Engineering topics

Ford, Sean R.

Publications and source records attributed to Ford, Sean R..

3 records

DOE OSTI2023

The Observed Inefficiency of Explosions to Produce Large Aftershocks: Båth’s Law for Explosions is 2.5

Underground explosions are observed to produce fewer and smaller aftershocks than similar size earthquakes. The seismic magnitude difference $Δm_x$ between an explosion and its largest aftershock is an expression of Båth’s law for explosions. Based on an analysis of a compilation of aftershock studies from Soviet testing at the Semipalatinsk test site in Kazakhstan and observations from American testing at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), here we find that the average magnitude difference for explosions $\overline{Δm_x}$ is about 2.5. Based on the NNSS data, two standard deviations of $Δm_x$ is about 1.5. In all the cases studied, from ton to megaton yield, from shallow to overburied depth, and chemical or nuclear source, no explosion aftershock has been larger than the explosion that preceded it. In fact, the two events at the NNSS with the largest aftershock magnitudes relative to the explosion are associated with the collapse of the cavity created by the explosion. This is similar to observations from North Korean testing at the Punggye-ri Test Site, where the largest seismic event following the test is attributed to the collapse after the 2017 explosion and is from 0.8 to 2 magnitude units less than the mainshock.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Explosive Yield Estimation Using Regional Seismic Moment Tensors

Here, we use the Pasyanos and Chiang (2022) data set to calculate the seismic moment M 0 for each explosion and use the measured explosive yield W to validate the W~M 0 relationship in Denny and Johnson (1991; hereafter, DJ91). The M 0 is corrected by transforming to a potency tensor and applying more appropriate near-source geophysical parameter values in the moment estimate. The mean residual between observed and predicted yield is near zero; however, the standard deviation of the residuals results in an F-value (a 95% confidence factor) of about 5. We re-estimate the coefficients in the DJ91 model and find similar values and only a slight improvement in the F-value. Next, we embark on a similar model selection process as DJ91, allowing for non-cube-root yield scaling and other plausible near-source elastic moduli. As was found by DJ91, the yield dependence is not significantly different from unity, and a cube root assumption is valid. Therefore, we yield scale the seismic moment and test the significance of all plausible explanatory variables. Isotropic moment performs better in the response variable than total moment. The preference for isotropic moment could be due to its relationship to volume change, which would be more directly affected by explosive yield. Surprisingly, we find that the overburden pressure, which is a function of depth, is not a significant parameter in the model. We hypothesize that this is due to the competing depth effects on source asymmetry and the incorporation of depth in the Green’s functions used to calculate the seismic moment tensors. Importantly, this emphasizes that only seismic moment tensor-derived moments should be used in these models. After removing insignificant model parameters, we are left with a simple model to predict explosive yield $\widehat{W}$ in kt from isotropic moment M I in N·m, $\widehat{W}$=κ –1.4132 10 0.035626GP M I , in which κ and GP are the near-source bulk modulus and gas porosity in Pa and %, respectively. The F-value for this model is approximately 3.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Numerical Modeling of Air-Blast Suppression as a Function of Explosive-Charge Burial Depth

As a chemical explosion is buried, the mechanism for acoustic wave generation transitions from fully gas-generated at the surface to completely spall-induced at full containment depth. The fully gas-generated and completely spall-induced signals in the acoustic waveform are well described; however, the transition between these two end-members eludes numerical modeling because of the complex phenomena that are involved. The phenomena of crater formation and explosive cloud evolution are simulated using an Eulerian hydrocode that incorporates geomaterials with strength and porosity. Having accurately modeled these phenomena, we can confidently predict the propagation and relative strength of the gas-generated and spall-induced pulses in the recorded acoustic waveform. The numerical predictions agree with observations from the historical Stagecoach experiment as well as modern recordings from the Source Physics Experiment. In particular, the peak pressure p generated by an explosion is initially due to the gas-generated mechanism and decays with scaled depth of burial d s (depth d scaled by the cube-root of explosive yield w 1/3 ) as exp(-d s ) but then transitions near a scaled depth of 6 m/ton 1/3 to the spall-generated mechanism in which the decay is d$_{s}^{-7/4}$. This decay form is related to the strong ground-motion attenuation relationship that affects spall strength. So these results can improve seismoacoustic inverse models for the explosive source that need to account for the gas-generated and spall-induced signals and their effect on peak pressures and other acoustic signal features.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