Hubbry Logo
TNT equivalentTNT equivalentMain
Open search
TNT equivalent
Community hub
TNT equivalent
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
TNT equivalent
TNT equivalent
TNT equivalent
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

TNT equivalent
The explosion from a 14-kiloton nuclear test at the Nevada Test Site, in 1951
General information
Unit systemNon-standard
Unit ofEnergy
Symbolt, ton of TNT
Conversions
1 t in ...... is equal to ...
   SI base units   ≈ 4.184 gigajoules
   CGS   109 calories

TNT equivalent is a convention for expressing energy, typically used to describe the energy released in an explosion. A ton of TNT equivalent is a unit of energy defined by convention to be 4.184 gigajoules (1 gigacalorie).[1] It is the approximate energy released in the detonation of a metric ton (1,000 kilograms) of trinitrotoluene (TNT). In other words, for each gram of TNT exploded, 4.184 kilojoules (or 4184 joules) of energy are released. This convention intends to compare the destructiveness of an event with that of conventional explosive materials, of which TNT is a typical example, although other conventional explosives such as dynamite contain more energy. A related concept is the physical quantity TNT-equivalent mass (or mass of TNT equivalent),[2][3][4][5] expressed in the ordinary units of mass and its multiples: kilogram (kg), megagram (Mg) or tonne (t), etc.

Kiloton and megaton

[edit]

The "kiloton (of TNT equivalent)" is a unit of energy equal to 4.184 terajoules (4.184×1012 J).[6] A kiloton of TNT can be visualized as a cube of TNT 8.46 metres (27.8 ft) on a side.

The "megaton (of TNT equivalent)" is a unit of energy equal to 4.184 petajoules (4.184×1015 J).[7]

The kiloton and megaton of TNT equivalent have traditionally been used to describe the energy output, and hence the destructive power, of a nuclear weapon. The TNT equivalent appears in various nuclear weapon control treaties, and has been used to characterize the energy released in asteroid impacts.[8]

Historical derivation of the value

[edit]

Alternative values for TNT equivalency can be calculated according to which property is being compared and when in the two detonation processes the values are measured.[9][10][11][12]

Where for example the comparison is by energy yield, an explosive's energy is normally expressed for chemical purposes as the thermodynamic work produced by its detonation. For TNT this has been accurately measured as 4,686 J/g from a large sample of air blast experiments, and theoretically calculated to be 4,853 J/g.[13]

However, even on this basis, comparing the actual energy yields of a large nuclear device and an explosion of TNT can be slightly inaccurate. Small TNT explosions, especially in the open, do not tend to burn the carbon-particle and hydrocarbon products of the explosion. Gas-expansion and pressure-change effects tend to "freeze" the burn rapidly. A large, open explosion of TNT may maintain fireball temperatures high enough that some of those products do burn up with atmospheric oxygen.[14]

Such differences can be substantial. For safety purposes, a range as wide as 2,673–6,702 J has been stated for a gram of TNT upon explosion.[15] Thus one can state that a nuclear bomb has a yield of 15 kt (6.3×1013 J), but the explosion of an actual 15,000-ton pile of TNT may yield (for example) 8×1013 J due to additional carbon/hydrocarbon oxidation not present with small open-air charges.[14]

These complications have been sidestepped by convention. The energy released by one gram of TNT was arbitrarily defined as a matter of convention to be 4,184 J,[16] which is exactly one kilocalorie.

Grams TNT Symbol Tons TNT Symbol Energy [joules] Energy [Wh] Corresponding mass loss[a]
milligram of TNT mg nanoton of TNT nt 4.184 J or 4.184 joules 1.162 mWh 46.55 fg
gram of TNT g microton of TNT μt 4.184×103 J or 4.184 kilojoules 1.162 Wh 46.55 pg
kilogram of TNT kg milliton of TNT mt 4.184×106 J or 4.184 megajoules 1.162 kWh 46.55 ng
megagram of TNT Mg ton of TNT t 4.184×109 J or 4.184 gigajoules 1.162 MWh 46.55 μg
gigagram of TNT Gg kiloton of TNT kt 4.184×1012 J or 4.184 terajoules 1.162 GWh 46.55 mg
teragram of TNT Tg megaton of TNT Mt 4.184×1015 J or 4.184 petajoules 1.162 TWh 46.55 g
petagram of TNT Pg gigaton of TNT Gt 4.184×1018 J or 4.184 exajoules 1.162 PWh 46.55 kg

