Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forensic seismology and boundary element method application vis-à-vis ROKS Cheonan underwater explosion

  • Research Papers
  • Published:
Journal of Marine Science and Application Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

On March 26, 2010 an underwater explosion (UWE) led to the sinking of the ROKS Cheonan. The official Multinational Civilian-Military Joint Investigation Group (MCMJIG) report concluded that the cause of the underwater explosion was a 250 kg net explosive weight (NEW) detonation at a depth of 6–9 m from a DPRK “CHT-02D” torpedo. Kim and Gitterman (2012a) determined the NEW and seismic magnitude as 136 kg at a depth of approximately 8m and 2.04, respectively using basic hydrodynamics based on theoretical and experimental methods as well as spectral analysis and seismic methods. The purpose of this study was to clarify the cause of the UWE via more detailed methods using bubble dynamics and simulation of propellers as well as forensic seismology. Regarding the observed bubble pulse period of 0.990 s, 0.976 s and 1.030 s were found in case of a 136 NEW at a detonation depth of 8 m using the boundary element method (BEM) and 3D bubble shape simulations derived for a 136 kg NEW detonation at a depth of 8 m approximately 5 m portside from the hull centerline. Here we show through analytical equations, models and 3D bubble shape simulations that the most probable cause of this underwater explosion was a 136 kg NEW detonation at a depth of 8m attributable to a ROK littoral “land control” mine (LCM).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barger JE, Hamblen WR (1980). The air gun impulsive underwater transducer. J. Acoustic. Soc. Am., 68(4), 1038–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgardt DR, Der Z (1988). Identification of presumed shallow chemical explosions using land-based regional arrays. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 88(2), 581–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth DC (2009). The relation between seismic local magnitude ML and charge weight for UK Explosions, Keyworth, Nottingham, BGS, UK, British Geological Survey, Earth Hazards Programme, OR/09/062, Open Report pp. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brocher TM (2003). Detonation charge size versus coda magnitude relations in California and Nevada. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 93 (5), 2089–2105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen TJ (1970). Source-depth determination using spectral, pseudo-autocorrelation and cepstralanalysis. Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc., 20, 223–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole RH (1948). Underwater Explosions. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 437.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Giorgi VG, Thomas ED, Lucas KE (1998). Scale effects and verification of modeling of ship cathodic protection systems. Eng. Anal. Bound.Elements., 22, 41–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ditchfield RW, McGrath JN, Tighe-Ford DJ (1995). Theoretical validation of the physical scale modeling of the electrical potential characteristics of marine impressed current cathodic protection. J. Applied Electrochemistry, 25, 54–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong SW, Ohl SW, Klaseboer E (2010). Scaling law for bubbles induced by different external sources: theoretical and experimental study. Physical Review, E 81 056317, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Avila SR, Klaseboer E, Khoo BC, Ohl C (2011). Cavitation bubble dynamics in a liquid gap of Variable height. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 682, 241–260.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Huber T, Wang Y (2012). Effect of propeller coating on cathodic protection current demand: sea trial and modeling studies. Corrosion, 68, 441–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob AWB, Neilson G (1977). Magnitude determination on LOWNET. Edinburgh, UK, Institute of Geological Sciences, GSU, Report, 86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob AWB (1975). Dispersed shots at optimum depth-an efficient seismic source for lithospheric studies. J. Geophysics, 41, 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khalturin VI, Rautian TG, Richards PG (199). The seismic signal strength of chemical Explosions. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 88(6), 1511–1524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim SG, Gitterman Y (2012a). Underwater explosion (UWE) analysis of the ROKS Cheonan Incident. Pure and Appl. Geophys, 169, doi:10.1007/s00024-012-0554-9.

  • Kim SG, Gitterman Y (2012b). A source verification of the underwater explosion (UWE) for the ROKS Cheonan accident. The 9th General Assembly of the ASC, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaseboer E, Khoo BC, Hung KC (2005). Dynamics of an oscillating bubble near a floating structure. J. of Fluids and Structure, 21, 395–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaseboer E, Hung KC, Wang C, Wang, CW, Khoo BC, Boyce P, Debono S, Charlier H (2005). Experimental and numerical investigation of the dynamics of an underwater explosion bubble near a resilient/rigid structure. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 537, 387–413.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Krieger JR, Chahine GL (2005). Acoustic signals of underwater explosion near surfaces. J. Acoustic. Soc. Am., 118(5), 2961–2974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake JR, Gibson DC (1987). Cavitation bubbles near boundaries. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 19, 99–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee M, Klaseboer E, Khoo, BC (2007). On the boundary integral method for the rebounding bubble. J. Fluid Mechanics, 570, 407–429.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Magnaudet J, Eames I (2000). The motion of high-Reynolds-number bubbles in homogeneous flows. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 32, 659–708.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • MCMJIG (Multinational Civilian-Military Joint Investigation Group) (2010). On the attack against ROK ship Cheonan. Seoul, ROK, Joint Investigation Report, Ministry of National Defense, 313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plesset MS, Chapman RB (1971). Collapse of an initially spherical cavity in the neighbourhood of solid boundary. J. of Fluid Mechanics, 47, 283–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plesset MS, Prosperetti A (2000). Bubble dynamics and cavitation. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 19, 145–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayleigh L (1917). On the pressure developed in a liquid during the collapse of a spherical cavity. Philosophical Magazine Series 6, 34, 94–98.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Swisdak MM (1978). Explosion effects and properties: part III-explosion effects in water. Dahlgren, VA, USA, NSWC/WOL, TR 76-116, 109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang QX, Yeo KS, Khoo BC, Lam KY (1996). Nonlinear interaction between gas bubble and free surface. Computer & Fluids, 25(7), 607–628.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wang QX, Blake JR (2011). Non-spherical bubble dynamics in a compressible liquid. Part 2. Acoustic standing wave. J. of Fluid Mechanics, 679, 559–3581.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein MS (1968). Spectra of acoustic and seismic signals generated by underwater explosions during chase experiment. J. of Geophysical Research, 73(16), 5473–5476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis DE (1963). Seismic measurements of large underwater shots. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 53(4), 789–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Xing S, Yun F (2009). The influence of coating damage on ICCP cathodic protection effect. Simulation of Electrochemical Processes III, WIT Trans. on Eng. Sc., 65, 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang YL, Yeo KS, Khoo BC, Wang C (2001). 3D jet impact and toroidal bubbles. J. Comput. Phys., 16(6), 336–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang AM, Yao XI, Li J (2008). The interaction of an underwater explosion bubble and an elastic-plastic structure. Applied Ocean Research, 30, 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Korea Seismological Institute, Goyang, 410734, Republic of Korea

    So Gu Kim

Authors
  1. So Gu Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to So Gu Kim.

Additional information

So Gu Kim is currently director of the Korea Seismological Institute and his research has covered a very wide range of topics in seismology, marine geophysics and oceanography (underwater acoustics and signal processing). He has about 100 publications in the international journals as well as more publications in the national journals including authoring four professional books. He was an invited professor at Hamburg University (Germany), New England University (Australia), GFZ Potsdam (Germany), Hokkaido University (Japan) and Peking University (China) as well as being a professor of physics and geophysics at Hanyang University, Korea for 30 years. His research highlights are in using his expertise to analyze the complicated problems which are involved in geophysics and ocean engineering (e.g. underwater explosion).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, S.G. Forensic seismology and boundary element method application vis-à-vis ROKS Cheonan underwater explosion. J. Marine. Sci. Appl. 12, 422–433 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11804-013-1213-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11804-013-1213-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation