 149.6 0.232 0.70 1.377 0.508 11.45 49.369 87.92 5/11/2014_7:41 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 12.7 8.5 NaN 12.7 0.500 5.3 10.6 16.7 126.7 0.196 0.70 1.073 0.652 9.28 47.244 70.63 5/11/2014_7:41 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 14.08 10.91 NaN 14.08 0.554 6.2 12.5 19.6 155.8 0.241 0.80 1.462 0.547 28.33 117.339 151.48 5/11/2014_7:40 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 13.7 13.7 NaN 13.7 0.539 6.9 13.7 21.5 147.5 0.229 0.90 1.347 0.668 10.15 44.405 49.07 5/11/2014_7:40 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 10.2 6.4 NaN 10.2 0.402 4.2 8.3 13.0 81.7 0.127 0.40 0.556 0.720 14.58 115.069 183.52 5/11/2014_7:39 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 7.8 6.5 NaN 7.8 0.307 3.6 7.2 11.2 47.8 0.074 0.10 0.249 0.402 6.69 90.290 108.31 5/11/2014_7:39 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 11.6 11.6 NaN 11.6 0.457 5.8 11.6 18.2 105.7 0.164 0.60 0.818 0.734 6.36 38.810 55.61 5/11/2014_7:38 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 10.84 10.84 NaN 10.84 0.427 5.4 10.8 17.0 92.3 0.143 0.30 0.667 0.450 12.42 86.789 121.45 5/11/2014_7:38 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 9.2 9.2 NaN 9.2 0.362 4.6 9.2 14.5 66.5 0.103 0.10 0.408 0.245 8.09 78.483 107.52 5/11/2014_7:38 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 12.4 7.55 NaN 12.4 0.488 5.0 10.0 15.7 120.8 0.187 0.90 0.999 0.901 24.43 130.462 214.37 5/11/2014_7:37 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 11.23 7.1 NaN 11.23 0.442 4.6 9.2 14.4 99.1 0.154 0.60 0.742 0.809 10.69 69.602 110.12 5/11/2014_7:37 PM T1 3A3 T1 3 -99.341 37.6038 20.17 9.37 NaN 20.17 0.794 7.4 14.8 23.2 319.7 0.495 1.70 4.298 0.396 21.63 43.656 94.03 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:36 PM T1 3A3 T1 3 -99.341 37.6038 19.26 15.94 NaN 19.26 0.758 8.8 17.6 27.7 291.5 0.452 2.70 3.742 0.721 37.04 81.990 99.12 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:36 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 18.57 13.38 NaN 18.57 0.731 8.0 16.0 25.1 270.9 0.420 1.70 3.354 0.507 7.55 17.977 24.96 5/11/2014_7:35 PM T1 3A3 T1 3 -99.341 37.6038 17.57 7.01 NaN 17.57 0.692 6.1 12.3 19.3 242.6 0.376 0.60 2.841 0.211 27.07 72.002 180.51 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:35 PM T1 3A3 T1 3 -99.341 37.6038 17 7.77 NaN 17 0.669 6.2 12.4 19.5 227.1 0.352 1.10 2.573 0.427 19.82 56.313 123.28 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:35 PM T1 3A3 T1 3 -99.341 37.6038 15.93 8.55 NaN 15.93 0.627 6.1 12.2 19.2 199.4 0.309 0.90 2.117 0.425 16.81 54.392 101.36 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:35 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 11.06 11.06 NaN 11.06 0.435 5.5 11.1 17.4 96.1 0.149 0.40 0.709 0.564 15.45 103.710 176.81 5/11/2014_7:35 PM T1 3A3 T1 3 -99.341 37.6038 17.95 7.65 NaN 17.95 0.707 6.4 12.8 20.1 253.2 0.392 1.10 3.029 0.363 27.07 68.986 161.91 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:34 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 14.28 11.8 NaN 14.28 0.562 6.5 13.0 20.5 160.2 0.248 0.90 1.525 0.590 10.25 41.273 49.98 5/11/2014_7:34 PM T1 3A3 T1 3 -99.341 37.6038 14.05 12.2 NaN 14.05 0.553 6.6 13.1 20.6 155.1 0.240 1.10 1.453 0.757 25.21 104.863 120.82 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:34 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 13.2 13.2 NaN 13.2 0.520 6.6 13.2 20.7 136.9 0.212 1.00 1.205 0.830 19.78 93.214 96.16 5/11/2014_7:34 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 8.92 8.92 NaN 8.92 0.351 4.5 8.9 14.0 62.5 0.097 0.10 0.372 0.269 5.28 54.489 60.31 5/11/2014_7:34 PM T1 3A3 T1 3 -99.341 37.6038 15.15 12.28 NaN 15.15 0.596 6.9 13.7 21.6 180.3 0.280 1.40 1.821 0.769 38.13 136.409 168.36 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:33 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 9.82 3.15 NaN 9.82 0.387 3.2 6.5 10.2 75.8 0.117 0.30 0.496 0.605 11.23 95.622 298.22 5/11/2014_7:33 PM T2 3A5 T2 3 -99.322 37.61616 8.37 8.37 NaN 8.37 0.330 4.2 8.4 13.2 55.0 0.085 0.10 0.307 0.326 8.52 99.860 106.99 5/11/2014_7:33 PM T1 3A3 T1 3 -99.341 37.6038 19.78 11.82 NaN 19.78 0.779 7.9 15.8 24.8 307.4 0.476 1.30 4.054 0.321 22.44 47.095 78.84 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:29 PM T1 3A3 T1 3 -99.341 37.6038 20.48 10.2 NaN 20.48 0.806 7.7 15.3 24.1 329.6 0.511 2.00 4.499 0.444 31.29 61.256 123.04 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:28 PM T1 3A3 T1 3 -99.341 37.6038 14.56 11.47 NaN 14.56 0.573 6.5 13.0 20.5 166.6 0.258 1.20 1.617 0.742 25.05 97.026 123.23 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:28 PM T1 3A3 T1 3 -99.341 37.6038 23.33 12.22 NaN 23.33 0.919 8.9 17.8 27.9 427.7 0.663 2.70 6.651 0.406 44.37 66.936 127.83 compressionSupercell5/11/2014_7:27 PM T2 3A4 T2 3 -99.3219 37.60164 19.89 5.23 NaN 19.89 0.783 6.3 12.6 19.7 310.8 0.482 1.10 4.122 0.267 21.94 45.538 173.27 5/11/2014_7:27 PM T2 3A4 T2 3 -99.3219 37.60164 14.61 5.05 NaN 14.61 0.575 4.9 9.8 15.4 167.7 0.260 0.70 1.634 0.429 30.38 116.867 338.27 5/11/2014_7:27 PM T1 3A3 T1 3 -99.341 37.6038 13.93 11.91 NaN 13.93 0.548 6.5 12.9 20.3 152.5 0.236 0.80 1.416 0.565 48.89 206.881 242.08 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:27 PM T2 3A4 T2 3 -99.3219 37.60164 12.41 9.4 NaN 12.41 0.489 5.5 10.9 17.1 121.0 0.188 0.40 1.001 0.400 12.42 66.219 87.46 5/11/2014_7:26 PM T2 3A4 T2 3 -99.3219 37.60164 8.2 7.5 NaN 8.2 0.323 3.9 7.9 12.3 52.8 0.082 0.10 0.289 0.346 11.55 141.045 154.33 5/11/2014_7:26 PM T2 3A4 T2 3 -99.3219 37.60164 7.34 5.45 NaN 7.34 0.289 3.2 6.4 10.0 42.3 0.066 0.20 0.207 0.966 11.66 177.709 239.49 5/11/2014_7:25 PM T2 3A4 T2 3 -99.3219 37.60164 7.7 7.2 NaN 7.7 0.303 3.7 7.5 11.7 46.6 0.072 0.20 0.239 0.836 7.66 106.084 113.48 5/11/2014_7:24 PM T2 3A4 T2 3 -99.3219 37.60164 7 7 NaN 7 0.276 3.5 7.0 11.0 38.5 0.060 0.10 0.180 0.557 6.25 104.734 149.74 5/11/2014_7:24 PM T2 3A4 T2 3 -99.3219 37.60164 9.2 6.7 NaN 9.2 0.362 4.0 8.0 12.5 66.5 0.103 0.20 0.408 0.490 12.96 125.728 172.73 5/11/2014_7:23 PM T2 3A4 T2 3 -99.3219 37.60164 9.06 5.53 NaN 9.06 0.357 3.6 7.3 11.5 64.5 0.100 0.30 0.390 0.770 7.23 72.324 118.48 5/11/2014_7:23 PM T2 3A4 T2 3 -99.3219 37.60164 13.36 13.36 NaN 13.36 0.526 6.7 13.4 21.0 140.2 0.217 0.40 1.249 0.320 14.58 67.073 97.15 5/11/2014_7:22 PM T2 3A4 T2 3 -99.3219 37.60164 9.66 6.36 NaN 9.66 0.380 4.0 8.0 12.6 73.3 0.114 0.30 0.472 0.635 15.23 134.013 203.68 5/11/2014_7:22 PM T2 3A4 T2 3 -99.3219 37.60164 9.19 5.76 NaN 9.19 0.362 3.7 7.5 11.7 66.4 0.103 0.30 0.407 0.738 5.17 50.265 80.23 5/11/2014_7:21 PM T2 3A4 T2 3 -99.3219 37.60164 8.32 8.32 NaN 8.32 0.328 4.2 8.3 13.1 54.4 0.084 0.20 0.302 0.663 5.06 60.021 65.68 5/11/2014_7:21 PM T1 3A2 T1 3 -99.2853 37.63397 12.15 9.47 NaN 12.15 0.478 5.4 10.8 17.0 116.0 0.180 0.50 0.940 0.532 18.52 103.013 132.19 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:15 PM T2 3A3 T2 3 -99.322 37.58703 13.7 9.6 NaN 13.7 0.539 5.8 11.7 18.3 147.5 0.229 1.20 1.347 0.891 11.12 48.648 69.46 5/11/2014_7:14 PM T2 3A3 T2 3 -99.322 37.58703 13.09 6.52 NaN 13.09 0.515 4.9 9.8 15.4 134.6 0.209 0.60 1.175 0.511 16.21 77.680 156.00 5/11/2014_7:14 PM T2 3A3 T2 3 -99.322 37.58703 12.85 5.2 NaN 12.85 0.506 4.5 9.0 14.2 129.7 0.201 0.50 1.111 0.450 16.75 83.294 205.90 5/11/2014_7:14 PM T2 3A3 T2 3 -99.322 37.58703 13.55 7.2 NaN 13.55 0.533 5.2 10.4 16.3 144.3 0.224 0.70 1.303 0.537 8.74 39.087 73.60 5/11/2014_7:13 PM T2 3A3 T2 3 -99.322 37.58703 12.75 7.86 NaN 12.75 0.502 5.2 10.3 16.2 127.7 0.198 0.60 1.086 0.553 14.48 73.139 118.66 5/11/2014_7:13 PM T2 3A3 T2 3 -99.322 37.58703 8.5 8 NaN 8.5 0.335 4.1 8.3 13.0 56.8 0.088 0.30 0.322 0.933 3.98 45.232 48.08 5/11/2014_7:12PM T2 3A3 T2 3 -99.322 37.58703 8.7 5.4 NaN 8.7 0.343 3.5 7.1 11.1 59.5 0.092 0.20 0.345 0.580 13.94 151.226 243.66 5/11/2014_7:12 PM T2 3A3 T2 3 -99.322 37.58703 7.92 7.92 NaN 7.92 0.312 4.0 7.9 12.4 49.3 0.076 0.20 0.260 0.769 6.04 79.066 99.37 5/11/2014_7:12 PM T2 3A2 T2 3 -99.3214 37.5801 11.3 11.3 NaN 11.3 0.445 5.7 11.3 17.8 100.3 0.156 0.50 0.756 0.662 8.20 52.730 52.75 5/11/2014_7:07 PM T1 3A1 T1 3 -99.2755 37.6083 16.29 13 NaN 16.29 0.641 7.3 14.6 23.0 208.5 0.323 1.40 2.264 0.618 16.30 50.437 63.24 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:06 PM T2 3A2 T2 3 -99.3214 37.5801 12.7 8.82 NaN 12.7 0.500 5.4 10.8 16.9 126.7 0.196 0.90 1.073 0.839 12.42 63.229 91.08 5/11/2014_7:06 PM T2 3A2 T2 3 -99.3214 37.5801 12.2 9.66 NaN 12.2 0.480 5.5 10.9 17.2 116.9 0.181 0.50 0.951 0.526 10.80 59.581 75.26 5/11/2014_7:06 PM T2 3A2 T2 3 -99.3214 37.5801 10.5 7.61 NaN 10.5 0.413 4.5 9.1 14.2 86.6 0.134 0.30 0.606 0.495 21.51 160.201 221.13 5/11/2014_7:06 PM T1 3A1 T1 3 -99.2755 37.6083 16.56 12.92 NaN 16.56 0.652 7.4 14.7 23.2 215.5 0.334 1.40 2.379 0.589 18.41 55.123 70.70 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:05 PM T1 3A1 T1 3 -99.2755 37.6083 16.36 14.55 NaN 16.36 0.644 7.7 15.5 24.3 210.3 0.326 1.70 2.294 0.741 20.23 62.063 69.80 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:05 PM T2 3A2 T2 3 -99.3214 37.5801 11.9 5.8 NaN 11.9 0.469 4.4 8.9 13.9 111.3 0.172 0.40 0.883 0.453 18.91 109.648 225.09 5/11/2014_7:05 PM T2 3A2 T2 3 -99.3214 37.5801 11.3 10.18 NaN 11.3 0.445 5.4 10.7 16.9 100.3 0.156 0.50 0.756 0.662 10.58 68.035 75.56 5/11/2014_7:05 PM T2 3A2 T2 3 -99.3214 37.5801 9.28 9.28 NaN 9.28 0.365 4.6 9.3 14.6 67.7 0.105 0.20 0.419 0.478 5.06 48.246 72.27 5/11/2014_7:05 PM T1 3A1 T1 3 -99.2755 37.6083 13.73 11.1 NaN 13.73 0.541 6.2 12.4 19.5 148.1 0.230 0.90 1.356 0.664 27.27 118.781 146.96 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:04 PM T1 3A1 T1 3 -99.2755 37.6083 12.81 6.75 NaN 12.81 0.504 4.9 9.8 15.4 128.9 0.200 0.70 1.101 0.636 31.09 155.570 295.34 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:04 PM T1 3A1 T1 3 -99.2755 37.6083 11.59 8.95 NaN 11.59 0.456 5.1 10.3 16.1 105.5 0.164 0.60 0.815 0.736 46.18 282.286 365.67 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:04 PM T1 3A1 T1 3 -99.2755 37.6083 16.14 13.33 NaN 16.14 0.635 7.4 14.7 23.2 204.7 0.317 1.50 2.202 0.681 16.60 52.324 63.40 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:03 PM T1 3A1 T1 3 -99.2755 37.6083 17.79 15.13 NaN 17.79 0.700 8.2 16.5 25.9 248.7 0.385 1.10 2.949 0.373 12.88 33.417 39.32 Supercell 5/11/2014_7:02 PM T2 3A1 T2 3 -99.3212 37.57182 14.84 14.84 NaN 14.84 0.584 7.4 14.8 23.3 173.0 0.268 0.70 1.712 0.409 6.90 25.727 38.51 5/11/2014_7:00 PM T2 3A1 T2 3 -99.3212 37.57182 9.62 9.62 NaN 9.62 0.379 4.8 9.6 15.1 72.7 0.113 0.40 0.466 0.858 14.58 129.363 130.54 5/11/2014_6:59 PM T2 3A1 T2 3 -99.3212 37.57182 8.91 7.5 NaN 8.91 0.351 4.1 8.2 12.9 62.4 0.097 0.10 0.371 0.270 15.56 160.937 191.25 5/11/2014_6:59 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 20.81 11.7 NaN 20.81 0.819 8.1 16.3 25.5 340.3 0.527 1.70 4.721 0.360 12.38 23.474 41.77 5/10/2014_9:59 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 24.74 11.27 NaN 24.74 0.974 9.0 18.0 28.3 480.9 0.745 2.50 7.932 0.315 26.36 35.363 77.66 5/10/2014_9:58 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 24.26 9.84 NaN 24.26 0.955 8.5 17.1 26.8 462.4 0.717 2.80 7.479 0.374 13.18 18.388 45.37 5/10/2014_9:58 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 20.9 11.45 NaN 20.9 0.823 8.1 16.2 25.4 343.2 0.532 2.90 4.782 0.606 28.88 54.288 99.12 5/10/2014_9:58 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 31.76 12.11 NaN 31.76 1.250 11.0 21.9 34.5 792.5 1.228 4.30 16.781 0.256 16.00 13.025 34.17 5/10/2014_9:57 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 29.95 14.5 NaN 29.95 1.179 11.1 22.2 34.9 704.8 1.092 6.60 14.072 0.469 88.12 80.665 166.68 5/10/2014_9:57 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 22.51 13.75 NaN 22.51 0.886 9.1 18.1 28.5 398.1 0.617 3.20 5.974 0.536 21.53 34.890 57.15 5/10/2014_9:57 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 32.15 20.59 NaN 32.15 1.266 13.2 26.4 41.4 812.1 1.259 7.20 17.407 0.414 27.77 22.061 34.46 5/10/2014_9:56 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 27.87 12.1 NaN 27.87 1.097 10.0 20.0 31.4 610.3 0.946 3.50 11.339 0.309 19.22 20.318 46.82 5/10/2014_9:56 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 26.93 6.5 NaN 26.93 1.060 8.4 16.7 26.3 569.8 0.883 1.80 10.230 0.176 28.78 32.585 135.03 5/10/2014_9:55 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 26.6 14.62 NaN 26.6 1.047 10.3 20.6 32.4 555.9 0.862 4.10 9.859 0.416 18.21 21.132 38.47 5/10/2014_9:55 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 26.6 10.33 NaN 26.6 1.047 9.2 18.5 29.0 555.9 0.862 2.50 9.859 0.254 16.81 19.508 50.24 5/10/2014_9:54 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 23.03 15.09 NaN 23.03 0.907 9.5 19.1 30.0 416.7 0.646 3.80 6.398 0.594 25.07 38.812 59.26 5/10/2014_9:54 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 27.27 10.07 NaN 27.27 1.074 9.3 18.7 29.3 584.3 0.906 2.20 10.623 0.207 15.10 16.673 45.16 5/10/2014_9:52 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 23.5 13.88 NaN 23.5 0.925 9.3 18.7 29.4 433.9 0.673 2.90 6.798 0.427 16.70 24.830 42.07 5/10/2014_9:52 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 17.5 17.2 NaN 17.5 0.689 8.7 17.4 27.3 240.6 0.373 2.30 2.807 0.819 16.64 44.615 45.41 5/10/2014_9:52 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 15.3 15.3 NaN 15.3 0.602 7.7 15.3 24.0 183.9 0.285 1.40 1.876 0.746 38.72 135.817 152.84 5/10/2014_9:52 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 29.6 21.6 NaN 29.6 1.165 12.8 25.6 40.2 688.4 1.067 6.30 13.585 0.464 22.27 20.871 28.61 5/10/2014_9:51 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 27.6 14.03 NaN 27.6 1.087 10.4 20.8 32.7 598.5 0.928 4.20 11.013 0.381 24.65 26.571 52.29 5/10/2014_9:51 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 26.71 15.79 NaN 26.71 1.052 10.6 21.3 33.4 560.5 0.869 3.80 9.981 0.381 45.87 52.794 89.35 5/10/2014_9:51 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 19.2 17.5 NaN 19.2 0.756 9.2 18.4 28.8 289.6 0.449 3.20 3.707 0.863 20.43 45.506 49.94 5/10/2014_9:51 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 27.27 13.31 NaN 27.27 1.074 10.1 20.3 31.9 584.3 0.906 4.20 10.623 0.395 18.62 20.559 42.13 5/10/2014_9:50 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 25.51 17.45 NaN 25.51 1.004 10.7 21.5 33.8 511.3 0.793 4.00 8.696 0.460 15.60 19.684 28.78 5/10/2014_9:50 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 23.15 14.1 NaN 23.15 0.911 9.3 18.6 29.3 421.1 0.653 3.30 6.499 0.508 25.51 39.085 64.21 5/10/2014_9:50 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 20.12 10.6 NaN 20.12 0.792 7.7 15.4 24.1 318.1 0.493 1.80 4.266 0.422 17.51 35.517 67.44 5/10/2014_9:50 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 19.7 13.8 NaN 19.7 0.776 8.4 16.8 26.3 304.9 0.473 2.30 4.005 0.574 9.72 20.565 29.35 5/10/2014_9:50 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 28.2 13.69 NaN 28.2 1.110 10.5 20.9 32.9 624.8 0.968 4.40 11.747 0.375 27.67 28.570 58.87 5/10/2014_9:49 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 23.5 19.6 NaN 23.5 0.925 10.8 21.6 33.9 433.9 0.673 3.60 6.798 0.530 25.73 38.257 45.89 5/10/2014_9:49 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 17.3 6.3 NaN 17.3 0.681 5.9 11.8 18.5 235.2 0.364 0.80 2.712 0.295 9.72 26.667 73.22 5/10/2014_9:49 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 26 12.5 NaN 26 1.024 9.6 19.3 30.3 531.1 0.823 3.80 9.206 0.413 27.35 33.221 69.14 5/10/2014_9:48 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 25.23 19.4 NaN 25.23 0.993 11.2 22.3 35.1 500.1 0.775 4.00 8.413 0.475 31.69 40.878 53.19 5/10/2014_9:48 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 23.25 15.78 NaN 23.25 0.915 9.8 19.5 30.7 424.7 0.658 3.50 6.583 0.532 17.41 26.446 38.98 5/10/2014_9:48 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 15.5 11.03 NaN 15.5 0.610 6.6 13.3 20.8 188.8 0.293 1.90 1.951 0.974 14.58 49.831 70.08 5/10/2014_9:48 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 24.97 18.65 NaN 24.97 0.983 10.9 21.8 34.3 489.9 0.759 5.20 8.155 0.638 38.53 50.742 67.97 5/10/2014_9:47 PM T1 2B5 T1 2 -96.5961 37.6646 24.76 18.05 NaN 24.76 0.975 10.7 21.4 33.6 481.7 0.747 5.40 7.951 0.679 33.30 44.601 61.21 5/10/2014_9:47 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 24.15 18.3 NaN 24.15 0.951 10.6 21.2 33.4 458.2 0.710 6.30 7.378 0.854 26.05 36.676 48.43 5/10/2014_9:47 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 22.1 19.9 NaN 22.1 0.870 10.5 21.0 33.0 383.8 0.595 3.00 5.654 0.531 10.04 16.879 18.75 5/10/2014_9:47 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 19.7 14.2 NaN 19.7 0.776 8.5 17.0 26.6 304.9 0.473 2.70 4.005 0.674 15.45 32.689 45.37 5/10/2014_9:47 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 23.9 23.8 NaN 23.9 0.941 11.9 23.9 37.5 448.8 0.696 5.90 7.151 0.825 26.92 38.697 38.88 5/10/2014_9:46 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 25.5 17 NaN 25.5 1.004 10.6 21.3 33.4 510.9 0.792 5.60 8.685 0.645 34.06 43.010 64.55 5/10/2014_9:45 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 22.5 22.5 NaN 22.5 0.886 11.3 22.5 35.4 397.8 0.617 3.50 5.967 0.587 25.62 41.554 70.33 5/10/2014_9:45 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 26.7 14.25 NaN 26.7 1.051 10.2 20.5 32.2 560.1 0.868 3.70 9.970 0.371 26.60 30.638 57.42 5/10/2014_9:44 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 23.5 17.7 NaN 23.5 0.925 10.3 20.6 32.4 433.9 0.673 3.10 6.798 0.456 6.79 10.096 13.42 5/10/2014_9:44 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 18.4 12.5 NaN 18.4 0.724 7.7 15.5 24.3 266.0 0.412 3.10 3.263 0.950 26.38 63.980 94.21 5/10/2014_9:44 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 30.62 23.68 NaN 30.62 1.206 13.6 27.2 42.7 736.7 1.142 6.80 15.038 0.452 28.33 24.811 32.09 5/10/2014_9:43 PM T2 2B4 T2 2 -96.6141 37.66461 24.4 16 NaN 24.4 0.961 10.1 20.2 31.7 467.8 0.725 4.20 7.609 0.552 23.57 32.507 49.59 5/10/2014_9:43 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 24.1 20.12 NaN 24.1 0.949 11.1 22.1 34.7 456.4 0.707 5.00 7.332 0.682 41.65 58.882 70.56 5/10/2014_9:38 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 21.93 13.02 NaN 21.93 0.863 8.7 17.5 27.5 377.9 0.586 3.00 5.524 0.543 60.96 104.081 175.38 5/10/2014_9:38 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 19.31 13.16 NaN 19.31 0.760 8.1 16.2 25.5 293.0 0.454 2.40 3.772 0.636 32.90 72.449 106.35 5/10/2014_9:38 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 25.23 17.61 NaN 25.23 0.993 10.7 21.4 33.7 500.1 0.775 5.00 8.413 0.594 45.07 58.137 83.33 5/10/2014_9:37 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 22.18 14.1 NaN 22.18 0.873 9.1 18.1 28.5 386.5 0.599 3.80 5.716 0.665 42.05 70.185 110.46 5/10/2014_9:37 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 28.22 14.11 NaN 28.22 1.111 10.6 21.2 33.3 625.7 0.970 4.30 11.772 0.365 77.36 79.764 159.59 5/10/2014_9:36 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 26.35 15.6 NaN 26.35 1.037 10.5 21.0 33.0 545.5 0.846 5.40 9.583 0.563 52.13 61.649 104.18 5/10/2014_9:36 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 28.41 16.24 NaN 28.41 1.119 11.2 22.3 35.1 634.2 0.983 5.20 12.011 0.433 65.09 66.218 115.88 5/10/2014_9:35 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 25.92 11.16 NaN 25.92 1.020 9.3 18.5 29.1 527.9 0.818 4.10 9.122 0.449 49.29 60.241 139.98 5/10/2014_9:35 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 23.7 12.07 NaN 23.7 0.933 8.9 17.9 28.1 441.3 0.684 3.50 6.973 0.502 25.84 37.774 74.20 5/10/2014_9:35 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 20.05 15 NaN 20.05 0.789 8.8 17.5 27.5 315.9 0.490 2.30 4.222 0.545 30.71 62.727 83.87 5/10/2014_9:35 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 19.08 16.3 NaN 19.08 0.751 8.8 17.7 27.8 286.0 0.443 3.40 3.638 0.934 28.87 65.117 76.25 5/10/2014_9:35 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 28.92 16.18 NaN 28.92 1.139 11.3 22.6 35.4 657.1 1.019 4.90 12.670 0.387 42.35 41.578 74.35 5/10/2014_9:34 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 20 10.8 NaN 20 0.787 7.7 15.4 24.2 314.3 0.487 2.70 4.190 0.644 28.00 57.478 106.49 5/10/2014_9:34 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 19.93 14.27 NaN 19.93 0.785 8.6 17.1 26.9 312.1 0.484 3.30 4.147 0.796 16.50 34.109 47.67 5/10/2014_9:34 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 18.6 10.8 NaN 18.6 0.732 7.4 14.7 23.1 271.8 0.421 2.30 3.371 0.682 28.76 68.260 117.61 5/10/2014_9:34 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 25.21 15.77 NaN 25.21 0.993 10.2 20.5 32.2 499.4 0.774 5.50 8.393 0.655 36.02 46.537 74.42 5/10/2014_9:33 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 23.86 17.2 NaN 23.86 0.939 10.3 20.5 32.3 447.3 0.693 4.60 7.115 0.647 42.45 61.227 84.98 5/10/2014_9:33 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 21.64 14.31 NaN 21.64 0.852 9.0 18.0 28.2 367.9 0.570 3.50 5.308 0.659 35.61 62.440 94.47 5/10/2014_9:33 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 19.2 10.6 NaN 19.2 0.756 7.5 14.9 23.4 289.6 0.449 2.20 3.707 0.593 10.47 23.321 42.27 5/10/2014_9:33 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 16.9 16.7 NaN 16.9 0.665 8.4 16.8 26.4 224.4 0.348 1.90 2.528 0.751 17.29 49.708 50.32 5/10/2014_9:33 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 15.65 6.99 NaN 15.65 0.616 5.7 11.3 17.8 192.4 0.298 1.30 2.008 0.647 39.69 133.062 298.03 5/10/2014_9:33 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 24.35 19.2 NaN 24.35 0.959 10.9 21.8 34.2 465.9 0.722 4.90 7.563 0.648 85.30 118.128 149.88 5/10/2014_9:32 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 21.66 16 NaN 21.66 0.853 9.4 18.8 29.6 368.6 0.571 3.80 5.323 0.714 37.12 64.967 87.99 5/10/2014_9:32 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 25.42 18.81 NaN 25.42 1.001 11.1 22.1 34.8 507.7 0.787 4.30 8.604 0.500 23.65 30.053 40.62 5/10/2014_9:31 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 24.87 19.1 NaN 24.87 0.979 11.0 22.0 34.5 486.0 0.753 6.40 8.058 0.794 33.20 44.075 57.41 5/10/2014_9:31 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 23.4 18.9 NaN 23.4 0.921 10.6 21.2 33.2 430.2 0.667 5.80 6.712 0.864 42.05 63.058 78.11 5/10/2014_9:31 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 18.9 17.8 NaN 18.9 0.744 9.2 18.4 28.8 280.7 0.435 3.20 3.536 0.905 24.97 57.398 60.98 5/10/2014_9:31 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 27.58 15.49 NaN 27.58 1.086 10.8 21.5 33.8 597.7 0.926 4.90 10.989 0.446 35.61 38.440 68.48 5/10/2014_9:30 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 26.65 21.24 NaN 26.65 1.049 12.0 23.9 37.6 558.0 0.865 6.30 9.914 0.635 25.25 29.192 36.65 5/10/2014_9:30 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 25.5 16.15 NaN 25.5 1.004 10.4 20.8 32.7 510.9 0.792 6.20 8.685 0.714 62.95 79.491 125.57 5/10/2014_9:30 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 23.84 20.98 NaN 23.84 0.939 11.2 22.4 35.2 446.6 0.692 5.90 7.097 0.831 63.48 91.712 104.25 5/10/2014_9:30 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 23.5 15.4 NaN 23.5 0.925 9.7 19.5 30.6 433.9 0.673 3.00 6.798 0.441 33.95 50.479 77.07 5/10/2014_9:30 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 19.2 18.5 NaN 19.2 0.756 9.4 18.9 29.6 289.6 0.449 3.30 3.707 0.890 38.39 85.510 88.78 5/10/2014_9:30 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 27.5 21.25 NaN 27.5 1.083 12.2 24.4 38.3 594.2 0.921 7.90 10.894 0.725 79.57 86.395 111.85 5/10/2014_9:29 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 27.4 14.9 NaN 27.4 1.079 10.6 21.2 33.2 589.9 0.914 4.20 10.775 0.390 35.90 39.264 72.24 5/10/2014_9:29 PM T1 2B4 T1 2 -96.6331 37.6646 25.68 23 NaN 25.68 1.011 12.2 24.3 38.2 518.1 0.803 7.30 8.871 0.823 45.27 56.367 62.96 5/10/2014_9:29 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 16.2 4.82 NaN 16.2 0.638 5.3 10.5 16.5 206.2 0.320 0.50 2.227 0.225 12.74 39.860 134.08 5/10/2014_9:29 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 13.7 7.5 NaN 13.7 0.539 5.3 10.6 16.7 147.5 0.229 