Conversion to other units

[edit]

1 ton of TNT equivalent is approximately:

Examples

[edit]
Further information: Orders of magnitude (energy)
Energy Description
Megatons of TNT Watt-hours [Wh]
1×10−12 1.162 Wh ≈ 1 food kilocalorie (kilocalorie, kcal), which is the approximate amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere.
1×10−9 1.162 kWh Under controlled conditions one kilogram of TNT can destroy (or even obliterate) a small vehicle.
4.8×10−9 5.6 kWh The energy to burn 1 kilogram of wood.[23]
1×10−8 11.62 kWh The approximate radiant heat energy released during 3-phase, 600 V, 100 kA arcing fault in a 0.5 m × 0.5 m × 0.5 m (20 in × 20 in × 20 in) compartment within a 1-second period.[further explanation needed][citation needed]
1.2×10−8 13.94 kWh Amount of TNT used (12 kg) in Coptic church explosion in Cairo, Egypt on December 11, 2016 that left 29 dead and 47 injured[24]
1.9×10−6 2.90 MWh The television show MythBusters used 2.5 tons of ANFO to make "homemade" diamonds. (Episode 116.)
2.4×10−7–2.4×10−6 280–2,800 kWh The energy output released by an average lightning discharge.[25]
(1–44)×10−6 1.16–51.14 MWh Conventional bombs yield from less than one ton to FOAB's 44 tons. The yield of a Tomahawk cruise missile is equivalent to 500 kg of TNT.[26]
4.54×10−4 581 MWh A real 0.454-kiloton-of-TNT (1.90 TJ) charge at Operation Sailor Hat. If the charge were a full sphere, it would be 1 kiloton of TNT (4.2 TJ).
454 tons of TNT (5 by 10 m (17 by 34 ft)) awaiting detonation at Operation Sailor Hat.
1.8×10−3 2.088 GWh Estimated yield of the Beirut explosion of 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate[27] that killed initially 137 at and near a Lebanese port at 6 p.m. local time Tuesday August 4, 2020.[28] An independent study by experts from the Blast and Impact Research Group at the University of Sheffield predicts the best estimate of the yield of Beirut explosion to be 0.5 kilotons of TNT and the reasonable bound estimate as 1.12 kilotons of TNT.[29]
(1–2)×10−3 1.16–2.32 GWh Estimated yield of the Oppau explosion that killed more than 500 at a German fertilizer factory in 1921.
2.3×10−3 2.67 GWh Amount of solar energy falling on 4,000 m2 (1 acre) of land in a year is 9.5 TJ (2,650 MWh) (an average over the Earth's surface).[30]
2.9×10−3 3.4 GWh The Halifax Explosion in 1917 was the accidental detonation of 200 tons of TNT and 2,300 tons of Picric acid[31]
3.2×10−3 3.6 GWh The Operation Big Bang on April 18, 1947, blasted the bunkers on Heligoland. It accumulated 6700 metric tons of surplus World War II ammunition placed in various locations around the island and set off. The energy released was 1.3×1013 J, or about 3.2 kilotons of TNT equivalent.[32]
4×10−3 9.3 GWh Minor Scale, a 1985 United States conventional explosion, using 4,744 tons of ANFO explosive to provide a scaled equivalent airblast of an eight kiloton (33.44 TJ) nuclear device,[33] is believed to be the largest planned detonation of conventional explosives in history.
(1.5–2)×10−2 17.4–23.2 GWh The Little Boy atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, exploded with an energy of about 15 kilotons of TNT (63 TJ) killing between 90,000 and 166,000 people,[34] and the Fat Man atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, exploded with an energy of about 20 kilotons of TNT (84 TJ) killing over 60,000.[34] The modern nuclear weapons in the United States arsenal range in yield from 0.3 kt (1.3 TJ) to 1.2 Mt (5.0 PJ) equivalent, for the B83 strategic bomb.
>2.4×10−1 280 GWh The typical energy yield of severe thunderstorms.[35]
1.5×10−5 – 6×10−1 20 MWh – 700 GWh The estimated kinetic energy of tornados.[36]
1 1.16 TWh The energy contained in one megaton of TNT (4.2 PJ) is enough to power the average American household for 103,000 years.[37] The 30 Mt (130 PJ) estimated upper limit blast power of the Tunguska event could power the same average home for more than 3,100,000 years. The energy of that blast could power the entire United States for 3.27 days.[38]
8.6 10 TWh The energy output that would be released by a typical tropical cyclone in one minute, primarily from water condensation. Winds constitute 0.25% of that energy.[39]
16 18.6 TWh The approximate radiated surface energy released in a magnitude 8 earthquake.[40]
21.5 25 TWh The complete conversion of 1 kg of matter into pure energy would yield the theoretical maximum (E = mc2) of 89.8 petajoules, which is equivalent to 21.5 megatons of TNT. No such method of total conversion as combining 500 grams of matter with 500 grams of antimatter has yet been achieved. In the event of proton–antiproton annihilation, approximately 50% of the released energy will escape in the form of neutrinos, which are almost undetectable.[41] Electron–positron annihilation events emit their energy entirely as gamma rays.
24 28 TWh Approximate total yield of the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens.[42]
26.3 30.6 TWh Energy released by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.[43]
An animation of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami
45 53 TWh The energy released in the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami was over 200,000 times the surface energy and was calculated by the USGS at 1.9×1017 joules,[44][45] slightly less than the 2004 Indian Ocean quake. It was estimated at a moment magnitude of 9.0–9.1.
The damage caused by the 2011 Tōhoku tsunami
50–56 58 TWh The Soviet Union developed a prototype thermonuclear device, nicknamed the Tsar Bomba, which was tested at 50–56 Mt (210–230 PJ), but had a maximum theoretical design yield of 100 Mt (420 PJ).[46] The effective destructive potential of such a weapon varies greatly, depending on such conditions as the altitude at which it is detonated, the characteristics of the target, the terrain, and the physical landscape upon which it is detonated.
61 70.9 TWh The energy released by the 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai volcanic eruption, in the southern Pacific Ocean, is estimated to have been equivalent to 61 Megatons of TNT.[47]
84 97.04 TWh The solar irradiance on Earth every second.[b]
200 230 TWh The total energy released by the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa in the Dutch East Indies (present-day Indonesia).[48]
540 630 TWh The total energy produced worldwide by all nuclear testing and combat usage combined, from the 1940s to the present, is about 540 megatons.
1,460 1.69 PWh The total global nuclear arsenal is about 15,000 nuclear warheads[49][50][51] with a destructive capacity of around 1460 megatons[52][53][54][55] or 1.46 gigatons (1,460 million tons) of TNT. This is the equivalent of 6.11×1018 joules of energy
2,680[dubious – discuss] 3 PWh The energy yield of the 1960 Valdivia earthquake, was estimated at a moment magnitude of 9.4–9.6. This is the most powerful earthquake recorded in history.[56][57]
The aftermath of the 1960 Valdivia earthquake.
2,870 3.34 PWh The energy released by a hurricane per day during condensation.[58]
33,000 38.53 PWh The total energy released by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in the island of Sumbawa in Indonesia. Yielded the equivalent of 2.2 million Little Boys (the first atomic bomb to drop on Japan) or one-quarter of the entire world's annual energy consumption.[59] This eruption was 4-10 times more destructive than the 1883 Krakatoa eruption.[60]
240,000 280 PWh The approximate total yield of the super-eruption of the La Garita Caldera is 10,000 times more powerful than the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption.[61] It was the second most energetic event to have occurred on Earth since the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago.
A photo of the La Garita Caldera
301,000 350 PWh The total solar irradiance energy received by Earth in the upper atmosphere per hour.[c][d]
875,000 1.02 EWh Approximate yield of the last eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano.[62]
Image of the Yellowstone supervolcano.
3.61×106 4.2 EWh The solar irradiance of the Sun every 12 hours.[c][e]
6×106 7 EWh The estimated energy at impact when the largest fragment of Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 struck Jupiter is equivalent to 6 million megatons (6 trillion tons) of TNT.[63]
The impact site of the Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9
7.2×107 116 EWh Estimates in 2010 show that the kinetic energy of the Chicxulub impact event yielded 72 teratons of TNT equivalent (1 teraton of TNT equals 106 megatons of TNT) which caused the K-Pg extinction event, wiping out 75% of all species on Earth.[64][65] This is far more destructive than any natural disaster recorded in history. Such an event would have caused global volcanism, earthquakes, megatsunamis, and global climate change.[64][66][67][68][69]
The animation of the Chicxulub impact.
>2.4×1010 >28 ZWh The impact energy of Archean asteroids.[70]
9.1×1010 106 ZWh The total energy output of the Sun per second.[71]
2.4×1011 280 ZWh The kinetic energy of the Caloris Planitia impactor.[72]
The photo of the Caloris Planitia on Mercury. Taken by the MESSENGER orbiter.
5.972×1015 6.94 RWh The explosive energy of a quantity of TNT of the mass of Earth.[73]
7.89×1015 9.17 RWh Total solar output in all directions per day.[74]
1.98×1021 2.3×1033 Wh The explosive energy of a quantity of TNT of the mass of the Sun.[75]
(2.4–4.8)×1028 (2.8–5.6)×1040 Wh A type Ia supernova explosion gives off 1–2×1044 joules of energy, which is about 2.4–4.8 hundred billion yottatons (24–48 octillion (2.4–4.8×1028) megatons) of TNT, equivalent to the explosive force of a quantity of TNT over a trillion (1012) times the mass of the planet Earth. This is the astrophysical standard candle used to determine galactic distances.[76]
(2.4–4.8)×1030 (2.8–5.6)×1042 Wh The largest type of supernova observed, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) release more than 1046 joules of energy.[77]
1.3×1032 1.5×1044 Wh A merger of two black holes, resulting in the first observation of gravitational waves, released 5.3×1047 joules[78]
9.6×1053 1.12×1066 Wh Estimated mass-energy of the observable universe.[79]

