Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 171, Issue 3–5, pp 507–521 | Cite as

Seismic Source Characteristics of Nuclear and Chemical Explosions in Granite from Hydrodynamic Simulations

  • Heming Xu
  • Arthur J. RodgersEmail author
  • Ilya N. Lomov
  • Oleg Y. Vorobiev


Seismic source characteristics of low-yield (0.5–5 kt) underground explosions are inferred from hydrodynamic simulations using a granite material model on high-performance (parallel) computers. We use a non-linear rheological model for granite calibrated to historical near-field nuclear test data. Equivalent elastic P-wave source spectra are derived from the simulated hydrodynamic response using reduced velocity potentials. Source spectra and parameters are compared with the models of Mueller and Murphy (Bull Seism Soc Am 61:1675–1692, 1971, hereafter MM71) and Denny and Johnson (Explosion source phenomenology, pp 1–24, 1991, hereafter DJ91). The source spectra inferred from the simulations of different yields at normal scaled depth-of-burial (SDOB) match the MM71 spectra reasonably well. For normally buried nuclear explosions, seismic moments are larger for the hydrodynamic simulations than MM71 (by 25 %) and for DJ91 (by over a factor of 2), however, the scaling of moment with yield across this low-yield range is consistent for our calculations and the two models. Spectra from our simulations show higher corner frequencies at the lower end of the 0.5–5.0 kt yield range and stronger variation with yield than the MM71 and DJ91 models predict. The spectra from our simulations have additional energy above the corner frequency, probably related to non-linear near-source effects, but at high frequencies the spectral slopes agree with the f −2 predictions of MM71. Simulations of nuclear explosions for a range of SDOB from 0.5 to 3.9 show stronger variations in the seismic moment than predicted by the MM71 and DJ91 models. Chemical explosions are found to generate higher moments by a factor of about two compared to nuclear explosions of the same yield in granite and at normal depth-of-burial, broadly consistent with comparisons of nuclear and chemical shots at the US Nevada Test Site (Denny, Proceeding of symposium on the non-proliferation experiment, Rockville, Maryland, 1994). For all buried explosions, the region of permanent deformation and material damage is not spherical but extends along the free surface above and away from the source. The effect of damage induced by a normally buried nuclear explosion on seismic radiation is explored by comparing the motions from hydrodynamic simulations with those for point-source elastic Green’s functions. Results show that radiation emerging at downward takeoff angles appears to be dominated by the expected isotropic source contribution, while at shallower angles the motions are complicated by near-surface damage and cannot be represented with the addition of a simple secondary compensated linear vector dipole point source above the shot point. The agreement and differences of simulated source spectra with the MM71 and DJ91 models motivates the use of numerical simulations to understand observed motions and investigate seismic source features for underground explosions in various emplacement media and conditions, including non-linear rheological effects such as material strength and porosity.


Seismic Moment Corner Frequency Nuclear Explosion Source Spectrum Hydrodynamic Simulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Discussions with and comments from Bill Walter, Sean Ford and Karl Koch and reviews by the editors and two anonymous referees greatly improved the manuscript. We thank Lew Glenn and Tarabay Antoun for the historical granite explosion data and insightful discussions. We are grateful to the Institute for Scientific Computing Research (ISCR) at LLNL for a Computing Grand Challenge allocation to undertake these calculations. Simulations were performed on the SIERRA Linux cluster operated by Livermore Computing. Funding for this project was provided by the National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development. This work performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. This is LLNL contribution LLNL-JC-519253.


