Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Explosion crater

An explosion crater is a bowl-shaped topographic depression excavated by the detonation of an explosive charge, where the rapid expansion of gases and shock waves vaporize, displace, and eject surrounding material, often resulting in a raised rim of debris and a central cavity that may partially collapse under gravity.^[1]^[2] These features differ from impact craters primarily in the isotropic nature of the energy release, leading to more symmetric morphologies without oblique trajectories.^[3] Explosion craters form across scales, from small military ordnance detonations to large nuclear tests, and serve as experimental analogs for studying planetary impact processes due to similarities in shock-induced fracturing and ejecta blankets.^[2] Notable examples include the Sedan crater from a 104-kiloton nuclear device detonated 194 meters underground in 1962, measuring 390 meters in diameter and 98 meters deep, created to evaluate excavation potential for civil engineering projects like canal digging.^[1] Such tests revealed empirical scaling laws for crater dimensions, where volume scales with explosive yield raised to the power of approximately 0.3, influenced by burial depth, soil strength, and gravity.^[3] While valuable for geomechanical insights, nuclear explosion craters often involve radioactive fallout and long-term subsidence, complicating environmental assessments.^[1]

Overview

Definition and Etymology

An explosion crater is a topographic depression, typically bowl-shaped or irregular, resulting from the rapid release of energy in an explosion that generates shock waves and expanding gases, ejecting and displacing overlying surface materials. These craters form from near-surface or buried detonations, producing radial symmetry due to isotropic propagation in homogeneous media, though asymmetry arises in varied terrains or directional blasts. Unlike hypervelocity impact craters from meteoroids, which involve projectile penetration and vaporization, explosion craters stem from volumetric energy deposition without incoming mass.^[4] The term "crater" derives from Latin crātēr, adapted from Ancient Greek krātēr (κρατήρ), originally denoting a wide-mouthed mixing vessel for wine and water, from the verb kerannynai ("to mix"). First attested in English around 1613 for volcanic depressions, its use extended to explosive pits by the 19th century in mining engineering and ballistics literature, where systematic observations of blast excavations formalized the analogy to bowl-like voids.^[5] Crater dimensions empirically scale with the cube root of explosive yield in gravity-dominated regimes, as linear sizes (radius, depth) vary as W^{1/3}, where W is energy in TNT equivalents, reflecting energy-volume equivalence in dimensional analysis. This law applies to buried explosions across soil types, with prefactors adjusted for medium strength and burial depth; deviations occur in low-gravity or high-strength regimes.^[6]^[7]

Fundamental Physics of Formation

The formation of an explosion crater initiates with the abrupt release of chemical or nuclear energy at a point source, producing a spherical wavefront of compressed gas and plasma that expands supersonically into the surrounding medium. This detonation generates peak shock pressures of 10 to 100 GPa near the source, causing immediate compression, heating to temperatures exceeding 10,000 K, and partial vaporization of substrate materials within micrometers to meters of the epicenter.^[8]^[9] The shock front propagates at velocities of several kilometers per second, driving hydrodynamic flow that displaces and accelerates surrounding particles radially outward, excavating a transient cavity whose volume scales with the energy yield.^[10] In chemical detonations, this arises from a supersonic reaction front converting solid or liquid explosives into high-velocity gaseous products; nuclear detonations, by contrast, involve fission- or fusion-induced plasma expansion, but both mechanisms yield comparable shock coupling to the ground when energy deposition is rapid and localized.^[4]^[11] Crater excavation proceeds through two primary phases dominated by shock dynamics and material response. During the contact and excavation phase, lasting microseconds to milliseconds, the shock wave imparts momentum to the substrate, fracturing and ejecting material along upward trajectories to form an initial rim while the cavity enlarges to its maximum transient diameter.^[12] This phase ends as the cavity growth decelerates, with ejecta velocities reaching hundreds of meters per second. The subsequent modification phase, driven by gravity over seconds, involves instabilities in the oversteeepened cavity walls, leading to slumping, inward collapse, and partial infilling that stabilizes the final morphology.^[13] These phases occur independently of the explosion's energy origin, as long as release is near-instantaneous and isotropic, though nuclear events often produce more uniform shocks due to higher temperatures minimizing chemical residue effects.^[14] Substrate lithology modulates the excavation efficiency via resistance to shock-induced flow: in granular or loosely consolidated media, lower shear strength permits deeper cavity penetration and greater radial throw per unit energy, whereas in cohesive rock, higher compressive strength limits initial displacement, favoring wider but shallower transients before fracturing dominates.^[15] Empirical underground tests confirm this, with cavity volumes per kiloton varying by over an order of magnitude across rock types for chemical charges, a pattern holding for nuclear yields where shock attenuation is analogous.^[14]

Natural Formation Processes

Volcanic and Phreatic Explosions

Phreatic explosions arise when groundwater or surface water is rapidly heated by magmatic heat or hot volcanic gases, causing the water to flash into steam and generate high-pressure blasts that excavate craters without significant magma ejection.^[16] These events fragment surrounding country rock through shock waves and steam expansion, producing shallow, broad depressions typically lacking a central volcanic cone.^[17] Phreatomagmatic explosions, involving direct magma-water contact, similarly drive crater formation but incorporate minor magmatic fragmentation, yielding ejecta dominated by country rock lithics over juvenile material.^[18] Maars represent the characteristic landform of these processes, featuring low-rimmed craters 0.1 to 2 km in diameter and up to 200 m deep, surrounded by tuff rings or ejecta blankets of ballistic fragments deposited within 1-2 km.^[16] The explosive dynamics stem from fuel-coolant interactions where water influx into ascending magma or vents causes violent boiling and gas release, propelling material outward rather than building effusive structures like lava flows.^[19] Unlike Strombolian or effusive eruptions, which dominate global volcanism, phreatic and phreatomagmatic events are rarer, comprising less than 10% of documented Holocene eruptions due to specific hydrological prerequisites.^[20] Empirical examples include the Ubehebe Craters in California, formed around 2,100 years ago by phreatomagmatic blasts that excavated nested depressions up to 270 m wide through steam-driven explosions of basaltic magma interacting with groundwater.^[17] Diamond Head on Oahu, Hawaii, exemplifies a related tuff cone morphology developed approximately 300,000 years ago via hydrovolcanic eruptions involving phreatic steam bursts and minor magma fragmentation, resulting in a 1.2 km diameter crater rimmed by consolidated tuff.^[21] Geophysical monitoring reveals precursors such as low-frequency seismic tremors and harmonic signals days to minutes before blasts, reflecting pressurization in sealed hydrothermal systems.^[22] Post-formation, these craters often accumulate tephra infill or develop lakes from groundwater recharge, preserving diatreme structures—downward-tapering breccia pipes extending 1-3 km subsurface—evident in geophysical surveys like gravity anomalies.^[23] Such features underscore the causal primacy of steam over magmatic overpressure in excavation, with ejecta sorting patterns indicating ballistic trajectories governed by explosion energy scaling with water volume and confinement.^[24]

