Explosive Yield Estimation Using Regional Seismic Moment Tensors

We use the Pasyanos and Chiang (2022) data set to calculate the seismic moment $M0$ for each explosion and use the measured explosive yield W to validate the $W∼M0$ relationship in Denny and Johnson (1991; hereafter, DJ91). The $M0$ is corrected by transforming to a potency tensor and applying more appropriate near‐source geophysical parameter values in the moment estimate. The mean residual between observed and predicted yield is near zero; however, the standard deviation of the residuals results in an F‐value (a 95% confidence factor) of about 5. We re‐estimate the coefficients in the DJ91 model and find similar values and only a slight improvement in the F‐value. Next, we embark on a similar model selection process as DJ91, allowing for non‐cube‐root yield scaling and other plausible near‐source elastic moduli. As was found by DJ91, the yield dependence is not significantly different from unity, and a cube root assumption is valid. Therefore, we yield scale the seismic moment and test the significance of all plausible explanatory variables. Isotropic moment performs better in the response variable than total moment. The preference for isotropic moment could be due to its relationship to volume change, which would be more directly affected by explosive yield. Surprisingly, we find that the overburden pressure, which is a function of depth, is not a significant parameter in the model. We hypothesize that this is due to the competing depth effects on source asymmetry and the incorporation of depth in the Green’s functions used to calculate the seismic moment tensors. Importantly, this emphasizes that only seismic moment tensor‐derived moments should be used in these models. After removing insignificant model parameters, we are left with a simple model to predict explosive yield $W^$ in kt from isotropic moment $MI$ in N·m, $W^=κ−1.4132100.035626GPMI$⁠, in which $κ$ and GP are the near‐source bulk modulus and gas porosity in Pa and %, respectively. The F‐value for this model is approximately 3.