Relative effectiveness factor

[edit]

The relative effectiveness factor (RE factor) relates an explosive's demolition power to that of TNT, in units of the TNT equivalent/kg (TNTe/kg). The RE factor is the relative mass of TNT to which an explosive is equivalent: The greater the RE, the more powerful the explosive.

This enables engineers to determine the proper masses of different explosives when applying blasting formulas developed specifically for TNT. For example, if a timber-cutting formula calls for a charge of 1 kg of TNT, then based on octanitrocubane's RE factor of 2.38, it would take only 1.0/2.38 (or 0.42) kg of it to do the same job. Using PETN, engineers would need 1.0/1.66 (or 0.60) kg to obtain the same effects as 1 kg of TNT. With ANFO or ammonium nitrate, they would require 1.0/0.74 (or 1.35) kg or 1.0/0.32 (or 3.125) kg, respectively.

Calculating a single RE factor for an explosive is, however, impossible. It depends on the specific case or use. Given a pair of explosives, one can produce 2× the shockwave output (this depends on the distance of measuring instruments) but the difference in direct metal cutting ability may be 4× higher for one type of metal and 7× higher for another type of metal. The relative differences between two explosives with shaped charges will be even greater. The table below should be taken as an example and not as a precise source of data.

Some relative effectiveness factor examples[citation needed]
Explosive, grade Density
(g/ml) 		Detonation
vel. (m/s) 		Relative
effectiveness
Ammonium nitrate (AN + <0.5% H2O) 0.88 2,700[80] 0.32[81][82]
Mercury(II) fulminate 4.42 4,250 0.51[83]
Black powder (75% KNO3 + 19% C + 6% S, ancient low explosive) 1.65 400 0.55[84]
Hexamine dinitrate (HDN) 1.30 5,070 0.60
Dinitrobenzene (DNB) 1.50 6,025 0.60
HMTD (hexamine peroxide) 0.88 4,520 0.74
ANFO (94% AN + 6% fuel oil) 0.92 4,200 0.74
Urea nitrate 1.67 4,700 0.77
TATP (acetone peroxide) 1.18 5,300 0.80
Tovex Extra (AN water gel) commercial product 1.33 5,690 0.80
Hydromite 600 (AN water emulsion) commercial product 1.24 5,550 0.80
ANNMAL (66% AN + 25% NM + 5% Al + 3% C + 1% TETA) 1.16 5,360 0.87
Amatol (50% TNT + 50% AN) 1.50 6,290 0.91
Nitroguanidine 1.32 6,750 0.95
Trinitrotoluene (TNT) 1.60 6,900 1.00
Hexanitrostilbene (HNS) 1.70 7,080 1.05
Nitrourea 1.45 6,860 1.05
Tritonal (80% TNT + 20% aluminium)[f] 1.70 6,650 1.05
Nickel hydrazine nitrate (NHN) 1.70 7,000 1.05