Other Geological Explosions

Other geological explosions encompass rare natural events driven by the accumulation and sudden release of pressurized gases or fluids from subsurface reservoirs, distinct from magmatic or phreatic processes. These phenomena occur in tectonically active or permafrost regions where hydrocarbons or volatiles build pressure until exceeding the brittle strength of overlying sediments or rocks, resulting in brittle failure, fracturing, and ejection of material to form shallow craters. Unlike impact craters, these lack high-pressure shocked minerals such as quartz with planar deformation features; identification relies on geophysical surveys showing irregular subsurface voids and gas signatures without meteoritic debris.^[25]^[26] Prominent examples include gas emission craters on Russia's Yamal Peninsula, where at least 17 such features have been documented since 2014, primarily in permafrost tundra. The largest, discovered in 2014, measured approximately 40 meters in diameter and 70 meters deep, with significant ejecta scattered up to 500 meters away. These craters form from explosive releases of methane gas destabilized by thawing permafrost and osmotic pressure gradients that draw unfrozen saline water upward, fracturing ice layers and triggering hydrate dissociation. Recent modeling indicates this process can span decades before culminating in a sudden pressure drop and detonation, releasing methane plumes detectable via satellite.^[25]^[27]^[28] Mud volcano explosions provide another class, occurring where overpressured fluids and gases from deep sedimentary basins breach surface seals, often in compressional tectonic settings like the Caucasus or Gulf of Mexico margins. In Azerbaijan’s Gobustan region, explosive phases have ejected mud breccia blocks rafting over 1 kilometer, destroying pre-existing vents and forming irregular craters up to several hundred meters wide. These events recharge rapidly due to self-sealing of conduits, enabling recurrent blasts; crater depths typically remain shallow (<50 meters) owing to unconsolidated substrates that deform plastically rather than shatter uniformly. Empirical scaling shows ejecta volumes correlating with gas flux rates exceeding 10^6 cubic meters per event, distinguishable from volcanic maars by the absence of juvenile magmatic components and dominance of remobilized sediments.^[26]^[29]

Anthropogenic Explosion Craters

Nuclear Detonations

Nuclear detonations generate craters primarily through surface or near-surface bursts, where the fireball contacts the ground, producing shock waves that excavate material more efficiently than conventional explosives due to the rapid energy deposition from x-rays and plasma formation.^[30] In these bursts, the explosion's thermal radiation ablates and vaporizes surface material, channeling energy downward to enhance crater depth and width relative to yield.^[31] Crater dimensions scale with yield, typically following empirical relations where radius approximates 100-200 meters for yields in the kiloton range under optimal burial depths of about 100-200 meters.^[32] The 104-kiloton Storax Sedan test, conducted on July 6, 1962, at the Nevada Test Site, exemplifies near-surface cratering, detonated 194 meters underground to create a crater 390 meters wide and 98 meters deep, displacing approximately 12 million tons of earth.^[33]^[34] This thermonuclear device demonstrated excavation potential, with the burst depth optimized to maximize ejecta while minimizing fallout venting.^[35] Underground tests at greater depths form vapor cavities that later collapse, resulting in subsidence craters without significant ejecta; over 800 such tests at the Nevada Test Site produced numerous subsidence features, often 100-500 meters in diameter depending on yield and geology.^[36]^[37] Under Project Plowshare, initiated in 1961 to explore peaceful nuclear applications, tests like Sedan aimed at large-scale earthmoving for projects such as canal construction or harbor dredging, achieving displacements orders of magnitude greater per unit energy than chemical methods.^[38] However, radioactive fallout from cratering shots constrained practical implementation, as seen in Sedan's ejection of 1% of its yield in contaminated material.^[35] Subsequent Plowshare experiments, including the 31-kiloton Schooner test in 1968, further validated yield-scaled cratering but highlighted geological dependencies on soil type for rim formation and stability.^[1]

Conventional Explosives in Mining and Demolition

In open-pit mining, conventional chemical explosives like ammonium nitrate-fuel oil (ANFO) mixtures are loaded into drilled boreholes arranged in a bench pattern to fragment and displace overburden or ore. These detonations produce bench-scale craters or depressions, with diameters typically ranging from 10 to 50 meters, governed by factors such as explosive charge mass per delay, stemming length, and subdrilling depth to optimize fragmentation while controlling overbreak.^[39]^[40] Bench heights in such operations often span 10 to 20 meters, with hole diameters from 75 to 380 millimeters, allowing for efficient rock breakage in volumes exceeding thousands of cubic meters per blast.^[41] Historically, mining relied on black powder as the dominant explosive through the early 19th century, constrained by its low detonation velocity and sensitivity to moisture, which limited blast efficiency and safety. The development of dynamite in 1867 by Alfred Nobel, stabilizing nitroglycerin with kieselguhr, marked a shift to high explosives, enabling deeper penetration and greater energy release for larger-scale operations.^[42]^[43] Modern practices favor ANFO for its lower cost and bulk-handling advantages over dynamite, which has largely been supplanted due to handling risks, though emulsions provide alternatives for wet conditions.^[44] Blast design incorporates millisecond delay sequences between adjacent holes to minimize ground vibrations—reducing peak particle velocities that could damage nearby infrastructure—while promoting radial ejection for optimal muck pile formation and loader access.^[45]^[46] In demolition, similar explosives are used for controlled fracturing of structures or rock faces, forming transient craters to facilitate removal, though scaled smaller than mining benches. Benefits include rapid material displacement, cutting extraction times by factors of 10 or more compared to mechanical methods, but risks such as flyrock—uncontrolled rock ejection beyond blast zones—necessitate exclusion zones and predictive modeling.^[47] Safety advancements, including electronic detonators for precise timing and software simulations of crater profiles, have reduced flyrock incidents by optimizing burden-to-spacing ratios, verifiable through post-blast surveys showing fragmentation uniformity.^[48]^[49]

Morphological and Geophysical Characteristics

Crater Geometry and Scaling Laws

The geometry of explosion craters is characterized by a bowl- or dish-shaped depression, with dimensions that scale primarily with the cube root of the explosive yield W (expressed in TNT equivalent kilotons), reflecting the volumetric nature of energy deposition in the substrate. Empirical models derived from nuclear and high-explosive tests yield a crater radius R \approx k_r W^{1/3}, where k_r ranges from 10 to 20 meters per kiloton^{1/3} depending on the medium; for dry soil, k_r \approx 18 m/kt^{1/3}, while values are lower in competent rock due to higher shear strength. Depth D typically follows D \approx 0.2 to $0.3 R, or equivalently D \approx k_d W^{1/3} with k_d \approx 5 to $9 m/kt^{1/3} in dry soil, though deviations occur in dished craters from shallow or surface bursts.^[30]^[32] These scaling laws stem from dimensional analysis and empirical fits to test data, assuming similarity in stress-strain behavior and energy coupling efficiency, but they hold best for yields spanning 0.1 to 100 kt and scaled burial depths d/W^{1/3} optimized for excavation (typically 1.5 to 2.5 times the scaled radius). In wet or saturated substrates, crater radii increase by 20-50% compared to dry conditions due to reduced frictional resistance and transient fluidization, leading to wider but shallower profiles; hard rock yields smaller k_r (e.g., 10-15 m/kt^{1/3}) from greater energy absorption in compression waves rather than plastic deformation. Deviations from cube-root scaling emerge at extreme yields, with some data favoring W^{0.3} or W^{1/4} exponents in heterogeneous media, as fourth-root better accounts for gravitational effects on ejecta fallback in larger craters.^[6]^[32] The apparent crater—measured post-event—differs from the true (immediate post-detonation) dimensions due to slumping and fallback of unstable rim material, reducing apparent depth by 20-50% and widening the radius slightly; in wet soils, additional infilling from hydraulic sloshing exacerbates this, with final depths as low as 0.1-0.2 of initial values. Scaling derives from first-principles energy partitioning, where roughly half the yield couples to kinetic energy for ejecta acceleration, 20-30% dissipates as heat and shock in the substrate, and the remainder propagates as seismic waves, with efficiencies varying by burial depth and coupling (higher seismic fraction in deep burials reduces cratering). These partitions explain why optimal shallow burials maximize excavation volume, on the order of 1000-4000 m³ per kt in soils.^[30]^[6]^[32]