  1. Aki, K., M. Bouchon and P. Reasonberg (1974). Seismic source function for an underground nuclear explosion, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 64, 131–148.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, D. J. and S. Shlien (1972). Propagation of underground explosion waves in the nearly elastic range, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 62, 1691–1698.Google Scholar
  3. Antoun, T. H., O. Y. Vorobiev, I. N. Lomov, L. A. Glenn (1999). Simulations of an underground explosion in granite, Proceedings of the 11 th American Physical Society Topical Conference on Shock Compression of Condensed Matter, Snowbird, UT June 27–July 2, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. Antoun, T. H., I. N. Lomov and L. A. Glenn (2001). Development and application of a strength and damage model for rock under dynamic loading, Proceedings of the 38th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Rock Mechanics in the National Interest, D. Elsworth, J. Tinucci and K. Heasley (eds.), A. A. Balkema Publishers, Lisse, The Netherlands, 369–374.Google Scholar
  5. Antoun, T. H. and I. N. Lomov (2003). Simulation of a spherical wave experiment in marble using multidirectional damage model, Proceedings of the 13th American Physical Society Topical Conference on Shock Compression of Condensed Matter, Portland, OR July 20-25, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. Antoun, T. H., I. N. Lomov and L.A. Glenn (2004). Simulation of the penetration of a sequence of bombs into granitic rock, Int. J. Impact Eng., 29, 81–94.Google Scholar
  7. Ben-Zion, Y. and J.-P Ampuero (2009), Seismic radiation from regions sustaining material damage, Geophys. J. Int., 178, 1351–1356, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04285.x.
  8. Butkovich, T. R. (1965). Calculation of the shock wave from an underground nuclear explosion in granite, J. Geophys. Res., 70, 885–892.Google Scholar
  9. Denny, M. (1994). Introduction and Highlights, 1-1, Proceeding of Symposium on the Non-Proliferation Experiment, Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  10. Denny, M.D and L. R. Johnson (1991). The explosion seismic source function: models and scaling laws reviewed, Explosion Source Phenomenology, p. 1-24, Eds. S. R Taylor, H. J Patton and P.G Richards, Geophysical Monograph, 65.Google Scholar
  11. Ford, S., W. Walter, S. Ruppert, E. Matzel, T. Hauk, and R. Gok (2011). Toward an empirically-based parametric explosion spectral model, Proceedings of the 2011 Monitoring Research Reviews, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
  12. Glenn, L and P. Goldstein (1994), The influence of material models on chemical or nuclear-explosion source functions, 4-68, Proceeding of Symposium on the Non-Proliferation Experiment, Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  13. Goldstein, P. and S. Jarpe (1994), Comparison of chemical and nuclear-explosion source spectra from close-in, local and regional seismic data, 6-98, Proceeding of Symposium on the Non-Proliferation Experiment, Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  14. Haskell, N. A. (1967). Analytic approximation for the elastic radiation from a contained underground explosion, J. Geophys. Res., 66, 2937.Google Scholar
  15. Lee, E., M. Finger and W. Collins (1973), JWL equations of state coefficients for high explosives, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Technical Report UCID-16189.Google Scholar
  16. Lomov. I. N., T. H. Antoun, J. Wagoner and J. Rambo (2003). Three-dimensional simulation of the Baneberry nuclear event, Proceedings of the 13th American Physical Society Topical Conference on Shock Compression of Condensed Matter, Portland, OR July 20 25, 2003.Google Scholar
  17. Luco, J.E and R.J. Apsel (1983). On the Green’s functions for a layered half-space. Part I, Bull. Seismo. Soc. Am., 73, 909–929.Google Scholar
  18. Mueller, R. and J. Murphy (1971). Seismic characteristics of underground nuclear detonations Part 1: Seismic source scaling, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 61, 1675–1692.Google Scholar
  19. Murphy, J.R (1991), Free-field seismic observations from underground nuclear explosions, Explosion Source Phenomenology, 25-33, Eds. S. R Taylor, H. J. Patton and P.G Richards, Geophysical Monograph, 65.Google Scholar
