Seismic analysis of Indian nuclear test

Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by warrior monk, Aug 27, 2015.

  1. warrior monk

    warrior monk Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Odisha
    Here I am putting up the technical paper that explains the seismic yield calculation of India's nuclear test , this is just the seismic calculation not the full yield calculation using other means like radio chemical nuclide test or the hydrodynamic shock test or the other tests performed to calculate yield but are not on public domain.

    upload_2015-8-27_22-32-51.png
    upload_2015-8-27_22-33-23.png
    upload_2015-8-27_22-33-47.png
    upload_2015-8-27_22-34-21.png
    upload_2015-8-27_22-36-30.png
     

    Attached Files:

    LETHALFORCE and Screambowl like this.
  2.  
  3. warrior monk

    warrior monk Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Odisha
    As the above paper presented by Sikka et al proves just the seismic analysis of our nuclear test which suggests the yield achieved by the test is equal to what has been published by the govt.
    There were other tests done to calculate the yield but it cannot be put on public domain due to the secrecy involved.
     
    Screambowl likes this.
  4. warrior monk

    warrior monk Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Odisha
    I have noticed that some people are putting my posts on Pakistan defense forum without giving credit to me or Indian defense forum . I am not a member of Pakistan defense forum nor I 'm interested in being a member in that forum in the future .
    Guys if you want to put my or for the matter anyone else's discussions in this forum in Pakistan defense forum or any other forum atleast give credit to Indian defense forum if not the author of the posts.
    Thank you.
     
  5. warrior monk

    warrior monk Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Odisha
    Same paper presented succinctly by

    Falguni Roy†, G. J. Nair†, T. K. Basu†,
    S. K. Sikka†,‡, Anil Kakodkar†,
    R. Chidambaram†, S. N. Bhattacharya* and
    V. S. Ramamurthy

    This paper presents the analysis of regional Lg and Rayleigh wave data pertaining to the Indian explosions of 11 May 1998 (POK2). Strong Lg and Rayleigh waves have been recorded at several in-country stations. A comparison of Lg waves at Gauribidanur array (GBA), India corresponding to POK2 and that of the Indian explosion of May 1974 (POK1) shows an amplitude ratio of 3.7 between these events. This leads to a yield ratio of 4.83 between the two events. Analysis of Rayleigh waves revealed that Nuttli’s relation for estimation of surface wave magnitude (Ms) in the period range 3.0–12.0 s based on eastern North American data is also applicable for the Indian region. The average Ms value of POK2 from regional data is obtained as 3.56. The yield estimate of POK2 as obtained from the regional data analysis is found consistent with our earlier findings and the post shot radiochemical measurements.

    THREE nuclear explosives were detonated by India on 11 May 1998 at the Pokhran test site in Rajasthan. These explosions, comprising a thermonuclear device, a fission device and a subkiloton device emplaced in spatially separated shafts1, were triggered simultaneously. The seismic waves generated by these explosions were recorded at a large number of regional and teleseismic stations. The combined yield of the two large explosions (POK2) was estimated earlier1–3 using the following methods:


    (1) By selecting the global bodywave magnitude (mb) estimates corresponding to the constructively interfered signals from the simultaneous explosions of POK2 and using a mb versus yield relation appropriate for the
    Pokhran test site2; (2) By comparing the global mb estimates of 18 May 1974 explosion (POK1, used as a calibration event) with those of POK2 as recorded at eight common stations3; (3) By using the surface wave magnitude (Ms) estimates3 and Murphy’s relation4 for Ms‡For correspondence (e-mail: [email protected])

    versus yield; (4) By comparing the acceleration values corresponding to POK2 with those of the explosions conducted in similar geological conditions3.

    All the above methods consistently gave yield estimates of 58 ± 5 kt (refs 2, 3). This estimate is in agreement with the yield of the thermonuclear device of POK2 obtained as 50 ± 10 kt from the post shot radio-chemical analysis5.

    In this paper we report the analysis of regional Lg and Rayleigh wave data corresponding to the POK2 explosions. The inference drawn on the combined yield of the POK2 explosions based on various magnitude estimates is also summarized.

    The seismic Lg wave is one of the many regional phases that propagates in the continental lithosphere. The Lg or the surface shear wave is a wave-train observed on all three components of ground motion and propagates in a crustal wave guide. The initial periods of these waves are about 0.5–6.0 s with a sharp commencement. In general, the amplitude of Lg phase at regional distances is larger than any other conventional phases for the continental paths. The group velocity of Lg waves near its onset is about 3.5 km/s. Due to the isotropic nature of Lg wave radiation pattern, reliable magnitude determination can be made from the data of only a small number of stations6,7. A single station with good signal to noise ratio (SNR) can provide mb (Lg) measurements with an accuracy (one standard deviation) of about 0.03 magnitude units8. Therefore, Lg signals appear to provide an excellent basis for supplying
    estimates of the yields of nuclear explosions even down to below 1 kt, when such signals are recorded at high quality digital, in-country seismic stations, and when calibrated by access to independent yield information for a few nuclear explosions at the test sites of interest.