Ejecta and Rim Features

In explosion craters, ejecta forms a symmetrical blanket of fragmented target material expelled along ballistic trajectories during the cratering process. The thickness of this ejecta blanket decreases exponentially with radial distance from the crater rim, with the thickest deposits occurring proximally and thinning to negligible levels beyond several crater radii.^[50] Finer particles, carried farther by higher velocities or aerodynamic effects, dominate distal regions, while coarser fragments settle nearer the rim due to empirical sorting by ejection velocity.^[51] ^[52] The crater rim exhibits upthrust from plastic deformation of the subsurface and accumulation of proximal ejecta, typically achieving heights of 10-20% of the apparent crater depth. For instance, in the 104 kt Sedan nuclear test crater, the average rim height measured 13.4 m against an apparent depth of 76.8 m.^[1] This elevation results primarily from structural upheaval during the explosion's cavity expansion phase, supplemented by fallback of low-angle ejecta. Breccia lenses and fallback breccias, composed of shocked and fragmented material, often cap the inner rim, distinguishing explosive origins through the absence of organized layering seen in volatile-influenced impact ejecta. Pure explosion ejecta blankets lack the fluidal, layered structures characteristic of impacts involving atmospheric or volatile interactions, reflecting instead discrete ballistic deposition without significant post-ejection flow.^[50]

Subsurface Structures

In explosion craters, the initial subsurface feature is a high-pressure cavity formed by rapid expansion of vaporized or gaseous material from the detonation point. For nuclear bursts, the cavity results from extreme temperatures vaporizing surrounding rock and soil, with empirical scaling laws indicating a cavity radius proportional to yield^{1/3} in unfractured media; subsequent elastic rebound of the cavity walls, driven by hydrostatic pressure drop as the plasma cools, reduces the final radius by up to 20-30% based on post-test analyses of contained underground explosions.^[30] In chemical explosions, the cavity forms primarily from gas expansion and compaction, lacking significant vaporization but exhibiting similar initial overpressures exceeding rock strength.^[53] Following cavity formation, gravitational instability often leads to progressive collapse of the overlying fractured material, creating a rubble-filled chimney extending upward from the cavity. This chimney, typically 10-20% wider in radius than the initial cavity and several times its height, consists of broken and compacted debris; if it interconnects with the surface—as in shallow-buried detonations—it contributes to subsidence or floor uplift in the crater. Drilling into post-explosion sites, such as those from Nevada Test Site nuclear events, has confirmed chimney structures lined with shock-compacted rubble and, in nuclear cases, vitrified glass from melted silicates adhering to cavity walls due to temperatures exceeding 2000°C. Chemical explosions produce limited subsurface melting, confined to localized hot spots without widespread vitrification, as peak temperatures rarely surpass 3000 K.^[54]^[55] Surrounding the crater, subsurface damage manifests as zoned fracturing: a central crushed zone of irreversible compaction transitions outward to a plastic zone of increased density (up to 10-15% higher than undisturbed material) and then a rupture zone with radial and concentric fractures. Radial fractures, induced by tangential tensile stresses from the diverging shock wave, extend 2-5 times the crater radius (R) in competent rock, with extent scaling with explosive energy and medium strength; empirical models from rock blasting correlate longer fractures with higher crack-tip velocities near detonation. These zones weaken structural integrity, facilitating groundwater infiltration or seismic wave scattering.^[56]^[57] Geophysical methods, particularly seismic refraction surveys, delineate these subsurface features by exploiting velocity and density contrasts: compacted plastic zones exhibit P-wave velocities 10-20% higher than ambient rock due to pore closure, while fractured regions show reduced velocities from void opening. Post-test refraction data from nuclear craters reveal sharp boundaries at 1-2R depth, confirming shock-induced heterogeneity. The causal mechanism of damage distribution stems from shock wave propagation, where peak particle velocity decays exponentially with scaled distance (r/W^{1/3}, W in kt), transitioning from superseismic crushing near-source (<0.1 r/W^{1/3}) to elastic waves farther out, with attenuation rates of 1-2 orders of magnitude per doubling of distance in soil.^[30]^[15]

Distinctions from Other Crater Types

Comparison to Impact Craters

Explosion craters and impact craters exhibit superficial similarities, such as their prevalent circular geometry, which arises from the isotropic energy release in explosions and the effective radial shock propagation in hypervelocity impacts exceeding 11 km/s on average.^[58]^[59] Both types form bowl-shaped depressions with raised rims and ejecta blankets, but the underlying formation mechanisms differ fundamentally: explosions involve rapid chemical or nuclear energy release without a discrete projectile, whereas impacts entail kinetic energy from a meteoroid vaporizing upon contact, generating pressures up to 100 GPa.^[4] This distinction manifests in the absence of vaporized extraterrestrial material in explosion craters, which lack geochemical traces like elevated iridium levels or chondritic elemental ratios characteristic of impact ejecta.^[60] A key differentiator lies in shock metamorphism: impact craters routinely display high-pressure mineral polymorphs such as coesite and stishovite, formed at 30–50 GPa, alongside shatter cones and planar deformation features (PDFs) in quartz at pressures above 5–8 GPa.^[61] Chemical explosion craters, limited by detonation velocities under 8 km/s and lower peak pressures, do not produce these polymorphs or extensive diaplectic glass.^[62] Nuclear craters, such as Sedan (formed by a 104-kiloton underground detonation on July 6, 1962), replicate some PDFs and microfractures in quartz akin to those in impacts but fall short of the full spectrum, lacking coesite and exhibiting fresher, sharper features without the pervasive melting or meteoritic contamination seen in structures like Barringer Crater.^[63]^[64] Morphologically, explosion craters remain simple and parabolic for diameters up to several hundred meters, reflecting buried or surface bursts with uniform uplift.^[65] In contrast, terrestrial impact craters transition to complex forms—featuring central rebounds, peak rings, or uplifts—beyond 2–4 km diameter due to elastic-plastic target response and greater excavation depths scaled by velocity cubed.^[66] Petrographic and isotopic analyses confirm distinctions: impact sites yield tektites from hypervelocity melting and no anthropogenic fission products, while explosion debris shows localized vitrification without silica-rich aerodynamically shaped glasses.^[67] These criteria enable unambiguous differentiation, as explosion craters preserve no evidence of projectile vaporization or cosmic origins.^[68]

Differentiation from Volcanic Calderas and Maars

Volcanic calderas form through subsidence and collapse of the overlying crust following the rapid evacuation of large magma chambers during plinian or ignimbrite eruptions, resulting in broad depressions typically exceeding 1 km in diameter and often encompassing multiple vents.^[69]^[70] In contrast, explosion craters from non-volcanic detonations—such as nuclear or conventional blasts—originate from the instantaneous release of mechanical energy that excavates substrate directly, yielding smaller features under 1 km wide without associated magma withdrawal or collapse structures.^[69]^[71] This causal distinction underscores that calderas reflect prolonged volcanic draining and gravitational failure, whereas explosion craters exhibit radial shock-wave symmetry and minimal post-event subsidence. Maars, as volcanic landforms, arise from phreatomagmatic or phreatic eruptions where magma-groundwater interaction generates steam-driven explosions, producing shallow, broad craters (usually 100–2000 m across) rimmed by tephra ejecta enriched in magmatic volatiles like sulfur and juvenile clasts from depth.^[16]^[72] Non-volcanic explosion craters may overlap in scale and shallow morphology but lack these magmatic signatures; their ejecta comprises solely fragmented country rock without xenocrysts or volatile indicators of mantle-derived input, and subsurface probing reveals no diatreme breccia pipes extending beyond blast cavity depths.^[3] Phreatic-style explosions in non-volcanic settings, such as geothermal or chemical bursts, mimic maar superficially but excavate to shallower limits (<200 m) due to confined steam expansion versus the deeper fragmentation in magmatic phreatomagmatism.^[73]^[74] Empirically, explosion craters show no nested or elongate vents indicative of magma ascent paths, and their formation is confined to a single, high-energy pulse rather than iterative subsurface interactions, enabling geophysical differentiation via seismic refraction and ejecta geochemistry.^[75]^[76] These criteria ensure clear separation, as volcanic features retain evidence of endogenic heat and fluid dynamics absent in exogenic blast regimes.

