Examplified by the explosion at the city of Beirut on August 4, 2020: Theoretical modeling results
| 1Chernogor, LF 1V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv, Ukraine |
| Kinemat. fiz. nebesnyh tel (Online) 2021, 37(3):24-45 |
| https://doi.org/10.15407/kfnt2021.03.024 |
| Start Page: Dynamics and Physics of Solar System Bodies |
| Язык: Ukrainian |
Аннотация: The study direct and reverse, positive and negative interconnections among the subsystems in the Earth (internal spheres) — atmosphere — ionosphere — magnetosphere system (EAIMS) is commonly based on high-power active experiments. One of the experiments of opportunity is an impact on the EAIMS of large chemical explosions. Examples include active experiments utilizing 5 kt TNT, 1.5 kt TNT, and 2 kt TNT yield explosions. A powerul chemical explosion has been shown earlier to affect all geospheres, viz, it generates seismic waves in the lithosphere, disturbances in the electric field, electromagnetic emissions, acoustic and atmospheric gravity waves (AGWs), traveling ionospheric disturbances, and MHD waves in the near-Earth plasma. The physical effects and ecological consequences of multiple chemical explosions and accompanying fires have also been studied earlier. The major conclusion that has been drawn in these studies is that a response to such an impact can appear in all EAIMS subsystems. This paper aims to describe the principle physical effects in the atmosphere and geospace accompanying the powerful explosion at the city of Beirut on August 4, 2020. The comprehensive analysis of the main physical processes accompanying the explosion in the city of Beirut has been performed to determine the following. The Beirut explosion yield was estimated to be about 1 kt TNT. More than 90 % of explosion energy was transformed into the energy of the shock, and the rest was spent to cause damage and to leave a crater roughly of 40x103 m3 and the 80 kt mass of the ground jettisoned. The damage size and surface area have been estimated. The thermic has been estimated to have sim 100 m horizontal size, the sim 46 m/s speed of its ascending, and the 1.6 min time of the ascent up to the maximum altitude of about 4 km. At a range of 250 km, the island of Cyprus, the intensity of sound has been estimated to be no less than 76 dB. The shock wave traveling upwards caused significant disturbance in the atmosphere and geospace. An increase in the wave pressure has been estimated to be tens of per cent in the 86...90 km altitude range. Shock wave dissipation in the 80...90 km altitude range could have caused atmospheric heating by 10...20 %, the generation of AGWs with delta p sim 0.1, which propagated to distances of thousand kilometers from the epicenter. The secondary waves could have generated periodic variations, via the dynamo effect, in the geomagnetic field with amplitude of 0.1...0.3 nT. |
| Ключевые слова: atmosphere, Earth's surface explosion, electric effect, electromagnetic effect, geospace, increase in pressure on a relative scale, modeling results., seismic effect, shock wave, thermic |
References:
1. V. V. Adushkin and K. I. Gorelyi. Doppler sounding of the ionosphere above Yugoslavia during military operations in Kosovo, Dokl. Earth Sci. (Engl. Transl.). 373, 882–884 (2000).
2. V. V. Adushkin and S. P. Solov’ev. Perturbations of atmospheric electric field in the near zone of an underground explosion, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Fiz. Zemli, No. 3, 51–59 (1989).
3. V. V. Adushkin, S. P. Solov’ev, and V. V. Surkov. Electric field arising during ejection explosion, Combust., Explos. Shock Waves 26, 478–482 (1990).
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00745095
4. V. V. Adushkin, A. A. Spivak, S. P. Solov’ev, L. M. Pernik, and S. B. Kishkina. Geoecological consequences of mass chemical explosions on careers, Geoekol. Inzh. Geol. Gidrogeol. Geokriol., No. 6, 554–563 (2000).
5. K. Aki and P. G. Richards, Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1980; Mir, Moscow, 1983).
6. L. S. Al’perovich, M. B. Gokhberg, V. I. Drobzhev, V. A. Troitskaya, and G. V. Fedorovich. MASSA — A project for studying the magnetosphere–atmosphere coupling during seismoacoustic phenomena, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Fiz. Zemli, No. 11, 5–8 (1985).
