Hubbry Logo
ExplosionExplosionMain
Open search
Explosion
Community hub
Explosion
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Explosion
Explosion
Explosion
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Explosion of unserviceable ammunition and other military items
The explosion of the Castle Nectar nuclear bomb.

An explosion is a rapid expansion in volume of a given amount of matter associated with an extreme outward release of energy, usually with the generation of high temperatures and release of high-pressure gases. Explosions may also be generated by a slower expansion that would normally not be forceful, but is not allowed to expand, so that when whatever is containing the expansion is broken by the pressure that builds as the matter inside tries to expand, the matter expands forcefully. An example of this is a volcanic eruption created by the expansion of magma in a magma chamber as it rises to the surface. Supersonic explosions created by high explosives are known as detonations and travel through shock waves. Subsonic explosions are created by low explosives through a slower combustion process known as deflagration.

Causes

[edit]

For an explosion to occur, there must be a rapid, forceful expansion of matter. There are numerous ways this can happen, both naturally and artificially, such as volcanic eruptions, or two objects striking each other at very high speeds, as in an impact event. Explosive volcanic eruptions occur when magma rises from below, it has dissolved gas in it. The reduction of pressure as the magma rises causes the gas to bubble out of solution, resulting in a rapid increase in volume, however the size of the magma chamber remains the same. This results in pressure buildup that eventually leads to an explosive eruption. Explosions can also occur outside of Earth in the universe in events such as supernovae, or, more commonly, stellar flares. Humans are also able to create explosions through the use of explosives, or through nuclear fission or fusion, as in a nuclear weapon. Explosions frequently occur during bushfires in eucalyptus forests where the volatile oils in the tree tops suddenly combust.[1]

Astronomical

[edit]
The nebula M1-67 around Wolf–Rayet star WR 124 is the remnants of a stellar explosion, which is currently observed as six light years across[2]

Among the largest known explosions in the universe are supernovae, which occur after the end of life of some types of stars. Solar flares are an example of common, much less energetic, explosions on the Sun, and presumably on most other stars as well. The energy source for solar flare activity comes from the tangling of magnetic field lines resulting from the rotation of the Sun's conductive plasma. Another type of large astronomical explosion occurs when a meteoroid or an asteroid impacts the surface of another object, or explodes in its atmosphere, such as a planet. This occurs because the two objects are moving at very high speed relative to each other (a minimum of 11.2 kilometres per second (7.0 mi/s) for an Earth impacting body[3]). For example, the Tunguska event of 1908 is believed to have resulted from a meteor air burst.[4]

Black hole mergers, likely involving binary black hole systems, are capable of radiating many solar masses of energy into the universe in a fraction of a second, in the form of a gravitational wave. This is capable of transmitting ordinary energy and destructive forces to nearby objects, but in the vastness of space, nearby objects are rare.[5] The gravitational wave observed on 21 May 2019, known as GW190521, produced a merger signal of about 100 ms duration, during which time is it estimated to have radiated away nine solar masses in the form of gravitational energy.

Chemical

[edit]
The 2025 Shandong factory explosion is an example of a chemical explosive.

The most common artificial explosives are chemical explosives, usually involving a rapid and violent oxidation reaction that produces large amounts of hot gas. Gunpowder was the first explosive to be invented and put to use. Other notable early developments in chemical explosive technology were Frederick Augustus Abel's development of nitrocellulose in 1865 and Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite in 1866. Chemical explosions (both intentional and accidental) are often initiated by an electric spark or flame in the presence of oxygen. Accidental explosions may occur in fuel tanks, rocket engines, etc.


Electrical and magnetic

[edit]
A capacitor that has exploded

A high current electrical fault can create an "electrical explosion" by forming a high-energy electrical arc which rapidly vaporizes metal and insulation material. This arc flash hazard is a danger to people working on energized switchgear. Excessive magnetic pressure within an ultra-strong electromagnet can cause a magnetic explosion.

Mechanical and vapor

[edit]

Strictly a physical process, as opposed to chemical or nuclear, e.g., the bursting of a sealed or partially sealed container under internal pressure is often referred to as an explosion. Examples include an overheated boiler or a simple tin can of beans tossed into a fire.

Boiling liquid expanding vapor explosions are one type of mechanical explosion that can occur when a vessel containing a pressurized liquid is ruptured, causing a rapid increase in volume as the liquid evaporates. Note that the contents of the container may cause a subsequent chemical explosion, the effects of which can be dramatically more serious, such as a propane tank in the midst of a fire. In such a case, to the effects of the mechanical explosion when the tank fails are added the effects from the explosion resulting from the released (initially liquid and then almost instantaneously gaseous) propane in the presence of an ignition source. For this reason, emergency workers often differentiate between the two events.

Nuclear

[edit]
Main articles: Nuclear explosion and Effects of nuclear explosions

In addition to stellar nuclear explosions, a nuclear weapon is a type of explosive weapon that derives its destructive force from nuclear fission or from a combination of fission and fusion. As a result, even a nuclear weapon with a small yield is significantly more powerful than the largest conventional explosives available, with a single weapon capable of completely destroying an entire city.

Properties

[edit]

Force

[edit]
A breaching charge exploding against a test door during training
The effects of a large explosion.

Explosive force is released in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the explosive. If a grenade is in mid air during the explosion, the direction of the blast will be 360°. In contrast, in a shaped charge the explosive forces are focused to produce a greater local explosion; shaped charges are often used by military to breach doors or walls.

Velocity

[edit]

The speed of the reaction is what distinguishes an explosive reaction from an ordinary combustion reaction. Unless the reaction occurs very rapidly, the thermally expanding gases will be moderately dissipated in the medium, with no large differential in pressure and no explosion. As a wood fire burns in a fireplace, for example, there certainly is the evolution of heat and the formation of gases, but neither is liberated rapidly enough to build up a sudden substantial pressure differential and then cause an explosion. This can be likened to the difference between the energy discharge of a battery, which is slow, and that of a flash capacitor like that in a camera flash, which releases its energy all at once.

Evolution of heat

[edit]

The generation of heat in large quantities accompanies most explosive chemical reactions. The exceptions are called entropic explosives and include organic peroxides such as acetone peroxide.[6] It is the rapid liberation of heat that causes the gaseous products of most explosive reactions to expand and generate high pressures. This rapid generation of high pressures of the released gas constitutes the explosion. The liberation of heat with insufficient rapidity will not cause an explosion. For example, although a unit mass of coal yields five times as much heat as a unit mass of nitroglycerin, the coal cannot be used as an explosive (except in the form of coal dust) because the rate at which it yields this heat is quite slow. In fact, a substance that burns less rapidly (i.e. slow combustion) may actually evolve more total heat than an explosive that detonates rapidly (i.e. fast combustion). In the former, slow combustion converts more of the internal energy (i.e. chemical potential) of the burning substance into heat released to the surroundings, while in the latter, fast combustion (i.e. detonation) instead converts more internal energy into work on the surroundings (i.e. less internal energy converted into heat); cf. heat and work (thermodynamics) are equivalent forms of energy. See Heat of Combustion for a more thorough treatment of this topic.

When a chemical compound is formed from its constituents, heat may either be absorbed or released. The quantity of heat absorbed or given off during transformation is called the heat of formation. Heats of formations for solids and gases found in explosive reactions have been determined for a temperature of 25 °C and atmospheric pressure, and are normally given in units of kilojoules per gram-molecule. A positive value indicates that heat is absorbed during the formation of the compound from its elements; such a reaction is called an endothermic reaction. In explosive technology only materials that are exothermic—that have a net liberation of heat and have a negative heat of formation—are of interest. Reaction heat is measured under conditions either of constant pressure or constant volume. It is this heat of reaction that may be properly expressed as the "heat of explosion."

Initiation of reaction

[edit]

A chemical explosive is a compound or mixture which, upon the application of heat or shock, decomposes or rearranges with extreme rapidity, yielding much gas and heat. Many substances not ordinarily classed as explosives may do one, or even two, of these things.

A reaction must be capable of being initiated by the application of shock, heat, or a catalyst (in the case of some explosive chemical reactions) to a small portion of the mass of the explosive material. A material in which the first three factors exist cannot be accepted as an explosive unless the reaction can be made to occur when needed.

Fragmentation

[edit]

Fragmentation is the accumulation and projection of particles as the result of a high explosives detonation. Fragments could originate from: parts of a structure (such as glass, bits of structural material, or roofing material), revealed strata and/or various surface-level geologic features (such as loose rocks, soil, or sand), the casing surrounding the explosive, and/or any other loose miscellaneous items not vaporized by the shock wave from the explosion. High velocity, low angle fragments can travel hundreds of metres with enough energy to initiate other surrounding high explosive items, injure or kill personnel, and/or damage vehicles or structures.

Rapid unscheduled disassembly

[edit]

In aerospace engineering, the turm rapid unscheduled/unplanned disassembly is humorously used as a euphemism for the explosion of an aircraft or spacecraft. It was coined by Elon Musk in 2015 after a faliure of its Falcon 9 first-stage landing mechanism after it lost control just before landing.[7]

Notable examples

[edit]

Chemical

[edit]
Main article: Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions

Nuclear

[edit]

Volcanic

[edit]
Main article: Volcanic Explosivity Index

Stellar

[edit]

Airbursts/Impact events

[edit]
Main article: Impact event

Transport/Aviation

[edit]

Other

[edit]

Etymology

[edit]

Classical Latin explōdō means "to hiss a bad actor off the stage", "to drive an actor off the stage by making noise", from ex- ("out") + plaudō ("to clap; to applaud"). The modern meaning developed later:[8]

  • Classical Latin: "to drive an actor off the stage by making noise" hence meaning "to drive out" or "to reject"

In English:

  • Around 1538: "drive out or off by clapping" (originally theatrical)
  • Around 1660: "drive out with violence and sudden noise"
  • Around 1790: "go off with a loud noise"
  • Around 1882: first use as "bursting with destructive force"

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Explosion

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An explosion is the sudden conversion of , typically chemical or mechanical, into accompanied by the production and release of gases under . This process results in a rapid expansion of volume and an extreme outward release of , often generating high temperatures, , , and a propagating . The shock wave compresses the surrounding medium instantaneously before the pressure expands outward, distinguishing explosions from slower processes. Explosions are fundamentally classified into three types: mechanical, which occur due to physical overpressurization or of ; chemical, driven by rapid exothermic reactions that decompose materials into gaseous products; and nuclear, powered by fission or fusion releasing vast atomic-scale energy. Chemical explosions, such as those from high s like TNT, propagate via waves exceeding the in the material, sustaining the reaction through self-generated pressure. Nuclear explosions, by contrast, yield energies orders of magnitude greater, with yields measured in kilotons or megatons of , as exemplified by fission-based devices splitting heavy nuclei or fusion-based ones combining light ones. The effects of explosions include blast overpressure causing structural damage and injury, thermal radiation igniting materials, and potential fragmentation or in nuclear cases. Applications span controlled , , in rocketry, and military munitions, where precise energy release enables engineering feats but also amplifies destructive potential in unintended or weaponized scenarios. Despite protocols, explosions pose inherent risks, with historical accidents underscoring the need for rigorous confinement and controls to prevent premature or uncontrolled reactions.