Notable Examples and Case Studies

Sedan Crater (1962 Nuclear Test)

The Sedan nuclear test was conducted on July 6, 1962, as part of Operation Plowshare at the Nevada Test Site in Yucca Flat, Area 10.^[77] A 104-kiloton thermonuclear device was detonated 635 feet underground to study nuclear excavation techniques in desert alluvium.^[77] The shallow burial depth was selected to maximize surface cratering effects for potential civil engineering applications, such as canal digging or harbor construction.^[38] The explosion displaced approximately 12 million tons of earth in seconds, forming a crater 1,280 feet in diameter and 320 feet deep, with a volume of 6.6 million cubic yards.^[78] This made it the largest crater produced by a nuclear detonation at the time and provided empirical data for validating crater scaling models used in predicting excavation outcomes from varying yields and burial depths.^[79] Post-detonation surveys confirmed the test's efficiency in material removal, demonstrating that nuclear methods could excavate volumes far exceeding conventional techniques in terms of speed and energy input per ton.^[77] Despite these technical successes, the test generated significant radioactive fallout, estimated at levels that contaminated areas across multiple states and affected more U.S. residents than any other nuclear test conducted at the Nevada site.^[80] The fallout plume spread over hundreds of square miles, raising concerns about environmental and health risks that undermined the viability of peaceful nuclear excavation proposals.^[81] The Sedan Crater remains a prominent feature at the Nevada National Security Site, now accessible via public tours that highlight its role in advancing geophysical modeling while illustrating the challenges of managing nuclear byproducts.^[78] Its morphology continues to serve as a benchmark for simulations of underground explosions, though subsequent analyses emphasized the trade-offs between excavation yield and radiological hazards.^[79]

Mining Blast Craters

Mining blast craters form through controlled detonations in open-pit operations, where explosives fracture rock along engineered benches to create expansive, terraced depressions for ore extraction. These craters differ from single-event blasts by accumulating over multiple phases, optimizing fragmentation while managing overburden removal. In hard-rock environments, ammonium nitrate-fuel oil (ANFO) or emulsions serve as primary charges, loaded into vertical boreholes spaced 3-6 meters apart in patterns tailored to rock type and geology.^[82] The Bingham Canyon Mine in Utah exemplifies large-scale mining craters, with phased blasts excavating a stepped pit measuring approximately 4 kilometers across and exceeding 1.2 kilometers in depth, the world's largest artificial excavation. Daily operations involve drilling around 200 holes to 17 meters depth, each charged with about 544 kilograms of explosives, yielding total blasts of roughly 100-120 metric tons to advance benches 15-20 meters high. Such sequencing produces incremental crater depths of 20-50 meters per cycle, enhancing haulage efficiency in porphyry copper deposits.^[83]^[84] Safety protocols emphasize vibration control, with peak particle velocity (PPV) limits typically capped at 0.5 inches per second (12.7 mm/s) for residential proximity to prevent structural damage, as per U.S. Bureau of Mines guidelines scaled by frequency. Seismographs monitor blasts in real-time, adjusting charge delays and masses to comply, often using electronic detonators for millisecond precision. Economically, blasting accelerates material removal by factors of 5-10 times over pure mechanical excavation in competent rock, lowering unit costs through higher productivity—evident in Bingham's annual output of over 300,000 tons of copper—while minimizing equipment wear.^[85]^[86]

Volcanic Explosion Craters

Volcanic explosion craters, also known as maars or tuff rings in many cases, result from phreatomagmatic or phreatic eruptions where ascending magma or hydrothermal fluids interact explosively with groundwater or unconsolidated sediments, generating steam-driven blasts that excavate broad, shallow depressions without substantial magmatic effusion. These events produce characteristic brecciated ejecta comprising dominantly country rock fragments over volcanic material, with formation depths tied to the explosive energy, often penetrating tens to hundreds of meters into the subsurface. Unlike anthropogenic blasts, these natural craters preserve pristine geological records, including tephra sequences that enable precise dating through radiometric methods or stratigraphic correlation, revealing episodic activity over Quaternary timescales.^[17] A prominent example is the Zuni Salt Lake maar in west-central New Mexico, formed during a phreatomagmatic eruption in the late Pleistocene, with ages constrained between approximately 86,000 and 114,000 years ago via argon dating of ejecta. The structure features a roughly 2 km diameter crater hosting a hypersaline lake, with excavation reflecting steam explosion dynamics that fragmented underlying sediments and basalt; tephra stratigraphy here provides key evidence for eruption timing and groundwater-magma interaction intensity. Current lake depths reach only about 1.2 meters during wet periods due to evaporation and sedimentation, but the preserved rim and ejecta blanket underscore the crater's origin in high-velocity subsurface blasts.^[87]^[88] Empirical measurements from such craters indicate ejecta volumes typically range from 10 to 100 times the excavated crater volume, attributable to the dilation and fragmentation of unconsolidated materials during steam expansion, yielding low-density tephra blankets devoid of contaminants like radionuclides or industrial residues. This ratio highlights the efficiency of volatile-driven explosions in mobilizing substrate, with preserved deposits offering undiluted proxies for paleohydrology and eruption mechanics; for instance, in analogous maars like Ukinrek in Alaska (erupted 1977), dense-rock equivalent ejecta exceeded crater volume by factors enabling ring construction, scaled similarly in older examples.^[89]^[90] Geological ages, often 10,000 to 100,000 years for preserved Quaternary maars, link these craters to regional tectonics and aquifer conditions, as evidenced by correlated tephra layers across basins.^[91]