0.70 1.347 0.520 7.01 30.668 56.04 5/10/2014_9:29 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 26.15 15.64 NaN 26.15 1.030 10.4 20.9 32.8 537.3 0.833 3.70 9.367 0.395 51.59 61.948 103.62 5/10/2014_9:26 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 24.7 23.7 NaN 24.7 0.972 12.1 24.2 38.0 479.4 0.743 5.00 7.893 0.633 33.74 45.410 47.34 5/10/2014_9:26 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 24.7 19.3 NaN 24.7 0.972 11.0 22.0 34.6 479.4 0.743 6.40 7.893 0.811 21.19 28.519 36.51 5/10/2014_9:26 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 23 17.6 NaN 23 0.906 10.2 20.3 31.9 415.6 0.644 4.40 6.373 0.690 26.60 41.288 53.97 5/10/2014_9:25 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 17.85 17.85 NaN 17.85 0.703 8.9 17.9 28.1 250.3 0.388 1.40 2.979 0.470 16.97 43.733 58.70 5/10/2014_9:25 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 23 22.7 NaN 23 0.906 11.4 22.9 35.9 415.6 0.644 5.10 6.373 0.800 26.38 40.947 41.50 5/10/2014_9:23 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 13.8 9.3 NaN 13.8 0.543 5.8 11.6 18.2 149.6 0.232 0.90 1.377 0.654 27.46 118.398 175.77 5/10/2014_9:23 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 23.3 18.9 NaN 23.3 0.917 10.6 21.1 33.2 426.6 0.661 3.80 6.626 0.574 41.85 63.297 78.07 5/10/2014_9:22 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 16.72 16 NaN 16.72 0.658 8.2 16.4 25.7 219.7 0.340 2.10 2.448 0.858 15.23 44.733 46.78 5/10/2014_9:22 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 23 20.2 NaN 23 0.906 10.8 21.6 33.9 415.6 0.644 5.00 6.373 0.785 61.33 95.196 108.44 5/10/2014_9:21 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 17.65 12.4 NaN 17.65 0.695 7.5 15.0 23.6 244.8 0.379 2.10 2.880 0.729 31.79 83.792 119.33 5/10/2014_9:21 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 17.63 17.63 NaN 17.63 0.694 8.8 17.6 27.7 244.2 0.379 1.20 2.870 0.418 19.13 50.537 74.77 5/10/2014_9:21 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 11.02 11.02 NaN 11.02 0.434 5.5 11.0 17.3 95.4 0.148 0.50 0.701 0.713 13.07 88.372 93.68 5/10/2014_9:21 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 19 9.56 NaN 19 0.748 7.1 14.3 22.4 283.6 0.440 1.60 3.593 0.445 40.85 92.915 184.72 5/10/2014_9:20 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 17.35 9.78 NaN 17.35 0.683 6.8 13.6 21.3 236.5 0.367 1.70 2.736 0.621 53.12 144.898 257.14 5/10/2014_9:20 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 11.9 9.5 NaN 11.9 0.469 5.4 10.7 16.8 111.3 0.172 0.70 0.883 0.793 15.56 90.223 113.05 5/10/2014_9:20 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 21 19.3 NaN 21 0.827 10.1 20.2 31.7 346.5 0.537 4.00 4.851 0.825 20.10 37.425 40.74 5/10/2014_9:19 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 15.47 11.77 NaN 15.47 0.609 6.8 13.6 21.4 188.0 0.291 1.10 1.939 0.567 18.01 61.793 81.26 5/10/2014_9:19 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 23.4 18.22 NaN 23.4 0.921 10.4 20.8 32.7 430.2 0.667 3.60 6.712 0.536 24.76 37.130 47.70 5/10/2014_9:18 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 21.77 14.6 NaN 21.77 0.857 9.1 18.2 28.6 372.4 0.577 2.70 5.404 0.500 49.70 86.108 128.44 5/10/2014_9:18 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 21.09 11.55 NaN 21.09 0.830 8.2 16.3 25.6 349.5 0.542 2.30 4.914 0.468 35.21 65.000 118.75 5/10/2014_9:18 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 19.2 10.6 NaN 19.2 0.756 7.5 14.9 23.4 289.6 0.449 1.80 3.707 0.486 11.99 26.707 48.38 5/10/2014_9:18 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 18.32 16.15 NaN 18.32 0.721 8.6 17.2 27.1 263.7 0.409 2.10 3.221 0.652 45.37 110.999 125.97 5/10/2014_9:18 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 25.4 10.02 NaN 25.4 1.000 8.9 17.7 27.8 506.9 0.786 2.00 8.584 0.233 21.23 27.020 68.53 5/10/2014_9:17 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 21 21 NaN 21 0.827 10.5 21.0 33.0 346.5 0.537 2.90 4.851 0.598 32.01 59.600 107.01 5/10/2014_9:17 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 15.8 15.8 NaN 15.8 0.622 7.9 15.8 24.8 196.1 0.304 1.50 2.066 0.726 10.26 33.747 39.21 5/10/2014_9:17 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 26.77 11.5 NaN 26.77 1.054 9.6 19.1 30.1 563.1 0.873 3.80 10.049 0.378 13.99 16.030 37.33 5/10/2014_9:16 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 25.88 11.9 NaN 25.88 1.019 9.4 18.9 29.7 526.3 0.816 3.00 9.080 0.330 57.04 69.928 152.14 5/10/2014_9:16 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 21.37 13.32 NaN 21.37 0.841 8.7 17.3 27.3 358.8 0.556 3.00 5.112 0.587 40.95 73.629 118.16 5/10/2014_9:16 PM T2 2B3 T2 2 -96.6427 37.66311 20.1 14.4 NaN 20.1 0.791 8.6 17.3 27.1 317.4 0.492 2.10 4.254 0.494 12.85 26.116 36.48 5/10/2014_9:16 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 24.04 11.75 NaN 24.04 0.946 8.9 17.9 28.1 454.1 0.704 2.80 7.277 0.385 38.93 55.312 113.22 5/10/2014_9:15 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 23.32 16.24 NaN 23.32 0.918 9.9 19.8 31.1 427.3 0.662 4.40 6.643 0.662 25.73 38.850 55.81 5/10/2014_9:15 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 22.71 8.63 NaN 22.71 0.894 7.8 15.7 24.6 405.2 0.628 2.20 6.135 0.359 22.24 35.408 93.20 5/10/2014_9:14 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 22 11.1 NaN 22 0.866 8.3 16.6 26.0 380.3 0.589 2.50 5.578 0.448 19.02 32.268 63.97 5/10/2014_9:14 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 21.23 18.2 NaN 21.23 0.836 9.9 19.7 31.0 354.1 0.549 3.90 5.012 0.778 65.99 120.221 140.30 5/10/2014_9:14 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 20.08 10.28 NaN 20.08 0.791 7.6 15.2 23.9 316.8 0.491 1.60 4.241 0.377 50.00 101.823 198.97 5/10/2014_9:13 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 27.06 12.79 NaN 27.06 1.065 10.0 19.9 31.3 575.3 0.892 4.30 10.379 0.414 75.15 84.271 178.37 5/10/2014_9:12 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 19.32 17.43 NaN 19.32 0.761 9.2 18.4 28.9 293.3 0.455 2.90 3.777 0.768 41.35 90.963 100.86 5/10/2014_9:12 PM T2 2B2 T2 2 -96.6426 37.63397 18.25 6.89 NaN 18.25 0.719 6.3 12.6 19.8 261.7 0.406 0.70 3.184 0.220 76.05 187.489 496.80 5/10/2014_9:11 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 17.91 12.78 NaN 17.91 0.705 7.7 15.3 24.1 252.0 0.391 1.80 3.009 0.598 34.61 88.596 124.21 5/10/2014_9:11 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 17.55 15.58 NaN 17.55 0.691 8.3 16.6 26.0 242.0 0.375 2.30 2.831 0.812 31.19 83.150 93.70 5/10/2014_9:11 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 17.28 10.75 NaN 17.28 0.680 7.0 14.0 22.0 234.6 0.364 1.60 2.703 0.592 20.02 55.053 88.55 5/10/2014_9:11 PM T2 2B2 T2 2 -96.6426 37.63397 12.53 12.53 NaN 12.53 0.493 6.3 12.5 19.7 123.4 0.191 0.80 1.030 0.776 10.58 55.333 77.76 5/10/2014_9:11 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 21.55 12.88 NaN 21.55 0.848 8.6 17.2 27.1 364.9 0.566 3.10 5.242 0.591 38.33 67.771 113.44 5/10/2014_9:10 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 19.45 10.93 NaN 19.45 0.766 7.6 15.2 23.9 297.2 0.461 1.80 3.854 0.467 54.12 117.468 209.13 5/10/2014_9:10 PM T2 2B2 T2 2 -96.6426 37.63397 14.25 6.04 NaN 14.25 0.561 5.1 10.1 15.9 159.5 0.247 0.90 1.516 0.594 18.37 74.282 175.34 5/10/2014_9:10 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 18.57 11.63 NaN 18.57 0.731 7.6 15.1 23.7 270.9 0.420 1.80 3.354 0.537 34.51 82.172 131.25 5/10/2014_9:09 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 17.74 13 NaN 17.74 0.698 7.7 15.4 24.2 247.3 0.383 1.70 2.924 0.581 26.26 68.516 93.54 5/10/2014_9:09 PM T2 2B2 T2 2 -96.6426 37.63397 12.07 8.4 NaN 12.07 0.475 5.1 10.2 16.1 114.5 0.177 0.70 0.921 0.760 15.56 87.700 126.05 5/10/2014_9:09 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 20.93 9 NaN 20.93 0.824 7.5 15.0 23.5 344.2 0.534 1.60 4.803 0.333 43.56 81.649 189.96 5/10/2014_9:08 PM T1 2B3 T1 2 -96.5948 37.5493 17.15 8.26 NaN 17.15 0.675 6.4 12.7 20.0 231.1 0.358 1.10 2.642 0.416 39.24 109.548 227.52 5/10/2014_9:08 PM T2 2B2 T2 2 -96.6426 37.63397 12.68 8.58 NaN 12.68 0.499 5.3 10.6 16.7 126.3 0.196 0.80 1.068 0.749 13.18 67.310 99.50 5/10/2014_9:08 PM T2 2B2 T2 2 -96.6426 37.63397 8.7 5.3 NaN 8.7 0.343 3.5 7.0 11.0 59.5 0.092 0.30 0.345 0.870 9.07 98.395 161.51 5/10/2014_9:08 PM T2 2B2 T2 2 -96.6426 37.63397 16 7.8 NaN 16 0.630 6.0 11.9 18.7 201.1 0.312 1.10 2.146 0.513 20.21 64.823 133.03 5/10/2014_9:06 PM T2 2B2 T2 2 -96.6426 37.63397 14.4 8.3 NaN 14.4 0.567 5.7 11.4 17.8 162.9 0.253 0.60 1.564 0.384 19.24 76.187 132.22 5/10/2014_9:06 PM T2 2B2 T2 2 -96.6426 37.63397 13.67 13.67 NaN 13.67 0.538 6.8 13.7 21.5 146.8 0.228 0.90 1.338 0.673 10.04 44.116 58.57 5/10/2014_9:04 PM T2 2B2 T2 2 -96.6426 37.63397 13.6 5.73 NaN 13.6 0.535 4.8 9.7 15.2 145.3 0.225 0.70 1.318 0.531 27.68 122.883 291.75 5/10/2014_9:03 PM T1 2B2 T1 2 -96.6429 37.6304 21.53 11.04 NaN 21.53 0.848 8.1 16.3 25.6 364.2 0.565 2.10 5.228 0.402 59.96 106.213 207.20 5/10/2014_8:56 PM T1 2B2 T1 2 -96.6429 37.6304 16.25 13.85 NaN 16.25 0.640 7.5 15.1 23.7 207.5 0.322 1.60 2.248 0.712 29.28 91.047 106.86 5/10/2014_8:56 PM T1 2B2 T1 2 -96.6429 37.6304 19.78 6.33 NaN 19.78 0.779 6.5 13.1 20.5 307.4 0.476 1.20 4.054 0.296 58.85 123.508 386.09 5/10/2014_8:55 PM T1 2B2 T1 2 -96.6429 37.6304 13.48 7.6 NaN 13.48 0.531 5.3 10.5 16.6 142.8 0.221 0.50 1.283 0.390 20.02 90.466 160.56 5/10/2014_8:55 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 12.3 7.08 NaN 12.3 0.484 4.8 9.7 15.2 118.9 0.184 0.30 0.975 0.308 4.09 22.198 38.56 5/10/2014_8:55 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 8.74 8.74 NaN 8.74 0.344 4.4 8.7 13.7 60.0 0.093 0.20 0.350 0.572 0.19 2.042 2.50 5/10/2014_8:55 PM T1 2B2 T1 2 -96.6429 37.6304 15.31 10.18 NaN 15.31 0.603 6.4 12.7 20.0 184.2 0.285 1.10 1.880 0.585 78.67 275.589 414.61 5/10/2014_8:54 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 12.5 8.5 NaN 12.5 0.492 5.3 10.5 16.5 122.8 0.190 0.80 1.023 0.782 12.74 66.950 98.53 5/10/2014_8:54 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 9.6 8 NaN 9.6 0.378 4.4 8.8 13.8 72.4 0.112 0.30 0.463 0.647 1.38 12.295 14.79 5/10/2014_8:54 PM T1 2B2 T1 2 -96.6429 37.6304 17.03 9.93 NaN 17.03 0.670 6.7 13.5 21.2 227.9 0.353 1.10 2.587 0.425 29.78 84.314 144.66 5/10/2014_8:53 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 13.87 11.64 NaN 13.87 0.546 6.4 12.8 20.0 151.2 0.234 1.20 1.398 0.859 9.50 40.548 48.33 5/10/2014_8:53 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 12.3 9.13 NaN 12.3 0.484 5.4 10.7 16.8 118.9 0.184 0.80 0.975 0.821 5.17 28.060 37.82 5/10/2014_8:53 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 8.4 8.4 NaN 8.4 0.331 4.2 8.4 13.2 55.4 0.086 0.10 0.310 0.322 6.90 80.296 82.51 5/10/2014_8:53 PM T1 2B2 T1 2 -96.6429 37.6304 19.87 12.82 NaN 19.87 0.782 8.2 16.3 25.7 310.2 0.481 2.00 4.109 0.487 36.02 74.912 116.15 5/10/2014_8:52 PM T1 2B2 T1 2 -96.6429 37.6304 16.91 8.82 NaN 16.91 0.666 6.4 12.9 20.2 224.7 0.348 1.20 2.533 0.474 25.66 73.684 141.31 5/10/2014_8:52 PM T1 2B2 T1 2 -96.6429 37.6304 16.22 12.22 NaN 16.22 0.639 7.1 14.2 22.3 206.7 0.320 1.70 2.235 0.761 16.60 51.809 68.81 5/10/2014_8:52 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 15.75 6.56 NaN 15.75 0.620 5.6 11.2 17.5 194.9 0.302 0.30 2.047 0.147 16.10 53.293 128.00 5/10/2014_8:52 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 15.5 14.3 NaN 15.5 0.610 7.5 14.9 23.4 188.8 0.293 1.20 1.951 0.615 26.16 89.408 96.96 5/10/2014_8:52 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 10.5 5.5 NaN 10.5 0.413 4.0 8.0 12.6 86.6 0.134 0.50 0.606 0.825 4.95 36.866 70.46 5/10/2014_8:52 PM T1 2B2 T1 2 -96.6429 37.6304 18.1 12.49 NaN 18.1 0.713 7.6 15.3 24.0 257.4 0.399 1.80 3.106 0.580 56.94 142.713 206.89 5/10/2014_8:51 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 15.6 7.16 NaN 15.6 0.614 5.7 11.4 17.9 191.2 0.296 1.00 1.989 0.503 9.93 33.504 73.04 5/10/2014_8:51 PM T1 2B2 T1 2 -96.6429 37.6304 15.55 15.36 NaN 15.55 0.612 7.7 15.5 24.3 190.0 0.294 1.20 1.970 0.609 23.04 78.239 79.24 5/10/2014_8:51 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 11.3 4.09 NaN 11.3 0.445 3.8 7.7 12.1 100.3 0.156 0.30 0.756 0.397 1.92 12.347 34.20 5/10/2014_8:51 PM T1 2B2 T1 2 -96.6429 37.6304 17.35 9.84 NaN 17.35 0.683 6.8 13.6 21.4 236.5 0.367 1.60 2.736 0.585 78.36 213.746 377.05 5/10/2014_8:50 PM T1 2B2 T1 2 -96.6429 37.6304 13.79 13.79 NaN 13.79 0.543 6.9 13.8 21.7 149.4 0.232 1.30 1.374 0.946 38.33 165.506 175.77 5/10/2014_8:50 PM T1 2B2 T1 2 -96.6429 37.6304 17.98 14.94 NaN 17.98 0.708 8.2 16.5 25.9 254.0 0.394 2.40 3.045 0.788 32.80 83.310 100.30 5/10/2014_8:49 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 16.65 9.98 NaN 16.65 0.656 6.7 13.3 20.9 217.8 0.338 1.40 2.418 0.579 24.76 73.337 122.38 5/10/2014_8:49 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 14.75 8.2 NaN 14.75 0.581 5.7 11.5 18.0 170.9 0.265 0.80 1.681 0.476 14.48 54.650 98.32 5/10/2014_8:49 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 13.4 13.2 NaN 13.4 0.528 6.7 13.3 20.9 141.1 0.219 1.00 1.260 0.793 5.49 25.105 25.52 5/10/2014_8:49 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 18.7 11.3 NaN 18.7 0.736 7.5 15.0 23.6 274.8 0.426 2.00 3.425 0.584 22.81 53.561 88.67 5/10/2014_8:48 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 17.6 17.6 NaN 17.6 0.693 8.8 17.6 27.7 243.4 0.377 1.40 2.856 0.490 17.07 45.249 64.06 lobes 5/10/2014_8:48 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 18.2 13.2 NaN 18.2 0.717 7.9 15.7 24.7 260.3 0.403 1.90 3.158 0.602 8.96 22.211 30.63 lobes 5/10/2014_8:47 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 17 12.1 NaN 17 0.669 7.3 14.6 22.9 227.1 0.352 1.40 2.573 0.544 22.44 63.757 89.60 Supercell 5/10/2014_8:45 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 16.9 14.2 NaN 16.9 0.665 7.8 15.6 24.4 224.4 0.348 1.50 2.528 0.593 25.08 72.104 85.85 5/10/2014_8:45 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 15.95 12.15 NaN 15.95 0.628 7.0 14.1 22.1 199.9 0.310 1.30 2.125 0.612 21.08 68.038 89.34 lobes 5/10/2014_8:45 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 12.58 7.51 NaN 12.58 0.495 5.0 10.0 15.8 124.3 0.193 1.00 1.043 0.959 16.32 84.676 141.86 5/10/2014_8:45 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 15.65 10.96 NaN 15.65 0.616 6.7 13.3 20.9 192.4 0.298 1.00 2.008 0.498 14.19 47.573 67.96 slushSupercell5/10/2014_8:44 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 13.7 12.24 NaN 13.7 0.539 6.5 13.0 20.4 147.5 0.229 1.20 1.347 0.891 19.35 84.653 94.77 5/10/2014_8:44 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 13.3 7.3 NaN 13.3 0.524 5.2 10.3 16.2 139.0 0.215 0.60 1.232 0.487 12.31 57.142 104.17 5/10/2014_8:44 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 11.64 7.28 NaN 11.64 0.458 4.7 9.5 14.9 106.5 0.165 0.60 0.826 0.726 31.69 192.052 307.22 Supercell 5/10/2014_8:44 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 16.03 9.36 NaN 16.03 0.631 6.3 12.7 19.9 201.9 0.313 0.90 2.158 0.417 20.63 65.923 112.93 slushSupercell5/10/2014_8:43 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 14.48 10.08 NaN 14.48 0.570 6.1 12.3 19.3 164.7 0.255 0.90 1.590 0.566 36.72 143.803 206.66 slushSupercell5/10/2014_8:43 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 10.7 3.23 NaN 10.7 0.421 3.5 7.0 10.9 90.0 0.139 0.40 0.642 0.623 19.02 136.410 452.09 5/10/2014_8:43 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 14.05 10.35 NaN 14.05 0.553 6.1 12.2 19.2 155.1 0.240 1.10 1.453 0.757 44.27 184.145 250.05 Supercell 5/10/2014_8:42 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 18.84 10.7 NaN 18.84 0.742 7.4 14.8 23.2 278.9 0.432 1.40 3.503 0.400 34.21 79.140 139.39 Supercell 5/10/2014_8:41 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 15.6 13.3 NaN 15.6 0.614 7.2 14.5 22.7 191.2 0.296 1.40 1.989 0.704 21.08 71.125 83.45 5/10/2014_8:41 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 13.77 8.26 NaN 13.77 0.542 5.5 11.0 17.3 149.0 0.231 0.90 1.368 0.658 47.48 205.611 342.93 Supercell 5/10/2014_8:41 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 8.75 4.54 NaN 8.75 0.344 3.3 6.6 10.4 60.2 0.093 0.20 0.351 0.570 3.11 33.354 64.40 5/10/2014_8:41 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 12.2 11.75 NaN 12.2 0.480 6.0 12.0 18.8 116.9 0.181 0.80 0.951 0.841 16.42 90.585 94.12 5/10/2014_8:40 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 11.93 8.49 NaN 11.93 0.470 5.1 10.2 16.0 111.8 0.173 0.70 0.889 0.787 25.96 149.771 210.53 Supercell 5/10/2014_8:40 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 11.4 7.5 NaN 11.4 0.449 4.7 9.5 14.9 102.1 0.158 0.70 0.776 0.902 11.88 75.060 114.13 5/10/2014_8:40 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 19.2 12.9 NaN 19.2 0.756 8.0 16.1 25.2 289.6 0.449 2.10 3.707 0.566 36.55 81.412 121.22 5/10/2014_8:39 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 18.5 8.65 NaN 18.5 0.728 6.8 13.6 21.3 268.9 0.417 1.10 3.317 0.332 19.56 46.928 100.42 5/10/2014_8:39 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 18.09 10.48 NaN 18.09 0.712 7.1 14.3 22.4 257.1 0.399 1.30 3.101 0.419 35.92 90.128 155.62 Supercell 5/10/2014_8:39 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 15.5 6.83 NaN 15.5 0.610 5.6 11.2 17.5 188.8 0.293 0.30 1.951 0.154 41.85 143.033 324.76 5/10/2014_8:39 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 14.08 12.97 NaN 14.08 0.554 6.8 13.5 21.3 155.8 0.241 1.20 1.462 0.821 29.58 122.517 133.05 Supercell 5/10/2014_8:39 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 18.12 10.02 NaN 18.12 0.713 7.0 14.1 22.1 258.0 0.400 1.10 3.116 0.353 33.30 83.278 150.67 Supercell 5/10/2014_8:38 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 14.79 10.48 NaN 14.79 0.582 6.3 12.6 19.9 171.9 0.266 1.10 1.695 0.649 25.66 96.321 135.97 Supercell 5/10/2014_8:38 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 13.3 7.4 NaN 13.3 0.524 5.2 10.4 16.3 139.0 0.215 0.30 1.232 0.243 11.01 51.108 91.92 5/10/2014_8:38 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 8.81 8.6 NaN 8.81 0.347 4.4 8.7 13.7 61.0 0.095 0.30 0.358 0.838 5.49 58.080 59.58 5/10/2014_8:38 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 17.21 10.59 NaN 17.21 0.678 7.0 13.9 21.8 232.7 0.361 1.10 2.670 0.412 50.40 139.724 227.16 Supercell 5/10/2014_8:37 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 14.99 10.19 NaN 14.99 0.590 6.3 12.6 19.8 176.6 0.274 1.10 1.764 0.623 43.66 159.545 234.80 Supercell 5/10/2014_8:37 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 15.36 9.28 NaN 15.36 0.605 6.2 12.3 19.4 185.4 0.287 1.40 1.898 0.738 9.39 32.680 54.12 5/10/2014_8:36 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 15.28 8.56 NaN 15.28 0.602 6.0 11.9 18.7 183.4 0.284 0.70 1.869 0.375 16.30 57.325 102.38 supercell 5/10/2014_8:36 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 14.9 12.07 NaN 14.9 0.587 6.7 13.5 21.2 174.4 0.270 1.20 1.733 0.693 8.42 31.142 38.44 5/10/2014_8:36 PM T1 2B1 T1 2 -96.641 37.619 21.74 8.79 NaN 21.74 0.856 7.6 15.3 24.0 371.4 0.576 2.00 5.382 0.372 52.21 90.706 224.44 Supercell 5/10/2014_8:35 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 18.18 8.86 NaN 18.18 0.716 6.8 13.5 21.2 259.7 0.403 1.20 3.147 0.381 11.01 27.353 56.17 5/10/2014_8:35 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 15 8.5 NaN 15 0.591 5.9 11.8 18.5 176.8 0.274 0.90 1.768 0.509 25.51 93.096 164.38 5/10/2014_8:35 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 11.28 9.85 NaN 11.28 0.444 5.3 10.6 16.6 100.0 0.155 0.70 0.752 0.931 11.45 73.891 84.63 5/10/2014_8:35 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 17.67 10.35 NaN 17.67 0.696 7.0 14.0 22.0 245.3 0.380 1.60 2.890 0.554 71.29 187.481 320.19 5/10/2014_8:34 PM T2 2B1 T2 2 -96.6425 37.62148 11.7 11.7 NaN 11.7 0.461 5.9 11.7 18.4 107.6 0.167 0.40 0.839 0.477 6.79 40.729 42.21 5/10/2014_8:34 PM T1 2A5 T1 2 -96.5876 37.5491 16.64 12.86 NaN 16.64 0.655 7.4 14.8 23.2 217.6 0.337 1.50 2.413 0.622 28.37 84.131 108.91 5/10/2014_8:13 PM T1 2A5 T1 2 -96.5876 37.5491 20.57 16.41 NaN 20.57 0.810 9.2 18.5 29.1 332.5 0.515 3.50 4.559 0.768 51.81 100.542 126.08 5/10/2014_8:12 PM T1 2A5 T1 2 -96.5876 37.5491 20.88 14.14 NaN 20.88 0.822 8.8 17.5 27.5 342.6 0.531 2.70 4.768 0.566 62.67 118.032 174.37 5/10/2014_8:11 PM T2 2A3 T2 2 -96.6426 37.56938 22 9.92 NaN 22 0.866 8.0 16.0 25.1 380.3 0.589 0.70 5.578 0.126 9.72 16.490 36.57 5/10/2014_8:01 PM T2 2A2 T2 2 -96.6394 37.53474 7.65 2.88 NaN 7.65 0.301 2.6 5.3 8.3 46.0 0.071 0.20 0.235 0.853 11.23 157.565 418.70 5/10/2014_7:56 PM T2 2A2 T2 2 -96.6394 37.53474 8.12 6.45 NaN 8.12 0.320 3.6 7.3 11.4 51.8 0.080 0.20 0.280 0.713 2.03 25.281 31.87 5/10/2014_7:55 PM T2 2A2 T2 2 -96.6394 37.53474 6.87 4.82 NaN 6.87 0.270 2.9 5.8 9.2 37.1 0.057 0.10 0.170 0.589 7.55 131.352 187.32 5/10/2014_7:55 PM T2 2A2 T2 2 -96.6394 37.53474 6.4 6.4 NaN 6.4 0.252 3.2 6.4 10.1 32.2 0.050 0.10 0.137 0.728 14.26 285.866 290.52 5/10/2014_7:54 PM T1 2A2 T1 2 -96.642 37.5376 15.25 7.44 NaN 15.25 0.600 5.7 11.3 17.8 182.7 0.283 0.80 1.858 0.431 50.00 176.536 362.00 5/10/2014_7:47 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 14.09 5.6 NaN 14.09 0.555 4.9 9.8 15.5 156.0 0.242 0.40 1.465 0.273 10.15 41.980 105.65 5/10/2014_7:45 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 13 11 NaN 13 0.512 6.0 12.0 18.9 132.8 0.206 0.60 1.151 0.521 11.12 54.028 63.89 5/10/2014_7:45 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 13.8 13.8 NaN 13.8 0.543 6.9 13.8 21.7 149.6 0.232 1.10 1.377 0.799 10.58 45.617 46.65 5/10/2014_7:44 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 13.5 13.5 NaN 13.5 0.531 6.8 13.5 21.2 143.2 0.222 0.40 1.289 0.310 11.23 50.596 106.77 5/10/2014_7:44 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 14.9 5.9 NaN 14.9 0.587 5.2 10.4 16.3 174.4 0.270 0.70 1.733 0.404 4.63 17.124 43.26 5/10/2014_7:43 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 13.96 9 NaN 13.96 0.550 5.7 11.5 18.0 153.1 0.237 0.60 1.425 0.421 7.66 32.275 50.08 5/10/2014_7:43 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 12.8 12.8 NaN 12.8 0.504 6.4 12.8 20.1 128.7 0.200 0.80 1.099 0.728 13.83 69.311 69.87 5/10/2014_7:43 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 11.02 11.02 NaN 11.02 0.434 5.5 11.0 17.3 95.4 0.148 0.40 0.701 0.571 5.06 34.213 35.10 5/10/2014_7:42 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 12.9 4.88 NaN 12.9 0.508 4.4 8.9 14.0 130.8 0.203 0.30 1.124 0.267 10.91 53.833 142.30 5/10/2014_7:41 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 11.25 6.7 NaN 11.25 0.443 4.5 9.0 14.1 99.4 0.154 0.40 0.746 0.536 10.36 67.214 112.95 5/10/2014_7:41 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 14 14 NaN 14 0.551 7.0 14.0 22.0 154.0 0.239 0.50 1.437 0.348 6.14 25.723 31.62 5/10/2014_7:40 PM T1 2A1 T1 2 -96.642 37.5376 11.99 8.31 NaN 11.99 0.472 5.1 10.2 16.0 113.0 0.175 0.50 0.903 0.554 13.39 76.479 110.36 5/10/2014_7:40 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 11 11 NaN 11 0.433 5.5 11.0 17.3 95.1 0.147 0.40 0.697 0.574 13.83 93.851 121.05 5/10/2014_7:40 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 10.56 7.5 NaN 10.56 0.416 4.5 9.0 14.2 87.6 0.136 0.60 0.617 0.973 10.26 75.548 106.37 5/10/2014_7:40 PM T1 2A1 T1 2 -96.642 37.5376 12.97 9.72 NaN 12.97 0.511 5.7 11.3 17.8 132.2 0.205 0.70 1.143 0.612 15.60 76.146 101.64 5/10/2014_7:39 PM T1 2A1 T1 2 -96.642 37.5376 11.43 9.9 NaN 11.43 0.450 5.3 10.7 16.8 102.6 0.159 0.50 0.782 0.639 7.65 48.081 55.55 5/10/2014_7:39 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 15.5 9.7 NaN 15.5 0.610 6.3 12.6 19.8 188.8 0.293 1.10 1.951 0.564 1.82 6.220 9.92 5/10/2014_7:38 PM T1 2A1 T1 2 -96.642 37.5376 14.98 8.34 NaN 14.98 0.590 5.8 11.7 18.3 176.3 0.273 0.80 1.761 0.454 23.24 85.038 152.82 5/10/2014_7:38 PM T1 2A1 T1 2 -96.642 37.5376 14.62 12.04 NaN 14.62 0.576 6.7 13.3 20.9 167.9 0.260 1.10 1.637 0.672 13.79 52.975 64.34 5/10/2014_7:38 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 13.9 13.9 NaN 13.9 0.547 7.0 13.9 21.8 151.8 0.235 1.10 1.407 0.782 1.38 5.865 6.34 5/10/2014_7:38 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 