Definition and Etymology

Definition

An explosion is the sudden conversion of , such as chemical or mechanical, into , accompanied by the production and release of high-pressure gases that drive a rapid expansion of volume. This process generates a propagating through the surrounding medium, characterized by pressures exceeding the ambient atmosphere by factors of several times, often leading to destructive effects on nearby structures and materials. The rapidity of the energy release distinguishes explosions from slower processes; for instance, detonation velocities in high explosives can reach 8,000 meters per second, far surpassing the in air (approximately 343 m/s at standard conditions). From a physical standpoint, explosions involve the near-instantaneous compression followed by expansive displacement of the ambient medium, such as air or , due to the or mechanical failure. This can occur in various contexts, including chemical reactions where molecular bonds break and reform to release stored energy, physical ruptures like failures, or /fusion events that liberate immense thermal and radiative energy. Quantitatively, the generated—measured in bars or psi—determines blast severity; for example, 0.1 bar overpressure can shatter windows, while 1 bar or more causes structural collapse. Empirical observations, such as those from controlled tests, confirm that the shock front's (ratio to local speed) exceeds unity, defining the supersonic nature essential to explosive classification over mere rapid fires.

Etymology

The English noun explosion derives from the Latin explōsiō (genitive explōsiōnis), denoting the act of driving off or rejecting by clapping or hissing, particularly in a theatrical context where audiences expressed disapproval through noisy expulsion of performers. This stems from the verb explōdere, composed of ex- ("out" or "off") and plaudere ("to clap" or "to strike"), evoking the sound and action of applause turned to derision. The term entered English in the early 17th century, with records dating to 1615–1625, initially retaining connotations of vehement rejection or outburst before extending to literal physical phenomena. By the late , around 1681, explosion began to describe a violent bursting or sudden release, influenced by scientific observations of and , marking a shift from metaphorical to empirical usage in contexts like chemistry and physics. This evolution reflects broader linguistic patterns where auditory and expulsive imagery metaphorically captured rapid, forceful expansions of or energy, as documented in period texts on and . The modern sense of a high-speed chemical or physical reaction producing a solidified in the amid industrial advancements in explosives.

Fundamental Physics

Reaction Mechanisms from First Principles

In chemical explosions, reaction mechanisms fundamentally derive from the quantum mechanical rearrangement of electrons in molecular orbitals, leading to bond breaking and formation that releases stored as and expansion work. High explosives, such as those containing nitro groups (e.g., or ), initiate via unimolecular decomposition pathways where initial steps often involve homolytic cleavage of weak bonds like N-NO₂, as predicted by (DFT) computations of potential energy surfaces showing activation barriers around 40-50 kcal/mol under ambient conditions. These pathways evolve into chain-branching reactions producing gaseous products (e.g., N₂, CO₂, H₂O), with exothermicity exceeding 500 kJ/mol for typical compositions, enabling supersonic propagation in detonations where the shock front compresses unreacted material to densities 4-5 times ambient, raising temperatures to 2000-3000 K and accelerating reaction rates by orders of magnitude per Arrhenius kinetics. From first-principles simulations, detonation hotspots—localized regions of elevated temperature from voids or defects—facilitate pore collapse and shear banding, generating pressures up to 50 GPa that dissociate molecules into radicals (e.g., NO₂, HONO), which then propagate reactions via bimolecular steps like HONO + NO₂ → HNO₃ + NO. This contrasts with , where subsonic flame propagation relies on rather than shock coupling, highlighting causal primacy of mechanical compression in achieving explosive velocities of 6-9 km/s. Validation against experiments, such as , confirms these mechanisms without empirical parameterization, though quantum tunneling and anharmonic effects refine barrier crossings at extreme conditions. Nuclear explosions operate via distinct mechanisms rooted in strong and weak nuclear forces overpowering electrostatic repulsion. Fission-based reactions in or proceed when a thermal neutron induces nucleus deformation past the fission barrier (≈6 MeV), splitting into fragments with mass asymmetry (e.g., 95 and 140 nucleons) that release 200 MeV per event, including 2-3 prompt neutrons to sustain exponential growth requiring supercritical assembly. Fusion in thermonuclear devices fuses deuterium-tritium via quantum tunneling through the at temperatures exceeding 10⁸ K (achieved by fission primary), yielding 17.6 MeV per reaction primarily as kinetic energy of alpha particles and neutrons, with hydrodynamic implosion compressing fuel to densities 100-1000 times liquid enabling ignition. These processes, modeled via time-dependent Hartree-Fock or nuclear theory, underscore explosions as non-equilibrium cascades where feedback amplifies initial perturbations into gigajoule-scale releases in microseconds.

Blast Wave Dynamics and Shock Propagation

A blast wave forms when a rapid release of energy, such as from a chemical or nuclear detonation, superheats and pressurizes a localized volume of gas or vapor, causing it to expand supersonically into the surrounding medium and compress ambient air into a thin, discontinuous shock front. This shock front propagates outward at initial velocities exceeding the , with particle velocities behind it approaching the shock speed for strong shocks, driven by the , , and across the discontinuity as described by the Rankine-Hugoniot equations. The leading edge features elevated static , while the trailing blast wind imparts proportional to the square of the velocity, q = (1/2) ρ u², where ρ is ambient and u is . Shock propagation in free air follows self-similar scaling laws for spherical blasts from point sources, where the shock radius R evolves as R ∝ (E t² / ρ₀)^{1/5} in the strong-shock limit, with E as the explosion energy yield, t as time, and ρ₀ as initial ambient density; this yields R ∝ t^{2/5} and a decelerating shock Mach number that diminishes with distance. The Taylor-von Neumann-Sedov solution underpins this dynamics, assuming adiabatic expansion and negligible initial source size, with post-shock conditions showing density ratios up to 6 for γ=1.4 (diatomic gas) and pressure jumps scaling with the square of the Mach number M via P₂/P₁ ≈ 2γ M² / (γ+1). Deviations occur near the source due to finite driver size or reactive effects, but the model holds for distances beyond a few source radii. In detonations, the initial shock is self-sustaining, coupled to an zone where Chapman-Jouguet conditions dictate a unique (typically 3-10 km/s for high explosives), transitioning to a decelerating as products expand and entrain air. decreases inversely with radius in the inertial phase, influenced by ambient conditions like (lower accelerates waves) and geometry (spherical decay faster than planar). Confined or interacting blasts amplify local pressures via reflections, with Mach stem formation where reflected shocks merge, increasing by factors up to 2-8 times the incident wave. Empirical scaling from tests confirms these relations, with peak overpressures dropping as 1/r³ near the source before transitioning to 1/r behavior.

Energy Release and Quantitative Metrics

In chemical explosions, energy release stems from the exothermic decomposition of molecules, converting chemical potential energy into thermal and kinetic forms at rates exceeding the speed of sound in the material, characteristic of detonation. The specific energy output, or heat of detonation, for common high explosives typically ranges from 3 to 6 MJ/kg; for trinitrotoluene (TNT), this value is approximately 4.5 MJ/kg. This energy density enables rapid pressure buildup to gigapascal levels, with detonation velocities around 6-9 km/s; TNT exhibits a detonation velocity of about 6.9 km/s and Chapman-Jouguet pressure of roughly 21 GPa. Quantitative assessment often employs , standardizing yields relative to TNT's defined release of 4.184 × 10^9 joules per , facilitating comparisons across types. For instance, the 2020 Beirut port explosion, involving , yielded an estimated 0.9 kilotons , corresponding to approximately 3.77 × 10^12 joules. Detonation performance metrics include the Gurney energy, which quantifies fragment potential, typically 1-2 km²/s² for military explosives. Nuclear explosions release vastly greater energies through fission or fusion, governed by E = Δmc², where mass defect Δm yields outputs in kilotons (kt) or megatons (Mt) of ; the test on March 1, 1954, achieved 15 Mt, or 6.28 × 10^16 joules. Energy partitioning in air bursts approximates 50% to blast (kinetic and thermal), 35% to , 5% to initial nuclear radiation, and 10% to residual fallout, varying with yield and environment. Yield estimation relies on seismic, , or hydrodynamic data, with scaling laws like cube-root proportionality (R ∝ W^{1/3}, W as yield) for prediction.

Classification of Explosions

Chemical Explosions

Chemical explosions result from rapid exothermic chemical reactions that decompose a material into gaseous products, generating intense heat and pressure sufficient to propagate a shock wave. These reactions typically involve oxidation or decomposition, converting solid or liquid explosives into high-volume gases expanding at supersonic speeds in detonations. Unlike nuclear processes, energy derives from breaking molecular bonds rather than atomic nuclei, with reaction rates exceeding 1000 m/s distinguishing high explosives from slower-burning low explosives. Low explosives, such as black powder or smokeless propellants, undergo deflagration, a subsonic flame propagation driven by convective heat transfer between particles, producing sustained pressure for propulsion rather than fragmentation. High explosives, including trinitrotoluene (TNT) and cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX), detonate via a self-sustaining shock front where compression ignites the material ahead, achieving velocities over 6000 m/s and pressures exceeding 100,000 atm. This supersonic mechanism yields brisance, the shattering power from localized high strain rates. Initiation requires a primary explosive like lead azide for sensitivity to impact or heat, which then triggers less sensitive secondary explosives. Detonation velocity varies with composition and confinement; for PETN, it reaches 8400 m/s, while mixtures, used in , detonate at 3200-5200 m/s depending on density. Stability tests, including impact drop heights over 2 meters for secondary explosives, ensure safe handling, though improper storage has caused incidents like the 2020 Beirut port explosion of 2750 metric tons of , equivalent to 1.1 kilotons of TNT.
Explosive TypeExampleDetonation Velocity (m/s)Typical Use
Low ExplosiveBlack Powder< 400 (deflagration)Fireworks, propellants
High Explosive (Secondary)~6900Demolition, munitions
High Explosive (Secondary)RDX~8700Boosters, plastic explosives
Blasting AgentANFO3200-5200Mining, quarrying

Physical Explosions

Physical explosions result from the sudden, non-reactive release of stored mechanical or thermal energy, typically through the rupture of a pressurized vessel or container, distinguishing them from chemical explosions that rely on exothermic reactions. These events involve rapid expansion of gases or vapors due to overpressurization from factors such as excessive heating, mechanical failure, or phase transitions, without sustained wave propagation akin to detonations. The energy yield stems primarily from the conversion of potential energy in compressed fluids to kinetic energy via adiabatic expansion, often yielding pressures on the order of several bars but rarely exceeding those of chemical blasts. A key subtype is the boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE), occurring when a vessel containing superheated liquid—held above its boiling point by pressure—ruptures, triggering instantaneous flashing of the liquid to vapor and a volume increase potentially exceeding 400-fold for substances like liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). This failure can stem from corrosion, impact damage, or fire-induced weakening, as seen in industrial incidents where vessel integrity drops below 10-20% of design strength under localized heating. The resulting blast wave arises from the kinetic energy of ejecta and vapor cloud expansion, with overpressure decaying inversely with distance cubed, posing risks of fragmentation and thermal radiation if flammable contents ignite post-rupture. Other manifestations include pressure vessel bursts from non-condensable gas accumulation or hydraulic ram effects, where incompressible fluids under pump surge generate transient pressures up to 1000 bar, shattering containment and propelling shards at velocities of 100-300 m/s. Rapid phase transition explosions, such as those in cryogenic storage failures, similarly liberate energy through entropy-driven vaporization, though their blast efficiency is lower—typically 1-10% of chemical explosives' due to lack of self-sustaining reaction fronts. Mitigation relies on design standards like ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, mandating safety factors of 3-4 and relief valves rated for credible overpressure scenarios.