7. L. S. Al’perovich, E. A. Ponomarev, and G. V. Fedorovich. Geophysical phenomena modeling by an explosion: A review, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Fiz. Zemli, No. 11, 9–20 (1985).
8. Atmosphere: Handbook (Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1991) [in Russian].
9. R. R. Akhmedov and V. E. Kunitsyn. Simulation of the ionospheric disturbances caused by earthquakes and explosions, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.) 44, 95–101 (2004).
10. N. D. Borisov and B. S. Moiseev. Generation of MHD disturbances in the ionosphere by a Rayleigh wave, Geomagn. Aeron. 29, 614–620 (1989).
11. A. P. Boronin, V. N. Kapinos, S. A. Krenev, and V. N. Mineev. Physical mechanism of electromagnetic field generation during the explosion of condensed explosive charges. Survey of literature, Combust., Explos. Shock Waves 26, 597–602 (1990).
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00843137
12. A. P. Boronin, V. N. Kapinos, S. A. Krenev, and V. N. Mineev. Physical mechanism of electromagnetic field generation with explosion of condensed explosive charges. Results of experimental studies, Combust., Explos. Shock Waves 26, 603–609 (1990).
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00843138
13. M. B. Gokhberg and S. L. Shalimov, Influence of Earthquakes and Explosions on the Ionosphere (Nauka, Moscow, 2008) [in Russian].
14. A. V. Danilov and V. A. Dovzhenko. Excitation of electromagnetic fields by acoustic pulses entering the ionosphere, Geomagn. Aeron. 27, 772–777 (1987).
15. I. A. Devyaterikov, E. A. Ivanov, S. I. Kozlov, and V. P. Kudryavtsev. Behavior of charged particles in lower ionosphere with acoustical effects, Kosm. Issled. 22, 238–242 (1984).
16. Ya. I. Drobzheva and V. M. Krasnov. The spatial structure of the acoustic wave field generated in the atmosphere by a point explosion, Acoust. Phys. 47, 556–564 (2001).
https://doi.org/10.1134/1.1403545
17. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Fiz. Zemli, Spets. Vyp., No. 11 (1985).18. I. O. Kitov, Seismic and Acoustic Effects of Explosions in the Geophysical Environment, Doctoral Dissertation in Mathematics and Physics (Institute of Geosphere Dynamics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1995).
19. A. V. Nikolaev and A. D. Zhigalin. Geoenvironmental aspects of military operations, Geoekol. Inzh. Geol. Gidrogeol. Geokriol., No. 1, 23–31 (2003).
20. A. T. Onufriev. Theory of the motion of a vortex ring under gravity. Rise of the cloud from a nuclear explosion, J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 8, 1–7 (1967).
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00918021
21. S. V. Polyakov, V. O. Rapoport, and V. Yu. Trakhtengerts. Generation of electric waves in the upper atmosphere, Geomagn. Aeron. 30, 869–871 (1990).
22. V. N. Rodionov, V. V. Adushkin, V. N. Kostyuchenko, V. N. Nikolaevskii, A. N. Romashov, and V. M. Tsvetkov, The Mechanical Effect of an Underground Explosion (Nedra, Moscow, 1971) [in Russian].
23. O. A. Pokhotelov, V. A. Liperovskii, Yu. P. Fomichev, L. N. Rubtsov, O. A. Alimov, Z. S. Sharadze, and R. Kh. Liperovskaya. Modification of the ionosphere during military actions in the Persian Gulf region, Dokl. Akad. Nauk 321, 1168–1172 (1991).
24. M. A. Sadovskii. Mechanical action of air blast waves according from experimental data, Fiz. Vzryva, No. 1, 20–110 (1952).
25. S. P. Solov’ev and V. V. Surkov. Electric perturbations in the atmospheric surface layer caused by an aerial shock wave, Combust., Explos. Shock Waves. 30, 117–121 (1994).