12.5 12.5 NaN 12.5 0.492 6.3 12.5 19.6 122.8 0.190 0.80 1.023 0.782 9.82 51.605 55.17 5/10/2014_7:38 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 16.15 7.5 NaN 16.15 0.636 5.9 11.8 18.6 204.9 0.318 1.40 2.206 0.635 0.30 0.944 2.04 5/10/2014_7:37 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 14.7 7.7 NaN 14.7 0.579 5.6 11.2 17.6 169.8 0.263 1.40 1.664 0.841 17.94 68.170 130.19 5/10/2014_7:37 PM T1 2A1 T1 2 -96.642 37.5376 14.37 10.64 NaN 14.37 0.566 6.3 12.5 19.7 162.2 0.251 0.90 1.554 0.579 37.12 147.604 199.45 5/10/2014_7:37 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 12.7 4.79 NaN 12.7 0.500 4.4 8.7 13.7 126.7 0.196 0.50 1.073 0.466 10.15 51.673 137.03 5/10/2014_7:37 PM T1 2A1 T1 2 -96.642 37.5376 16.7 8.82 NaN 16.7 0.657 6.4 12.8 20.1 219.1 0.340 0.90 2.440 0.369 12.18 35.861 67.92 5/10/2014_7:36 PM T1 2A1 T1 2 -96.642 37.5376 12.33 9.85 NaN 12.33 0.485 5.5 11.1 17.4 119.5 0.185 0.60 0.982 0.611 11.27 60.870 76.25 5/10/2014_7:36 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 12.17 6.16 NaN 12.17 0.479 4.6 9.2 14.4 116.4 0.180 0.60 0.944 0.635 17.18 95.246 188.27 5/10/2014_7:36 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 15.6 15.6 NaN 15.6 0.614 7.8 15.6 24.5 191.2 0.296 1.20 1.989 0.603 6.47 21.830 25.61 5/10/2014_7:35 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 15.5 15.5 NaN 15.5 0.610 7.8 15.5 24.4 188.8 0.293 1.10 1.951 0.564 0.84 2.871 3.33 5/10/2014_7:35 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 15 15 NaN 15 0.591 7.5 15.0 23.6 176.8 0.274 0.90 1.768 0.509 2.03 7.408 9.94 5/10/2014_7:35 PM T1 2A1 T1 2 -96.642 37.5376 13.12 8.41 NaN 13.12 0.517 5.4 10.8 16.9 135.2 0.210 0.50 1.183 0.423 15.90 75.846 118.37 5/10/2014_7:35 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 16.6 7.86 NaN 16.6 0.654 6.1 12.2 19.2 216.5 0.336 1.00 2.396 0.417 14.15 42.164 89.10 5/10/2014_7:34 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 14.7 14.7 NaN 14.7 0.579 7.4 14.7 23.1 169.8 0.263 1.10 1.664 0.661 5.17 19.645 23.30 5/10/2014_7:34 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 14.3 10.6 NaN 14.3 0.563 6.2 12.5 19.6 160.7 0.249 1.20 1.532 0.783 7.01 28.148 37.99 5/10/2014_7:34 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 14.6 14.6 NaN 14.6 0.575 7.3 14.6 22.9 167.5 0.260 0.50 1.630 0.307 4.63 17.835 30.64 5/10/2014_7:33 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 12.2 12.2 NaN 12.2 0.480 6.1 12.2 19.2 116.9 0.181 0.80 0.951 0.841 11.45 63.167 63.43 5/10/2014_7:32 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 18 18 NaN 18 0.709 9.0 18.0 28.3 254.6 0.395 1.20 3.055 0.393 6.14 15.561 20.32 5/10/2014_7:31 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 13.9 12.9 NaN 13.9 0.547 6.7 13.4 21.1 151.8 0.235 1.40 1.407 0.995 6.04 25.669 27.65 5/10/2014_7:31 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 13 11.7 NaN 13 0.512 6.2 12.4 19.4 132.8 0.206 0.90 1.151 0.782 7.77 37.752 41.95 5/10/2014_7:31 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 19.8 10.5 NaN 19.8 0.780 7.6 15.2 23.8 308.0 0.477 1.50 4.066 0.369 22.48 47.083 88.84 5/10/2014_7:30 PM T2 2A1 T2 2 -96.642 37.5376 12.7 5.7 NaN 12.7 0.500 4.6 9.2 14.5 126.7 0.196 0.50 1.073 0.466 10.91 55.542 123.75 5/10/2014_7:30 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 19 14.8 NaN 19 0.748 8.5 16.9 26.6 283.6 0.440 3.00 3.593 0.835 19.45 44.240 56.83 5/10/2014_10:09 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 24 12.76 NaN 24 0.945 9.2 18.4 28.9 452.6 0.701 2.80 7.241 0.387 11.88 16.935 31.86 5/10/2014_10:08 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 19.4 5.2 NaN 19.4 0.764 6.2 12.3 19.3 295.7 0.458 1.10 3.825 0.288 7.12 15.534 57.96 5/10/2014_10:08 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 17.08 7.2 NaN 17.08 0.672 6.1 12.1 19.1 229.2 0.355 1.50 2.610 0.575 4.63 13.032 30.92 5/10/2014_10:08 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 24.3 15.5 NaN 24.3 0.957 10.0 19.9 31.3 464.0 0.719 3.40 7.516 0.452 8.31 11.556 18.12 5/10/2014_10:07 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 25.7 13.9 NaN 25.7 1.012 9.9 19.8 31.1 519.0 0.804 4.00 8.891 0.450 6.14 7.633 14.13 5/10/2014_10:06 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 25.6 10.5 NaN 25.6 1.008 9.0 18.1 28.4 514.9 0.798 1.90 8.788 0.216 13.83 17.328 42.26 5/10/2014_10:06 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 23.5 18.2 NaN 23.5 0.925 10.4 20.9 32.8 433.9 0.673 3.60 6.798 0.530 7.33 10.899 14.09 5/10/2014_10:06 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 20.3 16.5 NaN 20.3 0.799 9.2 18.4 28.9 323.8 0.502 3.80 4.382 0.867 14.91 29.709 36.56 5/10/2014_10:06 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 17.2 11.6 NaN 17.2 0.677 7.2 14.4 22.6 232.4 0.360 2.00 2.665 0.750 6.25 17.347 25.74 5/10/2014_10:04 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 23.9 11.3 NaN 23.9 0.941 8.8 17.6 27.7 448.8 0.696 2.40 7.151 0.336 10.69 15.367 32.51 5/10/2014_10:03 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 22.8 11.7 NaN 22.8 0.898 8.6 17.3 27.1 408.4 0.633 3.60 6.208 0.580 16.75 26.457 51.58 5/10/2014_10:03 PM Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 21.65 15.7 NaN 21.65 0.852 9.3 18.7 29.3 368.3 0.571 2.80 5.316 0.527 12.42 21.757 30.02 5/10/2014_10:02 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 21.5 21.5 NaN 21.5 0.846 10.8 21.5 33.8 363.2 0.563 3.60 5.206 0.692 10.04 17.834 20.62 5/10/2014_10:02 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 19.1 8.05 NaN 19.1 0.752 6.8 13.6 21.3 286.6 0.444 1.40 3.650 0.384 0.84 1.891 4.50 5/10/2014_10:02 PM T2 2B5 T2 2 -96.6061 37.67225 17.4 11.5 NaN 17.4 0.685 7.2 14.5 22.7 237.9 0.369 2.00 2.759 0.725 0.30 0.814 1.24 5/10/2014_10:01 PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 73 51.5 21.1 73 2.874 24.3 48.5 76.3 4187.1 6.490 34.80 203.771 0.171 45.85 7.065 6.12 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_9:55 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 70.2 39.8 24.8 70.2 2.764 22.5 44.9 70.6 3872.0 6.002 34.30 181.211 0.189 78.44 13.069 9.26 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_9:50 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B1 T1 3 -100.518 32.4499 19.6 17.9 3.2 19.6 0.772 6.8 13.6 21.3 301.8 0.468 0.80 3.944 0.203 18.99 40.590 62.21 Scanner Stone4/1/2017_9:30 PM 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 38.6 32.2 17.7 38.6 1.520 14.8 29.5 46.4 1170.7 1.815 10.60 30.126 0.352 43.77 24.124 13.16 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_6:40 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 47.5 32.8 24.6 47.5 1.870 17.5 35.0 54.9 1772.8 2.748 15.90 56.138 0.283 52.52 19.115 9.24 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_6:35 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 57.7 26.6 19.6 57.7 2.272 17.3 34.6 54.4 2615.9 4.055 10.20 100.624 0.101 53.83 13.277 9.78 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_6:32 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 44 42.2 20.8 44 1.732 17.8 35.7 56.0 1521.1 2.358 13.40 44.620 0.300 51.02 21.637 11.45 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_6:27 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 54.3 31.3 19.3 54.3 2.138 17.5 35.0 54.9 2316.7 3.591 11.80 83.863 0.141 66.10 18.408 12.96 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_6:23 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 60.4 22.1 19.9 60.4 2.378 17.1 34.1 53.6 2866.4 4.443 9.50 115.421 0.082 24.36 5.484 4.16 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_6:18 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 30.2 29.3 14.8 30.2 1.189 12.4 24.8 38.9 716.6 1.111 7.20 14.428 0.499 33.72 30.355 15.50 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_6:13 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 49.6 38 19.1 49.6 1.953 17.8 35.6 55.9 1933.0 2.996 12.70 63.917 0.199 40.76 13.603 8.84 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_6:09 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 40.4 34.6 19.1 40.4 1.591 15.7 31.4 49.3 1282.4 1.988 12.50 34.540 0.362 68.11 34.266 18.14 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_6:06 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 47.7 45.6 26.3 47.7 1.878 19.9 39.9 62.6 1787.7 2.771 16.70 56.850 0.294 37.74 13.620 6.18 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_6:01 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 35.5 29.4 15 35.5 1.398 13.3 26.6 41.9 990.2 1.535 7.30 23.435 0.312 42.37 27.603 16.35 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_5:52 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 36.7 41.5 20.8 41.5 1.634 16.5 33.0 51.9 1353.2 2.097 14.80 37.438 0.395 45.58 21.733 12.27 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_5:48 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 46.8 37.1 26.9 46.8 1.843 18.5 36.9 58.0 1720.9 2.667 19.20 53.692 0.358 73.04 27.383 11.92 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_5:41 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 46.6 28.2 23.7 46.6 1.835 16.4 32.8 51.6 1706.2 2.645 7.20 53.007 0.136 34.32 12.977 6.38 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_5:37 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 49.7 37.4 25.2 49.7 1.957 18.7 37.4 58.8 1940.8 3.008 19.60 64.305 0.305 98.48 32.739 16.16 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_5:27 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 42.9 37.3 19.5 42.9 1.689 16.6 33.2 52.2 1446.0 2.241 15.20 41.357 0.368 57.05 25.453 14.01 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_5:21 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stoneSupercell 3A1 T1 3 -100.44 32.4674 46.2 37 24.3 46.2 1.819 17.9 35.8 56.3 1677.1 2.599 15.00 51.653 0.290 48.80 18.774 8.93 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_5:17 Clear ice lobe shapes: PM scanner stone 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 37.7 33.4 11.3 37.7 1.484 13.7 27.5 43.2 1116.7 1.731 8.60 28.067 0.306 24.53 14.172 11.83 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_11:20 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 45.9 31.6 24.5 45.9 1.807 17.0 34.0 53.4 1655.4 2.566 17.30 50.654 0.342 38.91 15.166 7.11 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_11:11 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 42.5 35.2 19.5 42.5 1.673 16.2 32.4 50.9 1419.2 2.200 13.10 40.211 0.326 36.10 16.409 8.95 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_11:08 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 45.2 37.3 28.3 45.2 1.780 18.5 36.9 58.0 1605.2 2.488 19.10 48.371 0.395 64.86 26.068 10.42 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_11:04 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 43.4 40.1 13 43.4 1.709 16.1 32.2 50.5 1479.9 2.294 14.00 42.820 0.327 67.58 29.458 24.61 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_11:01 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 55.5 46.3 12 55.5 2.185 19.0 37.9 59.6 2420.2 3.751 16.80 89.547 0.188 18.80 5.011 5.80 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_10:57 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 48.6 42.9 18.2 48.6 1.913 18.3 36.6 57.5 1855.8 2.877 17.60 60.129 0.293 54.00 18.772 12.54 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_10:54 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 55.7 47 16.5 55.7 2.193 19.9 39.7 62.4 2437.7 3.778 26.10 90.519 0.288 43.53 11.521 9.73 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_10:49 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 62.7 54.7 21.5 62.7 2.469 23.2 46.3 72.8 3088.9 4.788 38.30 129.115 0.297 105.19 21.970 16.03 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_10:46 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 55.5 50.3 10 55.5 2.185 19.3 38.6 60.7 2420.2 3.751 19.80 89.547 0.221 54.00 14.394 19.99 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_10:41 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 53.5 48.2 25.8 53.5 2.106 21.3 42.5 66.8 2248.9 3.486 32.00 80.211 0.399 129.53 37.158 19.28 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_10:38 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 53.1 38 27.8 53.1 2.091 19.8 39.6 62.3 2215.4 3.434 28.20 78.425 0.360 93.92 27.352 13.07 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_10:33 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 51.9 40.2 20.8 51.9 2.043 18.8 37.6 59.1 2116.4 3.280 26.50 73.228 0.362 105.59 32.188 20.10 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_10:29 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 52.2 43.6 33.1 52.2 2.055 21.5 43.0 67.5 2140.9 3.318 35.10 74.505 0.471 108.21 32.607 12.87 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_10:24 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 56.8 44.9 20.7 56.8 2.236 20.4 40.8 64.1 2534.9 3.929 31.30 95.988 0.326 84.67 21.550 14.80 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_10:19 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 63.8 54.8 23.6 63.8 2.512 23.7 47.4 74.5 3198.2 4.957 37.60 136.030 0.276 60.74 12.252 8.29 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_10:14 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 57 42 29.9 57 2.244 21.5 43.0 67.5 2552.8 3.957 42.40 97.006 0.437 95.03 24.017 11.46 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_10:09 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 67.1 59.6 31.5 67.1 2.642 26.4 52.7 82.9 3537.6 5.483 54.20 158.249 0.342 96.64 17.624 9.39 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_10:05 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 3B2 T1 3 -100.389 32.488 62.6 37.1 25.4 62.6 2.465 20.9 41.7 65.5 3079.0 4.772 29.20 128.498 0.227 29.16 6.109 3.77 Bias -6 lbs.4/1/2017_10:00 : scanner stoneSupercell PM 7B2 T1 7 -104.578 41.36455 43.6 43.6 43.6 1.717 21.8 43.6 68.5 1493.6 2.315 19.30 43.414 0.445 59.62 25.753 33.26 6/7/2012 21:58 7B2 T1 7 -104.578 41.36455 36.7 24 36.7 1.445 15.2 30.4 47.7 1058.3 1.640 13.90 25.892 0.537 81.52 49.698 76.09 6/7/2012 21:58 7B2 T1 7 -104.578 41.36455 38.7 38.7 38.7 1.524 19.4 38.7 60.8 1176.8 1.824 16.30 30.360 0.537 117.91 64.644 90.10 6/7/2012 21:57 7B2 T1 7 -104.578 41.36455 37.7 25.4 37.7 1.484 15.8 31.6 49.6 1116.7 1.731 14.30 28.067 0.509 115.10 66.496 98.82 6/7/2012 21:57 7B2 T1 7 -104.578 41.36455 38 29.3 38 1.496 16.8 33.7 52.9 1134.6 1.759 20.40 28.742 0.710 72.84 41.420 53.78 6/7/2012 21:56 7B2 T1 7 -104.578 41.36455 40.3 29.5 40.3 1.587 17.5 34.9 54.8 1276.1 1.978 18.00 34.284 0.525 39.26 19.849 27.15 6/7/2012 21:55 7B2 T1 7 -104.578 41.36456 37.4 26.6 37.4 1.472 16.0 32.0 50.3 1099.0 1.703 19.10 27.402 0.697 93.42 54.840 77.20 6/7/2012 21:55 7B2 T1 7 -104.578 41.36456 41.6 21.4 41.6 1.638 15.8 31.5 49.5 1359.7 2.108 25.10 37.710 0.666 148.44 70.432 93.43 6/7/2012 21:54 7B2 T1 7 -104.578 41.36457 44.4 29.7 44.4 1.748 18.5 37.1 58.2 1548.9 2.401 31.40 45.848 0.685 163.59 68.139 101.99 6/7/2012 21:53 7B2 T1 7 -104.578 41.36457 36.2 23.3 36.2 1.425 14.9 29.8 46.8 1029.6 1.596 14.90 24.848 0.600 116.83 73.205 113.88 6/7/2012 21:53 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 37.2 27.6 37.2 1.465 16.2 32.4 50.9 1087.3 1.685 18.80 26.965 0.697 79.99 47.463 64.05 6/7/2012 21:46 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 40.8 28.4 40.8 1.606 17.3 34.6 54.4 1307.9 2.027 19.60 35.576 0.551 53.77 26.523 38.15 6/7/2012 21:45 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 43.4 20.2 43.4 1.709 15.9 31.8 50.0 1479.9 2.294 16.20 42.820 0.378 96.68 42.146 90.66 6/7/2012 21:44 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 54 24.7 54 2.126 19.7 39.4 61.8 2291.1 3.551 24.10 82.481 0.292 112.48 31.673 69.33 6/7/2012 21:43 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35984 47.3 22 47.3 1.862 17.3 34.7 54.5 1757.9 2.725 22.30 55.432 0.402 141.51 51.936 109.32 6/7/2012 21:42 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 41.3 33 41.3 1.626 18.6 37.2 58.4 1340.2 2.077 31.40 36.900 0.851 122.21 58.831 73.72 6/7/2012 21:41 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 40.4 24.3 40.4 1.591 16.2 32.4 50.8 1282.4 1.988 23.20 34.540 0.672 99.05 49.830 82.95 6/7/2012 21:41 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 44.3 44.1 44.3 1.744 22.1 44.2 69.5 1542.0 2.390 40.20 45.539 0.883 156.64 65.539 65.92 6/7/2012 21:40 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 52.1 52.1 52.1 2.051 26.1 52.1 81.9 2132.8 3.306 32.60 74.078 0.440 237.48 71.838 95.11 6/7/2012 21:39 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 39.6 31 39.6 1.559 17.7 35.3 55.5 1232.1 1.910 26.30 32.528 0.809 114.86 60.142 76.92 6/7/2012 21:39 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 41.8 33.4 41.8 1.646 18.8 37.6 59.1 1372.8 2.128 27.90 38.256 0.729 180.50 84.826 106.29 6/7/2012 21:38 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35984 28.2 27.6 28.2 1.110 14.0 27.9 43.8 624.8 0.968 11.00 11.747 0.936 47.72 49.273 50.41 6/7/2012 21:35 Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35984 30.6 18.2 30.6 1.205 12.2 24.4 38.3 735.7 1.140 9.20 15.009 0.613 35.81 31.403 52.86 6/7/2012 21:34 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35984 30.1 22.4 30.1 1.185 13.1 26.3 41.3 711.9 1.103 10.10 14.285 0.707 60.72 55.030 74.04 6/7/2012 21:34 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 37.5 22.3 37.5 1.476 15.0 29.9 47.0 1104.9 1.713 19.40 27.623 0.702 57.45 33.545 56.48 6/7/2012 21:33 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35984 29.6 18 29.6 1.165 11.9 23.8 37.4 688.4 1.067 8.20 13.585 0.604 35.60 33.363 54.02 6/7/2012 21:33 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35984 43.7 26 43.7 1.720 17.4 34.9 54.8 1500.5 2.326 19.30 43.714 0.442 116.60 50.135 84.37 6/7/2012 21:32 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 36.5 30.6 36.5 1.437 16.8 33.6 52.7 1046.8 1.622 21.30 25.471 0.836 64.82 39.951 47.71 6/7/2012 21:32 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 32.6 32.2 32.6 1.283 16.2 32.4 50.9 835.0 1.294 16.80 18.148 0.926 66.13 51.094 51.79 6/7/2012 21:31 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35984 37.7 30.35 37.7 1.484 17.0 34.0 53.5 1116.7 1.731 24.10 28.067 0.859 81.06 46.830 58.24 6/7/2012 21:30 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 34.7 21.4 34.7 1.366 14.0 28.1 44.1 946.1 1.466 11.30 21.886 0.516 80.87 55.148 89.54 6/7/2012 21:29 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35985 36.3 32.8 36.3 1.429 17.3 34.6 54.3 1035.3 1.605 20.30 25.055 0.810 146.29 91.160 101.01 6/7/2012 21:28 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35984 34.4 25.3 34.4 1.354 14.9 29.9 46.9 929.8 1.441 14.40 21.323 0.675 46.85 32.508 44.25 6/7/2012 21:28 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35983 34.8 21.2 34.8 1.370 14.0 28.0 44.0 951.5 1.475 15.40 22.076 0.698 94.51 64.080 105.32 6/7/2012 21:27 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35984 38.4 24.6 38.4 1.512 15.8 31.5 49.5 1158.6 1.796 15.90 29.660 0.536 60.28 33.567 52.46 6/7/2012 21:26 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35984 32.35 30.3 32.35 1.274 15.7 31.3 49.2 822.3 1.275 16.60 17.734 0.936 50.96 39.984 42.74 6/7/2012 21:26 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35984 38.5 24.7 38.5 1.516 15.8 31.6 49.7 1164.6 1.805 20.00 29.892 0.669 80.85 44.788 69.90 6/7/2012 21:25 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35983 31.4 20.3 31.4 1.236 12.9 25.9 40.6 774.7 1.201 8.50 16.217 0.524 66.58 55.448 85.87 6/7/2012 21:25 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 41.35983 32.7 18.75 32.7 1.287 12.9 25.7 40.4 840.2 1.302 9.60 18.315 0.524 72.64 55.781 97.41 6/7/2012 21:24 7B1 T1 7 -104.592 3 38.8 29.6 38.8 1.528 17.1 34.2 53.7 1182.8 1.833 22.10 30.596 0.722 107.72 58.754 77.11 6/7/2012 21:23 7A1 T1 7 -104.615 41.35224 34.2 15.2 34.2 1.346 12.4 24.7 38.8 919.0 1.424 7.30 20.953 0.348 109.48 76.857 173.15 6/7/2012 21:14 7A1 T1 7 -104.615 41.35223 36.5 22 36.5 1.437 14.6 29.3 46.0 1046.8 1.622 9.50 25.471 0.373 94.09 57.991 96.33 6/7/2012 21:13 7A1 T1 7 -104.615 41.35223 31.2 23 31.2 1.228 13.6 27.1 42.6 764.8 1.186 12.70 15.909 0.798 82.39 69.497 94.39 6/7/2012 21:13 7A1 T1 7 -104.615 41.35223 30.8 20.4 30.8 1.213 12.8 25.6 40.2 745.4 1.155 8.00 15.305 0.523 14.15 12.248 18.51 6/7/2012 21:12 7A1 T1 7 -104.615 41.35223 25.5 18.4 25.5 1.004 11.0 22.0 34.5 510.9 0.792 6.40 8.685 0.737 42.53 53.705 74.53 6/7/2012 21:12 7A1 T1 7 -104.615 41.35224 34.3 26.3 34.3 1.350 15.2 30.3 47.6 924.4 1.433 18.10 21.138 0.856 40.56 28.308 36.96 6/7/2012 21:10 7A1 T1 7 -104.615 41.35223 27.2 22.1 27.2 1.071 12.3 24.7 38.7 581.3 0.901 9.90 10.541 0.939 53.57 59.455 73.27 6/7/2012 21:10 7A1 T1 7 -104.615 41.35224 30.5 25.3 30.5 1.201 14.0 27.9 43.8 730.9 1.133 11.30 14.862 0.760 67.44 59.528 71.85 6/7/2012 21:09 7A1 T1 7 -104.615 41.35224 21.1 15.25 21.1 0.831 9.1 18.2 28.6 349.8 0.542 4.00 4.921 0.813 22.60 41.682 57.75 6/7/2012 21:08 7A1 T1 7 -104.615 41.35224 28.1 21.7 28.1 1.106 12.5 24.9 39.1 620.4 0.962 7.20 11.622 0.619 37.33 38.819 50.33 6/7/2012 21:07 7A1 T1 7 -104.615 41.35225 27.3 21 27.3 1.075 12.1 24.2 38.0 585.6 0.908 6.90 10.658 0.647 50.98 56.166 73.11 6/7/2012 21:07 7A1 T1 7 -104.615 41.35225 24.1 18 24.1 0.949 10.5 21.1 33.1 456.4 0.707 5.90 7.332 0.805 33.22 46.964 62.95 6/7/2012 21:06 7A1 T1 7 -104.615 41.35225 23 14.1 23 0.906 9.3 18.6 29.2 415.6 0.644 3.90 6.373 0.612 158.67 246.287 402.25 6/7/2012 21:06 7A1 T1 7 -104.696 41.3211 37.5 36.6 37.5 1.476 18.5 37.1 58.2 1104.9 1.713 21.60 27.623 0.782 50.73 29.621 30.39 6/7/2012 20:55 7A1 T1 7 -104.696 41.3211 33.2 29.5 33.2 1.307 15.7 31.4 49.3 866.0 1.342 15.50 19.168 0.809 73.06 54.426 61.33 6/7/2012 20:54 7A1 T1 7 -104.696 41.3211 32.6 24.6 32.6 1.283 14.3 28.6 44.9 835.0 1.294 12.60 18.148 0.694 80.22 61.980 82.24 6/7/2012 20:52 7A1 T1 7 -104.696 41.3211 30.1 30.1 30.1 1.185 15.1 30.1 47.3 711.9 1.103 12.70 14.285 0.889 99.07 89.787 92.99 6/7/2012 20:52 7A1 T1 7 -104.696 41.3211 35 30.4 35 1.378 16.4 32.7 51.4 962.5 1.492 17.70 22.458 0.788 77.39 51.874 59.80 6/7/2012 20:51 7A1 T1 7 -104.696 41.3211 30.2 28.6 30.2 1.189 14.7 29.4 46.2 716.6 1.111 12.00 14.428 0.832 41.87 37.696 39.85 6/7/2012 20:50 6A3 T1 6 -104.696 41.32109 37.7 28.2 37.7 1.484 16.5 33.0 51.8 1116.7 1.731 17.10 28.067 0.609 61.58 35.576 47.62 6/7/2012 20:49 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05777 29.9 20.3 29.9 1.177 12.6 25.1 39.4 702.4 1.089 6.60 14.002 0.471 25.85 23.742 35.01 6/6/2012 20:03 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05778 26.3 22.2 26.3 1.035 12.1 24.3 38.1 543.5 0.842 7.20 9.529 0.756 20.65 24.514 29.07 6/6/2012 20:02 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05778 24.6 18.5 24.6 0.969 10.8 21.6 33.9 475.5 0.737 6.50 7.798 0.834 43.62 59.186 78.79 6/6/2012 20:02 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05776 25.6 25.6 25.6 1.008 12.8 25.6 40.2 514.9 0.798 7.20 8.788 0.819 25.41 31.837 33.45 6/6/2012 20:01 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05777 24.3 22.5 24.3 0.957 11.7 23.4 36.8 464.0 0.719 6.30 7.516 0.838 26.93 37.448 40.50 6/6/2012 20:01 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05776 27.7 21.3 27.7 1.091 12.3 24.5 38.5 602.9 0.934 8.90 11.133 0.799 15.66 16.758 21.82 6/6/2012 20:00 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05777 26 22.7 26 1.024 12.2 24.4 38.3 531.1 0.823 5.70 9.206 0.619 19.78 24.026 27.56 6/6/2012 20:00 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05776 39.8 39.8 39.8 1.567 19.9 39.8 62.5 1244.6 1.929 14.30 33.023 0.433 29.95 15.525 20.94 6/6/2012 19:59 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05775 27.7 19.25 27.7 1.091 11.7 23.5 36.9 602.9 0.934 6.10 11.133 0.548 23.90 25.577 36.85 6/6/2012 19:58 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05775 27.5 19.45 27.5 1.083 11.7 23.5 36.9 594.2 0.921 6.70 10.894 0.615 41.88 45.472 64.38 6/6/2012 19:58 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05775 25.5 24.3 25.5 1.004 12.5 24.9 39.1 510.9 0.792 7.20 8.685 