Nuclear Explosions

Nuclear explosions arise from uncontrolled nuclear reactions, either fission or fusion, converting a fraction of atomic mass into energy according to Einstein's equation E=mc2E = mc^2, yielding energies orders of magnitude greater per unit mass than chemical explosions. In fission, a neutron induces the splitting of heavy atomic nuclei such as or , releasing additional neutrons that propagate a chain reaction, with each fission event liberating approximately 200 MeV of energy primarily as kinetic energy of fragments, neutrons, and gamma rays. This process requires achieving a supercritical mass, often via implosion compression using conventional high explosives to densify the fissile material, enabling exponential neutron multiplication in microseconds. Fusion explosions, or thermonuclear detonations, involve the merging of light nuclei like deuterium and tritium under extreme temperatures and pressures generated by a primary fission stage, releasing about 17-18 MeV per reaction through formation of helium and other products. These staged devices amplify yields into the megaton range, as seen in tests combining fission triggers with fusion secondaries, where roughly half the energy may derive from fusion despite fission contributing to fallout via fast fission of surrounding materials. Unlike chemical detonations, nuclear reactions lack a propagating front at velocities of 1-9 km/s; instead, the chain reaction completes superexponentially across the assembly before hydrodynamic expansion drives the blast, with the initial energy deposition occurring in under a microsecond. The first nuclear explosion, the Trinity test on July 16, 1945, at the Alamogordo Bombing Range in New Mexico, utilized a plutonium implosion device yielding approximately 21 kilotons of TNT equivalent, demonstrating fission's explosive potential and producing a fireball expanding to 300 meters in seconds. Energy partitioning in airbursts typically allocates 40-50% to blast (overpressure and dynamic winds reaching hundreds of mph near ground zero), 30-40% to thermal radiation causing burns and fires, and 10-20% to initial nuclear radiation (neutrons and gamma rays), with residual fallout varying by design and burst height. Yields range from sub-kiloton tactical devices to multi-megaton strategic ones, millions of times more energetic per kilogram than TNT, enabling effects like EMP and global atmospheric disruption at scale.

Astrophysical and Other Rare Explosions

Astrophysical explosions represent the most energetic phenomena in the observable universe, driven primarily by gravitational instability, nuclear fusion ignition, or the collision of compact objects, releasing energies orders of magnitude greater than any terrestrial event. These cataclysms, such as supernovae and gamma-ray bursts, propagate shock waves at fractions of the speed of light and synthesize heavy elements essential for planetary formation. Their study relies on multi-wavelength observations from telescopes like and Hubble, revealing mechanisms grounded in general relativity and plasma physics rather than speculative models. Supernovae dominate astrophysical explosions, classified into thermonuclear (Type Ia) and core-collapse variants (Types II, Ib, Ic). Type Ia events occur when a white dwarf in a binary system accretes sufficient mass to exceed the Chandrasekhar limit of approximately 1.4 solar masses, triggering explosive carbon-oxygen fusion that disrupts the star entirely. Core-collapse supernovae, by contrast, arise from stars with initial masses above 8 solar masses; upon exhausting nuclear fuel, the iron core collapses under gravity in milliseconds, rebounding as a shock front stalled until revived by neutrino heating in the gain region, where deposited energy exceeds gravitational binding. This process ejects material at velocities up to 10,000 km/s, with total kinetic energies around 10^{51} ergs, though over 99% of the energy escapes as neutrinos. Type Ib and Ic subtypes lack hydrogen or hydrogen and helium in spectra, indicating stripped envelopes from prior mass loss. Observations confirm these explosions occur roughly once per century in the Milky Way, accelerating cosmic rays and enriching interstellar medium with metals. Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) constitute rarer, more luminous explosions, emitting up to 10^{54} ergs in gamma rays over seconds to minutes, outshining entire galaxies momentarily. Long-duration GRBs (>2 seconds) typically stem from hypernovae—the collapse of rapidly rotating Wolf-Rayet stars (>30 solar masses)—producing collimated jets that pierce the stellar envelope, while short GRBs arise from or mergers. These events, detected daily by satellites like , exhibit relativistic outflows with Lorentz factors exceeding 100, beaming energy efficiently due to relativistic effects narrowing emission cones. Recent detections, such as GRB 250702B observed in 2025, highlight variability, including repeating bursts defying standard single-event models. Hypernovae extend core-collapse extremes, yielding luminosities 10 to 100 times those of standard supernovae through enhanced rotational energy extraction, often powering GRB jets. First identified in via association with GRB 980425, they involve progenitors with masses up to 140 solar masses, collapsing to black holes while ejecting asymmetrically at superluminal apparent speeds. Kilonovae, another rare class, follow binary mergers detected gravitationally (e.g., in 2017), where tidal disruption ejects neutron-rich matter undergoing rapid (r-process), decaying radioactively to peak at 10^{46} ergs over days and forging and . These mergers occur perhaps once per 10,000 years per , offering direct probes of neutron star interiors unavailable in isolated explosions. Unlike supernovae, kilonovae radiate isotropically with blue-to-red evolution from lanthanide opacity.

Key Properties and Characteristics

Detonation Velocity and Pressure Profiles

, or velocity of detonation (VoD), refers to the at which the leading shock front of a detonation wave travels through an medium, simultaneously compressing and heating the material to initiate rapid into high-pressure, high-temperature products. In high explosives, VoD typically spans 6,000 to 9,000 m/s under ideal conditions of sufficient charge and confinement, with values scaling positively with initial and molecular . Factors influencing VoD include explosive composition, crystal size, , and environmental conditions; for instance, increasing from porosity reduction elevates VoD, while defects or lateral waves in finite charges reduce it below the infinite-charge ideal. techniques, such as high-speed of the air-shock interface or electrical pin arrays tracking arrival times, confirm VoD by applying Rankine-Hugoniot relations to observed shock speeds.
ExplosiveDensity (g/cm³)Detonation Velocity (m/s)Chapman-Jouguet Pressure (kbar)
TNT1.6376,942189
RDX1.7678,639338
HMX1.899,110390
PETN1.768,260335
Pressure profiles along the detonation path exhibit a characteristic structure governed by ZND (Zel'dovich-von Neumann-Döring) theory, featuring an initial von Neumann pressure spike at the shock front—often exceeding the steady-state value by 20-50%—followed by a reaction zone where energy release sustains the wave, culminating in the Chapman-Jouguet (CJ) state. At the CJ point, the post-reaction flow velocity equals the local sound speed relative to the front, ensuring stability; this pressure, P_CJ, relates to VoD via P_CJ ≈ ρ₀ D² / (γ + 1), where ρ₀ is initial density and γ ≈ 3 for products, linking higher VoD directly to elevated peak pressures (e.g., 170-390 kbar across common high explosives). Experimental validation, such as free-surface velocity gauging in plate impact tests, yields CJ pressures for TNT at 189 kbar and at 338 kbar, correlating with observed blast performance. Deviations from CJ ideals occur in heterogeneous or underdriven , where pressure decays more rapidly due to incomplete reaction.

Thermal Evolution and Fireball Formation

The formation of a fireball in an explosion arises from the rapid conversion of stored energy into thermal form, vaporizing and ionizing the explosive material and adjacent medium, creating a high-pressure, high-temperature sphere of gas or plasma. This luminous region, known as the fireball, expands outward at supersonic speeds, driven by the pressure gradient with ambient conditions. In nuclear explosions, the process initiates within 10^{-8} seconds, with the initial fireball radius on the order of meters for kiloton yields, reaching temperatures exceeding 10^7 K due to the immense energy density. Thermal evolution proceeds through hydrodynamic expansion and . The initial opaque phase, dominated by blackbody emission across to spectra, lasts until the decreases, typically within milliseconds for nuclear events. As the fireball grows—e.g., to 150 meters diameter at 0.1 seconds for a 1-kiloton airburst—the incorporated dilutes the , dropping from peak values to approximately 10^5 K by 1 second, enabling visible luminosity from recombination and . In chemical detonations, fireball formation differs, often manifesting as a post-detonation afterburn phenomenon where fuel-rich products mix turbulently with atmospheric oxygen, sustaining . Temperatures in these fireballs range from 2000 to 3000 K, significantly lower than nuclear counterparts, with evolution governed by reaction kinetics and entrainment rates rather than initial plasma dynamics. For aluminized explosives, prolonged burning extends the luminous phase, enhancing output. Across explosion types, the fireball's thermal profile influences subsequent effects, including prompt pulses and ignition of materials via flux densities up to 10^5 cal/cm² for megaton yields. Cooling accelerates via expansion (adiabatic) and emission, with the first pulse peaking early before a brief minimum as the shock front overtakes. Empirical models, validated against tests like , scale fireball size and duration with yield as R ∝ W^{0.4}, where W is in TNT equivalents.

Fragmentation and Secondary Projectiles

Fragmentation in explosions refers to the breakup of the device's casing, liner, or adjacent materials into discrete pieces driven by the rapid expansion of products. This process is governed by dynamic under extreme strain rates, typically exceeding 10^4 s^{-1}, where tensile stresses from the shock-induced gradients exceed the material's , leading to brittle failure modes such as or shear banding in metals. In designed munitions like fragmentation grenades or shells, the casing is often pre-notched or composed of brittle alloys to promote controlled shattering into hundreds or thousands of lethal fragments, each with masses ranging from milligrams to grams. The initial velocity of these primary fragments is predicted using empirical models like the , which relate fragment speed to the explosive's release and the of casing to explosive charge. For conventional high explosives such as or , Gurney velocities typically yield fragment speeds of 1.5 to 3 km/s, diminishing with due to drag and deceleration. Experimental validations, such as static testing of munitions, confirm mass and velocity distributions through high-speed imaging and recovery analysis, showing in fragment count with increasing size. These projectiles inflict via transfer, with lethality radius scaling inversely with fragment density and inversely with the square of in open air. Secondary projectiles arise when the blast overpressure wave, peaking at 100-1000 kPa near the source, dislodges and accelerates ambient debris such as glass, metal scraps, or soil particles, imparting velocities up to hundreds of meters per second depending on object mass and exposure duration to the positive phase of the shock. Unlike engineered primary fragments, secondary ones exhibit irregular geometries, tumbling trajectories, and broader size distributions (from dust to meter-scale chunks), complicating predictive modeling but amplifying hazard in cluttered environments like urban settings or vehicles. In blast injury classifications, these contribute to secondary trauma mechanisms, where even low-mass items like gravel can achieve terminal velocities sufficient for severe lacerations or organ perforation within 10-50 meters. Empirical data from incident reconstructions, such as improvised explosive device analyses, indicate secondary projectiles often account for 60-70% of non-primary blast wounds in asymmetric warfare scenarios.