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00787894
26. S. P. Solov’ev and V. V. Surkov. Electrostatic field and lightning generated in the gaseous dust cloud of explosive products, Geomagn. Aeron. 40, 68–76 (2000).
27. F. D. Stacey and P. M. Davis, Physics of the Earth (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2008; Mir, Moscow, 1972).
28. V. I. Taran, Yu. I. Podyachii, A. N. Smirnov, and L. Ya. Gershtein. Disturbances of the ionosphere after a ground level burst on supervision by a method of incoherent scatter, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Fiz. Zemli, No. 11, 75–79 (1985).
29. Ya. I. Tseitlin and N. I. Smolii, Seismic and Shock Waves in Air Induced by Industrial Explosions (Nedra, Moscow, 1981) [in Russian].
30. L. F. Chernogor. Physical processes in the near-Earth environment associated with March–April 2003 Iraq War, Kosm. Nauka Tekhnol. 9 (2–3), 13–33 (2003).
https://doi.org/10.15407/knit2003.02.013
31. L. F. Chernogor. The ammunition explosions on military bases as a source of ecological catastrophe in Ukraine, Ekol. Resur., No. 10, 55–67 (2004).
32. L. F. Chernogor. Geophysical effects and geoecological consequences of mass chemical explosions in military warehouses in the city of Artemovsk, Geofiz. Zh. 26 (4), 31–44 (2004).
33. L. F. Chernogor. Geophysical effects and ecological consequences of the fire at the military base near Melitopol city, Geofiz. Zh. 26 (6), 61–73 (2004).
https://doi.org/10.1134/S001679322006002X
34. L. F. Chernogor. Ecological consequences of mass chemical explosions in anthropogenic catastrophe, Geoekol. Inzh. Geol. Gidrogeol. Geokriol., No. 6, 522–535 (2006).
35. L. F. Chernogor. Geoecological consequences of the explosion of an ammunition depot, Geoekol. Inzh. Geol. Gidrogeol. Geokriol., No. 4, 359–369 (2008).
36. L. F. Chernogor, Physics and Ecology of Disasters (Khark. Nats. Univ. im. V. N. Karazina, Kharkiv, 2012) [in Russian].
37. L. F. Chernogor and K. P. Garmash. Magnetospheric and ionospheric effects accompanying the strongest technogenic catastrophe, Geomagn. Aeron. (Engl. Transl.) 58, 673–685 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793218050031
38. N. I. Shishkin. Seismic efficiency of a contact explosion and a high-velocity impact, J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 48, 145–152 (2007).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10808-007-0019-6
39. E. Blanc and A. R. Jacobson. Observation of ionospheric disturbances following a 5-kt chemical explosion. 2. Prolongated anomalies and stratifications in the lower thermosphere after shock passage, Radio Sci. 24, 739–746 (1989).
https://doi.org/10.1029/RS024i006p00739
40. E. Blanc and D. Rickel. Nonlinear wave fronts and ionospheric irregularities observed by HF sounding over a powerful acoustic source, Radio Sci. 24, 279–288 (1989).
https://doi.org/10.1029/RS024i003p00279
41. E. Calais, B. J. Minster, M. A. Hofton, and M. A. H. Hedlin. Ionospheric signature of surface mine blasts from Global Positioning System measurements, Geophys. J. Int. 132, 191–202 (1998).
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246x.1998.00438.x
42. T. J. Fitzgerald. Observations of total electron content perturbations on GPS signals caused by a ground level explosion, J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 59, 829–834 (1997).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(96)00105-8
43. S. Glasstone and P. J. Dolan, Effects of Nuclear Weapons (Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 1977).Book
https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA087568
44. A. R. Jacobson, R. C. Carlos, and E. Blanc. Observation of ionospheric disturbances following a 5-kt chemical explosion. 1. Persistent oscillation in the lower thermosphere after shock passage, Radio Sci. 23, 820–830 (1988).
https://doi.org/10.1029/RS023i005p00820