0.829 38.41 48.503 50.97 6/6/2012 19:57 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05775 25.5 24.2 25.5 1.004 12.4 24.9 39.1 510.9 0.792 7.70 8.685 0.887 8.73 11.024 11.63 6/6/2012 19:57 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05774 27.3 23.2 27.3 1.075 12.6 25.3 39.7 585.6 0.908 8.40 10.658 0.788 26.93 29.670 34.95 6/6/2012 19:56 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05773 29.1 29.1 29.1 1.146 14.6 29.1 45.7 665.4 1.031 8.40 12.908 0.651 7.86 7.621 8.64 6/6/2012 19:55 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05773 28.7 28.7 28.7 1.130 14.4 28.7 45.1 647.2 1.003 10.40 12.383 0.840 19.77 19.708 20.60 6/6/2012 19:55 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05773 32.3 29.15 32.3 1.272 15.4 30.7 48.3 819.7 1.271 13.50 17.651 0.765 19.98 15.725 17.45 6/6/2012 19:54 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05773 30.6 25.4 30.6 1.205 14.0 28.0 44.0 735.7 1.140 11.10 15.009 0.740 36.24 31.780 38.33 6/6/2012 19:54 6A2 T1 6 -104.541 41.05774 32 16.5 32 1.260 12.1 24.3 38.1 804.6 1.247 7.70 17.164 0.449 13.06 10.472 20.34 6/6/2012 19:53 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05766 29.05 25.2 29.05 1.144 13.6 27.1 42.6 663.1 1.028 9.70 12.841 0.755 13.93 13.554 15.64 6/6/2012 19:46 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05766 24.3 16.3 24.3 0.957 10.2 20.3 31.9 464.0 0.719 5.00 7.516 0.665 17.62 24.502 36.57 6/6/2012 19:45 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05766 17.7 15.1 17.7 0.697 8.2 16.4 25.8 246.2 0.382 2.20 2.905 0.757 8.96 23.484 27.56 6/6/2012 19:44 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05766 12.6 12.3 12.6 0.496 6.2 12.5 19.6 124.7 0.193 0.80 1.048 0.763 13.08 67.650 695.94 6/6/2012 19:44 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05766 20.4 20.4 20.4 0.803 10.2 20.4 32.1 327.0 0.507 3.20 4.447 0.720 11.56 22.809 27.24 6/6/2012 19:43 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05766 30.7 17 30.7 1.209 11.9 23.9 37.5 740.5 1.148 6.20 15.156 0.409 15.23 13.269 24.00 6/6/2012 19:42 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05767 20.3 20.3 20.3 0.799 10.2 20.3 31.9 323.8 0.502 3.00 4.382 0.685 8.31 16.558 16.57 6/6/2012 19:42 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05766 26.4 26.4 26.4 1.039 13.2 26.4 41.5 547.6 0.849 4.20 9.638 0.436 28.02 33.011 47.42 6/6/2012 19:41 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05766 22.5 16.65 22.5 0.886 9.8 19.6 30.8 397.8 0.617 3.30 5.967 0.553 12.64 20.501 27.74 6/6/2012 19:41 Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05766 22 17.3 22 0.866 9.8 19.7 30.9 380.3 0.589 2.80 5.578 0.502 13.29 22.547 28.71 6/6/2012 19:40 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05766 21 17.2 21 0.827 9.6 19.1 30.0 346.5 0.537 3.60 4.851 0.742 9.39 17.484 21.37 6/6/2012 19:40 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05766 27 18.2 27 1.063 11.3 22.6 35.5 572.8 0.888 5.30 10.310 0.514 15.02 16.918 25.13 6/6/2012 19:39 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05767 26.6 18.4 26.6 1.047 11.3 22.5 35.4 555.9 0.862 5.60 9.859 0.568 11.33 13.148 19.04 6/6/2012 19:39 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05767 26.5 20.3 26.5 1.043 11.7 23.4 36.8 551.8 0.855 8.90 9.748 0.913 15.23 17.808 23.27 6/6/2012 19:38 6A1 T1 6 -104.519 41.05767 24.2 17.4 24.2 0.953 10.4 20.8 32.7 460.1 0.713 4.10 7.424 0.552 14.15 19.839 27.64 6/6/2012 19:38 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 13.2 11.1 13.2 0.520 6.1 12.2 19.1 136.9 0.212 1.20 1.205 0.996 7.01 33.035 39.34 6/2/2012 20:27 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 13.2 5.3 13.2 0.520 4.6 9.3 14.5 136.9 0.212 0.50 1.205 0.415 9.40 44.298 110.41 6/2/2012 20:27 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 17.45 12.3 17.45 0.687 7.4 14.9 23.4 239.3 0.371 1.80 2.783 0.647 17.84 48.107 68.34 6/2/2012 20:25 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 16.1 14.75 16.1 0.634 7.7 15.4 24.2 203.7 0.316 2.10 2.186 0.961 21.96 69.564 76.02 6/2/2012 20:25 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 17.4 17.4 17.4 0.685 8.7 17.4 27.3 237.9 0.369 2.70 2.759 0.978 11.12 30.158 31.76 6/2/2012 20:24 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 16.1 5.5 16.1 0.634 5.4 10.8 17.0 203.7 0.316 0.90 2.186 0.412 7.23 22.903 67.11 6/2/2012 20:24 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 18.5 12.5 18.5 0.728 7.8 15.5 24.4 268.9 0.417 2.20 3.317 0.663 18.49 44.360 65.74 6/2/2012 20:22 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 17.4 13.3 17.4 0.685 7.7 15.4 24.1 237.9 0.369 2.60 2.759 0.942 10.26 27.826 36.44 6/2/2012 20:22 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 18.6 9.6 18.6 0.732 7.1 14.1 22.2 271.8 0.421 1.80 3.371 0.534 16.98 40.301 78.16 6/2/2012 20:21 5A1 T1 5 102.796 38.47959 20.1 13.4 20.1 0.791 8.4 16.8 26.3 317.4 0.492 2.90 4.254 0.682 15.67 31.848 47.84 6/2/2012 20:19 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 17.4 10.6 17.4 0.685 7.0 14.0 22.0 237.9 0.369 1.10 2.759 0.399 10.69 28.992 47.67 6/2/2012 20:18 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 20.5 16.1 20.5 0.807 9.2 18.3 28.8 330.2 0.512 2.40 4.513 0.532 18.27 35.697 45.52 6/2/2012 20:17 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 29.4 12.1 29.4 1.157 10.4 20.8 32.6 679.1 1.053 3.90 13.311 0.293 24.34 23.122 56.25 6/2/2012 20:16 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 26.5 17.5 26.5 1.043 11.0 22.0 34.6 551.8 0.855 4.70 9.748 0.482 15.24 17.820 27.01 6/2/2012 20:16 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 20.3 14.4 20.3 0.799 8.7 17.4 27.3 323.8 0.502 2.60 4.382 0.593 20.22 40.289 56.88 6/2/2012 20:15 5A1 T1 5 -102.796 38.47959 33.25 14.45 33.25 1.309 11.9 23.9 37.5 868.7 1.346 7.00 19.255 0.364 34.08 25.312 58.32 6/2/2012 20:14 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66323 19.3 15.4 19.3 0.760 8.7 17.4 27.3 292.7 0.454 2.20 3.766 0.584 16.76 36.946 46.36 6/1/2012 20:48 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 26.7 17.6 26.7 1.051 11.1 22.2 34.8 560.1 0.868 5.70 9.970 0.572 15.88 18.291 27.79 6/1/2012 20:47 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66323 22.3 14.1 22.3 0.878 9.1 18.2 28.6 390.7 0.606 2.90 5.809 0.499 11.56 19.088 30.22 6/1/2012 20:47 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 25.4 9 25.4 1.000 8.6 17.2 27.0 506.9 0.786 2.30 8.584 0.268 70.06 89.167 251.96 6/1/2012 20:46 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 18 2.6 18 0.709 5.2 10.3 16.2 254.6 0.395 1.20 3.055 0.393 15.03 38.091 90.31 6/1/2012 20:46 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 20.8 7.2 20.8 0.819 7.0 14.0 22.0 339.9 0.527 1.20 4.714 0.255 89.56 169.977 491.66 6/1/2012 20:45 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 21.6 18.5 21.6 0.850 10.0 20.1 31.5 366.6 0.568 4.00 5.279 0.758 21.74 38.261 44.72 6/1/2012 20:44 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 24 22.7 24 0.945 11.7 23.4 36.7 452.6 0.701 5.00 7.241 0.690 15.45 22.025 23.32 6/1/2012 20:43 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 25.5 25.5 25.5 1.004 12.8 25.5 40.1 510.9 0.792 3.40 8.685 0.391 47.09 59.464 87.25 6/1/2012 20:42 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 20.5 14.4 20.5 0.807 8.7 17.5 27.4 330.2 0.512 3.30 4.513 0.731 22.61 44.177 62.96 6/1/2012 20:42 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 24.2 21.7 24.2 0.953 11.5 23.0 36.1 460.1 0.713 5.00 7.424 0.674 31.49 44.151 49.29 6/1/2012 20:41 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66323 19.6 17.3 19.6 0.772 9.2 18.5 29.0 301.8 0.468 2.90 3.944 0.735 12.86 27.487 31.17 6/1/2012 20:40 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 25.2 8.3 25.2 0.992 8.4 16.8 26.3 499.0 0.773 2.30 8.383 0.274 26.07 33.709 102.49 6/1/2012 20:39 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 23.4 17.3 23.4 0.921 10.2 20.4 32.0 430.2 0.667 4.90 6.712 0.730 15.45 23.169 31.38 6/1/2012 20:39 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 31.15 16 31.15 1.226 11.8 23.6 37.0 762.4 1.182 5.90 15.832 0.373 37.98 32.140 62.66 6/1/2012 20:36 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 23.6 13.3 23.6 0.929 9.2 18.5 29.0 437.6 0.678 3.80 6.885 0.552 61.82 91.140 161.93 6/1/2012 20:36 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66323 13.5 9.4 13.5 0.531 5.7 11.5 18.0 143.2 0.222 0.70 1.289 0.543 16.76 75.511 108.59 6/1/2012 20:33 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 12.15 7.4 12.15 0.478 4.9 9.8 15.4 116.0 0.180 0.60 0.940 0.639 17.63 98.062 161.20 6/1/2012 20:32 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 16.7 14.4 16.7 0.657 7.8 15.6 24.4 219.1 0.340 2.00 2.440 0.820 20.88 61.475 71.37 6/1/2012 20:31 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 15.6 11.15 15.6 0.614 6.7 13.4 21.0 191.2 0.296 1.30 1.989 0.654 21.74 73.352 102.77 6/1/2012 20:31 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.6632 16.2 9.7 16.2 0.638 6.5 13.0 20.4 206.2 0.320 1.30 2.227 0.584 29.98 93.800 156.84 6/1/2012 20:30 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66319 24.45 20.5 24.45 0.963 11.2 22.5 35.3 469.7 0.728 5.90 7.656 0.771 20.00 27.471 32.81 6/1/2012 20:29 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.6632 19.1 16.8 19.1 0.752 9.0 18.0 28.2 286.6 0.444 2.40 3.650 0.658 13.29 29.913 34.05 6/1/2012 20:29 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.6632 21.6 21.6 21.6 0.850 10.8 21.6 33.9 366.6 0.568 2.90 5.279 0.549 20.01 35.216 44.53 6/1/2012 20:28 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 15 10.3 15 0.591 6.3 12.7 19.9 176.8 0.274 1.10 1.768 0.622 23.69 86.454 126.08 6/1/2012 20:28 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.6632 19.6 19.6 19.6 0.772 9.8 19.6 30.8 301.8 0.468 1.60 3.944 0.406 25.43 54.355 72.55 6/1/2012 20:27 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.6632 19.4 19.4 19.4 0.764 9.7 19.4 30.5 295.7 0.458 1.60 3.825 0.418 33.66 73.437 106.45 6/1/2012 20:26 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 17.3 14.25 17.3 0.681 7.9 15.8 24.8 235.2 0.364 2.00 2.712 0.737 39.29 107.794 131.04 6/1/2012 20:26 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 25.3 14.55 25.3 0.996 10.0 19.9 31.3 502.9 0.780 3.60 8.483 0.424 43.62 55.956 97.42 6/1/2012 20:25 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 15 15 15 0.591 7.5 15.0 23.6 176.8 0.274 1.30 1.768 0.735 43.84 159.989 163.47 6/1/2012 20:24 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 14.2 14.2 14.2 0.559 7.1 14.2 22.3 158.4 0.246 1.00 1.500 0.667 41.89 170.583 202.13 6/1/2012 20:23 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 27.7 27.7 27.7 1.091 13.9 27.7 43.5 602.9 0.934 4.90 11.133 0.440 76.34 81.695 106.62 6/1/2012 20:22 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 21.85 14.4 21.85 0.860 9.1 18.1 28.5 375.1 0.581 2.40 5.464 0.439 26.51 45.594 69.26 6/1/2012 20:22 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 18.7 17 18.7 0.736 8.9 17.9 28.1 274.8 0.426 3.00 3.425 0.876 27.81 65.301 71.91 6/1/2012 20:21 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 25.5 8.3 25.5 1.004 8.5 16.9 26.6 510.9 0.792 1.10 8.685 0.127 24.99 31.556 97.09 6/1/2012 20:20 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 16.6 15.6 16.6 0.654 8.1 16.1 25.3 216.5 0.336 2.30 2.396 0.960 33.66 100.300 106.86 6/1/2012 20:20 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 23.4 16.6 23.4 0.921 10.0 20.0 31.4 430.2 0.667 4.30 6.712 0.641 62.47 93.679 132.22 6/1/2012 20:19 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 18.7 11.4 18.7 0.736 7.5 15.1 23.7 274.8 0.426 2.60 3.425 0.759 80.24 188.413 309.45 6/1/2012 20:18 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 18.1 18.1 18.1 0.713 9.1 18.1 28.4 257.4 0.399 2.40 3.106 0.773 21.96 55.040 61.76 6/1/2012 20:18 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 27.3 18.1 27.3 1.075 11.4 22.7 35.7 585.6 0.908 5.40 10.658 0.507 366.89 404.216 610.43 6/1/2012 20:17 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 22.3 16.5 22.3 0.878 9.7 19.4 30.5 390.7 0.606 5.30 5.809 0.912 52.94 87.413 118.28 6/1/2012 20:16 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 24.2 17.45 24.2 0.953 10.4 20.8 32.7 460.1 0.713 5.00 7.424 0.674 71.35 100.038 138.91 6/1/2012 20:15 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 20.7 20.05 20.7 0.815 10.2 20.4 32.0 336.7 0.522 1.10 4.646 0.237 32.14 61.590 63.67 6/1/2012 20:15 Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66321 21.3 13.6 21.3 0.839 8.7 17.5 27.4 356.5 0.553 2.90 5.062 0.573 154.12 278.935 437.42 6/1/2012 20:14 4A1 T1 4 -102.591 35.66322 29.7 23.5 29.7 1.169 13.3 26.6 41.8 693.1 1.074 9.70 13.723 0.707 43.39 40.391 51.11 6/1/2012 20:13 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.7338 23.8 14.6 23.8 0.937 9.6 19.2 30.2 445.1 0.690 3.80 7.062 0.538 25.04 36.298 59.26 5/29/2012 23:12 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73346 16 6 16 0.630 5.5 11.0 17.3 201.1 0.312 1.56 2.146 0.727 73.31 235.140 627.82 5/29/2012 23:11 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73346 26 19 26 1.024 11.3 22.5 35.4 531.1 0.823 8.36 9.206 0.908 96.48 117.191 160.56 5/29/2012 23:10 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73346 22 14.5 22 0.866 9.1 18.3 28.7 380.3 0.589 3.97 5.578 0.712 86.09 146.053 221.87 5/29/2012 23:10 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.7338 30.6 18 30.6 1.205 12.2 24.3 38.2 735.7 1.140 8.60 15.009 0.573 52.19 45.766 77.90 5/29/2012 23:09 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73347 21.4 9 21.4 0.843 7.6 15.2 23.9 359.8 0.558 3.69 5.134 0.719 62.26 111.631 265.74 5/29/2012 23:09 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73347 27 14 27 1.063 10.3 20.5 32.2 572.8 0.888 4.96 10.310 0.481 77.42 87.202 168.38 5/29/2012 23:08 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.7338 18.5 15.3 18.5 0.728 8.5 16.9 26.6 268.9 0.417 3.10 3.317 0.935 22.59 54.197 65.63 5/29/2012 23:08 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73347 15.7 8 15.7 0.618 5.9 11.9 18.6 193.7 0.300 1.70 2.027 0.839 63.56 211.732 416.04 5/29/2012 23:08 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.7338 26 20.1 26 1.024 11.5 23.1 36.2 531.1 0.823 7.30 9.206 0.793 28.05 34.071 44.13 5/29/2012 23:07 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73347 23.5 13 23.5 0.925 9.1 18.3 28.7 433.9 0.673 4.54 6.798 0.668 54.67 81.286 147.12 5/29/2012 23:07 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73347 16.3 10 16.3 0.642 6.6 13.2 20.7 208.8 0.324 1.98 2.268 0.873 48.83 150.909 246.27 5/29/2012 23:07 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73347 27 27 27 1.063 13.5 27.0 42.4 572.8 0.888 6.52 10.310 0.632 60.73 68.404 108.78 5/29/2012 23:06 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73346 27 16 27 1.063 10.8 21.5 33.8 572.8 0.888 8.50 10.310 0.824 193.98 218.490 369.16 5/29/2012 23:05 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.7338 26.4 12.8 26.4 1.039 9.8 19.6 30.8 547.6 0.849 4.80 9.638 0.498 16.18 19.062 39.36 5/29/2012 23:05 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73346 24 17.5 24 0.945 10.4 20.8 32.6 452.6 0.701 4.96 7.241 0.685 66.80 95.226 130.76 5/29/2012 23:05 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.7338 25.2 15.8 25.2 0.992 10.3 20.5 32.2 499.0 0.773 5.50 8.383 0.656 62.57 80.904 129.20 5/29/2012 23:04 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73347 25 14 25 0.984 9.8 19.5 30.6 491.1 0.761 4.82 8.185 0.589 93.67 123.062 220.03 5/29/2012 23:04 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73347 24 19 24 0.945 10.8 21.5 33.8 452.6 0.701 6.24 7.241 0.862 58.35 83.180 105.20 5/29/2012 23:04 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73347 27.4 18.3 27.4 1.079 11.4 22.9 35.9 589.9 0.914 9.78 10.775 0.908 169.93 185.854 278.61 5/29/2012 23:03 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.73347 25 17.2 25 0.984 10.6 21.1 33.2 491.1 0.761 7.80 8.185 0.953 62.68 82.348 119.84 5/29/2012 23:03 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.7338 29.7 18.1 29.7 1.169 12.0 23.9 37.6 693.1 1.074 7.60 13.723 0.554 74.64 69.480 114.14 5/29/2012 23:02 3B1 T1 3 -98.3935 35.7338 29.6 19.8 29.6 1.165 12.4 24.7 38.8 688.4 1.067 9.20 13.585 0.677 151.58 142.057 212.63 5/29/2012 23:01 3A2 T2 3 -97.9336 35.8507 23.3 10.6 23.3 0.917 8.5 17.0 26.6 426.6 0.661 3.10 6.626 0.468 83.89 126.882 279.24 5/29/2012 21:05 3A2 T2 3 -97.9336 35.8507 35.8 21.2 35.8 1.409 14.3 28.5 44.8 1007.0 1.561 16.40 24.034 0.682 76.88 49.255 83.28 5/29/2012 21:03 3A2 T2 3 -97.9336 35.8507 46.6 30 46.6 1.835 19.2 38.3 60.2 1706.2 2.645 34.20 53.007 0.645 214.32 81.039 126.04 5/29/2012 21:02 3A1 T1 3 -97.9408 35.86095 13.8 5.5 13.8 0.543 4.8 9.7 15.2 149.6 0.232 0.99 1.377 0.719 45.36 195.577 491.34 5/29/2012 21:02 3A1 T1 3 -97.9408 35.86096 22.5 11.9 22.5 0.886 8.6 17.2 27.0 397.8 0.617 2.83 5.967 0.474 46.01 74.626 141.27 5/29/2012 21:01 3A1 T1 3 -97.9408 35.86095 17.5 4 17.5 0.689 5.4 10.8 16.9 240.6 0.373 0.71 2.807 0.253 29.76 79.792 349.55 5/29/2012 21:01 3A2 T2 3 -97.9336 35.8507 22.4 13.5 22.4 0.882 9.0 18.0 28.2 394.2 0.611 4.20 5.887 0.713 18.07 29.571 49.12 5/29/2012 21:00 3A1 T1 3 -97.9408 35.86095 18 9 18 0.709 6.8 13.5 21.2 254.6 0.395 1.42 3.055 0.465 82.63 209.409 419.33 5/29/2012 21:00 3A2 T2 3 -97.9336 35.8507 17.6 12.1 17.6 0.693 7.4 14.9 23.3 243.4 0.377 1.90 2.856 0.665 7.89 20.915 30.45 5/29/2012 20:59 3A1 T1 3 -97.9408 35.86095 15.9 7 15.9 0.626 5.7 11.5 18.0 198.6 0.308 0.85 2.106 0.404 30.63 99.485 226.24 5/29/2012 20:59 3A2 T2 3 -97.9336 35.8507 62.1 56.6 62.1 2.445 29.7 59.4 93.3 3030.0 4.697 98.80 125.444 0.788 82.17 17.496 19.22 5/29/2012 20:58 3A1 T1 3 -97.9408 35.86096 17.9 13 17.9 0.705 7.7 15.5 24.3 251.8 0.390 2.27 3.004 0.756 16.11 41.285 56.91 5/29/2012 20:58 3A1 T1 3 -97.9408 35.86096 14 11.2 14 0.551 6.3 12.6 19.8 154.0 0.239 1.13 1.437 0.786 16.11 67.490 84.47 5/29/2012 20:58 3A2 T2 3 -97.9336 35.8507 77.5 38.2 77.5 3.051 28.9 57.9 90.9 4719.2 7.315 91.50 243.825 0.375 190.06 25.983 52.78 5/29/2012 20:57 3A1 T1 3 -97.9407 35.86096 26.2 17.4 26.2 1.031 10.9 21.8 34.3 539.3 0.836 8.36 9.421 0.887 299.50 358.259 540.11 5/29/2012 20:57 3A1 T1 3 -97.9408 35.86097 16.9 12.7 16.9 0.665 7.4 14.8 23.3 224.4 0.348 1.42 2.528 0.562 17.63 50.685 67.52 5/29/2012 20:57 3A2 T2 3 -97.9336 35.8507 65.2 55.4 65.2 2.567 30.2 60.3 94.8 3340.1 5.177 124.80 145.183 0.860 189.61 36.624 43.16 5/29/2012 20:56 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82163 31.8 13.7 31.8 1.252 11.4 22.8 35.8 794.5 1.232 5.95 16.844 0.353 142.42 115.643 268.76 5/28/2012 21:10 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82164 31.6 17 31.6 1.244 12.2 24.3 38.2 784.6 1.216 5.24 16.529 0.317 77.64 63.843 118.81 5/28/2012 21:09 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82163 25.5 14 25.5 1.004 9.9 19.8 31.0 510.9 0.792 5.10 8.685 0.587 43.40 54.804 99.95 5/28/2012 21:09 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82163 40 17.9 40 1.575 14.5 29.0 45.5 1257.1 1.949 8.22 33.524 0.245 109.05 55.964 125.21 5/28/2012 21:07 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82163 31.7 18 31.7 1.248 12.4 24.9 39.1 789.6 1.224 8.79 16.686 0.527 74.81 61.129 107.79 5/28/2012 21:07 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82163 41.3 37 41.3 1.626 19.6 39.2 61.5 1340.2 2.077 16.44 36.900 0.446 127.66 61.455 68.68 5/28/2012 21:06 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82163 29.5 22.1 29.5 1.161 12.9 25.8 40.5 683.8 1.060 10.21 13.447 0.759 73.94 69.765 93.24 5/28/2012 21:05 2A2 T2 2 -97.5 34.82 28.2 12.3 28.2 1.110 10.1 20.3 31.8 624.8 0.968 2.30 11.747 0.196 12.98 13.402 30.76 5/28/2012 21:05 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82163 24 17 24 0.945 10.3 20.5 32.2 452.6 0.701 5.10 7.241 0.704 50.99 72.688 102.74 5/28/2012 21:05 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82163 30 21.2 30 1.181 12.8 25.6 40.2 707.1 1.096 12.90 14.143 0.912 121.39 110.750 156.91 5/28/2012 21:04 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82163 29.4 17.3 29.4 1.157 11.7 23.4 36.7 679.1 1.053 10.63 13.311 0.799 159.09 151.130 257.15 5/28/2012 21:04 2A2 T2 2 -97.5 34.82 34.4 23.2 34.4 1.354 14.4 28.8 45.3 929.8 1.441 12.30 21.323 0.577 102.73 71.283 105.82 5/28/2012 21:03 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82163 34 19.9 34 1.339 13.5 27.0 42.4 908.3 1.408 9.07 20.588 0.441 106.88 75.917 129.87 5/28/2012 21:03 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82163 32.9 24 32.9 1.295 14.2 28.5 44.7 850.5 1.318 12.90 18.654 0.692 198.95 150.923 207.15 5/28/2012 21:02 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82163 30 21.3 30 1.181 12.8 25.7 40.3 707.1 1.096 11.20 14.143 0.792 153.67 140.200 197.71 5/28/2012 21:02 2A2 T2 2 -97.5 34.82 28.4 23 28.4 1.118 12.9 25.7 40.4 633.7 0.982 9.60 11.999 0.800 30.31 30.857 38.15 5/28/2012 21:02 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82163 36.4 23 36.4 1.433 14.9 29.7 46.7 1041.0 1.614 15.31 25.263 0.606 202.41 125.439 198.77 5/28/2012 21:01 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82163 29.4 24.4 29.4 1.157 13.5 26.9 42.3 679.1 1.053 13.18 13.311 0.990 177.50 168.619 203.43 5/28/2012 21:01 2A2 T2 2 -97.5 34.82 29 21.1 29 1.142 12.5 25.1 39.4 660.8 1.024 5.50 12.775 0.431 19.95 19.478 26.80 5/28/2012 21:01 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82164 40.5 25.2 40.5 1.594 16.4 32.9 51.6 1288.8 1.998 20.41 34.797 0.587 182.69 91.455 147.16 5/28/2012 21:00 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82164 32.5 19.4 32.5 1.280 13.0 26.0 40.8 829.9 1.286 11.62 17.981 0.646 77.62 60.341 101.21 5/28/2012 21:00 2A2 T2 2 -97.5 34.82 21.2 11.4 21.2 0.835 8.2 16.3 25.6 353.1 0.547 2.40 4.991 0.481 26.93 49.200 91.62 5/28/2012 21:00 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82164 41.9 41.9 41.9 1.650 21.0 41.9 65.8 1379.4 2.138 16.73 38.531 0.434 90.39 42.276 51.11 5/28/2012 20:59 Largest Largest Average Avg. Avg. Largest dimensionLargest dimension Lgst. dimension Lgst. dimension Fc/Lgst. X-section Measuremen ID t Team IOP LON LAT X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) Diameter (mm) Diameter (in) radius (mm) diameter (mm) x-section (mm2) x-section (mm2) x-section (in2) Mass (g) Volumn (ml) Density g/ml Fc (lbs-F) (psi) sigma c (psi) NOTES Date/Time (EDT) PHOTO NAME 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82164 34.4 17 34.4 1.354 12.9 25.7 40.4 929.8 1.441 13.89 21.323 0.651 121.60 84.376 170.95 5/28/2012 20:59 2A2 T2 2 -97.5 34.82 28.5 20.5 28.5 1.122 12.3 24.5 38.5 638.2 0.989 5.70 12.126 0.470 71.62 72.401 100.78 5/28/2012 20:59 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82164 34.4 34.4 34.4 1.354 17.2 34.4 54.1 929.8 1.441 17.43 21.323 0.817 101.44 70.387 73.47 5/28/2012 20:58 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82164 32.6 31.8 32.6 1.283 16.1 32.2 50.6 835.0 1.294 14.03 18.148 0.773 126.80 97.969 100.56 5/28/2012 20:58 2A1 T1 2 -97.5012 34.82164 46.1 46.1 46.1 1.815 23.1 46.1 72.4 1669.8 2.588 22.40 51.319 0.436 201.10 77.699 102.00 5/28/2012 20:57 2A2 T2 2 -97.5 34.82 35.1 26.2 35.1 1.382 15.3 30.7 48.2 968.0 1.500 18.60 22.651 0.821 104.41 69.587 93.34 5/28/2012 20:57 2A2 T2 2 -97.5 34.82 47.4 26.5 47.4 1.866 18.5 37.0 58.1 1765.3 2.736 23.00 55.784 0.412 490.64 179.312 321.13 5/28/2012 20:56 1A1 T1 1 -98.8547 41.00331 14 8.4 14 0.551 5.6 11.2 17.6 154.0 0.239 0.85 1.437 0.591 27.59 115.584 192.91 5/27/2012 18:48 1A1 T1 1 -98.8547 41.0033 19.4 12 19.4 0.764 7.9 15.7 24.7 295.7 0.458 1.70 3.825 0.444 34.09 74.375 120.40 5/27/2012 18:46 1A1 T1 1 -98.8547 41.00334 14.15 13.3 14.15 0.557 6.9 13.7 21.6 157.3 0.244 1.28 1.484 0.863 23.69 97.153 103.51 5/27/2012 18:41 1A1 T1 1 -98.8547 41.00334 15.13 9 15.13 0.596 6.0 12.1 19.0 179.9 0.279 0.99 1.814 0.546 17.63 63.238 106.43 5/27/2012 18:40 1A1 T1 1 -98.8547 41.00335 16 12.4 16 0.630 7.1 14.2 22.3 201.1 0.312 1.42 2.146 0.662 27.59 88.494 114.34 5/27/2012 18:39 Texas Tech University, Matt B. Phelps, P.E., December 2018