Effects and Impacts

Primary Blast Effects on Structures

Primary blast effects arise from the supersonic emanating from an explosion, imparting dynamic and impulse loads directly onto structures without involvement of fragments or effects. The peak incident overpressure (Pso) decays with scaled distance Z = R / W^{1/3}, where R is standoff distance in feet and W is TNT-equivalent yield in pounds; for example, Pso reaches 12.8 psi at Z = 8.53 ft/lb^{1/3} for free-air bursts. Reflected pressures amplify loads on surfaces, doubling incident values at normal incidence (angle α = 0°) and varying by coefficient Crα (2–14 based on Pso and α). Structures experience bilinear-triangular pressure pulses, with positive-phase durations (to) of milliseconds (e.g., 43.61 ms at Z = 8.53), inducing flexural, shear, and tensile stresses analyzed via single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) models incorporating ratios up to 10–20 for ductile failure modes. Damage mechanisms include elastic deformation at low impulses transitioning to elasto-plastic yielding and ultimate , with brittle failures like spalling in when tensile stresses exceed material capacity. Unreinforced elements rely on arching action for load redistribution, while reinforced components demand tension ties to resist rebound. Urban configurations exacerbate effects through wave diffraction around corners and channeling along streets, locally intensifying pressures. Overpressure thresholds for structural components vary by material and configuration, as summarized below based on criteria:
ComponentPeak Overpressure (psi)Damage Description
Glazing (windows)0.5–1Cracking or breakage; typical for annealed
Glazing (tempered)1–5 (up to 24.6 for 3/4" thick); probability ≤0.001 at design stresses to 16,000 psi
Unreinforced walls/5–10Cracking to collapse; depends on support spans
walls10–20Major cracking, spalling, or collapse; rotation limits 2°–12° with lacing
Roofs/slabs5–15Uplift or collapse; influenced by span-to-wavelength ratio
At 8 psi, widespread building destruction occurs, rendering structures uninhabitable. These thresholds derive from empirical data and scaled TNT equivalency models, applicable to high-explosive detonations but adjusted for surface bursts (e.g., higher ground reflections).

Biological and Human Consequences

Explosions inflict biological damage through four primary mechanisms: primary blast injuries from waves, secondary injuries from fragments, tertiary injuries from displacement, and quaternary injuries including burns and inhalation. Primary blast injuries arise when the supersonic propagates through the body, causing primarily in gas-filled organs such as the s, ears, and . The threshold for rupture is approximately 5 psi for 50% of exposed individuals, rising to 45 psi for near-certainty, while damage typically begins at 15 psi . At higher levels, such as 30-40 psi, severe pulmonary contusions known as blast can occur, leading to alveolar rupture, hemorrhage, and potential due to air emboli entering the bloodstream. Secondary blast injuries result from high-velocity fragments propelled by the explosion, causing penetrating trauma to any body region, with common sites including the head, neck, and torso. These fragments, often from casings or surrounding debris, induce lacerations, organ perforation, and hemorrhage, exacerbating mortality in close-range detonations. Tertiary effects involve the body being accelerated by blast winds, resulting in blunt trauma such as fractures, traumatic brain injuries from impact, or enhanced internal organ shearing. Quaternary mechanisms encompass thermal burns from the explosive fireball, which can cause flash injuries to exposed skin via radiant heat, typically second- or third-degree burns depending on proximity and duration of exposure. Inhalation of superheated gases or toxic fumes may also lead to airway edema or chemical pneumonitis. Human consequences vary by explosion scale and distance but frequently include high immediate fatality rates from combined mechanisms, with survivors facing acute morbidity such as traumatic amputations, blindness from ocular rupture, or . In military contexts, blast lung accounts for a significant portion of initial fatalities among initial survivors, while penetrating fragment wounds predominate in injury patterns. Long-term outcomes for non-fatal exposures can involve chronic respiratory impairment from or neurological deficits, though evidence for persistent effects from single events is less robust than for repeated low-level blasts, which correlate with and cognitive alterations in studies of operational personnel. Overall, explosions uniquely enable mass casualties, with injury severity scaling nonlinearly with and fragment density.

Environmental and Long-Term Aftermath

Explosions release particulate matter, toxic gases, and into the air, , and , leading to immediate and persistent contamination. Conventional explosives, such as those involving or TNT, decompose into nitrogen oxides, , and unexploded residues that leach into and , elevating risks of and toxicity to aquatic life. In the 2020 Beirut port explosion of approximately 2,750 tons of , the blast generated massive debris volumes—up to 800,000 tonnes—potentially laden with and other hazards, alongside airborne pollutants like nitrogen oxides that dispersed regionally. These contaminants can persist in soils, inhibiting growth and entering food chains via . Nuclear explosions introduce radioactive fallout, comprising fission products that deposit on and , rendering areas uninhabitable for decades due to ionizing radiation's carcinogenic and mutagenic effects on biota. Atmospheric testing from 1945 to 1980 dispersed radionuclides globally, contaminating soils and marine sediments; for instance, from early tests entered milk supplies via grass uptake, causing dose exposures in populations. Long-term ecological imbalances include biodiversity loss from habitat sterilization and genetic in surviving , as observed in test sites where vegetation recovery remains incomplete. Fallout particles settle as dust, infiltrating aquifers and persisting through half-lives of key isotopes like cesium-137 (30 years), complicating remediation. Beyond direct chemical and radiological , explosions exacerbate and by denuding landscapes and destroying vegetation covers, fostering invasive species proliferation and reduced over years. In conflict zones, continues leaching explosives into ecosystems, with climate factors like flooding mobilizing contaminants further and hindering natural attenuation. Human health sequelae involve chronic respiratory issues from inhaled particulates and elevated cancer rates from low-level , underscoring the causal chain from blast energetics to intergenerational environmental burdens. Remediation efforts, such as soil excavation or , often prove cost-prohibitive and incomplete, leaving legacies of restricted .

Historical Development

Ancient to 19th Century Discoveries

The earliest known explosive mixture, , was developed in during the around 850 CE by Daoist alchemists experimenting with elixirs for , combining saltpeter (), , and . The first documented formula appeared in the military text in 1044 CE, initially used for incendiary devices like fire arrows and bombs before evolving into propellants for cannons by the 12th century. This low deflagrated rather than detonated, producing rapid combustion and pressure waves suitable for propulsion but limited in compared to later high explosives. Gunpowder spread westward via the and Mongol invasions, reaching the Islamic world by the 13th century and shortly thereafter, where it enabled the development of cannons documented as early as 1326 CE. European refinements, such as corning the powder into granules for consistent burning, improved its reliability for and by the , though it remained a deflagrating agent prone to inconsistent performance due to hygroscopic saltpeter. In the early 19th century, the discovery of primary explosives like mercury(II) fulminate by British chemist Edward Howard around 1800 provided the first reliable detonators, sensitive to shock and capable of initiating high-order explosions in secondary charges. This compound, Hg(CNO)₂, marked a shift toward initiating true detonations via friction or impact, essential for harnessing more powerful materials. High explosives emerged mid-century with Italian chemist Ascanio Sobrero's synthesis of nitroglycerin in 1847 through nitration of glycerol, a liquid compound far more powerful than black powder but dangerously unstable, detonating with velocities exceeding 7,000 m/s. Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel stabilized nitroglycerin by absorbing it into diatomaceous earth (kieselguhr), patenting dynamite in 1867 as a safer, moldable explosive for mining and construction, with detonation pressures up to 20,000 atmospheres. These innovations distinguished high explosives, which propagate via supersonic shock waves, from earlier deflagrants, enabling controlled blasting while highlighting risks like accidental detonations from impurities or shocks.

20th Century Industrial and Military Advances

The marked a transition from reliance on late-19th-century formulations like TNT to more powerful and versatile high explosives, spurred by industrial scaling and wartime necessities. Trinitrotoluene (TNT), with a of approximately 6,900 m/s, became the standard military shell filler during , enabling more effective impacts compared to earlier black powder or lyddite variants; by 1918, Allied forces produced millions of tons for high-explosive shells that prioritized blast over shrapnel. mixtures, such as (TNT blended with ), further enhanced yield and reduced costs, with U.S. output reaching peaks of over 1 million pounds daily by war's end to meet demands for and mining operations. World War II accelerated innovations in nitramine-based explosives, particularly (cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine), originally synthesized in 1898 but scaled for in the after British refinements in improved its stability and power—offering roughly twice the explosive force of TNT at a exceeding 8,700 m/s. The U.S. ramped up RDX manufacturing to over 70,000 tons annually by 1944, incorporating it into (59% RDX, 39% TNT, 2% wax) for aerial bombs, torpedoes, and anti-tank rounds, which enhanced and penetration in Pacific and European theaters. Plasticized variants like emerged during the war, providing moldable charges resistant to shock and temperature extremes, laying groundwork for post-war formulations. Industrial applications paralleled this, with prills enabling safer bulk handling in quarrying and tunneling, though early mixtures lagged in sensitivity until wartime advances. Mid-century industrial breakthroughs emphasized cost-efficiency for civilian blasting. (ammonium nitrate-fuel oil, typically 94% AN and 6% diesel), first formulated in the early for large-scale , achieved velocities of 3,200–4,800 m/s at a fraction of nitroglycerin-based costs, revolutionizing open-pit operations like those in U.S. mines where annual consumption exceeded millions of tons by the . efforts culminated in nuclear explosives, redefining explosive scale through fission and fusion. The test on July 16, 1945, demonstrated implosion-driven plutonium fission yielding 21 kilotons , reliant on precisely synchronized high-explosive lenses compressing the core. Fusion devices advanced further, with the 1954 shot achieving 15 megatons via lithium deuteride boosting, highlighting orders-of-magnitude energy release from staged reactions but introducing uncontainable fallout hazards.[center] These advances prioritized velocity, stability, and yield but exposed trade-offs: RDX's sensitivity necessitated desensitizers, while nuclear designs demanded computational modeling absent in chemical explosives, influencing post-1945 safety protocols and arms control.

Late 20th to 21st Century Innovations

In the late 1980s, the U.S. Department of Defense formalized requirements for insensitive munitions (IM), munitions designed to resist unintended detonation from stimuli such as heat, fragments, or shock, following analyses of vulnerabilities exposed in events like the 1987 USS Stark incident and prior naval fires. This spurred the widespread adoption of polymer-bonded explosives (PBX), which encapsulate high-explosive crystals in polymer matrices to reduce sensitivity; for instance, PBX-9502, formulated with triaminotrinitrobenzene (TATB) at Los Alamos National Laboratory, achieves a critical diameter for detonation exceeding 10 mm while delivering performance comparable to conventional fills. PBX formulations minimized sympathetic detonation risks, with tests showing survival to fragment impacts up to 1.8 g at 1500 m/s without propagating reactions. High-energy-density explosives advanced concurrently, exemplified by (CL-20 or HNIW), first synthesized in 1987 by researchers at the using a method involving and precursors. CL-20 exhibits a of 9380 m/s and pressure of 39.5 GPa in its ε-polymorph, outperforming octogen () by 10-20% in energy release, enabling more compact warheads; its production scaled via nitrolysis processes, though sensitivity concerns prompted PBX variants like PBX-N-19 (95% CL-20). These materials enhanced precision-guided munitions, reducing payload mass for equivalent blast effects. Into the , nanostructuring revolutionized explosive reactivity, with nano-thermites—composites of nanoscale metal fuels (e.g., aluminum) and oxidizers (e.g., )—developed from the early for tunable ignition and higher surface-area-driven energy release rates up to 10^4 times faster than micron-scale analogs. Such materials, produced via sol-gel or arrested reactive milling, support micro-initiators and additively manufactured charges, as demonstrated in 3D-printed architectures achieving uniform rates without defects. Computational modeling paralleled these, with at facilities like enabling predictive simulations of wavefronts via reactive hydrocodes, reducing physical testing by incorporating mesoscale heterogeneity effects since the 1990s. Formulations like IMX-104, qualified by in 2015, further exemplified IM progress, offering TNT-equivalent performance with 50% lower vulnerability to slow cook-off, using dinitrotoluene-free melt-cast fills for shells. These innovations prioritized empirical validation through standardized tests (e.g., MIL-STD-2105), balancing power with safety amid evolving threats like improvised devices.

