Aftershocks of Underground Nuclear Explosion

Адушкин, В. В.; Спивак, А. А.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-57764-2_4

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Explosion aftershocks were not located in any of these studies, so a determination of n cannot be made. ADUSHKIN and SPIVAK (1995) report on several explosion aftershock studies at STS and they analyze in detail the Shaft 1352 explosion. The b value inferred from their plot of aftershock amplitude distribution is 1.00.…”

Section: Data and Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The b value inferred from their plot of aftershock amplitude distribution is 1.00. The p and K values were extracted from the plot of aftershocks per hour, by ADUSHKIN (1995) (Fig. 4).…”

Section: Data and Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4). ADUSHKIN (1995) did not report the minimum magnitude measured in the aftershock study, but rather reported peak velocities for each event in order to infer a b value. We therefore used a magnitude (MPV) equation appropriate for local-toregional distance P waves recorded in the region, MPV = log 10 (A/T) ?…”

Section: Data and Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An Explosion Aftershock Model with Application to On-Site Inspection

Ford

Labak²

2015

Pure Appl. Geophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-An estimate of aftershock activity due to a theoretical underground nuclear explosion is produced using an aftershock rate model. The model is developed with data from the Nevada National Security Site, formerly known as the Nevada Test Site, and the Semipalatinsk Test Site, which we take to represent soft-rock and hard-rock testing environments, respectively. Estimates of expected magnitude and number of aftershocks are calculated using the models for different testing and inspection scenarios. These estimates can help inform the Seismic Aftershock Monitoring System (SAMS) deployment in a potential Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty On-Site Inspection (OSI), by giving the OSI team a probabilistic assessment of potential aftershocks in the Inspection Area (IA). The aftershock assessment, combined with an estimate of the background seismicity in the IA and an empirically derived map of threshold magnitude for the SAMS network, could aid the OSI team in reporting. We apply the hard-rock model to a M5 event and combine it with the very sensitive detection threshold for OSI sensors to show that tens of events per day are expected up to a month after an explosion measured several kilometers away.

show abstract

Section: Data and Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The b value inferred from their plot of aftershock amplitude distribution is 1.00. The p and K values were extracted from the plot of aftershocks per hour, by ADUSHKIN (1995) (Fig. 4).…”

Section: Data and Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Explosion Aftershock Model with Application to On-Site Inspection

Ford

Labak²

2015

Pure Appl. Geophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, empirical scaling, derived from small chemical explosive tests and a limited number of nuclear and large chemical explosive tests, has been used. Only a few experimental results have been published in the open literature for nuclear explosives tests, and many of these are difficult to find [Adushkin et al, 1993;Allen et al, 1997;Banister and Ellett, 1974;Banister et al, 1976;Blouin, 1978;Burkhard and Rambo, 1991;Charlie et al, 1994;Che, 1987;Chu, 1986;Dudley et al, 1971;Folger, 1986;Garber and Koopman, 1968;Garber and Wollitz, 1969;Jinli and Tiezhong, 1983;Knox et al, 1965;Matzko, 1994;Thordarson, 1985].…”

Section: Residual Pore Pressure and Liquefaction Induced By Explosivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Groundwater table mounding, pore pressure, and liquefaction induced by explosions: Energy‐distance relations

Charlie

Doehring

2007

Reviews of Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Explosive-induced ground motion can alter well water levels and induce liquefaction in water-saturated cohesionless geological profiles. Analysis of underground detonations of chemical and nuclear explosives indicates that residual pore pressure and groundwater table mounding can be induced to maximum distances in meters equal to 0.087 J 1/3 or 14 kg, a zone where the estimated peak compressive strain exceeds 0.007% and peak particle velocity exceeds 0.11 m/s. Liquefaction can be induced to maximum distances in meters equal to 0.019 J 1/3 or 3 kg 1/3 , a zone where the estimated peak compressive strain exceeds 0.07% and peak particle velocity exceeds 1.1 m/s. These relationships are linear over 11 orders of magnitude of energy (joules) or trinitrotoluene equivalent mass (kilograms). Maximum distances for residual pore pressure and liquefaction for surface explosions are about one third of those found for underground explosions.

show abstract

“…6) explosion and found that the tests produced fewer large magnitude aftershocks than comparable earthquakes in the region. Adushkin et al (1995) studied explosion aftershock sequences at Russian test sites and found variable aftershock activity decay rates that they related to local geology and hydrology. Gross (1996) investigated the differences between explosion and earthquake aftershocks to see if the seismicity rate in the Yucca Mountain region could be due to transient stress perturbations from past nuclear tests.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aftershock Characteristics as a Means of Discriminating Explosions from Earthquakes

Ford¹,

Walter²

2010

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The behavior of aftershock sequences around the Nevada Test Site in the southern Great Basin is characterized as a potential discriminant between explosions and earthquakes. The aftershock model designed by Jones (1989, 1994) allows for a probabilistic statement of earthquake-like aftershock behavior at any time after the mainshock. We use this model to define two types of aftershock discriminants. The first defines M X , or the minimum magnitude of an aftershock expected within a given duration after the mainshock with probability X. Of the 67 earthquakes with M>4 in the study region, 63 of them produce an aftershock greater than M 99 within the first seven days after a mainshock. This is contrasted with only six of 93 explosions with M>4 that produce an aftershock greater than M 99 for the same period. If the aftershock magnitude threshold is lowered and the M 90 criteria is used, then no explosions produce an aftershock greater than M 90 for durations that end more than 17 days after the mainshock. The other discriminant defines N X , or the minimum cumulative number of aftershocks expected for given time after the mainshock with probability X. Similar to the aftershock magnitude discriminant, five earthquakes do not produce more aftershocks than N 99 within 7 days after the mainshock. However, within the same period all but one explosion produce less aftershocks then N 99 . One explosion is added if the duration is shortened to two days after than mainshock. The cumulative number aftershock discriminant is more reliable, especially at short durations, but requires a low magnitude of completeness for the given earthquake catalog. These results at NTS are quite promising and should be evaluated at other nuclear test sites to understand the effects of differences in the geologic setting and nuclear testing practices on its performance.

show abstract

Aftershocks of Underground Nuclear Explosion

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

An Explosion Aftershock Model with Application to On-Site Inspection

An Explosion Aftershock Model with Application to On-Site Inspection

Groundwater table mounding, pore pressure, and liquefaction induced by explosions: Energy‐distance relations

Aftershock Characteristics as a Means of Discriminating Explosions from Earthquakes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About