Scientific Study and Applications

Historical Research and Modeling

Early empirical studies of explosion craters drew from mining blasts and artillery impacts, establishing foundational data on crater dimensions and ejecta patterns. In the pre-World War II era, the United States Bureau of Mines conducted explosive tests in experimental facilities to assess blast effects in underground settings, providing initial scaled observations of cavity formation and ground displacement relevant to surface cratering. During World War II, military analyses of bomb and shell craters, such as those documented in European theaters, compiled databases of explosion-produced features from munitions like artillery projectiles, revealing dependencies on explosive yield, burial depth, and soil type for crater morphology.^[92] These field measurements prioritized direct observations over theoretical assumptions, highlighting variability in crater profiles due to geological heterogeneity.^[93] The advent of nuclear testing in the 1940s and 1950s propelled advancements in crater modeling through large-scale empirical data and initial computational frameworks. Underground and shallow-buried detonations at sites like the Nevada Test Site generated craters amenable to systematic study, informing the development of hydrocodes—numerical methods simulating shock propagation and material response.^[94] Laboratories such as Sandia National Laboratories contributed to these efforts by integrating test data into predictive models for blast-induced excavation, emphasizing validation against observed crater geometries from yields up to kilotons.^[95] A key milestone occurred with the 1962 Operation Plowshare Sedan test, a 104-kiloton shallow subsurface detonation that excavated a 390-meter-diameter crater, enabling rigorous validation of analytical models like the Gurney equations for ejecta velocity.^[95] The Gurney model, derived from explosive-metal acceleration principles, predicted fragment and ejecta speeds as v = \sqrt{2E \left( \frac{1 + \frac{M}{C} + \frac{M}{2C}}{1 + \frac{M}{C}} \right)}, where E is the Gurney energy, M the mass of the casing or ejecta, and C the explosive mass; post-Sedan analyses confirmed its accuracy within 5-10% for moderate mass ratios when calibrated against measured throwout distributions.^[96] This empirical grounding underscored the superiority of scaled explosion data over untested scaling laws for reliable predictions. Contemporary modeling has evolved to incorporate computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and advanced hydrocodes, such as FLAG, for simulating crater formation with high fidelity to lab and field validations. These tools resolve multi-phase interactions, including vaporization and fragmentation, by solving coupled equations of motion, energy, and state for explosives and media, often benchmarked against nuclear test archives like Sedan to achieve agreement in dimensions and ejecta heights within observational error.^[95] Emphasis remains on prioritizing verifiable scaled tests to constrain parameters, mitigating uncertainties from idealized assumptions in heterogeneous terrains.^[97]

Engineering and Geophysical Applications

Explosion craters have been investigated for engineering applications primarily through nuclear excavation techniques, as demonstrated in the U.S. Project Plowshare, which conducted tests from 1957 to 1977 to assess peaceful uses of nuclear devices for large-scale earthmoving.^[98] The 1962 Sedan test, involving a 104-kiloton device detonated 194 meters underground, produced a crater 390 meters in diameter and 100 meters deep in desert alluvium, validating predictive models for crater dimensions and ejecta distribution in soft rock and soil media.^[35] This enabled feasibility assessments for rapid excavation in megaprojects, such as harbors or canals, where conventional methods would require years; proponents estimated nuclear blasts could excavate volumes equivalent to millions of cubic meters at lower per-unit costs for scales exceeding 100 kilotons yield.^[99] Geophysical applications leverage explosion craters to calibrate subsurface models and study wave propagation. Shallow-buried nuclear detonations generate known seismic sources, allowing empirical validation of cratering mechanics and seismic velocity profiles in varied lithologies, as seen in Nevada Test Site experiments with 1- to 100-kiloton yields that informed scaling laws for apparent crater radii—approximately 60 feet for a 1-kiloton surface burst in dry soil.^[31] ^[30] These data support predictions of explosion-induced ground motion for civil infrastructure design, though applications diminished after the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty restricted atmospheric and underwater testing, confining further work to underground events and ultimately halting Plowshare due to yield limitations under the 1974 Threshold Test Ban Treaty (150-kiloton cap) and nonproliferation concerns.^[100] In hydrogeology, craters like Sedan have facilitated studies of enhanced rock permeability from fracturing, with post-detonation analyses revealing increased groundwater flow paths; the site's 4,200 acre-feet volume and radial fractures extended permeability zones, aiding models of contaminant transport in fractured media without relying on unverified assumptions.^[101] Despite these insights, practical engineering deployment remains constrained by international treaties and safety protocols, limiting explosion craters to research rather than routine civil use, though scaled chemical explosions continue in mining for smaller excavations.^[102]

Environmental Impacts and Legacy

Explosion craters from nuclear detonations, such as the Sedan event on July 6, 1962, at the Nevada Test Site, result in long-term radionuclide persistence, with plutonium-239 exhibiting a half-life of 24,110 years and primarily sequestered in vitrified melt glass that restricts leaching into surrounding media.^[103] Monitoring data reveal elevated gamma-emitting radionuclides in soils adjacent to the crater persisting decades post-detonation, yet vegetation recovery has followed normal ecological succession patterns on denuded surfaces, with native species recolonizing disturbed areas comparably to non-nuclear disturbances.^[104]^[105] Fractures generated by explosive forces can facilitate groundwater pathways for contaminants, including tritium and other fission products, though dilution within aquifers and geochemical binding limit off-site migration, as evidenced by site-specific hydrologic studies at test locations.^[106]^[107] Dose assessments for downwind populations from atmospheric and cratering tests indicate small attributable increases in thyroid cancer, leukemia, and select solid tumors, with federal analyses estimating overall cancer risks from fallout below levels dominating natural background radiation.^[108]^[109] The 1992 U.S. moratorium on nuclear testing reflected cumulative environmental concerns, including radionuclide dispersal, despite models showing contained risks at monitored sites.^[110] In mining contexts, blast-induced craters are routinely backfilled with excavated overburden to restore pre-exploitation topography, preventing erosion of ejecta and facilitating soil stabilization and habitat rehabilitation, thereby minimizing persistent ecological legacies compared to unremediated nuclear features.^[111]^[112] Ejecta blankets from explosions erode via weathering and fluvial processes, contributing to gradual crater infilling over timescales influenced by local climate and substrate, though nuclear variants retain structural visibility due to scale and aridity.^[113]