Notable Examples

Industrial and Accidental Explosions

Industrial and accidental explosions typically result from unintended ignition sources interacting with combustible dusts, flammable vapors, unstable chemicals, or high-energy materials in , storage, or facilities. Common initiating factors include electrical arcs, mechanical sparks from , equipment failures, and human errors such as improper handling or inadequate separation of incompatibles, often compounded by deficiencies in ventilation, , or monitoring systems. These events propagate through to when pressure waves accelerate in confined spaces, releasing blast overpressures, , and fragments that cause structural , fires, and casualties. The of December 6, 1917, occurred when the , carrying 2,300 tons of high explosives including and TNT for supply, collided with the in , ; the ensuing fire detonated the cargo approximately 20 minutes later, generating a blast equivalent to 2.9 kilotons of TNT that leveled 2 square kilometers, killed about 1,700 people, and injured over 9,000. The shockwave shattered windows up to 100 kilometers away, ignited widespread fires, and generated a that inundated waterfront areas, highlighting risks of maritime munitions transport without sufficient collision safeguards. On April 16, 1947, the unfolded when a aboard the SS Grandcamp, loaded with 2,300 tons of bagged , ignited during cargo reloading; the 's oxidizing properties fueled an explosion at 9:12 a.m., shattering the ship and triggering a with the nearby SS High Flyer, resulting in 581 confirmed deaths, thousands injured, and the destruction of the city's industrial core including refineries and chemical plants. 's sensitivity to heat and confinement, combined with suppressed firefighting efforts to prevent cargo shift, amplified the blast's yield to rival small nuclear devices, underscoring the hazards of bulk storage near populated zones. The on May 4, 1988, at the Pacific Engineering and Production Company of facility near Henderson involved a in a batch mixing area that spread to stored —a solid rocket fuel oxidizer—producing seven explosions, the largest registering 3.5 on the , killing two plant employees, injuring 372 others, and causing over $100 million in damage across 2 miles. Inadequate firewalls between storage bunkers and ignition from welding operations enabled , shattering windows in 15 miles away and evacuating thousands, which prompted stricter federal regulations on explosive storage spacing. In , , on August 12, 2015, a at Ruihai Logistics , overloaded with hazardous chemicals including 700 tons of and dry , began with spontaneous ignition of the nitrocellulose due to overheating in unsegregated containers, escalating into multiple detonations that killed 173 people—mostly firefighters—and injured nearly 800, while contaminating soil and water with cyanides and heavy metals over 1.5 square kilometers. Regulatory lapses in permitting high-risk storage near residential areas and poor emergency response coordination, including secondary blasts from water-reactive materials, exposed systemic oversight failures in rapid industrial expansion. The port explosion of August 4, 2020, stemmed from a reaching 2,750 tons of confiscated stored since 2014 in Warehouse 12 without proper safety measures; the nitrate's detonation at 6:07 p.m. yielded 0.5-1.1 kilotons of , killing 218 people, injuring 7,000, displacing 300,000, and inflicting $15 billion in damage including cratering the port and collapsing structures up to 10 kilometers away. Neglect by port authorities in mitigating known risks, such as inadequate barriers and ignored expert warnings, facilitated the vapor cloud formation and high-order blast, eroding institutional trust amid Lebanon's economic crisis.

Military and Intentional Detonations

Military detonations encompass controlled explosions for testing weapons, demolishing structures, and tactical strikes in combat. The Trinity test on July 16, 1945, marked the first nuclear detonation, conducted by the U.S. Army in New Mexico with a plutonium implosion device yielding approximately 18.6 kilotons of TNT equivalent, confirming the feasibility of atomic bombs ahead of their wartime use. This test produced a fireball rising to 40,000 feet and a mushroom cloud extending to 50,000 feet, with no immediate human fatalities but long-term radiation exposure affecting nearby civilians. The atomic bombings of and in August 1945 represented the first combat use of nuclear weapons. On August 6, the uranium-based "" bomb detonated over at an altitude of about 1,900 feet, yielding 15 kilotons and destroying 90% of the city center within a 1-mile radius, with immediate deaths estimated at 70,000 and total fatalities by December 1945 reaching around 140,000 from blast, burns, and acute radiation. Three days later, on August 9, the plutonium "" bomb exploded over , yielding 21 kilotons and killing approximately 40,000 instantly, with total deaths up to 80,000 by year's end, though hilly terrain mitigated some blast effects compared to the flatter . Nuclear tests continued post-war, with on March 1, 1954, at yielding an unexpected 15 megatons—over 1,000 times the bomb—due to unanticipated lithium-7 fusion reactions, creating a 2 miles wide and dispersing fallout that irradiated 82 U.S. personnel on nearby islands and the Japanese fishing vessel Daigo Fukuryu Maru, causing acute radiation sickness in crew members. Conventional military detonations include large-scale bombings and precision strikes. The Allied firebombing of from February 13-15, 1945, involved over 1,200 bombers dropping 3,900 tons of high-explosive and incendiary bombs, generating a that killed an estimated 25,000 civilians through blast overpressure, burns, and asphyxiation. In modern conflicts, the U.S. deployed the on April 13, 2017, against an ISIS-K tunnel complex in , , with an 11-ton yield that collapsed the underground network and killed 36 militants, without reported civilian casualties. Intentional demolitions serve tactical purposes, such as U.S. Marine Corps operations in where explosive ordnance disposal teams used charges to destroy enemy munitions and infrastructure, minimizing through precise placement and timing. These actions highlight the controlled application of explosive physics, where and dictate structural failure, contrasting with uncontrolled blasts.

Natural and Cosmic Events

Explosive volcanic eruptions on arise from the buildup and sudden release of volatile gases dissolved in , particularly in stratovolcanoes situated above zones where tectonic plates converge, leading to viscous, gas-rich magmas prone to fragmentation and high-velocity ejection of pyroclastic material. The (VEI), a measuring volume and eruption column height, quantifies these events, with VEI 5 or higher denoting highly explosive activity capable of regional devastation. The in stands as the largest recorded, achieving VEI 7 status by expelling approximately 150 cubic kilometers of , generating atmospheric shock waves audible up to 1,200 miles away, and injecting aerosols that induced , crop failures, and the "" in 1816. Similarly, the 1883 Krakatoa eruption (VEI 6) in released energy equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT, producing tsunamis that killed over 36,000 people and atmospheric effects visible worldwide for years. Meteoroid airbursts represent another class of natural explosions, occurring when small asteroids or comets fragment and detonate in the atmosphere due to aerodynamic stresses and compression heating, without forming craters but generating powerful shock waves. The of June 30, 1908, over involved an estimated 50- to 100-meter object exploding at 5-10 km altitude with a yield of 3-50 megatons of TNT, flattening roughly 2,150 square kilometers of forest and producing seismic signals detected globally, yet causing no confirmed fatalities due to the remote location. More recently, the on February 15, 2013, a 20-meter entering at 19 km/s, detonated at about 30 km altitude with 440 kilotons , shattering windows across 200 square kilometers, injuring over 1,500 people from flying glass, and scattering fragments that were recovered for analysis confirming composition. Such events highlight the stochastic nature of encounters, with airbursts exceeding nuclear yields but limited ground effects due to altitude. In cosmic contexts, explosions manifest on stellar scales, dwarfing terrestrial events in energy output and driving galactic and evolution. Core-collapse supernovae occur when massive (over 8 solar masses) exhaust fuel, leading to gravitational implosion followed by a rebound shock that expels outer layers at 10% speed, releasing 10^44 joules—equivalent to the Sun's lifetime in seconds—and forging heavy elements via rapid . Type Ia supernovae, from white dwarf accretion exceeding the (1.4 solar masses), ignite thermonuclear runaway, peaking at absolute magnitudes around -19 and serving as standard candles for cosmic distance measurements due to uniform peak luminosities. Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), the universe's most luminous electromagnetic events, arise from relativistic jets in collapsing massive (long-duration GRBs) or merging compact objects, isotropically equivalent energies reaching 10^54 ergs over seconds to minutes, though beamed emission reduces true yields; these bursts, detected since 1967 by satellites, probe high-redshift universe conditions and link to hypernovae in star-forming galaxies. Observations, such as GRB 080319B visible to the from 7.5 billion light-years, underscore their role in extreme physics, including potential Lorentz factors exceeding 100 and afterglows from emission in surrounding media.

Applications and Utilitarian Roles

Industrial and Civil Engineering Uses

Explosives are employed in primarily for rock fragmentation and structural , enabling efficient excavation in formations where mechanical methods prove inadequate or uneconomical. In and quarrying operations, controlled blasting involves boreholes into the rock mass, loading them with commercial explosives such as ammonium nitrate-fuel oil () mixtures, and detonating in a sequenced manner to fracture and displace material. This technique dominates open-pit and underground , with global consumption of industrial explosives exceeding 4 million tons annually as of recent estimates, primarily for extraction and aggregate production. In , drill-and-blast methods facilitate tunneling through competent rock, particularly in projects with irregular or short tunnel lengths where tunnel boring machines are impractical. For instance, the process entails systematic advance cycles of , charging with emulsion-based explosives, blasting, mucking, and support installation, achieving advance rates of 1-5 meters per day depending on rock hardness and explosive selection. Pre-splitting techniques, involving decoupled charges along the tunnel perimeter, minimize overbreak and preserve rock integrity for lining stability, as demonstrated in various tunnel projects. Controlled explosive demolition applies blasting to dismantle large structures like buildings, chimneys, and bridges by strategically placing charges at key support points to induce under gravity, reducing debris volume and enabling rapid site clearance. This method has been used since the mid-20th century for , with precision timing via electronic detonators ensuring directional falls away from adjacent infrastructure; for example, over 2,000 buildings worldwide have been imploded using such techniques by specialized firms. like RDX-based boosters and linear shaped charges cut structural elements, with energy release calculated to avoid excessive vibration, typically limited to peak particle velocities below 50 mm/s at nearby structures per standards.

Defense and Security Applications

Explosives form the destructive core of conventional munitions, enabling blast, fragmentation, and penetration effects in projectiles, aerial bombs, grenades, and warheads. High-energy materials such as (RDX and TNT mixture) and deliver rapid pressure waves exceeding 200,000 atmospheres to defeat armored targets and personnel. These applications rely on precise initiation via detonators to achieve controlled energy release, minimizing unintended propagation in storage or transport. In , controlled explosions facilitate obstacle breaching, structure , and route clearance using plastic explosives like C-4 and specialized charges such as the modular assault breaching system or cratering munitions. U.S. Army combat engineers, for instance, detonated over 120 blocks of C-4 during a training exercise to simulate battlefield demolitions, emphasizing charge placement and safety protocols to avoid . Such operations employ line charges and Bangalore torpedoes to clear minefields and wire obstacles, enhancing mobility in contested environments. Explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) units across U.S. military branches detect, render safe, and dispose of unexploded munitions, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and chemical threats through robotic systems, disruptors, and controlled detonations. EOD technicians use dual-sensor detectors to locate buried IEDs, while teams employ diving and parachuting for underwater or remote threats. In counter-IED efforts, and U.S. forces integrate countermeasures to defeat adversary networks, with training focusing on IED indicators, components, and disruption techniques amid ongoing threats in asymmetric conflicts. Nuclear explosives underpin strategic deterrence via fission and fusion warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers, with the U.S. maintaining 1,419 deployed warheads as of March 2023 to counter peer adversaries. These devices yield energy releases millions of times greater than chemical explosives, producing shock waves, thermal radiation, and fallout for mass destruction, though their use alters conflict dynamics profoundly. Tactical nuclear options, deliverable by artillery or short-range missiles, extend applications to battlefield escalation control, prioritizing survivability in high-threat delivery environments.