B. Freezer iceball data

Date S tartT ime S topT ime 07.21.2018 6:10 W orkingT emp 45 oF EnterData EnterData EnterData EnterData S tone S tone EnterData S tone S tone Center Expansion Enter Data S tone S tone Displaced S hore"A" EN T ER DAT A Compressive Compressive Expansion Impact Pick Pick Stone

L umoncityBaseline Dry S tone S tone S tone W et S olution S urface Vair S trength Distance Distance S urfaceArea Internal Growth Surface

T ray Bin 595.00 694.00 833.00 1297.00 166.00 338.00 463.00 705.00 W d Dia.X Dia.Y Dia.Z W w Volume Hardness fractionVv atR upture atR upture atR upture atR upture Structure Type Temp o L etter N umber R ed O range Yellow Green Blue Indigo Vilote W hite W t.(g) (mm) (mm) (mm) W t.(g) (ml) (units) (ml) (kg) (mm) (mm) (mm2) Type Inside/Out C E 1 295 289 361 564 76 144 193 300 118 61.03 61.56 62.79 120 78 Conglo II Dry/Wet -2.2 E 2 229 272 330 532 66 131 178 278 126 66.91 58.00 55.87 128 93 Static Dry -0.8 E 3 264 308 379 584 70 147 204 315 104 55.16 60.01 59.42 107 70 Static Dry -2 E 4 161 191 233 359 46 93 128 195 110 55.11 61.64 58.76 113 76 -0.6 E 5 212 258 325 532 68 126 173 269 121 60.30 63.38 61.74 122 101 -1.4 E 6 125 151 188 298 35 72 98 154 123 61.81 61.72 62.59 122 105 -1.4 E 7 305 362 442 677 83 172 239 366 102 58.16 59.00 58.97 104 79 E 8 195 229 274 417 52 107 146 224 131 59.27 58.82 73.43 131 112 E 9 240 283 345 550 70 139 190 294 114 60.95 61.77 61.97 115 83 E 10 212 247 304 464 59 121 165 254 120 65.05 61.59 61.24 122 98 E 11 305 362 440 671 86 175 246 367 122 60.85 64.49 61.83 124 98 E 12 277 323 392 601 77 160 221 336 120 62.62 61.92 62.87 121 104 L 1 118 139 174 277 34 68 94 145 115 59.51 63.15 57.57 118 93 L 2 115 139 169 276 35 68 92 144 136 66.64 61.18 62.31 137 111 L 3 121 142 169 256 33 69 98 143 123 60.19 63.67 63.84 124 98 L 4 192 229 285 445 59 119 166 250 106 58.33 60.22 60.94 107 86 L 5 128 153 188 307 37 74 102 161 130 69.18 59.20 60.70 131 100 L 6 382 459 583 936 122 228 303 483 120 62.04 61.70 62.85 121 84 L 7 346 405 486 758 98 199 274 416 122 61.47 62.29 63.07 123 88 L 8 448 524 646 995 134 262 362 543 108 59.87 57.62 59.40 109 63 L 9 240 291 381 643 88 150 192 319 102 57.68 58.57 59.39 103 62 L 10 121 144 181 287 37 72 98 151 119 55.84 61.93 63.61 121 78 L 11 127 140 170 275 36 69 93 146 125 66.12 61.56 61.44 128 87 L 12 498 558 657 915 122 275 396 555 100 44.97 61.36 61.81 101 61 E2 1 192 227 277 422 53 109 154 231 115 60.33 61.13 61.41 115 120 E2 2 188 222 275 423 50 107 148 228 97 61.29 63.50 62.22 97 120 E2 3 176 213 282 454 58 115 157 246 118 59.01 61.67 60.28 120 125 E2 4 196 234 284 461 57 114 158 242 117 62.76 62.16 61.72 116 131 E2 5 223 263 320 502 62 128 180 272 118 61.34 63.09 60.89 120 134 E2 6 166 197 246 388 50 99 136 211 123 62.87 61.77 63.92 124 136 E2 7 281 333 418 663 84 164 222 350 120 60.85 61.54 62.95 122 129 E2 8 330 392 482 773 100 194 260 410 115 55.53 61.98 57.86 115 126 E2 9 84 100 122 199 25 49 66 105 138 67.42 63.14 59.61 138 147 E2 10 107 126 159 243 30 62 87 132 128 66.57 61.25 63.20 129 127 E2 11 96 126 140 220 30 56 78 120 110 58.13 64.39 60.43 111 118 E2 12 129 152 183 288 37 75 103 156 130 66.33 61.77 61.12 130 126 M 1 89 105 130 205 28 52 72 110 121 59.50 68.53 60.95 122 117 M 2 82 99 121 200 25 48 64 103 134 62.35 61.47 67.59 135 126 M 3 116 138 166 259 34 69 93 144 133 68.98 61.59 62.27 134 121 M 4 111 126 156 240 29 62 86 132 119 64.55 61.45 62.42 119 96 M 5 116 137 165 246 31 68 94 138 129 60.78 61.31 68.06 130 113 M 6 103 121 144 220 26 58 81 123 119 64.49 58.23 57.64 120 98 M 7 134 159 195 305 38 77 107 164 122 65.07 60.15 59.64 124 100 M 8 72 84 102 166 19 40 57 88 138 60.81 61.57 70.56 138 114 M 9 108 128 153 238 29 62 85 131 128 60.03 62.78 64.14 129 99 M 10 124 146 176 267 34 71 97 147 135 60.46 62.82 69.60 135 106 M 11 127 152 192 312 39 75 101 162 129 65.23 61.70 61.04 130 94 M 12 96 107 153 238 30 62 84 129 132 62.24 64.82 62.54 134 94 Date S tartT ime S topT ime 02.16.2018 13:10 17:50 EnterData EnterData EnterData EnterData S tone S tone EnterData S tone S tone Center Expansion Enter Data S hore"A" S tone S tone Displaced EN T ER DAT A Compressive Compressive Expansion Impact Pick Pick Stone

L um oncityBaseline S tone S tone S tone S urface Dry W et S olution Vair S trength Distance Distance S urfaceArea Internal Growth Surface

Stone 699.60 604.22 580.00 532.20 472.50 425.23 389.98 543.20 Dia.X Dia.Y Dia.Z Hardness W d W w Volum e fractionVv atR upture atR upture atR upture atR upture Structure Type Temp o Tray Number R ed O range Yellow Green Blue Indigo Vilote W hite (mm ) (mm ) (mm ) (units) W t.(g) W t.(g) (ml) (ml) (kg) (mm ) (mm ) (mm 2) Type Inside/Out C C 1 140 151 166 207 274 228 186 189 63.55 65.4 62.7 N /A 125 125 139 2.4 220 3 3 4 ConglomerateCyclic I -12 C 2 115 123 135 166 222 184 149 153 62.4 65.4 62.6 N /A 127 128 144 6 240 2 5 8 ConglomerateDry/Wet I -8 C 3 152 162 176 214 282 236 195 199 62.9 58.3 64.9 N /A 114 112 135 1.2 260 4 9 12 ConglomerateDry/Wet I -40 C 4 123 132 143 176 228 191 157 162 66.8 62.9 61.6 N /A 128 128 112 3.4 280 6 1 22 ConglomerateDry/Wet I -10 C 5 152 163 178 220 285 236 195 200 59.7 63 58.5 81.5 102 102 128 1.8 300 12 2 25 Static Dry -15 C 6 121 130 142 177 235 195 161 162 66.8 62.9 61.6 62.5 127 128 137 4.8 320 19 12 31 ConglomerateDry/Wet I -22 C 7 154 164 178 211 281 237 199 200 59.6 56.3 61.2 N /A 117 117 140 3.6 340 4 8.5 19 Static Dry -6 C 8 111 119 129 157 209 174 144 147 63.6 62.8 63.7 99.5 117 118 130 4 360 5 9.5 17 ConglomerateDry/Wet I -10 C 9 102 109 120 150 200 166 136 137 69.2 62.3 61.8 97.5 133 134 148 5.4 380 6 10.5 15 Static Dry -2 C 10 104 112 124 156 204 168 136 141 65.1 62.8 61.5 106 125 124 136 4.2 400 7 11.5 10 Static Dry -12 C 11 106 116 130 163 214 177 145 147 65.8 62.2 60.1 108.5 127 126 151 5.6 420 8 12.5 9 Static Dry -8.6 C 12 104 112 124 159 199 166 136 140 71.7 61.2 60.1 109 134 135 146 6.8 440 9 13.5 18 ConglomerateDry/Wet I -13 Date S tartT ime S topT ime 1stdozen rejecteddata 8.4.2018 9:30 13:20 2nddozen EN T ER DAT A 3rddozen EN T ER DAT A EN T ER DAT A S tone EN T ER DAT A 4thdozen Enter Data EN T ER DAT A EN T ER DAT A EN T ER DAT A EN T ER DAT A S tone S tone Center Expansion Stone Enter Data Enter Data Enter Data S hore"A" S tone Displaced S tone EN T ER DAT A Compressive Compressive Expansion Impact Pick Pick

L umoncityBaseline S toneL uminance Surface S tone S tone S tone S urface Dry S olution W et Vair S trength Distance Distance S urfaceArea Internal Growth

L um oncityBaseline S tone S tone S tone S urface Dry W et S olution Vair S trength Distance Distance S urfaceArea Internal Growth Surface

W avelength 699.60 604.22 580.00 532.20 472.50 425.23 389.98 543.20 Dia.X Dia.Y Dia.Z Hardness W d W w Volum e fractionVv atR upture atR upture atR upture atR upture Structure Type Temp o Color R ed O range Yellow Green Blue Indigo Vilote W hite (mm ) (mm ) (mm ) (units) W t.(g) W t.(g) (ml) (ml) (kg) (mm ) (mm ) (mm 2) Type Inside/Out C 1 140 151 166 207 274 228 186 189 63.55 65.4 62.7 N /A 125 125 139 2.4 220 3 3 4 ConglomerateCyclic I -12 2 115 123 135 166 222 184 149 153 62.4 65.4 62.6 N /A 127 128 144 6 240 2 5 8 ConglomerateDry/Wet I -8 3 152 162 176 214 282 236 195 199 62.9 58.3 64.9 N /A 114 112 135 1.2 260 4 9 12 ConglomerateDry/Wet I -40 4 123 132 143 176 228 191 157 162 66.8 62.9 61.6 N /A 128 128 112 3.4 280 6 1 22 ConglomerateDry/Wet I -10 5 152 163 178 220 285 236 195 200 59.7 63 58.5 81.5 102 102 128 1.8 300 12 2 25 Static Dry -15 6 121 130 142 177 235 195 161 162 66.8 62.9 61.6 62.5 127 128 137 4.8 320 19 12 31 ConglomerateDry/Wet I -22 7 154 164 178 211 281 237 199 200 59.6 56.3 61.2 N /A 117 117 140 3.6 340 4 8.5 19 Static Dry -6 8 111 119 129 157 209 174 144 147 63.6 62.8 63.7 99.5 117 118 130 4 360 5 9.5 17 ConglomerateDry/Wet I -10 9 102 109 120 150 200 166 136 137 69.2 62.3 61.8 97.5 133 134 148 5.4 380 6 10.5 15 Static Dry -2 10 104 112 124 156 204 168 136 141 65.1 62.8 61.5 106 125 124 136 4.2 400 7 11.5 10 Static Dry -12 11 106 116 130 163 214 177 145 147 65.8 62.2 60.1 108.5 127 126 151 5.6 420 8 12.5 9 Static Dry -8.6 12 104 112 124 159 199 166 136 140 71.7 61.2 60.1 109 134 135 146 6.8 440 9 13.5 18 ConglomerateDry/Wet I -13 Date S tartT ime S topT ime 1stdozen rejecteddata 8.4.2018 9:30 13:20 2nddozen 8.8.2018 8:55 EN T ER DAT A 3rddozen EN T ER DAT A EN T ER DAT A S tone EN T ER DAT A 4thdozen Enter Data EN T ER DAT A EN T ER DAT A EN T ER DAT A EN T ER DAT A S tone S tone Center Expansion Stone Enter Data Enter Data Enter Data S hore"A" S tone Displaced S tone EN T ER DAT A Compressive Compressive Expansion Impact Pick Pick

L umoncityBaseline S toneL uminance Surface S tone S tone S tone S urface Dry S olution W et Vair S trength Distance Distance S urfaceArea Internal Growth

Stone Temp Dia.X Dia.Y Dia.Z Hardness W d Volume W w fractionVv atR upture atR upture atR upture atR upture Structure Type o Tray Number R ed O range Yellow Green Blue Indigo Vilote W hite R ed O range Yellow Green Blue Indigo Vilote W hite C (mm) (mm) (mm) (units) W t.(g) (ml) W t.(g) (ml) (kg) (mm) (mm) (mm 2) Type Inside/Out L 1 1 385 461 572 945 122 229 304 485 146 174 211 326 47 83 119 178 -21 62.5 58.22 55.65 91 115 94 115 1.2 Static Dry/Wet L 2 2 439 521 634 1022 139 259 355 540 114 134 162 256 32 65 92 140 -21 62.27 52.7 52.74 73 109 83 110 1.1 Static Dry/Wet L 3 3 422 509 639 1024 132 250 334 529 149 176 214 339 41 86 122 185 -21 61.51 52.38 53.62 90.5 98 79 98 167.0963798 2.5046 Static Dry/Wet L 4 4 418 503 621 985 127 245 331 517 186 219 263 411 51 104 147 224 -21 59.42 61.88 58.22 84 114 95 114 169.1822828 1.9528 0 Static Dry/Wet L 5 5 493 584 709 1137 146 287 396 603 83 98 121 188 23 47 66 101 -21 62.77 56 54.59 101 116 96 116 1.4 Static Dry/Wet L 6 6 431 511 642 1020 133 253 342 533 148 180 215 334 42 87 124 185 -21 53.71 52.32 53.31 75 108 63 108 129.068795 2.4684 Static Dry/Wet L 7 7 499 589 736 1157 148 288 394 612 78 93 112 173 20 44 62 94 -21 66.45 60.11 58.71 90.5 128 101 128 145.4519298 3.1615 Static Dry/Wet L 8 8 461 550 678 1102 142 272 373 575 85 101 123 191 24 49 68 104 -21 64.45 63.19 61.8 90 124 72 124 63.6972896 5.7196 Static Dry/Wet L 9 9 438 523 653 1028 133 257 346 542 222 266 322 511 63 131 185 282 -21 61.89 57.87 60.3 94 122 68 122 154.1141136 1.2313 0.0044 Static Dry/Wet L 10 10 512 602 726 1146 146 292 399 618 105 126 152 237 29 60 82 128 -21 68.15 61.33 61.95 89.5 130 83 130 Static Dry/Wet L 11 11 495 587 716 1109 144 285 397 597 256 304 380 593 75 153 215 328 -21 57.97 61.5 56.75 96 106 74 106 0.5 Static Dry/Wet L 12 12 484 579 708 1101 141 278 377 589 174 207 254 395 49 99 136 214 -21 58.8 62.04 53.35 81.5 103 68 103 Static Dry/Wet E 1 456 542 677 1076 141 267 359 566 74 86 105 161 19 41 56 86 -21 63.9 70.26 62.71 103 129 100 130 Static Wet E 2 441 523 648 1035 138 260 348 546 72 83 102 156 19 40 56 84 -21 63.82 69.75 65.8 103.5 134 110 134 Static Wet E 3 477 560 694 1089 142 277 384 580 108 127 159 244 30 62 86 133 -21 61.58 58.3 60.7 96.5 122 97 122 2.1 Static Wet E 4 380 459 577 921 121 226 301 478 82 98 119 185 23 47 65 100 -21 63.49 60.91 66.06 102.5 128 115 128 1.5 Static Wet E 5 435 518 631 1016 137 255 348 537 81 96 116 178 21 44 62 96 -21 65.96 60.3 61.8 82 133 119 134 2.6 Static Wet E 6 344 412 505 820 106 203 271 430 87 79 95 146 17 37 52 77 -21 61.65 68.6 68.9 97.5 128 76 129 Static Wet E 7 402 477 599 969 128 240 324 504 59 71 85 131 15 33 46 71 -21 70.82 60.1 59.35 99 134 78 135 2.6 Static Wet E 8 393 468 590 944 124 234 312 491 175 206 254 399 51 101 141 214 -21 56.15 59.42 55.21 104 106 52 108 Static Wet E 9 440 521 649 1036 137 258 347 545 40 48 58 90 11 23 31 50 -21 69.01 64.57 62.54 100.5 136 97 138 Static Wet E 10 414 492 614 987 131 245 334 517 30 35 41 66 8 16 24 36 -21 62.54 68.37 69.22 94 136 86 139 Static Wet E 11 463 553 681 1067 142 272 326 568 73 86 105 161 19 40 56 86 -21 61.53 69.74 69.53 93.5 132 87 132 Static Wet E 12 417 498 617 997 132 249 339 521 99 117 140 220 27 56 78 119 -21 63.04 65.65 66.34 103 126 82 127 Static Wet L 1 492 579 701 1111 140 282 384 595 129 151 188 292 36 75 104 161 -26 62.45 62.96 62.11 98.5 126 132.5 127.5 148.297 1.483 Static Wet L 2 482 574 716 1124 144 281 379 595 135 159 195 313 38 78 107 167 -15 61.7 62.37 62.47 94.5 114.8 117 115.9 16.79 0.9229 0.625 Static Wet L 3 380 454 572 924 120 224 304 479 216 255 308 489 62 124 172 268 -15 62.07 63.07 61.76 102.5 119.7 128 120.8 278.252 3.269 Static Wet L 4 477 566 707 1115 145 279 376 591 190 223 280 439 55 109 152 236 -12 62.55 62.27 62.22 88 117.2 120 117.9 198.986 0.6349 0 Static Wet L 5 447 534 657 1077 140 265 361 558 162 189 232 364 46 93 125 192 -13 63.26 63.06 62.26 102 117.1 117.5 118.2 119.009 0.2952 0.1328 Static Wet L 6 485 577 714 1110 143 282 381 594 106 126 154 242 30 60 83 129 -10 62.35 62.1 62.04 92.5 116.2 125 117.4 184.251 3.3604 0 Static Wet L 7 492 586 710 1116 145 286 390 602 101 122 150 236 30 59 81 126 -37 62.64 62.87 63.48 103.5 121.2 117.5 122 220.798 1.7832 0 Static Wet L 8 501 585 710 1109 143 286 392 601 191 227 277 441 55 110 153 234 -22 62.07 60.04 62.04 105 112.2 130 113.2 225.029 4.6186 0 Static Wet L 9 459 551 685 1080 143 272 366 569 130 153 190 297 37 74 101 155 -18 61.35 62.17 61.52 103 113.7 121 114.8 Static Wet L 10 456 545 681 1071 143 271 361 566 223 264 319 505 63 128 181 273 -18 64.21 61.47 64 98.5 118.9 136.5 120 Static Wet L 11 570 556 682 1083 144 273 364 572 173 206 250 399 50 101 139 220 -14 63.01 63.37 64.4 88.5 121.8 140 123.3 Static Wet L 12 456 538 671 1069 138 267 362 564 57 68 83 130 16 33 46 70 -16 63.08 68.65 64.02 93.5 132.1 149 133.6 Static Wet M 1 486 574 716 1116 142 280 389 594 68 79 97 152 18 38 54 82 -13 69.55 62.14 64.37 88 128 139 129 247.174 4.5767 0 Static Wet M 2 450 537 653 1057 136 263 353 557 76 87 110 172 20 42 58 93 -17 71.18 63.47 65.31 96 142.5 157 143 146.486 3.0456 1.1621 Static Wet M 3 465 555 693 1085 143 273 375 575 76 88 109 170 20 43 59 92 -11 69.05 63 62.08 45.5 129.3 135 130.4 330.951 6.4118 0 Static Wet M 4 445 537 663 1056 142 266 363 556 58 69 83 133 16 33 47 71 -14 62.3 61.75 64.1 59.5 120.6 136 121.7 156.751 1.8979 0.7188 Static Wet M 5 494 583 706 1118 145 285 396 601 77 91 112 175 21 43 60 94 -38 69.75 64.25 64.32 36.5 140.3 164 141.6 52.893 0 0.0759 Static Wet M 6 521 613 734 1130 142 292 400 605 79 93 114 177 21 43 61 95 -16 70.41 62 69.77 57.5 134.5 153.5 135.5 148.248 1.3017 0.3349 Static Wet M 7 491 584 710 1107 144 284 385 596 84 99 124 193 24 49 67 104 -12 69.7 63.32 64.31 57 134.9 151.8 135.9 148.261 0.9229 0.625 Static Wet M 8 488 575 696 1110 144 284 388 592 80 95 117 183 23 46 63 98 -14 68.27 63.26 66.29 62 130.6 146 131.7 278.254 3.2692 0 Static Wet M 9 455 545 667 1090 143 267 367 568 69 81 100 153 18 39 54 83 -15 67.02 63.3 66.51 50.5 130.8 147.5 132.5 Static Wet M 10 446 535 660 1045 142 265 353 552 79 93 116 177 21 44 61 95 -11 66.32 62.42 61.63 54.5 131.1 146 132.1 Static Wet M 11 526 617 754 1139 143 300 416 626 86 101 124 189 24 49 67 103 -12 66.39 61.74 65.13 49.5 125.8 153.4 126.9 Static Wet M 12 511 599 728 1132 144 290 408 615 80 94 116 174 21 45 63 97 -13 68.03 62.75 64 70 131.3 152.6 132.6 Static Wet Texas Tech University, Matt B. Phelps, P.E., December 2018