Amatol (80% TNT + 20% AN) 1.55 6,570 1.10
Nitrocellulose (13.5% N, NC; AKA guncotton) 1.40 6,400 1.10
Nitromethane (NM) 1.13 6,360 1.10
PBXW-126 (22% NTO, 20% RDX, 20% AP, 26% Al, 12% PU's system)[f] 1.80 6,450 1.10
Diethylene glycol dinitrate (DEGDN) 1.38 6,610 1.17
PBXIH-135 EB (42% HMX, 33% Al, 25% PCP-TMETN's system)[f] 1.81 7,060 1.17
PBXN-109 (64% RDX, 20% Al, 16% HTPB's system)[f] 1.68 7,450 1.17
Triaminotrinitrobenzene (TATB) 1.80 7,550 1.17
Picric acid (TNP) 1.71 7,350 1.17
Trinitrobenzene (TNB) 1.60 7,300 1.20
Tetrytol (70% tetryl + 30% TNT) 1.60 7,370 1.20
Dynamite, Nobel's (75% NG + 23% diatomite) 1.48 7,200 1.25
Tetryl 1.71 7,770 1.25
Torpex (aka HBX, 41% RDX + 40% TNT + 18% Al + 1% wax)[f] 1.80 7,440 1.30
Composition B (63% RDX + 36% TNT + 1% wax) 1.72 7,840 1.33
Composition C-3 (78% RDX) 1.60 7,630 1.33
Composition C-4 (91% RDX) 1.59 8,040 1.34
Pentolite (56% PETN + 44% TNT) 1.66 7,520 1.33
Semtex 1A (76% PETN + 6% RDX) 1.55 7,670 1.35
Hexal (76% RDX + 20% Al + 4% wax)[f] 1.79 7,640 1.35
RISAL P (50% IPN + 28% RDX + 15% Al + 4% Mg + 1% Zr + 2% NC)[f] 1.39 5,980 1.40
Hydrazine nitrate 1.59 8,500 1.42
Mixture: 24% nitrobenzene + 76% TNM 1.48 8,060 1.50
Mixture: 30% nitrobenzene + 70% nitrogen tetroxide 1.39 8,290 1.50
Nitroglycerin (NG) 1.59 7,700 1.54
Methyl nitrate (MN) 1.21 7,900 1.54
Octol (80% HMX + 19% TNT + 1% DNT) 1.83 8,690 1.54
Nitrotriazolone (NTO) 1.87 8,120 1.60
DADNE (1,1-diamino-2,2-dinitroethene, FOX-7) 1.77 8,330 1.60
Gelignite (92% NG + 7% nitrocellulose) 1.60 7,970 1.60
Plastics Gel (in toothpaste tube: 45% PETN + 45% NG + 5% DEGDN + 4% NC) 1.51 7,940 1.60
Composition A-5 (98% RDX + 2% stearic acid) 1.65 8,470 1.60
Erythritol tetranitrate (ETN) 1.72 8,206 1.60
Hexogen (RDX) 1.78 8,600 1.60
PBXW-11 (96% HMX, 1% HyTemp, 3% DOA) 1.81 8,720 1.60
Penthrite (PETN) 1.77 8,400 1.66
Ethylene glycol dinitrate (EGDN) 1.49 8,300 1.66
MEDINA (Methylene dinitroamine)[85][86] 1.65 8,700 1.70
Trinitroazetidine (TNAZ) 1.85 9,597 1.70
Octogen (HMX grade B) 1.86 9,100 1.70
Hexanitrobenzene (HNB) 1.97 9,340 1.80
Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane (HNIW; AKA CL-20) 1.97 9,500 1.90
AFX-757 (25% RDX, 30% ammonium perchlorate, 33% aluminium) [87][88] 1.84 6,080 1.90
DDF (4,4'-Dinitro-3,3'-diazenofuroxan) 1.98 10,000 1.95
Heptanitrocubane (HNC)[g] 1.92 9,200 N/A
Octanitrocubane (ONC) 1.95 10,600 2.38
Octaazacubane (OAC)[g] 2.69 15,000 >5.00