    Nuttli6 proposed that, since Lg represents a higher mode wave travelling with minimum group velocity, it would be appropriate to relate Lg wave amplitude (A) and distance (D ) by the following equation:

    A = K× D –1/3(sin(D ))–1/2exp(–g D ), (1)

    which is also the expression for the amplitude of dispersed surface waves measured in the time domain corresponding to the Airy phase9. In eq. (1), K is a constant governed by the source strength and g is the anelastic attenuation coefficient which is related to specific quality factor Q by Q = p /UTg , where U is the group velocity and T is the period of the wave. In order to obtain the value of mb (Lg) it will be necessary to estimate g for a particular source–receiver path. There are several methods for estimating g , however, we have followed the one used by Nuttli6. Having estimated g , mb (Lg) can be obtained from the relation10,

    mb(Lg) = 3.81 + 0.831 log10D +

    g (D – 0.09)log10e + log10A, (2)

    where D is in degrees and A corresponds to amplitude in microns at signal periods close to 1 second.

    The POK2 test site and the stations used in the present study are shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 a shows the broad-band seismogram as recorded at Bhopal observatory (BHPL), a station run by the India Meteorological Department (IMD), India. Clear Lg and Rayleigh waves with high SNR are seen in the seismogram. It may be interesting to point out here that though the Nilore station in Pakistan (NIL, an international monitoring station) is situated at a similar distance (D = 6.68° ) from the POK2 site when compared to BHPL (D = 6.34° ), the Lg wave on NIL record is highly attenuated (SNR = 3.8, see Figure 2 b) in comparison to that on BHPL record (SNR = 78). This shows that Lg wave attenuation along the path between NIL and POK2 site is much higher than that along the path between BHPL and POK2 site. The large variations in the amplitudes of the Lg waves at BHPL and NIL which is located in Himalayas, may be attributed to the different geologic and tectonic settings of these locations. The mb (Lg) estimates as obtained from three IMD stations, viz. BHPL (Bhopal), POO (Pune), BLSP (Bilaspur), and GBA (Gauribidanur array) are listed in Table 1. The average mb (Lg) estimate from these stations is obtained as 5.47 with a standard deviation of 0.06. The low value of standard deviation


    [​IMG]

    Figure 1. Map showing the POK2 site and the stations used in the present study.


    [​IMG]

    implies that the average value of Q0 (Q at 1 Hz) is approximately constant over an area containing the epicenter and the stations lying in the azimuth range of 115.7° to 167.4° . It may be noted (Figure 3) that the Trivandrum observatory (TRVM, D = 19.12° ) of the IMD recorded strong Lg waves of ~4 s period on LP seismograms. As the short period data from TRVM is not available, estimation of mb (Lg) using 1 s period Lg wave could not be done. Nevertheless, the amplitude of 4 s period Lg wave is apparently consistent with the average mb (Lg) estimate as obtained from data at the other four stations. However, the Ajmer observatory (AJM, D = 2.57° ) of the IMD recorded much attenuated Lg waves compared to the other five stations. This could be due to its proximity to the Aravali ranges. Thus, the path between the POK2 site and AJM is characterized by a higher g value than that of the other five stations. This is not surprising due to the fact that a similar phenomenon related to the Lg wave attenuation has been observed in North America6 and Middle East11. In view of the above, we feel that the data of AJM should be analysed separately by using the coda of the Lg wave12.

    Figure 4 shows the short period seismogram of GBA. The GBA seismogram, like that of BHPL, also has very strong Lg wave. From GBA data the amplitude ratio of Lg waves between POK2 and POK1 (ref. 13) at 1 s period is obtained as 3.7 which gives the difference in magnitudes (D mb(Lg)) between these two events as 0.57.

    For POK2, very few stations at teleseismic distances have reported Ms estimates based on the amplitude around 20 s period. To be precise, there were only four teleseismic Ms observations when compared to 160 observations corresponding to mb as reported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the International Data Center (IDC), USA and the Kyrgyz network (KNET). However, at the regional distances (D < 20° )


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Rayleigh waves in the period range 3.5–7.0 s with high SNR have been observed at several stations. The Rayleigh wave detection capability is sensitive to rapidly changing noise levels and signal interference.
    Nuttli6 in his study with central US earthquakes noted that though the Rayleigh waves of 3–12 s periods at regional distances yielded Ms value as high as 4.08 no teleseismic surface waves of 20 s period were detectable for a given event. Nuttli concluded that 20 s period waves for this event were too small to be observed at large distances and the microseismic level was also too high.