References

[1]
[PDF] 5. Nevada Test Site Craters
The 100 kt Sedan nuclear explosion crater is 320 ft (97.5 m) deep, has a rim that rises 20 to 100 ft (6.1 to 31.5 m) above the surrounding landscape, and a ...<|separator|>
[2]
Comparison Between Terrestrial Explosion Crater Morphology in ...
Craters created by explosives have been found to serve as valuable analogs to impact craters, within limits. Explosion craters have been created in floating ...
[3]
Experimental craters formed by single and multiple buried ...
Oct 16, 2012 · Experiments compared the crater formed by a single large, buried explosion, with craters formed by multiple explosions with the same cumulative energy.
[4]
https://oxfordre.com/planetaryscience/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.001.0001/acrefore-9780190647926-e-7
[5]
Crater - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Originating from Greek krater meaning "large mixing bowl," crater evolved in the 1610s to denote a volcano's bowl-shaped mouth, reflecting its original ...
[6]
[PDF] Scaling Dimensions of Craters Produced by Buried Explosions - DTIC
When acceleration of gravity is considered significant and is in- cluded in the dimensional analysis, crater dimensions are scaled by cube-root rules with "mass ...
[7]
Ejecta scaling laws for craters in dry alluvial sites - AGU Journals
Dec 10, 1989 · Craters from surface bursts obey strength scaling, in which linear crater dimensions scale as cube root of the yield.
[8]
The theory of cratering phenomena - an overview - NASA ADS
At the high end, pressures of a 1000 Mbar are associated with shock heating temperatures of something of the order of a million degrees Kelvin. The initial ...
[9]
Coupling rule between cratering and ground shock - ScienceDirect
When an underground explosion occurs, the high-temperature and high-pressure gaseous blast products in the burst cavity push the surrounding media to expand, ...
[10]
Craters produced by explosions in a granular medium | Phys. Rev. E
Sep 7, 2017 · We report on an experimental investigation of craters generated by explosions at the surface of a model granular bed.
[11]
[PDF] NUREG/CR-7201, "Characterizing Explosive Effects on ...
The amplitude of the Rayleigh wave is directly proportional to the cube-root of yield of the explosion and is independent of surface geology. In the ...
[12]
[PDF] IMPACT CRATER COLLAPSE - Geophysical Sciences
It is conventional to distinguish three main stages of an impact event (Melosh 1989). These stages are contact and shock compression, transient cavity growth by ...
[13]
[PDF] Chapter 5: Crater Rim Uplift and Crater Wall Collapse
All of these structures were produced during the excavation phase of crater formation, which moved material upward along the crater wall. In contrast, the ...
[14]
[PDF] Mechanical Effect of Underground Nuclear Explosions ... - DTIC
Results of chemical explosions indicate that the volume of cavities per unit energy in various rock may differ by more than an order. Investigations conducted ...
[15]
Effects of underground explosions on soil and structures
The main phenomena caused by underground explosive detonation that must be addressed are crater or camouflet formation, shock wave and elastic–plastic wave ...
[16]
USGS: Volcano Hazards Program Glossary - Maar
Dec 21, 2015 · A maar is a low-relief, broad volcanic crater formed by shallow explosive eruptions. The explosions are usually caused by the heating and boiling of ...
[17]
Ubehebe Craters | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov
Ubehebe Craters formed during a series of explosions set off as molten rock (basaltic magma) rising toward the Earth's surface flashed groundwater to steam ( ...
[18]
Dallol - Global Volcanism Program
This process was not unexpected given that the region contains many craters, and the Dallol crater, formed in 1926, was the result of a phreatic eruption.
[19]
Volcanic Craters (U.S. National Park Service)
Apr 18, 2023 · A volcanic crater is a bowl- or funnel-shaped depression that usually lies directly above the vent from which volcanic material is ejected.
[20]
Understanding and forecasting phreatic eruptions driven by ...
May 18, 2018 · This paper examines phreatic eruptions which are driven by inputs of magma and magmatic gas. We synthesize data from several significant phreatic systems.Nevado Del Ruiz 1985... · Mount Ontake 2007 And 2014... · Magmatic--Hydrothermal...
[21]
Diamond Head - Pacific Historic Parks
Lēʻahi (later known as Diamond Head) is believed to have been formed about 300,000 years ago during a single brief eruption.
[22]
Seismic precursors to the Whakaari 2019 phreatic eruption are ...
Apr 20, 2022 · We describe a general seismic precursor signal for gas-driven eruptions, identified through correlation analysis of 18 well-recorded eruptions.
[23]
https://www.fs.usda.gov/r05/inyo/recreation/inyo-craters
[24]
Image GVP-09299 - Global Volcanism Program
Eruptive activity from June 1987 to June 1990 included phreatic explosions within the crater lake ejecting mud and sulfur, the formation of temporary small ...<|separator|>
[25]
Osmosis Drives Explosions and Methane Release in Siberian ...
Sep 26, 2024 · Mysterious craters, with anomalously high concentrations of methane, have formed in the Yamal and Taymyr peninsulas of Siberia since 2014.
[26]
Explosive mud volcano eruptions and rafting of mud breccia blocks
Feb 1, 2021 · Self-sealing allows fast recharge for more frequent and powerful eruptions. Explosive events destroy the crater: megablocks rafts >1 km ...
[27]
New explanation for Siberia's permafrost craters - AGU Newsroom
Sep 26, 2024 · Large craters in the tundra on Russia's Yamal Peninsula are formed by a combination of warming and osmosis, according to new research in Geophysical Research ...
[28]
Terrawatch: mystery of Siberian explosive craters solved | Science
Oct 23, 2024 · The new cracks create a sudden drop in pressure, which destabilises the methane hydrate and releases an explosive bubble of methane gas.
[29]
Crater formation during the onset of mud volcanism | Geology
Jan 20, 2023 · The craters were infilled soon after they formed by successive mud extrusions that combined to build mud volcanoes, as evidenced by onlap fill ...
[30]
Chapter VI-Shock Effects of Surface and Subsurface Bursts
The cube root scaling law described there can be used to calculate the blast wave properties from a contact surface burst of any specified energy yield.
[31]
Nuclear craters and preliminary theory of the mechanics of explosive ...
These mechanisms include compaction and plastic deformation of the medium immediately surrounding the explosion, spalling of the surface above the explosion.
[32]
[PDF] ESTIMATES OF CRATER DIMENSIONS FOR NEAR ... - OSTI.gov
Nuclear craters (from yields of interest) in dry soil and rock are believed to be bowl-shaped with radii that are approximately 2.5 times their depth. Based on ...
[33]
Operation Storax | US Nuclear Tests | Photographs | Media Gallery
Yield: 104 Kilotons Location: Nevada Test Site Date: July 6, 1962. Excavation experiment. Crater 1,280 ft diameter, 320 ft deep. Thermonuclear device with ...
[34]
Sedan Crater | EROS
A 104-kiloton nuclear device was detonated 635 feet underground on July 6, 1962. The explosion created a cavity that the surface soil collapsed into. The ...Missing: dimensions yield
[35]
Project Plowshare: Nuclear Bombs as Potential Construction Tools
Aug 29, 2024 · Project Sedan in 1962 was Plowshare's first nuclear cratering blast. A 100-kiloton device was detonated 635 ft underground where it displaced 12 ...
[36]
[PDF] geologic surface effects of underground nuclear testing, yucca flat ...
Often informally referred to as a crater at the Nevada Test Site, collapse sinks are distinct from craters in that there is no throw-out or vaporization of ...
[37]
Yucca Flat, Nevada, USA | EROS
One of the most cratered landscapes on Earth is part of the Nevada desert called Yucca Flat. The craters are the remnants of decades of nuclear tests.
[38]
The Sedan Event (Project Plowshare) | Science and Technology
This 100-kiloton blast produced a crater approximately 1,200-feet-in-diameter, with a depth of 320 feet into the desert floor. The Plowshare Program was an ...
[39]
Numerical prediction of crater blasting and bench blasting
The objective of this study is to simulate the process of rock fracture and fragmentation in crater blasting and bench blasting, so as to obtain a better ...Missing: conventional | Show results with:conventional
[40]
8.3.1: Bench Blasting | MNG 230: Introduction to Mining Engineering
