Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Khalturin, V. I. Articles by Richards, P. G. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

The seismic signal strength of chemical explosions

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964

Abstract

We have compared the seismic magnitude of a wide variety of chemical explosions of known yield, to the magnitude expected for explosions set off in hard rock under conditions most favorable for generating strong seismic signals. Our results are based on numerous chemical explosions that include several different broad groups, mostly taken from practical experience with explosions carried out on territory of the former Soviet Union. To quantify these observations, we define the deficit of an explosion as the expected signal strength if that charge size, or yield, were fired under the most favorable conditions in hard rock, minus the actual strength. We document the size of the deficit using two different measures of signal strength: the energy class K and the seismic magnitude (which may be the teleseismic m_b or a regional magnitude).

In general, for ripple-fired chemical explosions carried out in the mining and construction industries, the magnitude deficit is around 1.5 to 2. The type of blasting that comes close to the maximum coupling efficiency (zero deficit) is now rare except for small-yield single-fired explosions that are specially designed to maximize signal strength (such as explosions for seismic refraction surveys). There are a small number of locations where the deficit is small (0.5 magnitude units) for quite large chemical yields (several hundred tons). Such explosions, which appear to be uncommon and declining as blasting practices are modernized, may require special attention in the context of verification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. D. Koper, R. B. Herrmann, and H. M. Benz Overview of Open Seismic Data from the North Korean Event of 9 October 2006 Seismological Research Letters, March 1, 2008; 79(2): 178 - 185. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Seismic Event Location Calibration Using the Eastern Turkey Broadband Seismic Network: Analysis of the Agri Dam Explosion Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 2004; 94(3): 1166 - 1171.

				Detonation Charge Size versus Coda Magnitude Relations in California and Nevada Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2003; 93(5): 2089 - 2105.

				Kursk Explosion Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 2001; 91(4): 753 - 759.