Emerging Technologies and Research

Research into high explosives has focused on developing materials with higher and improved stability. Advances include the synthesis of novel secondary explosives such as dihydroxylammonium 5,5'-bistetrazole-1,1'-diolate (TKX-50), which offers detonation velocities exceeding 9,500 m/s while exhibiting lower sensitivity than traditional compounds like . Similarly, efforts to create melt-castable explosives without toxic plasticizers have led to formulations like 2,4-dinitroanisole (DNAN)-based mixtures, enhancing safety in munitions production. Insensitive high explosives (IHE) represent a key area, with simulations at elucidating hot-spot formation mechanisms that initiate under shock loading, informing designs that withstand accidental impacts. Recent innovations include explosives incorporating (NaBH4), which increase —measured by pressure up to 25% higher than standard emulsions—while maintaining emulsion stability for applications. Nanotechnology integration aims to boost performance, as seen in plasma-treated aluminum nanoparticles explored by U.S. Army and researchers, which enhance reaction rates in aluminized explosives by reducing ignition delays to microseconds, potentially for advanced propellants. Computational techniques, including additive processes, enable optimized microstructures in high explosives to control wavefronts and minimize defects. Detection technologies have advanced with portable systems leveraging (IMS) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), achieving trace detection limits below 1 ng for peroxides and nitrates. Nanosensors, utilizing nanoparticles' , enable colorimetric detection of explosives like TNT at parts-per-billion levels in field conditions. These developments prioritize empirical validation through standardized tests, such as measurements via streak cameras, to ensure reliability over theoretical predictions.

Safety, Hazards, and Countermeasures

Risk Factors and Common Failure Modes

Risk factors for unintended explosions primarily involve the interaction of flammable or combustible materials with ignition sources under conditions of confinement or dispersion, as seen in industrial accidents. In facilities handling combustible dusts—such as those in , pharmaceuticals, or —explosions occur when fine particulate matter forms a suspended cloud, encounters an ignition source like sparks from equipment or , and is contained within a structure that allows pressure buildup; the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board has documented over 350 such incidents since 1980, often linked to inadequate or ventilation failures. Similarly, vapor cloud explosions from flammable gases or liquids, as in refineries, arise from leaks igniting in open air, with overpressure waves causing secondary structural failures; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notes that poor , such as corroded , exacerbates leak risks in operations. Human and procedural lapses amplify these material-based risks. Equipment or heat source malfunctions, including electrical arcing or mechanical failures in pumps and valves, account for a significant portion of industrial structure fires leading to explosions, per data from 2015–2019 showing such causes in 18% of property incidents. In explosives or storage, improper handling of sensitizers like —evident in the 2020 Beirut port explosion involving 2,750 tons stored without proper separation—can trigger deflagration to transitions due to or impact. Violations of , such as unaddressed static ignition during cold starts, have been cited by OSHA in incidents resulting in multiple fatalities. Common failure modes in intended detonations include failures, partial , and structural overloads beyond limits. In applications like vessel rupture during controlled blasts, subsonic deflagrations can transition to supersonic detonations if reaction rates exceed containment strength, leading to brittle fracture or ductile tearing; finite element analyses indicate that vessels with thin walls or defects fail via hoop stress exceeding yield points at pressures as low as 10–20 bar. For munitions and ordnance, dud rates—defined as failure to detonate on impact—range from 1–5% in precision-guided systems but rise to 10–30% in cluster submunitions due to fuze arming defects, spin-induced instabilities, or environmental factors like mud ; U.S. Defense Science Board assessments highlight that higher deployment velocities correlate with increased fuzing malfunctions.
  • Initiation failure: Detonators may rupture or bridge-wire fracture under premature shock, as in electronic types tested to 100g impacts, preventing primer ignition.
  • Propagation failure: In non-ideal explosives like homemade variants, detonation waves decay due to insufficient confinement or low shock strength, yielding instead; studies show failure diameters exceeding 10–20 cm for heterogeneous mixes.
  • Sympathetic detonation: Unintended coupling between charges via blast , observed in operations where spacing below 5–10 meters triggers cascades.
These modes underscore the need for empirical testing of reactivity, as theoretical models often overestimate stability in heterogeneous compositions.

Prevention Standards and

Prevention standards for industrial explosions emphasize systematic hazard assessment and layered protective measures, drawing from empirical on ignition sources, fuel concentrations, and confinement effects that enable rapid propagation. The (NFPA) standard 69, updated in 2024, specifies requirements for systems preventing deflagrations in enclosures with flammable gases, vapors, mists, or combustible dusts exceeding the , including explosion isolation to halt flame front propagation and active suppression deploying agents like dry chemicals within 20-50 milliseconds of detection. NFPA 654, revised in 2020, addresses combustible particulate solids in manufacturing and processing, mandating dust hazard analyses to identify minimum ignition energies—often as low as 1-10 mJ for fine metal or organic powders—and controls such as regular to limit layer depths below 1/32 inch over 5% of surface area. The (OSHA) integrates these into enforceable guidelines, as in its 2005 Safety and Health Information Bulletin on fire and explosion effects, which recommends separating hazards by distance (e.g., inhabited building distances scaled to quantity via formulas like D = K * W^(1/3), where W is net weight in kg and K is a site-specific constant) or barriers to mitigate waves exceeding 1-3 psi that cause structural failure. OSHA's combustible dust directive CPL 03-00-008, revised in 2023, requires for facilities handling materials with Kst values above 0 (dust index indicating explosion severity), prioritizing over like permits. Engineering controls follow a starting with inherent design to eliminate risks, such as substituting non-combustible materials or inerting atmospheres with to below 25-50% of the minimum oxygen concentration for , verified through testing per ASTM E1446. Passive measures include blast-resistant construction with rated to withstand 5-10 psi peak side-on and venting panels that rupture at 0.5-2 to direct flames outward, reducing internal pressures by factors of 10-100 compared to unvented scenarios. Active systems, per NFPA 69, incorporate optical or sensors triggering suppression or isolation valves, proven effective in reducing explosion probabilities from 10^-2 to below 10^-4 per demand in validated industrial trials. For volatile gas environments, European ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU and international IECEx schemes classify zones (0-2 for gases) based on release frequency and duration, requiring equipment with protection levels like (limiting energy to <1.3 mJ for Group IIC gases) or flameproof enclosures to contain internal explosions without propagating externally, as standardized in IEC 60079-11 and -1. These controls, grounded in zone-specific ignition probability data, have reduced incident rates in facilities by over 70% since implementation in the 2000s, per industry audits.

Detection, Forensics, and Response Protocols

Detection of explosions often begins with human observation or systems, supplemented by automated sensors capturing physical signatures of the event. Seismic sensors measure ground vibrations, proving effective for underground or high-yield blasts, as demonstrated in monitoring networks that distinguish explosions from earthquakes via waveform analysis. Acoustic and detectors identify shockwaves and low-frequency pressure waves propagating through air, with seismoacoustic methods enhancing discrimination between natural seismic events and man-made detonations. Optical sensors detect thermal flashes and fireballs, particularly for high-explosive or nuclear events, while emerging (DAS) technologies convert existing networks into dense arrays for vibration detection over kilometers, enabling real-time localization of surface or subsurface explosions. Post-blast forensics employs standardized protocols to reconstruct events, identify explosives, and trace origins while preserving scene integrity. The National Institute of Justice's Guide for Explosion and Bombing Investigation outlines initial securing of the perimeter to control access and mitigate , followed by a walkthrough for hazard identification and mapping without disturbance. via photographs, videos, diagrams, and measurements precedes collection, which targets fragments, residues, , and structural debris; residues undergo laboratory analysis using for inorganic components and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry for organic explosives like or PETN. Multidisciplinary teams, including bomb technicians and forensic chemists from agencies like the ATF, process scenes systematically, establishing and submitting data to databases for pattern analysis, with dimensions and fragment distribution informing yield estimates (e.g., a 1-meter suggesting 10-20 kg ). Response protocols prioritize life safety under the , integrating , HAZMAT teams, and . Immediate actions include establishing hot, warm, and cold zones based on —factoring overpressure effects like eardrum rupture at approximately 5 psi or lethal lung barotrauma at 23 psi sustained for 18.5 milliseconds—and anticipating secondary devices through systematic searches. Triage addresses unique blast injuries such as fragmentation wounds (comprising up to 80% of cases from or ) and from wave translation, with evacuation guided by stand-off distances (e.g., 250 feet for a 300-pound to limit 1.0 psi overpressure). Structural assessments prevent collapses, utility shutoffs mitigate fires, and coordination via operational briefings ensures resource allocation, as per FEMA guidelines on blast dynamics and OSHA directives for secondary threats.

Controversies and Empirical Critiques

Debates on Explosive Weapons in Warfare

The primary debates surrounding weapons in warfare revolve around balancing their inherent utility—such as rapid suppression of enemy positions, destruction of fortifications, and area denial—against humanitarian risks, particularly in densely populated urban environments where blast effects, fragmentation, and structural collapse amplify harm. Advocacy groups like the International Network on Explosive Weapons (INEW) argue that wide-area explosive munitions, including unguided and large aerial bombs, cause disproportionate casualties, citing data from Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) showing over 80% surges in such incidents in conflicts like in 2022, with civilians comprising up to 90% of victims in urban settings. However, these figures often derive from monitoring by non-governmental organizations focused on disarmament, which may emphasize verified incidents while underrepresenting combatant deaths or the tactical necessities driving their use, such as adversaries embedding forces amid civilians to exploit proportionality rules under (IHL). Military analysts counter that explosive weapons remain indispensable for operational effectiveness in modern conflicts, where urban terrain favors defenders through concealment and human shields, rendering precision alternatives insufficient for tasks like neutralizing dispersed or breaking fortified lines. For instance, in urban operations like those in (2016–2017) against , coalition forces relied on explosive ordnance to dismantle entrenched positions, achieving territorial gains despite high civilian costs estimated at 10,000–40,000 deaths, many attributable to insurgent tactics of fighting from civilian areas. Critics of restrictions, including U.S. military doctrine, assert that empirical comparisons favor explosive area effects over prolonged ground assaults, which historically incur higher overall casualties; data from post-9/11 conflicts indicate that precision-guided munitions reduced unintended civilian deaths by factors of 10–20 compared to Vietnam-era unguided strikes, though unguided systems persist for volume fire in high-threat scenarios. Proposals for blanket avoidance of wide-area effects in populated areas, as pushed by the ICRC, are viewed skeptically as they could cede initiative to irregular forces unbound by similar constraints, potentially prolonging conflicts and escalating total harm. Under IHL, including Additional Protocol I to the (1977), the use of explosive weapons must adhere to principles of distinction (targeting only military objectives) and proportionality (anticipated civilian harm not excessive to military advantage), with no outright prohibition on their employment in urban zones absent deliberate indiscriminate attacks. Debates intensify over interpreting these rules for inherently dispersive weapons like cluster munitions, banned by the 2008 (ratified by 110 states but rejected by major powers like the U.S., , and due to their utility against armored formations and minefields). Proponents of bans highlight post-conflict unexploded ordnance risks, yet military assessments note failure rates below 5% for newer U.S. systems like the CBU-105, arguing they outperform unitary bombs in minimizing strike footprints and immediate collateral while providing submunition precision. Efforts like the 2022–2023 political declaration on EWIPA, endorsed by over 70 states, urge enhanced precautions such as enhanced guidance and post-strike assessments, but non-signatories and skeptics question enforceability, noting that asymmetric actors like or routinely violate distinction by co-locating military assets with civilians, shifting causal responsibility. Recent conflicts underscore unresolved tensions, as in where both Russian massed artillery and Ukrainian counterstrikes with Western-supplied systems have inflicted heavy urban tolls—OHCHR data through 2024 records over 10,000 casualties from explosives, yet military analyses attribute much to Russia's tactics versus Ukraine's more targeted use. Truth-seeking evaluations reveal that while technological advances like loitering munitions and AI-assisted targeting mitigate risks, fundamental causal realities—explosives' physics of and shrapnel propagation—preclude zero-collateral outcomes in peer or , prioritizing empirical validation of net lives saved through decisive victories over aspirational restraints that disadvantage rule-abiding forces.