C. Crystal Ball report on natural hail and freezer iceballs

MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Crystal Ball Report - Full Simulation started on 10/19/2018 at 10:30 AM Simulation stopped on 10/19/2018 at 10:58 AM

Run preferences: Number of trials run 10,000 Monte Carlo Random seed Precision control on Confidence level 95.00%

Run statistics: Total running time (sec) 1662.07 Trials/second (average) 6 Random numbers per sec 415

Crystal Ball data: Assumptions 69 Correlations 0 Correlation matrices 0 Decision variables 0 Forecasts 31 ** Frozen items ** 111

Page 1 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecasts

Worksheet: [IIBHS Full_Database with Corrections by MBP 09.27.2018.xlsx]0.25 Hail Size Analysis

Forecast: Hailstone Average Diameter Cell: M147

Summary: Entire range is from 0.24 to 0.50 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.00

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 0.41 Median 0.42 Mode --- Standard Deviation 0.06 Variance 0.00 Skewness -0.5002 Kurtosis 2.26 Coeff. of Variation 0.1581 Minimum 0.24 Maximum 0.50 Range Width 0.26 Mean Std. Error 0.00

Page 2 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Hailstone Average Diameter (cont'd) Cell: M147

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 0.24 10% 0.31 20% 0.34 30% 0.37 40% 0.40 50% 0.42 60% 0.43 70% 0.45 80% 0.47 90% 0.48 100% 0.50

Page 3 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Hailstone Density Cell: T147

Summary: Entire range is from (29.60) to 66.57 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.11

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 41.56 Median 43.46 Mode --- Standard Deviation 11.32 Variance 128.06 Skewness -1.17 Kurtosis 5.51 Coeff. of Variation 0.2723 Minimum (29.60) Maximum 66.57 Range Width 96.16 Mean Std. Error 0.11

Page 4 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Hailstone Density (cont'd) Cell: T147

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% (29.60) 10% 26.77 20% 33.38 30% 37.60 40% 40.79 50% 43.46 60% 45.96 70% 48.32 80% 50.84 90% 53.92 100% 66.57

Page 5 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: IBHS Validated Date Set Hail Average Diameter Cell: BD880

Summary: Entire range is from 0.15 to 3.79 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.00

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 0.87 Median 0.79 Mode --- Standard Deviation 0.40 Variance 0.16 Skewness 1.50 Kurtosis 7.04 Coeff. of Variation 0.4603 Minimum 0.15 Maximum 3.79 Range Width 3.64 Mean Std. Error 0.00

Page 6 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: IBHS Validated Date Set Hail Average Diameter (cont'd) Cell: BD880

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 0.15 10% 0.45 20% 0.55 30% 0.63 40% 0.71 50% 0.79 60% 0.88 70% 1.00 80% 1.14 90% 1.37 100% 3.79

Page 7 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: IIBHS Average Diameter Whole Validated Data Set Cell: BB880

Summary: Entire range is from 0.18 to 4.49 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.00

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 0.87 Median 0.79 Mode --- Standard Deviation 0.40 Variance 0.16 Skewness 1.53 Kurtosis 7.57 Coeff. of Variation 0.4605 Minimum 0.18 Maximum 4.49 Range Width 4.31 Mean Std. Error 0.00

Page 8 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: IIBHS Average Diameter Whole Validated Data Set (cont'd) Cell: BB880

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 0.18 10% 0.45 20% 0.55 30% 0.63 40% 0.71 50% 0.79 60% 0.88 70% 0.99 80% 1.14 90% 1.38 100% 4.49

Page 9 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: IIBHS Hailstone Density Whole Validated Data Set Cell: BC880

Summary: Entire range is from -15.16 to 65.66 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.10

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 44.98 Median 46.64 Mode --- Standard Deviation 9.92 Variance 98.36 Skewness -1.14 Kurtosis 5.23 Coeff. of Variation 0.2205 Minimum -15.16 Maximum 65.66 Range Width 80.81 Mean Std. Error 0.10

Page 10 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: IIBHS Hailstone Density Whole Validated Data Set (cont'd) Cell: BC880

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% -15.16 10% 32.01 20% 37.95 30% 41.46 40% 44.20 50% 46.64 60% 48.79 70% 50.90 80% 53.10 90% 55.84 100% 65.66

Page 11 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Model Fc Based Upon Diameter Cell: BG880

Summary: Entire range is from 12.28 to 542.34 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.29

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 35.33 Median 26.84 Mode --- Standard Deviation 29.30 Variance 858.58 Skewness 5.42 Kurtosis 58.32 Coeff. of Variation 0.8295 Minimum 12.28 Maximum 542.34 Range Width 530.06 Mean Std. Error 0.29

Page 14 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Model Fc Based Upon Diameter (cont'd) Cell: BG880

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 12.28 10% 16.08 20% 18.34 30% 20.74 40% 23.61 50% 26.84 60% 30.70 70% 36.50 80% 44.99 90% 61.83 100% 542.34

Page 15 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo < 1 3/4 in. diameter Cell: T959

Summary: Entire range is from -2.14 to 244.68 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.42

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 91.56 Median 88.18 Mode --- Standard Deviation 41.76 Variance 1743.71 Skewness 0.3755 Kurtosis 2.71 Coeff. of Variation 0.4561 Minimum -2.14 Maximum 244.68 Range Width 246.81 Mean Std. Error 0.42

Page 16 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo < 1 3/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: T959

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% -2.14 10% 38.69 20% 54.30 30% 66.13 40% 76.88 50% 88.17 60% 99.67 70% 112.25 80% 128.12 90% 148.70 100% 244.68

Page 17 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo < 2 1/2 in. diameter Cell: X959

Summary: Entire range is from 0.00 to 1.00 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.00

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 0.50 Median 0.50 Mode --- Standard Deviation 0.29 Variance 0.08 Skewness 0.0069 Kurtosis 1.78 Coeff. of Variation 0.5823 Minimum 0.00 Maximum 1.00 Range Width 1.00 Mean Std. Error 0.00

Page 18 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo < 2 1/2 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: X959

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 0.00 10% 0.10 20% 0.20 30% 0.29 40% 0.40 50% 0.50 60% 0.60 70% 0.70 80% 0.81 90% 0.90 100% 1.00

Page 19 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo < 2 in. diameter Cell: U959

Summary: Entire range is from 16.26 to 358.29 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.37

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 101.90 Median 97.19 Mode --- Standard Deviation 37.22 Variance 1385.39 Skewness 0.8999 Kurtosis 4.51 Coeff. of Variation 0.3653 Minimum 16.26 Maximum 358.29 Range Width 342.03 Mean Std. Error 0.37

Page 20 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo < 2 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: U959

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 16.26 10% 59.10 20% 70.61 30% 79.47 40% 88.42 50% 97.19 60% 106.34 70% 116.60 80% 130.25 90% 150.79 100% 358.29

Page 21 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo <1 1/2 in. diameter Cell: S959

Summary: Entire range is from 9.27 to 749.52 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.55

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 84.10 Median 70.00 Mode --- Standard Deviation 54.74 Variance 2996.95 Skewness 2.33 Kurtosis 13.26 Coeff. of Variation 0.6510 Minimum 9.27 Maximum 749.52 Range Width 740.25 Mean Std. Error 0.55

Page 22 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo <1 1/2 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: S959

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 9.27 10% 33.81 20% 43.42 30% 51.79 40% 60.54 50% 70.00 60% 81.84 70% 96.11 80% 116.21 90% 148.67 100% 749.52

Page 23 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo <1 in. diameter Cell: Q959

Summary: Entire range is from -0.40 to 270.97 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.28

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 36.79 Median 29.46 Mode --- Standard Deviation 27.89 Variance 777.77 Skewness 2.22 Kurtosis 11.01 Coeff. of Variation 0.7581 Minimum -0.40 Maximum 270.97 Range Width 271.36 Mean Std. Error 0.28

Page 24 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo <1 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: Q959

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% -0.40 10% 11.56 20% 16.06 30% 20.39 40% 24.78 50% 29.46 60% 35.10 70% 42.17 80% 52.04 90% 70.39 100% 270.97

Page 25 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo <2 1/4 in. diameter Cell: W959

Summary: Entire range is from 69.62 to 70.40 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.00

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 70.00 Median 70.00 Mode --- Standard Deviation 0.10 Variance 0.01 Skewness 0.0200 Kurtosis 2.98 Coeff. of Variation 0.0014 Minimum 69.62 Maximum 70.40 Range Width 0.77 Mean Std. Error 0.00

Page 26 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo <2 1/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: W959

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 69.62 10% 69.87 20% 69.92 30% 69.95 40% 69.98 50% 70.00 60% 70.03 70% 70.05 80% 70.08 90% 70.13 100% 70.40

Page 27 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo <3/4 in. diameter Cell: P959

Summary: Entire range is from 0.00 to 407.97 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.24

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 27.95 Median 21.05 Mode --- Standard Deviation 24.48 Variance 599.15 Skewness 3.17 Kurtosis 23.54 Coeff. of Variation 0.8759 Minimum 0.00 Maximum 407.97 Range Width 407.97 Mean Std. Error 0.24

Page 28 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo <3/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: P959

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 0.00 10% 7.58 20% 10.86 30% 14.12 40% 17.38 50% 21.05 60% 25.60 70% 31.53 80% 40.26 90% 55.52 100% 407.97

Page 29 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo · < 1/2 in. diameter Cell: O959

Summary: Entire range is from 0.38 to 523.24 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.34

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 25.05 Median 14.38 Mode --- Standard Deviation 33.53 Variance 1124.11 Skewness 4.52 Kurtosis 37.00 Coeff. of Variation 1.34 Minimum 0.38 Maximum 523.24 Range Width 522.86 Mean Std. Error 0.34

Page 30 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo · < 1/2 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: O959

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 0.38 10% 3.77 20% 5.92 30% 8.32 40% 10.99 50% 14.38 60% 18.84 70% 25.35 80% 35.49 90% 56.16 100% 523.24

Page 31 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo 1 1/4 in. diameter Cell: R959

Summary: Entire range is from -109.64 to 215.59 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.33

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 52.06 Median 51.93 Mode --- Standard Deviation 32.87 Variance 1080.28 Skewness 0.0084 Kurtosis 4.17 Coeff. of Variation 0.6313 Minimum -109.64 Maximum 215.59 Range Width 325.22 Mean Std. Error 0.33

Page 32 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. Fo 1 1/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: R959

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% -109.64 10% 12.45 20% 27.19 30% 37.02 40% 44.95 50% 51.93 60% 59.19 70% 67.00 80% 76.93 90% 92.05 100% 215.59

Page 33 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 1 1/2 in. diameter Cell: S960

Summary: Entire range is from 13.06 to 526.76 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.40

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 64.09 Median 53.61 Mode --- Standard Deviation 40.21 Variance 1617.07 Skewness 2.55 Kurtosis 15.42 Coeff. of Variation 0.6274 Minimum 13.06 Maximum 526.76 Range Width 513.70 Mean Std. Error 0.40

Page 34 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 1 1/2 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: S960

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 13.06 10% 28.49 20% 34.59 30% 40.40 40% 46.70 50% 53.61 60% 61.19 70% 71.38 80% 86.00 90% 111.93 100% 526.76

Page 35 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 1 1/4 in. diameter Cell: R960

Summary: Entire range is from -232.49 to 264.78 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.39

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 60.78 Median 60.08 Mode --- Standard Deviation 39.33 Variance 1546.77 Skewness -0.0215 Kurtosis 4.19 Coeff. of Variation 0.6471 Minimum -232.49 Maximum 264.78 Range Width 497.28 Mean Std. Error 0.39

Page 36 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 1 1/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: R960

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% -232.49 10% 12.84 20% 30.99 30% 42.55 40% 51.81 50% 60.07 60% 69.20 70% 79.28 80% 90.99 90% 109.35 100% 264.78

Page 37 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 1 3/4 in. diameter Cell: T960

Summary: Entire range is from 0.02 to 157.56 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.22

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 49.56 Median 47.95 Mode --- Standard Deviation 22.27 Variance 495.75 Skewness 0.3898 Kurtosis 2.92 Coeff. of Variation 0.4493 Minimum 0.02 Maximum 157.56 Range Width 157.54 Mean Std. Error 0.22

Page 38 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 1 3/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: T960

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 0.02 10% 21.39 20% 29.63 30% 36.30 40% 42.09 50% 47.95 60% 54.18 70% 60.68 80% 68.56 90% 79.58 100% 157.56

Page 39 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 1 in. diameter Cell: Q960

Summary: Entire range is from -0.19 to 1145.61 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.61

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 74.14 Median 58.38 Mode --- Standard Deviation 60.73 Variance 3687.78 Skewness 3.11 Kurtosis 24.60 Coeff. of Variation 0.8191 Minimum -0.19 Maximum 1145.61 Range Width 1145.80 Mean Std. Error 0.61

Page 40 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 1 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: Q960

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% -0.19 10% 22.06 20% 30.95 30% 39.54 40% 48.77 50% 58.37 60% 69.96 70% 84.11 80% 104.76 90% 142.64 100% 1145.61

Page 41 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 2 1/2 in. diameter Cell: X960

Summary: Entire range is from 19.01 to 52.99 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.10

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 36.05 Median 36.03 Mode --- Standard Deviation 9.82 Variance 96.44 Skewness -0.0053 Kurtosis 1.79 Coeff. of Variation 0.2724 Minimum 19.01 Maximum 52.99 Range Width 33.97 Mean Std. Error 0.10

Page 42 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 2 1/2 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: X960

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 19.01 10% 22.35 20% 25.76 30% 29.30 40% 32.75 50% 36.03 60% 39.44 70% 42.89 80% 46.29 90% 49.59 100% 52.99

Page 43 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 2 1/4 in. diameter Cell: W960

Summary: Entire range is from 19.10 to 419.28 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.17

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 32.18 Median 26.84 Mode --- Standard Deviation 17.29 Variance 298.93 Skewness 5.28 Kurtosis 58.94 Coeff. of Variation 0.5372 Minimum 19.10 Maximum 419.28 Range Width 400.17 Mean Std. Error 0.17

Page 44 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 2 1/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: W960

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 19.10 10% 21.18 20% 22.46 30% 23.62 40% 25.03 50% 26.84 60% 29.10 70% 32.52 80% 37.57 90% 48.41 100% 419.28

Page 45 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 2 in. diameter Cell: U960

Summary: Entire range is from 13.98 to 98.64 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.14

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 42.28 Median 40.61 Mode --- Standard Deviation 14.03 Variance 196.75 Skewness 0.5907 Kurtosis 3.05 Coeff. of Variation 0.3317 Minimum 13.98 Maximum 98.64 Range Width 84.66 Mean Std. Error 0.14

Page 46 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 2 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: U960

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 13.98 10% 25.30 20% 29.72 30% 33.49 40% 36.88 50% 40.61 60% 44.61 70% 48.75 80% 53.99 90% 61.58 100% 98.64

Page 47 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 3/4 in. diameter Cell: P960

Summary: Entire range is from -0.86 to 1913.65 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 1.05

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 108.46 Median 77.87 Mode --- Standard Deviation 104.95 Variance 11013.99 Skewness 3.48 Kurtosis 27.06 Coeff. of Variation 0.9676 Minimum -0.86 Maximum 1913.65 Range Width 1914.51 Mean Std. Error 1.05

Page 48 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc < 3/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: P960

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% -0.86 10% 25.27 20% 38.25 30% 50.78 40% 63.20 50% 77.87 60% 95.99 70% 120.19 80% 156.63 90% 223.10 100% 1913.65

Page 49 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc · < 1/2 in. diameter Cell: O960

Summary: Entire range is from 2.25 to 10230.73 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 3.75

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 240.62 Median 129.41 Mode --- Standard Deviation 374.85 Variance 140515.17 Skewness 7.42 Kurtosis 111.59 Coeff. of Variation 1.56 Minimum 2.25 Maximum 10230.73 Range Width 10228.48 Mean Std. Error 3.75

Page 50 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Avg. σc · < 1/2 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: O960

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 2.25 10% 31.92 20% 51.21 30% 72.78 40% 97.55 50% 129.41 60% 174.96 70% 235.54 80% 333.48 90% 535.77 100% 10230.73

Page 51 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Fo - Freezer Iceball Fo Cell: BE882

Summary: Certainty level is 99.98% Certainty range is from 0.00 to ∞ Entire range is from (0.03) to 935.22 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.52

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 45.74 Median 30.52 Mode --- Standard Deviation 51.68 Variance 2,670.32 Skewness 4.45 Kurtosis 41.32 Coeff. of Variation 1.13 Minimum (0.03) Maximum 935.22 Range Width 935.25 Mean Std. Error 0.52

Page 52 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Fo - Freezer Iceball Fo (cont'd) Cell: BE882

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% (0.03) 10% 8.86 20% 13.56 30% 18.62 40% 24.14 50% 30.52 60% 38.57 70% 49.67 80% 65.61 90% 96.78 100% 935.22

Page 53 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Fo Full Validated IBHS Date Set Cell: BE880

Summary: Entire range is from -0.03 to 935.22 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.52

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 45.74 Median 30.52 Mode --- Standard Deviation 51.68 Variance 2,670.32 Skewness 4.45 Kurtosis 41.32 Coeff. of Variation 1.13 Minimum -0.03 Maximum 935.22 Range Width 935.25 Mean Std. Error 0.52

Page 54 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail Fo Full Validated IBHS Date Set (cont'd) Cell: BE880

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% -0.03 10% 8.86 20% 13.56 30% 18.62 40% 24.14 50% 30.52 60% 38.57 70% 49.67 80% 65.61 90% 96.78 100% 935.22

Page 55 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail σc - Freezer Iceball σc Cell: BF882

Summary: Entire range is from 2.63 to 1664.52 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 1.05

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 97.99 Median 67.36 Mode --- Standard Deviation 105.01 Variance 11026.11 Skewness 4.06 Kurtosis 33.50 Coeff. of Variation 1.07 Minimum 2.63 Maximum 1664.52 Range Width 1661.89 Mean Std. Error 1.05

Page 56 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail σc - Freezer Iceball σc (cont'd) Cell: BF882

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 2.63 10% 21.09 20% 31.60 30% 41.97 40% 53.61 50% 67.34 60% 83.83 70% 105.95 80% 139.52 90% 206.31 100% 1664.52

Page 57 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail σc Full Validated IBHS Date Set Cell: BF880

Summary: Entire range is from 2.63 to 1,664.52 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 1.05

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 97.99 Median 67.36 Mode --- Standard Deviation 105.01 Variance 11,026.11 Skewness 4.06 Kurtosis 33.50 Coeff. of Variation 1.07 Minimum 2.63 Maximum 1,664.52 Range Width 1,661.89 Mean Std. Error 1.05

Page 58 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Forecast: Natural Hail σc Full Validated IBHS Date Set (cont'd) Cell: BF880

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 2.63 10% 21.09 20% 31.60 30% 41.97 40% 53.61 50% 67.34 60% 83.83 70% 105.95 80% 139.52 90% 206.31 100% 1,664.52

Page 59 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumptions

Worksheet: [IIBHS Full_Database with Corrections by MBP 09.27.2018.xlsx]0.25 Hail Size Analysis

Assumption: (g/ml) · 143 Cell: Q147

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 0.75 Scale 0.14

Assumption: (in) · 143 Cell: L147

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 0.24 Maximum 0.50 Alpha 1.758540941 Beta 0.97605332

Assumption: (in) · 400 Cell: L400

Uniform distribution with parameters: Minimum 0.50 Maximum 0.75

Assumption: (in) · 638 Cell: L636

Gamma distribution with parameters: Location 0.73 Scale 0.04 Shape 3.080926629

Page 64 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: (in) · 762 Cell: L759

Weibull distribution with parameters: Location 0.92 Scale 0.21 Shape 2.798031218

Assumption: (in) · 841 Cell: L836

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 1.24 Maximum 1.49 Alpha 0.909578023 Beta 1.0075364

Assumption: (in) · 891 Cell: L885

Gamma distribution with parameters: Location 1.50 Scale 0.06 Shape 2.035125396

Assumption: (in) · 919 Cell: L913

Pareto distribution with parameters: Location 1.75 Shape 24.81896571

Page 65 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: (in) · 934 Cell: L928

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.11 Mean 1.97 Std. Dev. 0.07

Assumption: (in) · 945 Cell: L938

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.11 Mean 1.97 Std. Dev. 0.07

Assumption: (in) Avg. Dia. · 882 Cell: BB878

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.00 Mean 0.87 Std. Dev. 0.40

Assumption: (lb/ft3) · 143 Cell: S147

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 46.60 Scale 8.87

Page 66 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: (lb/ft3) · 400 Cell: S400

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 50.59 Scale 6.52

Assumption: (lb/ft3) · 638 Cell: S636

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 7.58 Maximum 57.39 Alpha 3.533833655 Beta 0.940144784

Assumption: (lb/ft3) · 762 Cell: S759

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 50.78 Scale 6.39

Assumption: (lb/ft3) · 841 Cell: S836

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 50.04 Scale 6.74

Page 67 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: (lb/ft3) · 891 Cell: S885

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum -2.54 Maximum 59.52 Alpha 2.518473264 Beta 1.499564543

Assumption: (lb/ft3) · 919 Cell: S913

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 6.97 Maximum 46.45 Alpha 0.716945558 Beta 0.523700905

Assumption: (lb/ft3) · 934 Cell: S928

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 15.00 Maximum 42.00 Alpha 0.3 Beta 0.3

Assumption: (lb/ft3) · 945 Cell: S938

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 6.73 Mean 10.00 Std. Dev. 13.20

Page 68 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: Average · 873 Cell: BD878

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.00 Mean 0.88 Std. Dev. 0.40

Assumption: Beta · 0 Cell: BC878

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 49.39 Scale 7.64

Assumption: BF878 Cell: BF878

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location -0.35 Mean 97.56 Std. Dev. 104.53

Assumption: BG878 Cell: BG878

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 11.60 Mean 35.62 Std. Dev. 29.13

Page 69 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: BH878 Cell: BH878

Logistic distribution with parameters: Mean -4.08 Scale 18.07

Assumption: Density Cell: AG48

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 49.40 Scale 7.64

Assumption: Diameter Cell: AF48

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.00 Mean 0.87 Std. Dev. 0.40

Assumption: Distribution · Estimated Cell: Y147

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 13.258 Scale 2.001

Page 70 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: Distribution · Estimated (Y400) Cell: Y400

Weibull distribution with parameters: Location -5.076 Scale 21.859 Shape 12.21375444

Assumption: Distribution · Estimated (Y636) Cell: Y636

Weibull distribution with parameters: Location 0.000 Scale 19.376 Shape 10.61255636

Assumption: Distribution · Estimated (Y759) Cell: Y759

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 22.098 Scale 1.923

Assumption: Distribution · Estimated (Y836) Cell: Y836

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 24.047 Scale 2.223

Page 71 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: Distribution · Estimated (Y885) Cell: Y885

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum -84.449 Maximum 37.450 Alpha 54.16290234 Beta 7.488787193

Assumption: Distribution · Estimated (Y913) Cell: Y913

Triangular distribution with parameters: Minimum 6.757 Likeliest 27.390 Maximum 32.069

Assumption: Distribution · Estimated (Y928) Cell: Y928

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 13.707 Mean 46.044 Std. Dev. 1987.946

Assumption: Distribution · 12 Cell: X147

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.00 Mean 241.32 Std. Dev. 375.35

Page 72 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: Distribution · 12 (X400) Cell: X400

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location -4.08 Mean 107.92 Std. Dev. 103.63

Assumption: Distribution · 12 (X636) Cell: X636

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location -3.96 Mean 73.70 Std. Dev. 59.73

Assumption: Distribution · 12 (X759) Cell: X759

Logistic distribution with parameters: Mean 61.09 Scale 21.47

Assumption: Distribution · 12 (X836) Cell: X836

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 9.00 Mean 63.94 Std. Dev. 40.35

Page 73 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: Distribution · 12 (X885) Cell: X885