For benching, hole diameters typically range from a low of 3” to a high of 15”. If we're benching in an underground mine, we'll have hole diameters near the low ...
[41]
6 Common Blasting Methods In Open Pit Mining - Daswell
Oct 13, 2023 · Deep hole blasting is a kind of blasting method which is widely used in open pit mine. The depth of the blast hole is usually 15 to 20m.
[42]
Alfred Nobel's dynamite companies - NobelPrize.org
For hundreds of years, black powder was the only explosive available for civilian as well as military purposes. Alfred Nobel's invention of the detonator ...
[43]
How Alfred Nobel's Invention of Dynamite Reshaped the World
Apr 17, 2025 · Dynamite lit the fuse of the Second Industrial Revolution and transformed civil engineering, mining, warfare and revolutionary movements.
[44]
ANFO Explosive | Dyno Nobel
ANFO Prilled Ammonium Nitrate (AN) is a nominal blend of porous Ammonium Nitrate prill and fuel oil. It is a dry, free flowing explosive.Missing: crater dimensions
[45]
Delay time optimization in blasting operations for mitigating the ...
This study aims to examine the propagation of blasting induced ground vibrations and find the feasible approaches to reduce the harmful effects of vibrations.
[46]
[PDF] Effects of Millisecond-Delay Intervals on Vibration and Airblast From ...
Careful attention to blast design prac- tices can help reduce airblast and ground vibrations generated by mine blasting. This s~udy examined blasthole delay in-.
[47]
[PDF] Flyrock Issues In Blasting - CDC Stacks
Flyrock, rocks thrown beyond expected limits, and failure to secure the blasting area are major causes of blasting accidents, especially in surface mining.
[48]
Vibration Control using electronic detonators: Optimize the Blasting ...
Discover insights into the mitigation of blasting-induced vibrations and the importance of precise delay times between blastholes, with O-Pitblast Products ...
[49]
https://ergindustrial.com/understanding-and-minimizing-the-risks-of-flyrock-in-mine-and-quarry-blasting/
[50]
Impact and explosion crater ejecta, fragment size, and velocity
A model was developed for the mass distribution of fragments that are ejected at a given velocity for impact and explosion craters.
[51]
[PDF] Impact and Explosion Crater Ejecta, Fragment Size, and Velocity
Ratio of the internal energy of ejected frag- ments to incipient meli energy as a function of ejection velocity. Impact velocities are 5 and 30 km/sec onto.
[52]
[PDF] Project Sedan, Mass Distribution and Throwout Studies - DTIC
The primary objective of this project was to obtain quantitative data on distribution of ejecta on the ground surface surrounding a nuclear crater. These data ...
[53]
[PDF] Mechanisms of Fracture and Fragmentation by Explosive Loading
(2) Fractures terminated at interfaces and joints. (3) Model size was too small causing the radial fractures to cleave the model before a crater had developed.
[54]
[PDF] SURFACE EFFECTS UNDERGROUND EFFECTS - OSTI.GOV
Other effects, including collapse chimneys, glass-lined surfaces indicative of the initial explosion cavity, and shock damage to the medium, have also been ...Missing: vapor | Show results with:vapor
[55]
[PDF] Containing Underground Nuclear Explosions
In most tests, the objective is to allow direct radiation from a nuclear explosion to reach the experiment, but prevent the explosive debris and fission ...Missing: subsurface | Show results with:subsurface
[56]
Modeling fractures in rock blasting - ScienceDirect.com
It was seen that the higher the crack velocity the greater the extent of the radial fractures. Tests with different explosive sources have shown that both the ...
[57]
[PDF] Geologic Effects of the High-Explosive Tests in the USGS Tunnel ...
The focal point of the radial fractures (axis of cone) is the area of maximum breakage, and under most conditions it is the point on the surface closest to the ...<|separator|>
[58]
Shaping the Planets: Impact Cratering - Lunar and Planetary Institute
Impact cratering is the excavation of a planet's surface when it is struck by a meteoroid. Impacts are instantaneous events. They leave very characteristic ...<|separator|>
[59]
Large-scale impact and explosion craters - Astrophysics Data System
Three basic crater types, common to both impact and explosion cratering, are compared and include: (a) bowl-shaped, (b) flat-floored with central uplift, and (c) ...<|separator|>
[60]
Earth's Impact Events Through Geologic Time - PubMed Central - NIH
Hypervelocity impacts of larger meteoroids, at much higher incoming velocities, produce craters that show different morphologies with increasing size (e.g., ...
[61]
Progressive metamorphism and classification of shocked and ...
Aug 10, 1971 · Shock stage I is characterized by diaplectic quartz and feldspar that are ... Sedan nuclear explosion crater,Goddard Space Flight Center ...<|separator|>
[62]
[PDF] PROGRESSIVE SHOCK METAMORPHISM OF QUARTZITE ...
The SEDAN crater has a maximum diameter of 402m and an apparent depth of 110m (Plate 1, A). In many respects it resembles the natural Barringer Meteor Crater ...
[63]
Progressive Shock Metamorphism of Quartzite Ejecta from the ...
Most shock effects produced by meteorite impact into quartzose crystalline rocks and sandstones are duplicated to varying degrees in the sedan quartzites.
[64]
TEM study of shock metamorphism in quartz from the Sedan nuclear ...
The shock-induced defects present at the Sedan site are very similar to those seen in laboratory shock recovery experiments and also to those present at ...
[65]
Impact and Explosion Craters: Morphological and Structural Analogs
For example, large-scale bowl-shaped explosion craters formed by surface or shallow heights-of-burst commonly have floors underlain by saucer-shaped breccia ...
[66]
7.1 Impact Cratering – Introduction to Planetary Geology
While the three crater morphologies do indeed look different, they all still exhibit common features, like raised rims, a crater floor, crater walls, and ejecta ...<|separator|>
[67]
Shock metamorphism of quartz in nature and experiment: I. Basic ...
... quartz has been studied on samples from nuclear explosion craters (Manconi and McDougall. 1970), from Coconino sandstone at the Barringer crater (Roach et ...
[68]
(PDF) Structural geology of impact craters - ResearchGate
Aug 7, 2025 · In this paper, we give an overview of the structural inventory found in craters of all size ranges on Earth, and look into the structures of craters on other ...
[69]
Caldera or crater…what's the difference? | U.S. Geological Survey
Jan 8, 2024 · “Crater” is a somewhat generic term referring to an enclosed depression in the ground that can have several possible origins, volcanic and ...
[70]
Calderas - National Geographic Education
Oct 19, 2023 · Calderas vary in size from one to 100 kilometers (0.62 to 62 miles) in diameter. Some calderas form a lake as the bowl-shaped depression fills ...
[71]
Anatomy of a Volcano - Volcanoes, Craters & Lava Flows (U.S. ...
Jul 5, 2023 · Calderas are large, roughly circular collapse features that form during voluminous eruptions that partially empty underlying magma chambers.
[72]
Bizarre Maars (U.S. National Park Service)
Oct 26, 2021 · Maars are shallow craters formed by phreatomagmatic explosions: interactions between magma and groundwater (in our case permafrost).
[73]
Introduction to phreatic eruption - dasaptaerwin.net
Dec 19, 2023 · These eruptions occasionally create broad, low-relief craters called maars. Phreatic explosions can be accompanied by carbon dioxide or ...
[74]
What is a maar? How do they form from phreatic eruptions?
A maar is a shallow volcanic crater with steep sides that is surrounded by tephra deposits. The tephra deposits are thickest near the crater and decrease with ...
[75]
Lateral migration of explosive hazards during maar eruptions ...
Apr 13, 2021 · Maars are small-volume volcanic landforms produced by subsurface phreatomagmatic explosions that excavate a crater that cuts into the pre- ...
[76]
Maar-diatreme volcanoes: A review - ScienceDirect.com
A maar is the crater cut into the ground and surrounded by an ejecta ring, while the diatreme structure continues downward and encloses diatreme and root zone ...
[77]
[PDF] Project Sedan, Nevada Test Site, July 6, 1962. Sedan Long Range ...
Sedan, with a yield of 100 kilotons (nuclear), if free-air burst, would have given a standard pressure-distance curve beginning at Pk = 34.2 mb at. R = 9000 ...Missing: dimensions | Show results with:dimensions
[78]