  20. Murphy, J., T. J Bennett, and B. Barker (2011), An analysis of the seismic source characteristics of explosions in low-coupling dry porous media, 524-534, Proceedings of the 2011 Monitoring Research Review, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
  21. Patton, H. J. and S. R. Taylor (2011), The apparent explosion moment: Inferences of volumetric moment due to source medium damage by underground nuclear explosions, J. Geophys. Res., 116, B03310, doi: 10.1029/2010JB007937.
  22. Perret, W. R. (1972), Seismic-source energies of underground nuclear explosions, Bull. Seismo. Soc. Am, 62, 763–774.Google Scholar
  23. Perret W. R. and Bass R. C. (1975). Free-field ground motion induced by underground explosions, Sandia National Laboratory Report No. SAND74-0252.Google Scholar
  24. Rodean, H. (1971). Nuclear-Explosion Seismology, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge, TN.Google Scholar
  25. Rodean, H (1981). Inelastic processes in seismic wave generation by underground explosions, in Identification of Seismic sourceEarthquake or Explosion, E. S. Husebye and S.Mykkelveit (Eds.), P. 97–189.Google Scholar
  26. Rodgers, A. J., H. Xu, I. N. Lomov, N. A. Petersson, B. Sjogreen, O. Y. Vorobiev and V. Chipman (2011). Improving ground motion simulation capabilities for underground explosion monitoring: coupling hydrodynamic-to-seismic solvers and studies of emplacement conditions, Proceeding of 2011 Monitoring Research Review, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
  27. Rougier, E., H. J. Patton, E. E. Knight and C. R. Bradley (2011), Constrains on burial depth and yield of the 25 may 2009 north korean test from hydrodynamic simulations in a granite medium, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L16316, doi: 10.1029/2011gl048269.
  28. Springer, D.L. (1966), P-wave coupling of underground nuclear explosions, Bull. Seismo. Soc. Am, 56, 861–876.Google Scholar
  29. Stevens, J.L and Day, S. M. (1985). The physical basis of mb:Ms and variable frequency magnitude methods for earthquake/explosion discrimination, J. Geophys. Res., 90, 3009–3020.Google Scholar
  30. Stevens, J.L. and H. Xu, (2010), Wave propagation from complex 3D sources using the representation theorem, 519-528, Proceeding of Monitoring Research Review, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  31. Stevens, J.L., G.E. Baker, H. Xu, T.J. Bennett, N. Rimer and S.M. Day (2003), The physical basis of Lg generation by explosion sources, 456-465, Proceeding of the 25th Seismic Research Review, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
  32. Stump, B. W., D. C. Pearson and R. Reinke (1999), Source comparisons between nuclear and chemical explosions detonated at Rainier Mesa, Nevada Test Site, Bull. Seismo. Soc. Am, 89, 409–422.Google Scholar
  33. Trembly, L. D. and J. W. Berg (1966), Amplitudes and energies of primary seismic waves near the Hardhat, Haymaker and Shoal nuclear explosions, Bull Seismol. Soc. Am., 56,643–653.Google Scholar
  34. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1989).The Containment of Underground Nuclear Explosions, OTA-ISC-414, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  35. von Seggern, D. and R. Blandford (1972), Source time functions and spectra for underground nuclear explosions, Geophys. J. R. Soc, 31, 83–97.Google Scholar
  36. Vorobiev O.Yu, Liu B.T, Lomov I.N, Tarabay T.H (2007) Simulation of penetration into porous geologic media, Int. J. of Impact Eng., 34, 721–731.Google Scholar
  37. Vorobiev, O. (2008). Generic strength model for dry jointed rock masses, Int. J. of Plasticity, 24, 2221–2247.Google Scholar
  38. Walter, W. R., K. Mayeda and H. J. Patton (1994), Regional seismic observations of the Non-Proliferation Experiment at the Livermore NTS Network, 6-193, Proceeding of Symposium on the Non-Proliferation Experiment, Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  39. Werth, G. and R. Herst (1963). Comparison of amplitudes of seismic waves from nuclear explosions in four mediums, J. Geophys. Res., 68, 1463–1475.Google Scholar
  40. Yang, X. and J. L. Bonner (2009), Characteristics of chemical explosive sources from time-dependent moment tensors, Bull Seismol. Soc. Am., 99, 36–51.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heming Xu
    • 1
  • Arthur J. Rodgers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ilya N. Lomov
    • 1
  • Oleg Y. Vorobiev
    • 1
  1. 1.Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLivermoreUSA

Personalised recommendations