Weibull distribution with parameters: Location -2.15 Scale 58.22 Shape 2.481377141

Assumption: Distribution · 12 (X913) Cell: X913

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 13.68 Maximum 120.32 Alpha 2.800436962 Beta 7.564979243

Assumption: Distribution · 12 (X928) Cell: X928

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 19.00 Mean 32.20 Std. Dev. 17.90

Assumption: Distribution · 12 (X938) Cell: X938

Uniform distribution with parameters: Minimum 19.00 Maximum 53.00

Page 74 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: Distribution · 14 Cell: Z147

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 0.002 Maximum 0.123 Alpha 0.748560604 Beta 1.828899866

Assumption: Distribution · 14 (Z400) Cell: Z400

Gamma distribution with parameters: Location 0.000 Scale 0.084 Shape 2.805853455

Assumption: Distribution · 14 (Z636) Cell: Z636

Maximum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 0.575 Scale 0.276

Assumption: Distribution · 14 (Z759) Cell: Z759

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 0.000 Maximum 5.278 Alpha 3.640413346 Beta 4.877748698

Page 75 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: Distribution · 14 (Z836) Cell: Z836

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.000 Mean 4.318 Std. Dev. 1.849

Assumption: Distribution · 14 (Z885) Cell: Z885

Gamma distribution with parameters: Location 0.000 Scale 3.359 Shape 1.985575393

Assumption: Distribution · 14 (Z913) Cell: Z913

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 0.000 Maximum 17.590 Alpha 0.834028258 Beta 1.121685389

Assumption: Distribution · 14 (Z928) Cell: Z928

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 1.231 Mean 32.834 Std. Dev. 4239.123

Page 76 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: Estimated · 945 Cell: Y938

Triangular distribution with parameters: Minimum 17.642 Likeliest 27.832 Maximum 34.180

Assumption: Fc (lbs-F) · 143 Cell: W147

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.00 Mean 24.94 Std. Dev. 35.04

Assumption: Fc (lbs-F) · 400 Cell: W400

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location -1.65 Mean 28.34 Std. Dev. 24.54

Assumption: Fc (lbs-F) · 638 Cell: W636

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location -2.98 Mean 36.67 Std. Dev. 27.90

Page 77 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: Fc (lbs-F) · 762 Cell: W759

Logistic distribution with parameters: Mean 52.40 Scale 18.29

Assumption: Fc (lbs-F) · 841 Cell: W836

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 3.84 Mean 83.90 Std. Dev. 54.71

Assumption: Fc (lbs-F) · 891 Cell: W885

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum -5.06 Maximum 278.87 Alpha 3.195814484 Beta 6.180910263

Assumption: Fc (lbs-F) · 919 Cell: W913

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location -26.12 Mean 102.73 Std. Dev. 37.43

Page 78 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: Fc (lbs-F) · 934 Cell: W928

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.10 Mean 70.00 Std. Dev. 0.10

Assumption: Fc (lbs-F) · 945 Cell: W938

Uniform distribution with parameters: Minimum 0.00 Maximum 1.00

Assumption: Hardness · 1 Cell: AH48

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location -1.19 Mean 45.77 Std. Dev. 51.50

Assumption: Lognormal · 0 Cell: BE878

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location -1.22 Mean 45.58 Std. Dev. 51.15

Page 79 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: Z938 Cell: Z938

Triangular distribution with parameters: Minimum 4.466 Likeliest 36.027 Maximum 57.713

Worksheet: [IIBHS Full_Database with Corrections by MBP 09.27.2018.xlsx]Model to Actual

Assumption: Natural Hail Measured Fo · 20 Cell: B77

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 26.15 Maximum 258.99 Alpha 0.682625206 Beta 2.346192064

Assumption: Natural Hail Measured σc · 20 Cell: L77

Pareto distribution with parameters: Location 30.41 Shape 1.448715011

Assumption: Natural Hial Measured Fo · 20 Cell: C77

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 17.80 Maximum 151.35 Alpha 0.912934027 Beta 1.18318925

Page 80 MC simulation report for natural hail .25 in. analysis 10.19.2018.xlsx

Assumption: Natural Hial Measured σc · 20 Cell: M77

Pareto distribution with parameters: Location 35.21 Shape 1.795137452

End of Assumptions

Page 81 Texas Tech University, Matt B. Phelps, P.E., December 2018

D. Color of light standard deviation and temperature

Color of Light and Standard Deviation and Temperature Test 750-620 nm 590-620 nm 570-590 nm 495-570 nm 450-495 nm 400-450 nm 380-400 nm 380-750 nm Group Average Number Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet White Mean Temperature 2 3.038562638 10.34987728 2.566651829 0.522671488 0.196747751 3.28240667 3.926748635 0.913606819 3.0997 72.5 min 3 1.921598377 9.022373624 13.21835082 0.860771409 0.457365792 4.157072287 7.106831675 0.948258165 4.7116 72.5 4 1.436491582 11.56311572 8.86497048 0.82733053 0.67190149 3.975225699 6.468206986 1.216486214 4.3780 73.0 5 0.396557769 9.049817321 13.3177286 1.190943649 0.565685425 3.709050613 5.477225575 0.552669475 4.2825 73.0 6 3.174844421 9.249182614 10.74817126 1.776867486 0.687415684 4.751909633 3.273642294 1.134147399 4.3495 72.5 7 4.257346591 11.88639097 15.54896014 2.408821155 0.548522576 4.207807643 5.479341702 2.143773805 5.8101 72.0 8 4.181251356 9.273129322 10.56603658 1.674945834 0.53701685 4.316136265 6.531483925 2.273399827 4.9192 72.0 9 3.200302405 8.650703868 15.55310881 1.295152252 0.672021505 4.142497104 5.971707488 1.203154456 5.0861 72.5 apparent median 10 0.491869377 8.65181083 12.81376371 1.534219882 0.515564207 3.856158669 8.791892801 0.842423539 4.6872 72.5 11 3.964433613 6.022722431 17.20172066 1.883716299 0.930221748 4.472924821 6.723139508 1.568014463 5.3459 73.0 12 3.654427275 10.18809987 17.38786075 0.336010753 0.727671662 4.632350306 8.331585838 2.244841757 5.9379 73.0 13 3.371937081 4.564833142 14.63080599 1.803893638 0.725125128 3.957307451 6.920560182 0.574140311 4.5686 73.0 14 3.710816796 15.46480786 17.2196437 0.176776695 0.618979063 4.095631032 13.93055935 1.631037172 7.1060 73.0 apparent mean 15 3.2372579 9.933600117 8.135941764 1.883716299 0.37674326 4.353345025 9.073179192 1.396640555 4.7988 73.0 16 3.859294395 7.341263735 17.30440812 1.946875081 0.555906699 4.179442778 9.623350299 1.683650029 5.8118 72.5 17 3.334660354 10.43238599 10.80765671 1.431218745 0.393495501 4.421241798 5.46312787 1.868402371 4.7690 72.5 18 2.934603067 6.969692454 15.14443233 1.468760724 0.749085464 3.376717006 7.869845984 1.496972752 5.0013 72.5 19 1.464292739 7.857603673 9.452555551 6.969981719 1.722055107 5.446868551 6.815468057 5.613833001 5.6678 72.0 20 5.983512293 12.70505202 9.257026538 7.801920256 0.961769203 4.356007161 12.29997213 5.098920664 7.3080 40.0 21 7.823081544 10.80467156 11.20033842 16.89901219 2.055166581 6.127344844 8.668572733 9.919789198 9.1872 31.5 22 23.27084567 30.64032697 32.24646767 30.46494548 3.627226791 10.21892417 15.44605597 19.9289059 20.7305 17.0 max 23 7.372505045 14.29738866 11.84833594 5.429905245 0.470415054 5.266678576 8.564685087 6.05010997 7.4125 27.5 24 21.26842181 24.82517501 31.42117634 27.29791954 2.733039709 8.58255686 9.907434484 11.3251077 17.1701 30.0 25 3.963034842 5.262370219 11.79239093 2.881916645 0.795121212 3.93274098 3.886364708 0.793115539 4.1634 51.0 26 3.818461099 6.706325252 7.822050614 2.206113207 1.086871806 4.135755772 6.280971648 2.264514119 4.2901 60.5 27 5.615987403 10.76864475 8.362683529 4.988696901 0.01767767 4.951274681 7.860104961 3.61434753 5.7724 80.5 28 23.27084567 30.64032697 32.24646767 30.46494548 3.627226791 10.21892417 15.44605597 19.9289059 32.2465 max 29 0.396557769 4.564833142 2.566651829 0.176776695 0.01767767 3.28240667 3.273642294 0.552669475 0.0177 min Mean 5.514778603 11.34594734 13.90165562 5.664458046 0.96584705 4.871668116 7.836134191 3.885065647 Mode 0.396557769 4.564833142 2.566651829 1.883716299 3.627226791 3.28240667 3.273642294 0.552669475 Mean 7.094 Median 3.682622035 9.60336472 12.33104982 1.843804969 0.671961498 4.261971954 7.013695928 1.657343601 mode #N/A Max 23.27084567 30.64032697 32.24646767 30.46494548 3.627226791 10.21892417 15.44605597 19.9289059 median 5.044 Min 0.396557769 4.564833142 2.566651829 0.176776695 0.01767767 3.28240667 3.273642294 0.552669475 Range 22.8742879 26.07549383 29.67981584 30.28816879 3.609549121 6.936517505 12.17241368 19.37623642 Texas Tech University, Matt B. Phelps, P.E., December 2018

E. Voltage and amperage settings and data

Voltage setting 12 VDC, Amps 0.125 Color of Light and Measured Wavelengths (nanometers) Voltage 9.87 9.88 10.00 10.37 10.30 10.08 9.97 9.60 Amps 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 750-620 nm 590-620 nm 570-590 nm 495-570 nm 450-495 nm 400-450 nm 380-400 nm 380-750 nm Color values in ROYGBIVW sequence each Number Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet White Date 5.16.2017 1 730.0 892.0 1148.0 1896.0 232.2 440.0 581.0 956.0 Start Time 17:24 2 730.0 889.0 1149.0 1896.0 232.2 431.0 594.0 956.0 Stop Time 17:48 3 730.0 892.0 1145.0 1896.0 232.2 441.0 582.0 957.0 Start Temp 72 oF 4 730.0 890.0 1148.0 1896.0 232.2 437.0 584.0 957.0 Stop Temp 73 oF 5 730.0 882.0 1145.0 1896.0 232.2 432.0 592.0 956.0 6 728.0 899.0 1160.0 1894.0 232.2 429.0 592.0 954.0 7 728.0 895.0 1158.0 1895.0 232.2 433.0 584.0 955.0 8 728.0 896.0 1163.0 1896.0 232.2 428.0 584.0 956.0 9 728.0 894.0 1163.0 1896.0 232.2 433.0 593.0 956.0 10 728.0 895.0 1163.0 1896.0 232.2 435.0 593.0 956.0 11 727.0 906.0 1151.0 1896.0 233.0 432.0 581.0 956.0 12 726.0 908.0 1150.0 1899.0 233.0 427.0 573.0 956.0 13 726.0 905.0 1161.0 1898.0 233.0 436.0 578.0 956.0 14 727.0 904.0 1162.0 1898.0 233.0 427.0 581.0 956.0 15 726.0 907.0 1151.0 1897.0 233.0 432.0 583.0 956.0 16 724.0 884.0 1146.0 1897.0 233.0 428.0 587.0 954.0 17 724.0 880.0 1146.0 1896.0 233.0 428.0 589.0 954.0 18 724.0 878.0 1145.0 1896.0 233.0 435.0 589.0 954.0 19 724.0 883.0 1149.0 1896.0 233.0 427.0 583.0 954.0 20 724.0 879.0 1145.0 1896.0 233.0 432.0 585.0 954.0 21 723.0 896.0 1111.0 1901.0 233.8 425.0 578.0 954.0 22 723.0 890.0 1113.0 1896.0 233.8 432.0 573.0 954.0 23 723.0 900.0 1110.0 1896.0 233.8 435.0 581.0 954.0 24 723.0 893.0 1132.0 1896.0 233.8 435.0 582.0 954.0 25 723.0 902.0 1110.0 1896.0 233.8 435.0 575.0 954.0 26 721.0 902.0 1134.0 1899.0 233.8 436.0 583.0 953.0 27 721.0 885.0 1135.0 1897.0 233.8 431.0 585.0 954.0 28 721.0 890.0 1132.0 1896.0 233.8 440.0 593.0 954.0 29 721.0 885.0 1134.0 1896.0 233.8 431.0 592.0 954.0 30 721.0 889.0 1138.0 1897.0 233.8 436.0 584.0 954.0 31 721.0 883.0 1155.0 1896.0 233.8 427.0 582.0 953.0 32 721.0 889.0 1150.0 1896.0 233.8 433.0 576.0 953.0 Mean 725.13 892.56 1143.81 1896.50 233.05 432.47 584.13 954.81 Mode 721 889 1145 1896 233.8 432 581 954 Median 724 892 1147 1896 233 432 583.5 954 SD 3.200302405 8.650703868 15.55310881 1.295152252 0.672021505 4.142497104 5.971707488 1.203154456 Sample Variance 9.921875 72.49609375 234.3398438 1.625 0.4375 16.62402344 34.546875 1.40234375 Kurtosis -1.324735185 -0.934556998 N/A 4.256253826 -1.58273216 -0.538855955 -0.664512556 -1.322242357 Skewness 0.166859398 0.143552301 N/A 1.629272507 -0.116629037 0.180556883 0.01806394 0.253157894 Minimum 721 878 1110 1894 232.2 425 573 953 Maximum 730 908 1163 1901 233.8 441 594 957 Range 9 30 53 7 1.6 16 21 4 Sum 23204 28562 36602 60688 7457.6 13839 18692 30554 Count 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 Largest(2) 730 907 1163 1899 233.8 440 593 957 Smallest(2) 721 879 1110 1895 232.2 427 573 953 Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.035475663 0.095893891 N/A 0.014356888 0.007449424 0.045919982 0.066196957 0.013337084 2SD 6.40060481 17.30140774 31.10621761 2.590304503 1.34404301 8.284994208 11.94341498 2.406308912 3SD 9.600907215 25.95211161 46.65932642 3.885456755 2.016064515 12.42749131 17.91512246 3.609463368 Mean+SD 728.3253024 901.2132039 1159.365609 1897.795152 233.7220215 436.6112471 590.0967075 956.0156545 Mean-SD 721.9246976 883.9117961 1128.259391 1895.204848 232.3779785 428.3262529 578.1532925 953.6093455 Mean of Means Probability of Value Being with in one SD of the Mean 62.5% 59.4% 68.8% 78.1% 31.3% 62.5% 59.4% 84.4% 63.3% Mean+2SD 731.5256048 909.8639077 1174.918718 1899.090305 234.394043 440.7537442 596.068415 957.2188089 Mean-2SD 718.7243952 875.2610923 1112.706282 1893.909695 231.705957 424.1837558 572.181585 952.4061911

Probability of Value Being with in two SD of the Mean 100.0% 100.0% 90.6% 96.9% 100.0% 96.9% 100.0% 100.0% Mean+3SD 734.7259072 918.5146116 1190.471826 1900.385457 235.0660645 444.8962413 602.0401225 958.4219634 Mean-3SD 715.5240928 866.6103884 1097.153174 1892.614543 231.0339355 420.0412587 566.2098775 951.2030366 Probability of Value Being with in three SD of the Mean 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% LIGHTCOLORSANDTHEIRASSOCIATEDAVERAGE WAVELENGTH 800.00

699.60 700.00

604.22 600.00 580.00

543.2 532.20

500.00 472.50 ) m n (

h 425.23 t g n e

l 389.98

e 400.00 v a W

t h g i L 300.00

200.00

100.00

0.00 Colors and their Associated Wavelengths Texas Tech University, Matt B. Phelps, P.E., December 2018

F. Crystal Ball report freezer iceball mechanics

MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Crystal Ball Report - Full Simulation started on 10/19/2018 at 11:05 AM Simulation stopped on 10/19/2018 at 11:34 AM

Run preferences: Number of trials run 10,000 Monte Carlo Random seed Precision control on Confidence level 95.00%

Run statistics: Total running time (sec) 1734.52 Trials/second (average) 6 Random numbers per sec 392

Crystal Ball data: Assumptions 68 Correlations 0 Correlation matrices 0 Decision variables 0 Forecasts 49 ** Frozen items ** 94

Page 1 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecasts

Worksheet: [IIBHS Full_Database with Corrections by MBP 09.27.2018.xlsx]Freezer Iceball 0.25 Analysis

Forecast: Freezer Iceball (Fo) <1/2 in. diameter Cell: X731

Summary: Entire range is from -1.82 to 113.06 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.13

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 27.48 Median 25.18 Mode --- Standard Deviation 13.27 Variance 176.10 Skewness 1.04 Kurtosis 4.64 Coeff. of Variation 0.4830 Minimum -1.82 Maximum 113.06 Range Width 114.88 Mean Std. Error 0.13

Page 2 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball (Fo) <1/2 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: X731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% -1.82 10% 12.76 20% 16.46 30% 19.35 40% 22.26 50% 25.18 60% 28.46 70% 32.33 80% 37.34 90% 45.00 100% 113.06

Page 3 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <1 1/2" KEterm Cell: G735

Summary: Certainty level is 28.66% Certainty range is from 5.05 to ∞ Entire range is from 2.18 to 6.20 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.01

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 4.19 Median 4.18 Mode --- Standard Deviation 1.16 Variance 1.34 Skewness 0.0033 Kurtosis 1.80 Coeff. of Variation 0.2767 Minimum 2.18 Maximum 6.20 Range Width 4.03 Mean Std. Error 0.01

Page 4 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <1 1/2" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: G735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 2.18 10% 2.59 20% 2.98 30% 3.39 40% 3.79 50% 4.18 60% 4.58 70% 5.00 80% 5.39 90% 5.79 100% 6.20

Page 5 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <1 1/4" KEterm Cell: F735

Summary: Certainty level is 67.77% Certainty range is from 3.48 to ∞ Entire range is from 2.18 to 6.20 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.01

Page 6 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <1 1/4" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: F735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 2.18 10% 2.59 20% 2.98 30% 3.39 40% 3.79 50% 4.18 60% 4.58 70% 5.00 80% 5.39 90% 5.79 100% 6.20

Page 7 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <1 3/4" KEterm Cell: H735

Summary: Certainty level is 71.55% Certainty range is from 13.37 to ∞ Entire range is from 5.22 to 29.25 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.04

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 15.95 Median 15.88 Mode --- Standard Deviation 4.08 Variance 16.62 Skewness 0.1636 Kurtosis 2.60 Coeff. of Variation 0.2556 Minimum 5.22 Maximum 29.25 Range Width 24.03 Mean Std. Error 0.04

Page 8 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <1 3/4" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: H735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 5.22 10% 10.70 20% 12.29 30% 13.56 40% 14.75 50% 15.88 60% 16.94 70% 18.09 80% 19.48 90% 21.40 100% 29.25

Page 9 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <1" KEterm Cell: E735

Summary: Certainty level is 19.55% Certainty range is from 1.43 to ∞ Entire range is from 0.37 to 3.31 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.00

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 1.14 Median 1.09 Mode --- Standard Deviation 0.37 Variance 0.14 Skewness 0.9326 Kurtosis 4.28 Coeff. of Variation 0.3224 Minimum 0.37 Maximum 3.31 Range Width 2.93 Mean Std. Error 0.00

Page 10 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <1" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: E735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 0.37 10% 0.73 20% 0.84 30% 0.92 40% 1.01 50% 1.09 60% 1.18 70% 1.28 80% 1.42 90% 1.63 100% 3.31

Page 11 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <1/2" KEterm Cell: C735

Summary: Certainty level is 43.59% Certainty range is from 0.09 to ∞ Entire range is from 0.02 to 0.13 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.00

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 0.08 Median 0.08 Mode --- Standard Deviation 0.03 Variance 0.00 Skewness -0.2067 Kurtosis 2.15 Coeff. of Variation 0.3157 Minimum 0.02 Maximum 0.13 Range Width 0.12 Mean Std. Error 0.00

Page 12 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <1/2" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: C735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 0.02 10% 0.05 20% 0.06 30% 0.07 40% 0.08 50% 0.08 60% 0.09 70% 0.10 80% 0.11 90% 0.12 100% 0.13

Page 13 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <2 1/2" KEterm Cell: K735

Summary: Certainty level is 96.03% Certainty range is from 55.70 to ∞ Entire range is from 40.57 to 128.40 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.12

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 74.86 Median 73.89 Mode --- Standard Deviation 12.20 Variance 148.80 Skewness 0.4817 Kurtosis 3.36 Coeff. of Variation 0.1630 Minimum 40.57 Maximum 128.40 Range Width 87.83 Mean Std. Error 0.12

Page 14 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <2 1/2" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: K735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 40.57 10% 59.95 20% 64.43 30% 67.85 40% 70.86 50% 73.89 60% 77.02 70% 80.55 80% 84.67 90% 90.88 100% 128.40

Page 15 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <2 1/4" KEterm Cell: J735

Summary: Certainty level is 85.42% Certainty range is from 36.54 to ∞ Entire range is from -5.90 to 94.09 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.09

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 45.37 Median 45.39 Mode --- Standard Deviation 9.02 Variance 81.34 Skewness -0.0479 Kurtosis 4.19 Coeff. of Variation 0.1988 Minimum -5.90 Maximum 94.09 Range Width 99.99 Mean Std. Error 0.09

Page 16 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <2 1/4" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: J735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% -5.90 10% 34.38 20% 38.42 30% 41.23 40% 43.34 50% 45.39 60% 47.35 70% 49.63 80% 52.44 90% 56.30 100% 94.09

Page 17 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <2 3/4" KEterm Cell: L735

Summary: Certainty level is 83.88% Certainty range is from 81.55 to ∞ Entire range is from 64.37 to 172.81 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.11

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 92.13 Median 90.39 Mode --- Standard Deviation 11.46 Variance 131.25 Skewness 1.15 Kurtosis 5.44 Coeff. of Variation 0.1244 Minimum 64.37 Maximum 172.81 Range Width 108.44 Mean Std. Error 0.11

Page 18 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <2 3/4" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: L735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 64.37 10% 79.49 20% 82.78 30% 85.33 40% 87.78 50% 90.39 60% 93.00 70% 96.05 80% 100.36 90% 106.97 100% 172.81

Page 19 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <2" KEterm Cell: I735

Summary: Certainty level is 74.07% Certainty range is from 19.96 to ∞ Entire range is from 1.24 to 42.64 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.05

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 22.59 Median 22.57 Mode --- Standard Deviation 4.55 Variance 20.68 Skewness -0.0142 Kurtosis 4.09 Coeff. of Variation 0.2013 Minimum 1.24 Maximum 42.64 Range Width 41.40 Mean Std. Error 0.05

Page 20 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <2" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: I735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 1.24 10% 17.12 20% 19.13 30% 20.45 40% 21.55 50% 22.57 60% 23.56 70% 24.64 80% 26.07 90% 28.07 100% 42.64

Page 21 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <3 1/2" KEterm Cell: O735

Summary: Entire range is from -50.93 to 389.62 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.53

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 274.12 Median 282.70 Mode --- Standard Deviation 52.63 Variance 2769.94 Skewness -1.09 Kurtosis 5.11 Coeff. of Variation 0.1920 Minimum -50.93 Maximum 389.62 Range Width 440.56 Mean Std. Error 0.53

Page 22 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <3 1/2" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: O735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% -50.93 10% 204.31 20% 236.11 30% 255.68 40% 269.94 50% 282.70 60% 293.91 70% 305.16 80% 317.17 90% 332.36 100% 389.62

Page 23 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <3 1/4" KEterm Cell: N735

Summary: Entire range is from -30.41 to 282.56 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.25

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 230.37 Median 234.67 Mode --- Standard Deviation 25.11 Variance 630.49 Skewness -1.32 Kurtosis 6.79 Coeff. of Variation 0.1090 Minimum -30.41 Maximum 282.56 Range Width 312.96 Mean Std. Error 0.25

Page 24 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <3 1/4" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: N735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% -30.41 10% 198.43 20% 212.76 30% 221.88 40% 228.76 50% 234.67 60% 240.01 70% 245.41 80% 250.80 90% 257.46 100% 282.56

Page 25 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <3 3/4" KEterm Cell: P735

Summary: Entire range is from 14.158 to 397.293 Base case is 0.000 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.424

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.000 Mean 308.440 Median 315.148 Mode --- Standard Deviation 42.417 Variance 1,799.169 Skewness -1.16 Kurtosis 5.52 Coeff. of Variation 0.1375 Minimum 14.158 Maximum 397.293 Range Width 383.136 Mean Std. Error 0.424

Page 26 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <3 3/4" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: P735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 14.158 10% 254.213 20% 278.100 30% 293.204 40% 305.071 50% 315.127 60% 324.642 70% 333.588 80% 343.431 90% 354.954 100% 397.293

Page 27 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <3" KEterm Cell: M735

Summary: Entire range is from 108.53 to 1582.04 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.72

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 173.44 Median 152.47 Mode --- Standard Deviation 72.14 Variance 5204.01 Skewness 4.82 Kurtosis 51.12 Coeff. of Variation 0.4159 Minimum 108.53 Maximum 1582.04 Range Width 1473.51 Mean Std. Error 0.72

Page 28 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <3" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: M735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 108.53 10% 122.09 20% 128.88 30% 135.60 40% 143.24 50% 152.47 60% 163.52 70% 179.30 80% 201.82 90% 243.92 100% 1582.04

Page 29 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <3/4" KEterm Cell: D735

Summary: Certainty level is 12.94% Certainty range is from 0.45 to ∞ Entire range is from 0.08 to 7.23 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.00

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 0.28 Median 0.20 Mode --- Standard Deviation 0.26 Variance 0.07 Skewness 6.58 Kurtosis 97.92 Coeff. of Variation 0.9598 Minimum 0.08 Maximum 7.23 Range Width 7.16 Mean Std. Error 0.00

Page 30 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <3/4" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: D735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 0.08 10% 0.11 20% 0.13 30% 0.15 40% 0.17 50% 0.20 60% 0.23 70% 0.28 80% 0.36 90% 0.51 100% 7.23

Page 31 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <4" KEterm Cell: Q735

Summary: Entire range is from 350867.11 to 451580.80 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 214.33

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 394912.65 Median 392572.34 Mode --- Standard Deviation 21433.35 Variance 459388616.00 Skewness 0.3148 Kurtosis 2.42 Coeff. of Variation 0.0543 Minimum 350867.11 Maximum 451580.80 Range Width 100713.69 Mean Std. Error 214.33

Page 32 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball <4" KEterm (cont'd) Cell: Q735

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 350867.11 10% 367577.97 20% 375842.37 30% 381704.83 40% 386958.49 50% 392570.03 60% 399060.83 70% 405939.92 80% 414454.65 90% 425444.88 100% 451580.80

Page 33 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <1 1/2 in. diameter Cell: AB731

Summary: Entire range is from 34.91 to 482.06 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.59

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 147.07 Median 138.33 Mode --- Standard Deviation 59.08 Variance 3489.88 Skewness 0.8676 Kurtosis 3.97 Coeff. of Variation 0.4017 Minimum 34.91 Maximum 482.06 Range Width 447.15 Mean Std. Error 0.59

Page 34 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <1 1/2 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: AB731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 34.91 10% 78.71 20% 95.88 30% 109.89 40% 124.27 50% 138.32 60% 153.23 70% 170.73 80% 194.01 90% 226.70 100% 482.06

Page 35 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <1 1/4 in. diameter Cell: AA731

Summary: Entire range is from 31.05 to 352.88 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.51

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 125.94 Median 118.83 Mode --- Standard Deviation 50.79 Variance 2579.47 Skewness 0.7318 Kurtosis 3.43 Coeff. of Variation 0.4033 Minimum 31.05 Maximum 352.88 Range Width 321.82 Mean Std. Error 0.51