Environmental Impact Claims vs. Evidence

Advocacy organizations and environmental reports frequently assert that explosions from and industrial activities inflict widespread, enduring harm, including the release of toxic residues that contaminate , , and air, leading to and human health risks. For instance, analyses of weapons in populated areas highlight debris generation, hazardous material dispersal, and long-term legacies as justification for policy restrictions. Similarly, critiques of blasts emphasize clouds, ground vibrations, and flyrock as contributors to disruption and atmospheric . These claims often portray use as inherently destructive, with minimal mitigation possible, drawing from observations in conflict zones where exacerbates issues. Peer-reviewed research on the environmental fate of conventional explosives, such as TNT, , and , reveals that these compounds undergo rapid transformation through abiotic processes like photolysis, , and to sediments, alongside biotic degradation by microorganisms utilizing them as carbon or sources. Empirical data indicate limited persistence in dynamic environments, with declining due to binding and further breakdown into less toxic products, though transformation byproducts require additional scrutiny for potential risks. Toxicity assessments show acute effects at laboratory concentrations around 10–100 μg/L for sensitive marine species, but field measurements post-detonation often dilute to ng/L levels, suggesting attenuated ecological threats under typical dispersion. Distinctions in efficiency provide key evidence countering blanket claims of inevitable : high-order (complete) detonations minimize chemical residues at approximately 1.2 mg/L in aqueous tests, compared to 8.7 mg/L from low-order (incomplete) events, while producing more but smaller fragments with reduced stopping distances. radii extend 14–23 m for high-order versus 25–58 m for low- or partial-order, underscoring that proper reduces contaminant release far below alarmist projections. In marine settings, munitions leachates exhibit low factors and rapid depuration (half-lives of hours), with coefficients limiting widespread mobility. In controlled industrial applications like , blasting-induced effects—primarily transient ground vibrations, air overpressure, and —are quantified and regulated to stay below structural damage thresholds (e.g., peak particle velocities under 50 mm/s at 100 m), with settling within hours and NOx gases dispersing rapidly. Long-term chemical legacies remain negligible absent incomplete detonations, as residues integrate into and degrade. Military contexts similarly show localized contamination from training ranges or ordnance disposal, managed via federal remediation programs that address and energetics at sites, with broader recovery evidenced post-cleanup. These findings indicate that while uncontrolled or legacy explosions pose verifiable risks, engineered practices yield impacts orders of magnitude smaller than claimed, prioritizing empirical over precautionary overstatement.
Detonation TypeResidue Concentration (mg/L)Toxicity Radius (m)Fragmentation Impact
High-Order1.2 ± 0.414–23Higher number, smaller size, shorter range
Low-Order8.7 ± 2.825–40Lower number, higher chemical release

Regulatory Burdens and Innovation Constraints

Regulatory frameworks governing explosive materials, administered by agencies such as the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Department of Transportation (DOT), impose stringent licensing, storage, and transportation requirements that extend to , development, and testing (RDT&E) of new compounds. Under 27 CFR Part 555, entities engaged in developing or modifying explosives must obtain a federal explosives license (FEL), which mandates detailed record-keeping, inventory controls, and ATF inspections, with non-compliance penalties including fines up to $250,000 or . These provisions, expanded by the Safe Explosives Act of 2002 following the 1995 , classify experimental explosives as requiring special permits, thereby elevating compliance costs—estimated in federal reviews to include annual reporting burdens valued at millions in administrative hours industry-wide. Such mandates constrain innovation by prolonging approval timelines for novel materials, such as or lead-free primaries, where ATF classification testing and DOT hazardous materials endorsements can delay commercialization by 12-24 months due to sequential reviews and site-specific storage variances. In the mining sector, where explosives like emulsions drive efficiency gains, tightened blasting codes and separation distances for —prompted by incidents like the 2020 Beirut port explosion—have increased operational overhead, with industry analyses noting bundled service models as workarounds to mitigate regulatory layering from multiple agencies. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposals, including 2024 rules curbing open detonation for waste explosives, further limit RDT&E field testing, potentially raising costs for validating safer formulations amid vulnerabilities identified in nuclear stockpile maintenance. Efforts to alleviate these burdens, such as Canada's 2023 amendments to the Explosives Regulations reducing misalignment costs or evaluations of directives, acknowledge high administrative loads that risk deterring smaller developers from pursuing incremental advances in control or eco-compatible blends. However, persistent critiques from industry bodies highlight that layered federal-state requirements, including annual storage facility reporting to local authorities, amplify opportunity costs for R&D investment, with broader economic studies linking analogous chemical regulations to deferred in high-risk sectors.