    The average surface wave magnitude for POK2 using the four teleseismic observations of the USGS is obtained as 3.57 based on the formula adopted by the International Association for Seismology and the Physics of the Earth’s Interior (IASPEI)14. Using the value of Ms = 3.57 and the regional data from six stations corresponding to POK2 having signal periods between 3.5 and 7.0 s, a relation for Ms (authors) is obtained as

    Ms = 2.75 + 1.51 log (D ) + log(A/T)max. (3)

    For regional distances between 2° and 20° . Nuttli6 has proposed the formula

    Ms = 2.6 + 1.66 log(D ) + log(A/T)max, (4)

    where D is in degrees and (A/T)max is the maximum value of A/T in microns per second (A is zero to peak value) for vertical component of Rayleigh waves having periods between 3 and 12 s. Nuttli has used eastern North American data for arriving at the above relation. The Ms estimates obtained using these two relations are listed in Table 2. It may be seen that both the estimates are extremely close to each other. Nuttli’s relation gives an average Ms value of 3.56. The estimates of standard deviations for Ms (authors) and Ms (Nuttli) are obtained as 0.259 and 0.263, respectively. As the difference between these standard deviations is very small, we conclude that Nuttli’s relation, which has been derived from the data of some independent events, is applicable for the Indian region as well.

    The amount of energy transmitted as seismic energy due to an underground explosion is only a small fraction of the total energy. Further, the strength of the seismic signals generated also depends on the host medium. Moreover, the signals recorded at a seismic station depend not only on the above factors but also on the wave transmission characteristics of the path which varies from region to region. Therefore, in order to remove these uncertainties the strength of an explosion from seismic signals should be estimated in relation to a nearby calibration explosion, the yield of which is already known15. The ratio of yields between two explosions can be evaluated by using the difference in their magnitudes, D M, expressed as

    D M = C log(Y/YC), (5)

    where Y and YC are the yields of the given explosion and the calibration explosion, respectively and C is a constant.

    The value of D mb (Lg) = 0.57 at GBA together with a value of C = 0.833 corresponding to unsaturated
    material7 gives the yield ratio between POK2 and POK1 as 4.83 based on Lg waves. This is almost close to the yield ratio of 4.46 obtained earlier from P wave data of eight global stations which were common to both the 1974 and 1998 events3. Using the reported yield of POK1 as 12 to 13 kt (refs 13, 16), the yield of POK2 based on D mb and D mb (Lg) values (Yp and Ylg, respectively) is obtained as 54 kt < Yp < 58 kt and 58 kt < Ylg < 63 kt, respectively. Combining these two estimates we get the yield, Y, of POK2 as 54 kt < Y < 63 kt. It may be added that the rock mechanics phenomenology calculations based on the reported yield of POK1 reproduced the measured cavity radius, spall velocity and the extent of the rock fracturing17. The reported yield of POK1 was also found consistent with the analysis of global data carried out by Marshall et al.18 and Bache19.

    The average Ms value from six regional stations has been estimated as 3.56. Using Murphy’s relation between Ms and yield4 Ys, for less than 100 kt explosions,

    Ms = 2.14 + 0.84 log (Ys), (6)

    Ys for POK2 is obtained as 49 kt. However, relation of Evernden and Marsh20,

    log (Ys) = 0.762 Ms – 1 (7)

    which is applicable to explosions in hard rock anywhere, gives Ys as 52 kt.

    The above yield estimates which are found consistent with the yield obtained from post shot radio-chemical analysis of rock samples show that the yield estimates of Barker et al.21 and Wallace22 are too low. The low yield values may be attributed to the fact that these authors have used only teleseismic P wave data and not taken into account the source geometry of POK2, source parameters and the site-specific geophysical parameters. Moreover, they have not used the global Ms observations for estimating the yield of POK2, as done by Evernden23, which lead to a value closer to our estimates.

    After going through a detailed analysis of the data corresponding to POK2, the following conclusions are arrived at.

    (1) At the regional distances, Lg waves having high SNR were observed at several stations. Average mb (Lg) obtained from such data was 5.47. Though the NIL station in Pakistan and BHPL in India are situated at similar distances from the POK2 site, the observed Lg wave amplitude at BHPL was much higher than that observed at NIL. It may be further emphasized that not only BHPL, but several other in-country stations including GBA have recorded Lg waves with high SNR. This suggests that the attenuation of Lg waves in the peninsular Indian region is, in general, lower than that along the path between NIL and POK2 site. The amplitude ratio of Lg waves at GBA between POK2 and POK1 at 1 s period was obtained as 3.7, resulting in an yield ratio of 4.83 between these events.