[PDF] NEVADA TEST SITE GUIDE
Five underground nuclear weapons tests were also conducted on Area 5 of Frenchman. Flat between 1965 and 1968. Frenchman Flat is about 75 miles northwest of Las ...
[79]
Modeling the formation of Sedan Crater using the FLAG and HOSS ...
Jul 1, 2025 · Explosion cratering involves complicated physical processes, including shock wave propagation, material stress and strain responses, crater ...Missing: phases | Show results with:phases
[80]
An Explosive Plan to Use Atoms for Peace - HistoryNet
Sep 25, 2020 · The 1962 Sedan test left a crater a quarter-mile across and showered multiple states with radioactive fallout. (National Archives). Share ...
[81]
We're Going to Work Miracles | Science History Institute
Sep 19, 2024 · Plowshare scientists predicted that nuclear bombs would not only create more and larger fractures in the rock, but they would also carve out ...
[82]
[PDF] Chapter 8 BLAST DESIGN
Different blasting conditions may indicate both a change in bench designs as well as explosive selection. An increase in hole size, along with the same ...
[83]
Utah's Bingham Canyon Copper Mine - World's Largest Man-made ...
Mar 21, 2001 · It is the Bingham Canyon Mine, an open pit excavation two and a half miles wide and three quarters of a mile deep and still growing. At such ...Missing: crater | Show results with:crater
[84]
Kennecott (Bingham Canyon) Mine - Mining Data Online
On average, 200 holes 55 feet deep are drilled in a typical day. Each hole is packed with 1,200 pounds of special blasting agents. Explosives are carried out ...Missing: crater | Show results with:crater
[85]
Vibration Standards - Vibrationdamage.com
Dec 31, 2024 · The OSM standard does not explicitly recognize the Safe Blasting Levels of 0.5 in/sec PPV suggested in USBM RI 8507 for "Older homes, plaster on ...
[86]
Energy Consumption and Fume Analysis: A Comparative ... - MDPI
Compared to drilling and blasting, mechanical excavation is considered to be more expensive and time-consuming, with its main environmental impact associated ...
[87]
Limnology of Zuni Salt Lake, New Mexico | GSA Bulletin
Mar 2, 2017 · Zuni Salt Lake is a shallow saline lake in a maar in west-central New Mexico. The basin was formed during the late Pleistocene when volcanic ...
[88]
Terminal Pleistocene to early Holocene volcanic eruptions at Zuni ...
The revised age range of ZSL is younger and more precise than the 190–24 ka 2-sigma age range derived from previous argon dating. This implies that other ...
[89]
Application of tephra volume models to ejecta volumes from ...
Apr 11, 2016 · The excess volume of ejecta relative to crater volume is the result of the disruption of compacted, organized material by an explosion and the ...
[90]
Eruption Details - Ukinrek Maars 1977/3 - Alaska Volcano Observatory
The total volume of the ejecta represents perhaps 10x10^6 cubic m of dense rock which is substantially greater than the combined crater volume, 4.3x10^6 cubic m ...
[91]
[PDF] Sources of Water and Salts for the Zuni Salt Lake in West-Central ...
Sep 24, 2023 · Based on the older age interpreted for the deep groundwater wells (SAGA-09, SAGA-10, and DKOT-17) and the more recent recharge interpreted ...
[92]
[PDF] Contribution by Cratering from Artillery and Mortar Projectiles - DTIC
This study was accomplished in two distinct phases: Phase I established a data base derived from explosion-produced craters associated with munitions common to ...Missing: early | Show results with:early
[93]
The Archaeology of Unexploded World War II Bomb Sites in the ...
Aug 19, 2022 · Craters after the Explosions of Shells and Mines Craters created by artillery fire mainly occurred within German defense positions and in the ...
[94]
Sandia making history
Sandians have been key to U.S. underground nuclear testing since the first: the 1.2 kiloton Uncle crater shot of Operation Jangle at the Nevada Test Site on Nov ...Missing: hydrocodes | Show results with:hydrocodes
[95]
Modeling the formation of Sedan Crater using the FLAG and HOSS ...
Jul 1, 2025 · To simulate crater formation associated with the Sedan test, we consider two numerical approaches: a continuum hydrodynamics code (hydrocode) ...Missing: 1940s- 1960s<|separator|>
[96]
[PDF] Validation of the Gurney Model in Planar Geometry for a ... - Sci-Hub
Jan 25, 2016 · The high-velocity projection of materials is one of the pri- mary uses of condensed phase explosives. As such, the effi-.
[97]
Blast load assessment using hydrocodes - ScienceDirect.com
The evaluation of pressures and impulses produced by blast loads with the aid of hydrocodes is studied in this paper. Numerical results are compared with ...Blast Load Assessment Using... · Introduction · Numerical Simulation Of An...
[98]
The Plowshare Program | Science and Technology
The Plowshare Program, established in 1957, explored peaceful uses of nuclear energy, such as creating harbors and canals, and ended in 1977.
[99]
Nuclear excavation: review and analysis - ScienceDirect.com
Nuclear cratering technology has been developed to the point where meaningful predictions of crater and channel sizes in selected media can be made with ...
[100]
Peaceful Nuclear Explosions
Dec 2, 2018 · The Plowshare Program was the name given to the main US efforts to promote and develop nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes during the 1960s ...
[101]
Nuclear Craters for Ground Water Recharge - jstor
The Sedan crater is 1,200 ft in diameter , 320 ft deep , and has a volume of 4,200 acre -ft. The explosive was fired more than 600 ft below ground surface.Missing: calibration | Show results with:calibration
[102]
Project Dugout (Project Plowshare) | Science and Technology
Project Dugout, part of Plowshare, used chemical explosives to create a ditch, exploring the peaceful use of nuclear energy for earth excavation.
[103]
Environmental impacts of underground nuclear weapons testing
Mar 7, 2024 · Left: The explosion of the Storax Sedan underground nuclear test. ... Surface craters left by underground nuclear tests at Yucca Flat, one ...
[104]
[PDF] Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2020
Gamma-emitting radionuclides detected in soil near Sedan Crater over time ... Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the ...
[105]
[PDF] natural and managed recovery of vegetation on disturbed areas at ...
Natural revegetation on sites denuded by nuclear events has exhibited normal patterns of ecological succession comparable to that which has occurred on denuded ...
[106]
Recharge from a subsidence crater at the Nevada test site
Current recharge through the alluvial fans of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) is considered to be negligible, but the impact of more than 400 nuclear subsidence ...Missing: revegetation ecological recovery
[107]
[PDF] ON EVALUATING THE HAZARDS OF GROUNDWATER ... - INIS-IAEA
The radioactive species tritium is of special interest with respect to ground water contamination. Tritium will ex change with the normal hydrogen in water and ...
[108]
Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests and Cancer Risks
The legacy of open-air nuclear weapons testing includes a small but significant increase in thyroid cancer, leukemia and certain solid tumors.Missing: 1992 | Show results with:1992
[109]
[PDF] Health Implications of Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Testing ... - EPA
The Federal Radiation Council has considered available information on radiation doses and possible health effects of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. Before ...<|separator|>
[110]
The Downwinder Program: Health Effects of Nuclear Testing
Jun 7, 2024 · The Downwinder Program provides compensation for those who live in areas affected by nuclear testing and have specific types of cancer.
[111]
4. Potential Applications for Reuse of Solid Mining Waste
Categories of environmental remediation uses of mining wastes presented include containment (for example, cover or liner systems), grading and backfill ...Missing: craters | Show results with:craters
[112]
[PDF] Abandoned Mine Site Characterization and Cleanup Handbook - EPA
Chapter 10: Remediation and Cleanup Options identifies remediation and cleanup options to be considered in designing and implementing inactive mine site cleanup ...Missing: craters legacy
[113]
Degradation of 100‐m‐Scale Rocky Ejecta Craters at the InSight ...
Sep 8, 2018 · Smaller craters degrade faster, with classes separated by <100 Myr. Rim erosion can be entirely modeled by nonlinear diffusional processes ...