Page 36 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <1 1/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: AA731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 31.05 10% 65.97 20% 81.30 30% 93.84 40% 106.46 50% 118.82 60% 132.15 70% 147.83 80% 167.51 90% 195.18 100% 352.88

Page 37 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <1 3/4 in. diameter Cell: AC731

Summary: Entire range is from 17.75 to 866.66 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.84

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 205.84 Median 191.06 Mode --- Standard Deviation 84.39 Variance 7122.50 Skewness 1.18 Kurtosis 5.70 Coeff. of Variation 0.4100 Minimum 17.75 Maximum 866.66 Range Width 848.92 Mean Std. Error 0.84

Page 38 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <1 3/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: AC731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 17.75 10% 113.80 20% 137.25 30% 155.90 40% 173.06 50% 191.05 60% 211.29 70% 235.64 80% 265.85 90% 314.60 100% 866.66

Page 39 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <1 in. diameter Cell: Z731

Summary: Entire range is from 27.07 to 727.64 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.62

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 99.45 Median 82.84 Mode --- Standard Deviation 61.83 Variance 3822.79 Skewness 1.74 Kurtosis 8.01 Coeff. of Variation 0.6217 Minimum 27.07 Maximum 727.64 Range Width 700.57 Mean Std. Error 0.62

Page 40 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <1 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: Z731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 27.07 10% 39.37 20% 49.86 30% 59.98 40% 70.36 50% 82.84 60% 97.15 70% 115.04 80% 139.91 90% 182.17 100% 727.64

Page 41 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <2 1/2 in. diameter Cell: AF731

Summary: Entire range is from 81.93 to 1052.85 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 1.48

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 430.65 Median 421.43 Mode --- Standard Deviation 148.50 Variance 22052.00 Skewness 0.3667 Kurtosis 2.90 Coeff. of Variation 0.3448 Minimum 81.93 Maximum 1052.85 Range Width 970.92 Mean Std. Error 1.48

Page 42 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <2 1/2 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: AF731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 81.93 10% 242.50 20% 299.50 30% 343.67 40% 381.18 50% 421.41 60% 459.43 70% 503.10 80% 557.37 90% 630.02 100% 1052.85

Page 43 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <2 1/4 in. diameter Cell: AE731

Summary: Entire range is from 86.43 to 1185.53 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 1.27

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 386.93 Median 366.54 Mode --- Standard Deviation 127.28 Variance 16199.88 Skewness 1.02 Kurtosis 4.72 Coeff. of Variation 0.3289 Minimum 86.43 Maximum 1185.53 Range Width 1099.10 Mean Std. Error 1.27

Page 44 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <2 1/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: AE731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 86.43 10% 245.48 20% 281.01 30% 310.91 40% 339.59 50% 366.53 60% 397.40 70% 433.03 80% 481.59 90% 556.23 100% 1185.53

Page 45 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <2 3/4 in. diameter Cell: AG731

Summary: Entire range is from 193.39 to 899.31 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 1.67

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 489.86 Median 477.95 Mode --- Standard Deviation 167.29 Variance 27986.09 Skewness 0.2572 Kurtosis 2.17 Coeff. of Variation 0.3415 Minimum 193.39 Maximum 899.31 Range Width 705.92 Mean Std. Error 1.67

Page 46 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <2 3/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: AG731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 193.39 10% 272.62 20% 326.85 30% 377.73 40% 429.87 50% 477.95 60% 530.58 70% 584.40 80% 645.96 90% 728.69 100% 899.31

Page 47 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <2 in. diameter Cell: AD731

Summary: Entire range is from 66.45 to 871.07 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.88

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 262.04 Median 247.68 Mode --- Standard Deviation 87.75 Variance 7700.59 Skewness 1.16 Kurtosis 5.44 Coeff. of Variation 0.3349 Minimum 66.45 Maximum 871.07 Range Width 804.62 Mean Std. Error 0.88

Page 48 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <2 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: AD731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 66.45 10% 166.00 20% 190.02 30% 210.26 40% 228.68 50% 247.68 60% 267.96 70% 292.34 80% 325.81 90% 374.02 100% 871.07

Page 49 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <3 1/2 in. diameter Cell: AJ731

Summary: Entire range is from 222.75 to 4072.59 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 3.61

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 687.36 Median 591.04 Mode --- Standard Deviation 361.24 Variance 130493.53 Skewness 2.29 Kurtosis 11.48 Coeff. of Variation 0.5255 Minimum 222.75 Maximum 4072.59 Range Width 3849.84 Mean Std. Error 3.61

Page 50 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <3 1/2 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: AJ731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 222.75 10% 364.83 20% 423.38 30% 477.19 40% 530.87 50% 590.92 60% 662.13 70% 754.53 80% 882.84 90% 1115.07 100% 4072.59

Page 51 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <3 1/4 in. diameter Cell: AI731

Summary: Entire range is from -244.91 to 1721.40 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 2.78

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 725.87 Median 733.60 Mode --- Standard Deviation 277.66 Variance 77093.90 Skewness -0.1315 Kurtosis 2.84 Coeff. of Variation 0.3825 Minimum -244.91 Maximum 1721.40 Range Width 1966.31 Mean Std. Error 2.78

Page 52 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <3 1/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: AI731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% -244.91 10% 358.35 20% 493.59 30% 580.98 40% 658.31 50% 733.54 60% 803.41 70% 880.91 80% 965.35 90% 1078.03 100% 1721.40

Page 53 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <3 3/4 in. diameter Cell: AK731

Summary: Entire range is from 239.07 to 1439.33 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 2.33

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 535.21 Median 483.00 Mode --- Standard Deviation 232.73 Variance 54162.81 Skewness 0.9214 Kurtosis 3.30 Coeff. of Variation 0.4348 Minimum 239.07 Maximum 1439.33 Range Width 1200.26 Mean Std. Error 2.33

Page 54 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <3 3/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: AK731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 239.07 10% 278.75 20% 323.02 30% 370.07 40% 421.48 50% 483.00 60% 547.28 70% 630.01 80% 726.70 90% 878.89 100% 1439.33

Page 55 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <3 in. diameter Cell: AH731

Summary: Entire range is from 204.54 to 890.98 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 1.42

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 550.13 Median 553.04 Mode --- Standard Deviation 142.31 Variance 20251.27 Skewness -0.0443 Kurtosis 2.39 Coeff. of Variation 0.2587 Minimum 204.54 Maximum 890.98 Range Width 686.44 Mean Std. Error 1.42

Page 56 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <3 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: AH731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 204.54 10% 355.11 20% 421.20 30% 472.81 40% 515.12 50% 553.03 60% 588.46 70% 629.85 80% 678.23 90% 741.42 100% 890.98

Page 57 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <3/4 in. diameter Cell: Y731

Summary: Entire range is from 9.78 to 845.93 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.30

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 38.32 Median 29.80 Mode --- Standard Deviation 30.21 Variance 912.90 Skewness 5.38 Kurtosis 81.11 Coeff. of Variation 0.7884 Minimum 9.78 Maximum 845.93 Range Width 836.15 Mean Std. Error 0.30

Page 58 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <3/4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: Y731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 9.78 10% 16.04 20% 19.25 30% 22.41 40% 25.89 50% 29.79 60% 34.45 70% 41.24 80% 50.98 90% 69.85 100% 845.93

Page 59 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <4 in. diameter Cell: AL731

Summary: Entire range is from 428.22 to 1105.56 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 1.42

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 794.18 Median 804.74 Mode --- Standard Deviation 141.73 Variance 20086.43 Skewness -0.2301 Kurtosis 2.41 Coeff. of Variation 0.1785 Minimum 428.22 Maximum 1105.56 Range Width 677.34 Mean Std. Error 1.42

Page 60 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo <4 in. diameter (cont'd) Cell: AL731

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 428.22 10% 594.05 20% 666.04 30% 719.06 40% 764.72 50% 804.72 60% 842.35 70% 878.32 80% 921.47 90% 976.05 100% 1105.56

Page 61 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo Full Validated Date Set Cell: V596

Summary: Entire range is from 0.01 to 3,321.61 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 2.74

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 274.88 Median 187.29 Mode --- Standard Deviation 273.89 Variance 75,018.04 Skewness 1.96 Kurtosis 9.38 Coeff. of Variation 0.9964 Minimum 0.01 Maximum 3,321.61 Range Width 3,321.60 Mean Std. Error 2.74

Page 62 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball Fo Full Validated Date Set (cont'd) Cell: V596

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 0.01 10% 28.30 20% 60.57 30% 97.09 40% 140.48 50% 187.27 60% 251.51 70% 331.42 80% 446.37 90% 640.10 100% 3,321.61

Page 63 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <1 1/2 in. Diameter Cell: AB732

Summary: Entire range is from 39.36 to 454.54 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.50

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 109.78 Median 98.89 Mode --- Standard Deviation 49.62 Variance 2462.35 Skewness 1.37 Kurtosis 5.78 Coeff. of Variation 0.4520 Minimum 39.36 Maximum 454.54 Range Width 415.18 Mean Std. Error 0.50

Page 64 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <1 1/2 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: AB732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 39.36 10% 57.84 20% 68.22 30% 77.67 40% 87.59 50% 98.89 60% 111.13 70% 125.53 80% 145.24 90% 176.55 100% 454.54

Page 65 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <1 1/4 in. Diameter Cell: AA732

Summary: Entire range is from 5.74 to 494.18 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.48

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 119.05 Median 110.57 Mode --- Standard Deviation 47.52 Variance 2257.95 Skewness 1.11 Kurtosis 5.26 Coeff. of Variation 0.3991 Minimum 5.74 Maximum 494.18 Range Width 488.44 Mean Std. Error 0.48

Page 66 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <1 1/4 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: AA732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 5.74 10% 67.58 20% 79.86 30% 90.38 40% 100.17 50% 110.57 60% 122.21 70% 136.19 80% 154.19 90% 181.79 100% 494.18

Page 67 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <1 3/4 in. Diameter Cell: AC732

Summary: Entire range is from 12.54 to 330.65 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.38

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 97.51 Median 92.85 Mode --- Standard Deviation 38.39 Variance 1473.78 Skewness 0.7547 Kurtosis 3.78 Coeff. of Variation 0.3937 Minimum 12.54 Maximum 330.65 Range Width 318.10 Mean Std. Error 0.38

Page 68 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <1 3/4 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: AC732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 12.54 10% 52.40 20% 64.54 30% 73.55 40% 83.47 50% 92.85 60% 102.70 70% 113.87 80% 127.72 90% 149.66 100% 330.65

Page 69 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <1 in. Diameter Cell: Z732

Summary: Entire range is from 52.12 to 2944.99 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 1.55

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 179.57 Median 132.79 Mode --- Standard Deviation 154.67 Variance 23923.06 Skewness 4.70 Kurtosis 43.96 Coeff. of Variation 0.8613 Minimum 52.12 Maximum 2944.99 Range Width 2892.88 Mean Std. Error 1.55

Page 70 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <1 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: Z732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 52.12 10% 74.60 20% 86.86 30% 100.49 40% 115.95 50% 132.79 60% 155.71 70% 185.88 80% 233.94 90% 327.06 100% 2944.99

Page 71 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <1/2 in. Diameter Cell: X732

Summary: Entire range is from -2.07 to 819.14 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.76

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 168.21 Median 158.19 Mode --- Standard Deviation 75.56 Variance 5,708.59 Skewness 0.9958 Kurtosis 5.24 Coeff. of Variation 0.4492 Minimum -2.07 Maximum 819.14 Range Width 821.21 Mean Std. Error 0.76

Page 72 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <1/2 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: X732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% -2.07 10% 81.32 20% 105.52 30% 123.62 40% 140.71 50% 158.19 60% 176.46 70% 197.15 80% 223.56 90% 267.48 100% 819.14

Page 73 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <2 1/2 in. Diameter Cell: AF732

Summary: Entire range is from 12.64 to 220.40 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.33

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 97.25 Median 96.33 Mode --- Standard Deviation 33.16 Variance 1099.83 Skewness 0.2034 Kurtosis 2.65 Coeff. of Variation 0.3410 Minimum 12.64 Maximum 220.40 Range Width 207.76 Mean Std. Error 0.33

Page 74 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <2 1/2 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: AF732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 12.64 10% 54.30 20% 67.43 30% 78.28 40% 87.31 50% 96.33 60% 104.81 70% 114.61 80% 125.95 90% 141.52 100% 220.40

Page 75 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <2 1/4 in. Diameter Cell: AE732

Summary: Entire range is from 34.70 to 331.56 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.35

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 109.16 Median 103.81 Mode --- Standard Deviation 34.72 Variance 1205.51 Skewness 0.9714 Kurtosis 4.64 Coeff. of Variation 0.3181 Minimum 34.70 Maximum 331.56 Range Width 296.86 Mean Std. Error 0.35

Page 76 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <2 1/4 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: AE732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 34.70 10% 69.87 20% 80.16 30% 88.32 40% 96.01 50% 103.80 60% 112.67 70% 122.22 80% 134.92 90% 154.89 100% 331.56

Page 77 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <2 3/4 in. Diameter Cell: AG732

Summary: Entire range is from 39.15 to 166.94 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.33

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 96.54 Median 94.76 Mode --- Standard Deviation 33.24 Variance 1105.09 Skewness 0.1550 Kurtosis 1.97 Coeff. of Variation 0.3443 Minimum 39.15 Maximum 166.94 Range Width 127.80 Mean Std. Error 0.33

Page 78 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <2 3/4 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: AG732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 39.15 10% 52.07 20% 63.44 30% 73.77 40% 84.31 50% 94.75 60% 105.60 70% 117.13 80% 129.22 90% 144.02 100% 166.94

Page 79 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <2 in. Diameter Cell: AD732

Summary: Entire range is from 34.89 to 330.32 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.32

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 100.44 Median 95.46 Mode --- Standard Deviation 31.73 Variance 1006.85 Skewness 0.9854 Kurtosis 4.66 Coeff. of Variation 0.3159 Minimum 34.89 Maximum 330.32 Range Width 295.43 Mean Std. Error 0.32

Page 80 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <2 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: AD732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 34.89 10% 64.80 20% 74.00 30% 81.44 40% 88.30 50% 95.46 60% 103.29 70% 112.40 80% 124.06 90% 142.80 100% 330.32

Page 81 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <3 1/2 in. Diameter Cell: AJ732

Summary: Entire range is from 24.55 to 744.10 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.47

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 76.91 Median 64.00 Mode --- Standard Deviation 46.65 Variance 2175.87 Skewness 3.62 Kurtosis 28.55 Coeff. of Variation 0.6065 Minimum 24.55 Maximum 744.10 Range Width 719.55 Mean Std. Error 0.47

Page 82 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <3 1/2 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: AJ732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 24.55 10% 39.50 20% 45.80 30% 51.51 40% 57.43 50% 63.99 60% 71.83 70% 82.50 80% 97.98 90% 127.46 100% 744.10

Page 83 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <3 1/4 in. Diameter Cell: AI732

Summary: Entire range is from 3.24 to 167.94 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.34

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 96.27 Median 99.79 Mode --- Standard Deviation 34.46 Variance 1187.63 Skewness -0.3324 Kurtosis 2.42 Coeff. of Variation 0.3580 Minimum 3.24 Maximum 167.94 Range Width 164.71 Mean Std. Error 0.34

Page 84 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <3 1/4 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: AI732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 3.24 10% 46.96 20% 64.54 30% 78.65 40% 90.16 50% 99.78 60% 109.23 70% 117.76 80% 127.28 90% 139.09 100% 167.94

Page 85 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <3 3/4 in. Diameter Cell: AK732

Summary: Entire range is from 17.26 to 510.99 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.27

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 52.50 Median 45.65 Mode --- Standard Deviation 27.03 Variance 730.52 Skewness 2.87 Kurtosis 22.79 Coeff. of Variation 0.5148 Minimum 17.26 Maximum 510.99 Range Width 493.73 Mean Std. Error 0.27

Page 86 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <3 3/4 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: AK732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 17.26 10% 28.20 20% 32.70 30% 36.79 40% 40.95 50% 45.65 60% 51.23 70% 58.12 80% 67.22 90% 84.23 100% 510.99

Page 87 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <3 in. Diameter Cell: AH732

Summary: Entire range is from 29.62 to 132.47 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.21

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 82.81 Median 83.55 Mode --- Standard Deviation 21.13 Variance 446.32 Skewness -0.0806 Kurtosis 2.38 Coeff. of Variation 0.2551 Minimum 29.62 Maximum 132.47 Range Width 102.84 Mean Std. Error 0.21

Page 88 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <3 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: AH732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 29.62 10% 53.48 20% 63.65 30% 71.40 40% 77.81 50% 83.54 60% 88.88 70% 94.48 80% 101.83 90% 111.11 100% 132.47

Page 89 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <3/4 in. Diameter Cell: Y732

Summary: Entire range is from 32.68 to 1098.41 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.91

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 140.69 Median 114.42 Mode --- Standard Deviation 91.42 Variance 8357.97 Skewness 2.58 Kurtosis 14.60 Coeff. of Variation 0.6498 Minimum 32.68 Maximum 1098.41 Range Width 1065.73 Mean Std. Error 0.91

Page 90 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <3/4 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: Y732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 32.68 10% 62.68 20% 75.62 30% 87.15 40% 99.61 50% 114.41 60% 132.25 70% 154.61 80% 187.44 90% 247.96 100% 1098.41

Page 91 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <4 in. Diameter Cell: AL732

Summary: Entire range is from 37.37 to 97.52 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.12

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 70.35 Median 71.23 Mode --- Standard Deviation 12.41 Variance 154.10 Skewness -0.2421 Kurtosis 2.44 Coeff. of Variation 0.1765 Minimum 37.37 Maximum 97.52 Range Width 60.14 Mean Std. Error 0.12

Page 92 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc <4 in. Diameter (cont'd) Cell: AL732

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 37.37 10% 52.75 20% 59.22 30% 63.97 40% 67.79 50% 71.22 60% 74.50 70% 77.73 80% 81.52 90% 86.30 100% 97.52

Page 93 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc Full Validated Date Set Cell: W596

Summary: Entire range is from 13.95 to 593.99 Base case is 0.00 After 10,000 trials, the std. error of the mean is 0.61

Statistics: Forecast values Trials 10,000 Base Case 0.00 Mean 114.43 Median 100.48 Mode --- Standard Deviation 60.92 Variance 3,711.63 Skewness 1.67 Kurtosis 7.77 Coeff. of Variation 0.5324 Minimum 13.95 Maximum 593.99 Range Width 580.04 Mean Std. Error 0.61

Page 94 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Forecast: Freezer Iceball σc Full Validated Date Set (cont'd) Cell: W596

Percentiles: Forecast values 0% 13.95 10% 53.05 20% 66.86 30% 77.57 40% 88.51 50% 100.46 60% 114.58 70% 131.16 80% 154.09 90% 191.62 100% 593.99

Page 95 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumptions

Worksheet: [IIBHS Full_Database with Corrections by MBP 09.27.2018.xlsx]Freezer Iceball 0.25 Analysis

Assumption: Compressive Stress · 142 Cell: R145

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 27.54 Mean 142.01 Std. Dev. 94.78

Assumption: Compressive Stress · 74 Cell: R73

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location -94.95 Mean 168.45 Std. Dev. 75.77

Assumption: Density of Air 60 oF Draft Coefficient · 146 Cell: O145

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location -0.03 Mean 0.13 Std. Dev. 0.12

Assumption: Density of Air 60 oF Draft Coefficient · 78 Cell: O73

Triangular distribution with parameters: Minimum 0.00 Likeliest 0.00 Maximum 0.38

Page 100 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: kg/m3 dimensionless · 144 Cell: Q145

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 8.91 Mean 38.44 Std. Dev. 29.96

Assumption: kg/m3 dimensionless · 72 Cell: Q73

Maximum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 21.42 Scale 10.25

Assumption: Q189 Cell: Q189

Gamma distribution with parameters: Location 27.01 Scale 53.71 Shape 1.336721286

Assumption: Q227 Cell: Q227

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 28.79 Maximum 511.33 Alpha 2.735503655 Beta 10.78554458

Page 101 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: Q299 Cell: Q299

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 30.15 Maximum 1,106.67 Alpha 3.43427255 Beta 27.7889581

Assumption: Q367 Cell: Q367

Maximum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 168.95 Scale 65.92

Assumption: Q437 Cell: Q437

Maximum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 223.17 Scale 68.38

Assumption: Q478 Cell: Q478

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.00 Mean 387.73 Std. Dev. 127.18

Page 102 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: Q541 Cell: Q541

Weibull distribution with parameters: Location 77.61 Scale 398.41 Shape 2.520411272

Assumption: Q576 Cell: Q576

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 192.37 Maximum 903.02 Alpha 1.391316369 Beta 1.905421169

Assumption: Q597 Cell: Q597

Triangular distribution with parameters: Minimum 193.10 Likeliest 561.95 Maximum 895.30

Assumption: Q631 Cell: Q631

Weibull distribution with parameters: Location -335.43 Scale 1,166.13 Shape 4.316163151

Page 103 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: Q664 Cell: Q664

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 193.00 Mean 685.49 Std. Dev. 359.86

Assumption: Q694 Cell: Q694

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 239.06 Maximum 1,457.51 Alpha 0.993801925 Beta 3.05828749

Assumption: Q705 Cell: Q705

Triangular distribution with parameters: Minimum 425.20 Likeliest 854.38 Maximum 1,107.00

Assumption: R189 Cell: R189

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 50.26 Mean 181.59 Std. Dev. 157.09

Page 104 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: R227 Cell: R227

Maximum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 97.26 Scale 37.12

Assumption: R299 Cell: R299

Gamma distribution with parameters: Location 38.89 Scale 35.45 Shape 1.990820785

Assumption: R367 Cell: R367

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 4.10 Maximum 1,751.95 Alpha 5.651936229 Beta 100

Assumption: R437 Cell: R437

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.00 Mean 99.66 Std. Dev. 31.01

Page 105 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: R478 Cell: R478

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.00 Mean 108.52 Std. Dev. 34.21

Assumption: R541 Cell: R541

Weibull distribution with parameters: Location 9.06 Scale 99.08 Shape 2.884913823

Assumption: R576 Cell: R576

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 39.14 Maximum 166.97 Alpha 1.199886592 Beta 1.459544648

Assumption: R597 Cell: R597

Triangular distribution with parameters: Minimum 29.35 Likeliest 86.28 Maximum 132.91

Page 106 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: R631 Cell: R631

Triangular distribution with parameters: Minimum 2.86 Likeliest 116.76 Maximum 169.27

Assumption: R664 Cell: R664

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 23.34 Mean 77.27 Std. Dev. 44.93

Assumption: R694 Cell: R694

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 14.49 Mean 53.06 Std. Dev. 27.35

Assumption: R705 Cell: R705

Triangular distribution with parameters: Minimum 37.18 Likeliest 75.36 Maximum 97.64

Page 107 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: S145 Cell: S145

Maximum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 16.669 Scale 1.630

Assumption: S189 Cell: S189

Student's t distribution with parameters: Midpoint 21.367 Scale 0.995 Deg. Freedom 30

Assumption: S227 Cell: S227

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 21.501 Maximum 27.516 Alpha 3.214265062 Beta 1.874707283

Assumption: S299 Cell: S299

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 22.303 Maximum 30.176 Alpha 9.140768889 Beta 6.394350608

Page 108 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: S367 Cell: S367

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 21.616 Maximum 32.487 Alpha 5.93311242 Beta 1.965059128

Assumption: S437 Cell: S437

Logistic distribution with parameters: Mean 31.150 Scale 0.680

Assumption: S478 Cell: S478

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 35.284 Scale 1.000

Assumption: S541 Cell: S541

Weibull distribution with parameters: Location 33.641 Scale 3.305 Shape 3.215036334

Page 109 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: S576 Cell: S576

Logistic distribution with parameters: Mean 37.286 Scale 0.514

Assumption: S597 Cell: S597

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 37.210 Mean 40.195 Std. Dev. 2.630

Assumption: S631 Cell: S631

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 38.175 Maximum 43.297 Alpha 1.320366986 Beta 0.369381273

Assumption: S664 Cell: S664

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 43.330 Scale 1.491

Page 110 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: S694 Cell: S694

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 43.059 Scale 1.149

Assumption: S705 Cell: S705

Triangular distribution with parameters: Minimum 42.600 Likeliest 43.650 Maximum 45.780

Assumption: S73 Cell: S73

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 15.681 Scale 0.860

Assumption: T145 Cell: T145

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.075 Mean 0.274 Std. Dev. 0.257

Page 111 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: T189 Cell: T189

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.000 Mean 1.138 Std. Dev. 0.366

Assumption: T227 Cell: T227

Uniform distribution with parameters: Minimum 2.176 Maximum 6.204

Assumption: T299 Cell: T299

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 3.892 Maximum 18.504 Alpha 2.918596825 Beta 11.5438043

Assumption: T367 Cell: T367

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 4.729 Maximum 31.619 Alpha 3.926855298 Beta 5.492232166

Page 112 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: T437 Cell: T437

Logistic distribution with parameters: Mean 22.623 Scale 2.505

Assumption: T478 Cell: T478

Logistic distribution with parameters: Mean 45.432 Scale 5.087

Assumption: T541 Cell: T541

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.000 Mean 74.878 Std. Dev. 12.049

Assumption: T576 Cell: T576

Maximum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 86.934 Scale 8.953

Page 113 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: T597 Cell: T597

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 107.073 Mean 173.024 Std. Dev. 69.797

Assumption: T631 Cell: T631

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 241.158 Scale 19.193

Assumption: T664 Cell: T664

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 297.845 Scale 41.084

Assumption: T694 Cell: T694

Minimum Extreme distribution with parameters: Likeliest 327.027 Scale 33.426

Page 114 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: T705 Cell: T705

Triangular distribution with parameters: Minimum 350,221.170 Likeliest 382,597.860 Maximum 452,451.150

Assumption: T73 Cell: T73

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 0.017 Maximum 0.134 Alpha 2.169230852 Beta 1.650566587

Assumption: V594 Cell: V594

Exponential distribution with parameters: Rate 0.00

Assumption: W594 Cell: W594

Lognormal distribution with parameters: Location 0.00 Mean 113.78 Std. Dev. 60.26

Worksheet: [IIBHS Full_Database with Corrections by MBP 09.27.2018.xlsx]Model to Actual

Page 115 MC simulation for freezer iceballs 0.25 in. analysis 10.19.2015.xlsx

Assumption: Natural Hail Measured Fo · 20 Cell: B77

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 26.15 Maximum 258.99 Alpha 0.682625206 Beta 2.346192064

Assumption: Natural Hail Measured σc · 20 Cell: L77

Pareto distribution with parameters: Location 30.41 Shape 1.448715011

Assumption: Natural Hial Measured Fo · 20 Cell: C77

Beta distribution with parameters: Minimum 17.80 Maximum 151.35 Alpha 0.912934027 Beta 1.18318925

Assumption: Natural Hial Measured σc · 20 Cell: M77

Pareto distribution with parameters: Location 35.21 Shape 1.795137452

End of Assumptions

Page 116 Texas Tech University, Matt B. Phelps, P.E., December 2018

G. Mecway report and mechanical properties data https://www.scribd.com/document/6869814/HAIL-IMPACT

Model is 50 mm diameter, 3048 nodes, 648 20 node hexahedrons (HEX20).

Plates are modeled as steel, 10 mm thick, 29,000 ksi=E, 0.3 youngs modulus initial model

Showing deformed view

Now all stress from here until otherwise noted are without deformation effects. Time step in the upper left and stress state in the upper left. Von mises first.

Now stress in XX at failure (laterally, side to side) . This shows stress pointing outwards from the center, ie tension

Same thing, deflected shape

Same thing, showing plates

This next one shows stress in YY, note that only the center core is truly in compression, the center shows negative stress (compression), while the outer fringe shows positive stress (expansion -→ tension)

Same thing with deflected shape