    (2) Rayleigh waves observed at regional distances gave an average Ms = 3.56. For Indian region, Nuttli’s relation6 for estimating Ms based on 3–12 s period Rayleigh waves was found applicable.

    (3) From D mb and D mb (Lg) values between POK2 and POK1, the yield of POK2 is estimated as 54 kt < Y < 63 kt in comparison to that of POK1 as 12 kt < Y < 13 kt.

    In short, the yield estimates obtained from both teleseismic as well as regional data are consistent with each other and the estimates are in agreement with the radio-chemical analysis of rock samples recovered by post shot drillings5.
     
    Screambowl likes this.
  6. warrior monk

    warrior monk Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Odisha
    @no smoking
    I have put this technical paper regarding the seismic signals analysis of the Indian nuclear weapon test and the Mb and Ms calculation which eventually gave the yield of the test fell free to go through it.
    No country will provide such analysis of its nuclear test .
    This is just the seismic analysis of our test other analysis are not available on public domain as this would give out our bomb signature which is our national secret.
     
    Screambowl likes this.
  7. Screambowl

    Screambowl Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    4,615
    Likes Received:
    3,217
    Location:
    N/A
    thanks man!
    this thread will be used for reference Now!!
    Keep it up. :D
     
  8. warrior monk

    warrior monk Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Odisha
    Well this doesn't leave any room for complaining and for the first time in a public forum we are discussing the yield analysis of our nuclear test with respect to the original seismic yield analysis paper presented by sikka et al
     
    Screambowl likes this.
  9. ersakthivel

    ersakthivel Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    6,456
    Likes Received:
    6,647
    Location:
    Erode
    "From D mb and D mb (Lg) values between POK2 and POK1, the yield of POK2 is estimated as 54 kt < Y < 63 kt in comparison to that of POK1 as 12 kt < Y < 13 kt."
    SO most of those questions on the nuclear test yields are settled by this analysis?

    is it accepted world over?
     
  10. warrior monk

    warrior monk Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Odisha
    Well the westerners are having some bias for our Mb ( body waves ) and Ms ( surface waves ) calculation
    because Mb is calculated as Mb = log (A/T) + B.
    where A and T are the amplitude and the period measured off long-period vertical component
    seismic recordings in nanometers and seconds and B is a distance-dependent correction term which is where the discrepancy persists.
    similarly for Ms calculation yield is calculated by Xa +Xblog10 Y= Mb where Xa and Xb vary with the geology of the particular site in our case Pokhran which is where they assumed while we had access to our site so our calculation is nearer to the truth.

    Yield is also calculated from other methods are based on the radionuclide analysis of the nuclear byproducts of the explosion (by radiochemical methods) and measurements of the speed of the shockwave generated by the explosion in the surrounding rock (hydrodynamic methods) but here 's the catch
    Neither radiochemical nor hydrodynamic methods are currently used by the United States to measure routinely the yields of other countries only for its own test plus they don't have any radiochemical arrays near India nor have they performed any noble gas test like radioxenon test to measure xenon concentration.

    India has performed 4 to 5 different yield tests but only the seismic analysis is available in public because if any more information is revealed it would reveal our bomb signature.

    So we can safely build and test upto 200 kt weapon design with the information of the above test .
    We can design Mega tonne yield bomb of tellar ulam design but it would weigh 5 to 6 tonnes which is ridiculous . Even our GSLV with three stage including an upper cryostage cannot take satellites that heavy so we need more tests for Mt yield weapon.
     
    LETHALFORCE likes this.
  11. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,519
    Likes Received:
    6,520
  12. warrior monk

    warrior monk Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Odisha
    Well the Pok 2 yield of 55 to 60 confirms our fusion bomb of 43 +/- 5 kt two stage bomb plus the radio nuclide test results were never revealed because of secrecy of our bomb design. Most of the westerners are only concerned with our seismic analysis and they assume and nitpick which is dangerous for any scientific experiment.

    Most important is that if their discrepancy in yield calculation is known then it will give a body blow to their testing stations they so proudly put up to prevent testing and eventually the CTBT program which is built on these testing stations is on shaky grounds itself.
    It is also a fact that one test is never enough especially for our fusion bomb so India will or is already conducting cold test for ICF ( Inertial confinement fusion) for testing fusion .
     
    Kyubi and LETHALFORCE like this.

Share This Page