References

  1. https://www.nist.gov/glossary-term/38256
  2. https://blastinjuryresearch.health.mil/index.cfm/blast_injury_101/science_of_blast
  3. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2011.0385
  4. https://www.britannica.com/technology/explosive
  5. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1524/ML15245A640.pdf
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/nuclear-explosion
  7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430914/
  8. https://www.directives.doe.gov/terms_definitions/explosion
  9. https://shepherd.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/Glossary.html
  10. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explosion
  11. https://www.etymonline.com/word/explosion
  12. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/explosion
  13. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/8167
  14. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2426320122
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009261422005413
  16. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD0643597.pdf
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6273078/
  18. https://shepherd.caltech.edu/EDL/publications/reprints/wssci_fall_2005.pdf
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666647224000678
  20. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Chemistry_for_Changing_Times_%28Hill_and_McCreary%29/11%253A_Nuclear_Chemistry/11.08%253A_Nuclear_Bombs
  21. https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/science-behind-atom-bomb/
  22. https://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm
  23. https://www.ucs.org/resources/how-nuclear-weapons-work
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/blast-wave
  25. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0295889.pdf
  26. https://medcoeckapwstorprd01.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/pfw-images/borden/conventional-warfare/ch07.pdf
  27. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article/31/2/022706/3267892/Coupled-models-for-propagation-of-explosive-shock
  28. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20130011523/downloads/20130011523.pdf
  29. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00193-022-01089-z
  30. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apr/article/5/1/011303/570361/Understanding-the-shock-and-detonation-response-of
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9399105/
  32. https://ntrs.[nasa](/page/NASA).gov/api/citations/19680022576/downloads/19680022576.pdf
  33. https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/120039.pdf
  34. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/npsg/explosives/Chapter2.pdf
  35. https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/effects/glasstone-dolan/chapter1.html
  36. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL101118
  37. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/15002352
  38. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2024/ph241/gonzalez1/docs/glasstone-1977.pdf
  39. https://psemc.com/resources/pyrotechnic-white-papers/properties-of-selected-high-explosives-rev/
  40. https://www.nfpa.org/news-blogs-and-articles/blogs/2023/03/27/explosions-vs-deflagrations-vs-detonations
  41. https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/inline-files/Module1.pdf
  42. https://www.asteetrace.org/explosives
  43. https://education.aiche.org/topclass/media/ed3a9670-9833-456a-87e5-1e74351c0c1b/story_content/external_files/Level%25202_Course%25204b_Unit%25202_Slides.pdf
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389409015088
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957582019311334
  46. https://www.icheme.org/media/10225/xv-paper-10.pdf
  47. https://www.blazestack.com/blog/bleve-causes-effects-and-mechanisms
  48. https://www.worksafenb.ca/policy-and-legal/legal/interpretations/definitions-of-explosion
  49. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3912.pdf
  50. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/fission-and-fusion-what-difference
  51. https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Science/BombDesign/bomb-design.html
  52. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219147/
  53. https://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/NMHB2020rev/chapters/chapter13.html
  54. https://www.lanl.gov/media/publications/national-security-science/0720-the-trinity-test
  55. https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/effects/glasstone-dolan/chapter2.html
  56. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D-PURL-gpo106759/pdf/GOVPUB-D-PURL-gpo106759.pdf
  57. https://www.pas.rochester.edu/~blackman/astroexplosions.pdf
  58. https://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sources/supernovas.html
  59. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/research/topic/supernovas-remnants
  60. https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainssupernovae
  61. https://icer.msu.edu/research-services/folder-of-research-highlights/advancing-the-supernova-mechanism-study-with-computer-modeling
  62. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12942
  63. https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-different-types-of-supernovae-explained/
  64. https://lco.global/spacebook/stars/supernova/
  65. https://science.nasa.gov/universe/gamma-ray-bursts-harvesting-knowledge-from-the-universes-most-powerful-explosions/
  66. https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/20may99.html
  67. https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/science/science-behind-the-discoveries/hubble-gamma-ray-bursts/
  68. https://www.iflscience.com/jwst-confirms-day-long-gamma-ray-burst-was-the-most-energetic-event-humanity-has-witnessed-81264
  69. https://archive.iaa.csic.es/en/news/observations-rare-hypernova-complete-picture-death-most-massive-stars
  70. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/973452
  71. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.181102
  72. https://www.nmt.edu/academics/mecheng/faculty/mhargather/docs/Shattuck2015.pdf
  73. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article/27/3/796/204784/Measurement-of-Chapman-Jouguet-Pressure-for
  74. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0603540
  75. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article/23/7/1268/75012/Measurement-of-the-Chapman-Jouguet-Pressure-and
  76. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA119965.pdf
  77. https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/effects/fireball.html
  78. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P2745.pdf
  79. https://str.llnl.gov/past-issues/june-2018/piecing-together-nuclear-fireball
  80. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pof/article/35/6/066117/2895213/Post-detonation-fireball-modeling-Validation-of
  81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1540748920303497
  82. https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/effects/thermal-radiation.html
  83. https://nuclearweaponsedproj.mit.edu/fireball-size-effects/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7040745/
  85. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA074759.pdf
  86. http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023FPhCh...3..281F/abstract
  87. https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/ADA262272.xhtml
  88. https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/prep_ied_fact_sheet.pdf
  89. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/822587-overview
  90. https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/UFC/ARCHIVES/ufc_3_340_02.pdf
  91. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20414196221118595
  92. https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/chemical-spills/resources/overpressure-levels-concern.html
  93. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/28987/cdc_28987_DS1.pdf
  94. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/pdfs/niosh-125/125-explosionsandrefugechambers.pdf
  95. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202251/
  96. https://blastinjuryresearch.health.mil/index.cfm/blast_injury_101/what_is_blast_injury
  97. https://www.acep.org/siteassets/uploads/uploaded-files/acep/clinical-and-practice-management/ems-and-disaster-preparedness/disaster-preparedness-grant-projects/blastinjury_thermalinjuries_eng.pdf
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11001960/
  99. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMvcm2408353
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8881550/
  101. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/environmental-legacy-explosive-weapons-populated-areas
  102. https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/09/1071462
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4165831/
  104. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-fallout-nuclear-weapons-testing
  105. https://www.azoquantum.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=518
  106. https://air.arizona.edu/news/how-unexploded-bombs-cause-environmental-damage-and-why-climate-change-exacerbates-problem
  107. https://www.jmu.edu/news/cisr/2022/10/261-2/04-261-cottrell.shtml
  108. https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/environmental
  109. https://www.thoughtco.com/invention-of-gunpowder-195160
  110. https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/songdynasty-module/tech-gunpowder.html
  111. https://www.quora.com/When-did-gunpowder-arrive-in-Europe
  112. https://webhelper.brown.edu/joukowsky/courses/13things/7687.html
  113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0187893X17301143
  114. https://www.chemistryworld.com/podcasts/mercury-fulminate-hgcno2/9168.article
  115. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10779131/
  116. https://www.history.com/articles/dynamite-invention-nobel
  117. https://www.sciencehistory.org/education/scientific-biographies/alfred-nobel/
  118. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1920/october/american-production-military-high-explosives-and-their-raw
  119. https://medcoeckapwstorprd01.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/pfw-images/borden/occ-health/OHch9.pdf
  120. https://academic.oup.com/kentucky-scholarship-online/book/17897
  121. https://www.kentuckypress.com/9780813175287/the-secret-history-of-rdx/
  122. https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-90-139fs.pdf
  123. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5560961
  124. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00295450.2021.1913954
  125. ./assets/CastleBravo2.gif
  126. https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2116&context=cmh
  127. https://www.insensitivemunitions.org/history/the-origin-of-the-insensitive-munition-concept/
  128. https://www.insensitivemunitions.org/
  129. https://dsiac.dtic.mil/articles/insensitive-munitions-where-are-we-now/
  130. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4352/6/1/5
  131. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9783527835348.ch8
  132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950431724000418
  133. https://str.llnl.gov/past-issues/august-2021/three-decades-explosive-innovation
  134. https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/revolutionary-insensitive-munitions-technology-wins-big
  135. https://www.dau.edu/tools/dau-systems-engineering-brainbook/design-considerations/insensitive-muntions
  136. https://www.tuvsud.com/en-us/resource-centre/blogs/risk-engineering/5-major-causes-of-industrial-explosions-and-fires
  137. https://www.gobdc.com/primary-causes-industrial-fires-explosions-not-get-burned/?print=pdf
  138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/accidental-explosion
  139. https://maritimemuseum.novascotia.ca/what-see-do/halifax-explosion
  140. https://parks.canada.ca/culture/designation/evenement-event/halifax-explosion
  141. https://www.csb.gov/assets/1/20/0529csb.pdf?15273
  142. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/112056/cdc_112056_DS1.pdf
  143. https://files.clarkcountynv.gov/government/departments/fire/the_pepcon_explosion.php
  144. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/15005088
  145. https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/02/Chinese-Investigators-Identify-Cause-Tianjin.html
  146. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37927158
  147. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/08/03/they-killed-us-inside/investigation-august-4-beirut-blast
  148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7985624/
  149. https://www.afnwc.af.mil/About-Us/History/Trinity-Nuclear-Test/
  150. https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/trinity.htm
  151. https://visit.archives.gov/whats-on/explore-exhibits/atomic-bombing-hiroshima-and-nagasaki
  152. https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/english/peace/1029875/1010074.html
  153. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/bombing-nagasaki-august-9-1945
  154. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2024-02-29/castle-bravo-70-worst-nuclear-test-us-history
  155. https://www.atomicarchive.com/history/cold-war/page-6.html
  156. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/apocalypse-dresden-february-1945
  157. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39598046
  158. https://www.denix.osd.mil/uxo/explosives-safety/uxo-incidents/
  159. https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/planet-earth/why-are-there-ocean-basins-continents-and-mountains/explosive-volcanism
  160. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/volcanoes
  161. https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/volcanos/the-12-biggest-volcanic-eruptions-in-recorded-history
  162. https://www.nasa.gov/history/115-years-ago-the-tunguska-asteroid-impact-event/
  163. https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/five-years-after-the-chelyabinsk-meteor-nasa-leads-efforts-in-planetary-defense/
  164. https://www.planetary.org/articles/what-was-the-chelyabinsk-meteor-event
  165. https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/S/supernova-gamma%2Bray%2Bburst%2Bconnection
  166. https://columbian.gwu.edu/supernovae-shine-light-gamma-ray-bursts
  167. https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/531/3/3297/7691151
  168. https://natural-resources.canada.ca/minerals-mining/explosives-fireworks-ammunition/explosives/buying-selling-storing-industrial-explosives
  169. https://irispublishers.com/ctcse/fulltext/controlled-blasting-in-mines-quarries-a-paradigm.ID.000589.php
  170. https://www.encardio.com/blog/drill-and-blast-tunneling-case-study
  171. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378610598_Application_of_Controlled_Blasting
  172. https://www.grantmackaydemolition.com/explosive-demolition-controlled-destruction-for-large-scale-structures
  173. https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/pdf/10.1680/ipeds.1955.11912
  174. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Library/Instructions/CJCSI%25204360.01D.pdf
  175. https://www.army.mil/article/103658/here_comes_the_boom_fighter_soldiers_train_for_battlefield_demolitions
  176. https://jpeoaa.army.mil/Project-Offices/PM-CCS/Organizations/PdD-Demolitions-Countermeasures/Products/Demolition-Systems/
  177. https://www.airforce.com/careers/special-warfare-and-combat-support/explosive-ordnance-disposal-eod
  178. https://www.necc.usff.navy.mil/eod/
  179. https://www.act.nato.int/our-work/counter-improvised-explosive-devices/
  180. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10519
  181. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.pdf
  182. https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/what-are-tactical-nuclear-weapons/
  183. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9783527835348.ch16
  184. https://www.llnl.gov/article/52761/simulating-hot-spot-formation-insensitive-high-explosives
  185. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06484-x
  186. https://www.army.mil/article/243587/army_argonne_scientists_explore_nanoparticles_for_future_weapon_systems
  187. https://www.llnl.gov/article/51226/manufacturing-optimized-designs-high-explosives
  188. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214158825000042
  189. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5688190/
  190. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/3371combustible-dust.pdf
  191. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389406013604
  192. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=91013VCV.TXT
  193. https://walkertexaslawyer.com/causes-of-chemical-plant-explosions/
  194. https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-research/fire-statistical-reports/fires-in-us-industrial-or-manufacturing-properties
  195. https://www.arnolditkin.com/plant-refinery-accidents/plant-refinery-explosions/causes-of-explosions/
  196. https://becht.com/becht-blog/entry/explosive-failure-of-vessels/
  197. https://dsb.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/reports/2000s/ADA441959.pdf
  198. https://www.npaid.org/files/Mine-action-and-disarmarment/m85.pdf
  199. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40789-025-00749-6
  200. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/dissertations/AAI1510196/
  201. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1033738
  202. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264351216_Detonation_Failure_Characterization_of_Homemade_Explosives
  203. https://www.nfpa.org/product/nfpa-69-standard/p0069code
  204. https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-654-standard-development/654
  205. https://www.osha.gov/publications/shib073105
  206. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/directives/CPL_03-00-008.pdf
  207. https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-69-standard-development/69
  208. https://blog.ansi.org/ansi/nfpa-69-2019-standard-explosion-prevention/
  209. https://www.iecex.com/resources-and-news/standards/
  210. https://www.gore.com/resources/iecexatex-defining-and-certifying-explosion-protected-ex-safety-standards
  211. https://pls.llnl.gov/article/51046/using-seismoacoustics-improve-explosion-monitoring
  212. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article/95/4/2195/633856/Distributed-Acoustic-Sensing-for-Crowd-Motion-and
  213. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181869.pdf
  214. https://www.atf.gov/explosives/enforcement-tools-services/arson-explosives-training-programs/basic-post-blast-investigative-techniques
  215. https://www.fema.gov/pdf/plan/prevent/rms/155/e155_day2.pdf
  216. http://www.osha.gov/emergency-preparedness/guides/secondary-explosive-devices
  217. https://www.inew.org/press-release-dying-under-bombs-and-shells-new-report-finds-escalation-in-armed-conflicts-worldwide-causes-over-80-percent-surge-in-civilian-casualties-from-explosive-weapons/
  218. https://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/8640-explosive-weapons
  219. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/1325935/the-use-of-explosives-in-cities-a-grim-but-lawful-reality-of-war/
  220. https://www.inew.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/OCHA-Compilation-of-Military-Policy-and-Practice-2017.pdf
  221. https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/explosive-weapons-populated-areas
  222. https://www.inew.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/INEW-QA-SEP-2019-REVJUL20.pdf
  223. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/two-year-update-protection-civilians-impact-hostilities-civilians-24.pdf
  224. https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-025-00373-1
  225. https://ceobs.org/we-must-not-ignore-explosive-weapons-environmental-impact/
  226. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311567265_ENVIRONMENTAL_IMPACT_OF_MINE_BLASTING
  227. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17708075/
  228. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00141/full
  229. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389425020564
  230. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2300396017301064
  231. https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/environmental-challenge-military-munitions-and-federal-facilities
  232. https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5400-7.pdf
  233. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/23/2023-18075/annual-reporting-of-explosive-materials-storage-facilities-to-the-local-fire-authority
  234. https://www.justice.gov/d9/26_bureau_of_alcohol_tobacco_firearms_and_explosives_atf.pdf
  235. https://www.atf.gov/explosives
  236. https://www.miningweekly.com/article/new-code-tightens-blasting-standards-2025-10-01
  237. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-announces-latest-action-better-protect-communities
  238. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107016.pdf
  239. https://natural-resources.canada.ca/minerals-mining/explosives-fireworks-ammunition/explosives/amendments-explosives-regulations-2013
  240. https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2023/2023-05-27/html/reg3-eng.html
  241. https://www.facebook.com/EU.Growth/posts/our-evaluations-of-the-pyrotechnics-and-civil-explosives-directives-are-out-read/1233333128821607/
  242. https://www.productivity.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-10/Regulatory%2520Impact%2520Statement%2520-%2520Proposed%2520Explosives%2520Regulation%25202021.pdf
  243. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/07/15/2014-16382/hazardous-materials-requirements-for-the-safe-transportation-of-bulk-explosives-rrr
  244. https://www2.itif.org/2011-impact-regulation-innovation.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.