Nuclear examples

[edit]
Nuclear weapons and the most powerful non-nuclear weapon examples
Weapon Total yield
(kilotons of TNT) 		Mass
(kg) 		Relative
effectiveness
GBU-57 bomb (Massive Ordnance Penetrator, MOP) 0.0035 13,600 0.26
Grand Slam (Earthquake bomb, M110) 0.0065 9,900 0.66
Bomb used in Oklahoma City (ANFO based on racing fuel) 0.0018 2,300 0.78
BLU-82 (Daisy Cutter) 0.0075 6,800 1.10
MOAB (non-nuclear bomb, GBU-43) 0.011 9,800 1.13
FOAB (advanced thermobaric bomb, ATBIP) 0.044 9,100 4.83
W54, Mk-54 (Davy Crockett) 0.022 23 1,000
Little Boy (dropped on Hiroshima) A-bomb 15 4,400 4,000
Fat Man (dropped on Nagasaki) A-bomb 20 4,600 4,500
W54, B54 (SADM) 1.0 23 43,500
Classic (one-stage) fission A-bomb 22 420 50,000
Hypothetical suitcase nuke 2.5 31 80,000
Typical (two-stage) nuclear bomb 500–1000 650–1,120 900,000
W88 modern thermonuclear warhead (MIRV) 470 355 1,300,000
Tsar nuclear bomb (three-stage) 50,000–56,000 26,500 2,100,000
B53 nuclear bomb (two-stage) 9,000 4,050 2,200,000
Operation Dominic Housatonic (two-stage) 9,960 3,239 3,042,400
W56 thermonuclear warhead 1,200 272–308 4,960,000
B41 nuclear bomb (three-stage) 25,000 4,850 5,100,000

See also

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

TNT equivalent

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
TNT equivalent is a standardized measure of explosive energy, defined as the mass of trinitrotoluene (TNT) that would release an equivalent amount of destructive output, typically assessed through parameters such as peak overpressure or impulse from blast waves. This convention facilitates direct comparisons of yields among diverse explosives, where the equivalence factor for a given material is derived empirically by matching its effects to those of TNT under controlled conditions. The unit is expressed in tons (or kilotons and megatons for larger events), with one metric ton of TNT conventionally equivalent to approximately 4.184 gigajoules of energy, though practical equivalence often prioritizes blast effects over total chemical energy release due to variations in detonation products and afterburning. It originated in military and industrial contexts for evaluating munitions but extends to nuclear yields—such as the 15-kiloton Hiroshima bomb—and geophysical phenomena like volcanic blasts or meteor airbursts, enabling consistent risk assessments and scaling laws in safety engineering and hazard modeling. Key limitations include context-dependent values, as confined versus open-air detonations or fuel-rich compositions can alter effective yields, necessitating test-specific calibrations for accuracy.

Fundamentals

Definition

The TNT equivalent is a conventional measure for expressing the energy output or blast effects of an explosion in terms of the equivalent mass of trinitrotoluene (TNT) required to produce a comparable result. This standardization facilitates comparisons across diverse explosive sources, including conventional chemical detonations, nuclear fission or fusion reactions, asteroid impacts, and volcanic eruptions, by normalizing their destructive potential relative to TNT's well-characterized performance. Unlike direct energy units such as joules, TNT equivalence emphasizes practical blast parameters like peak overpressure and impulse, though it is often approximated via total chemical or physical energy release when direct measurement is infeasible. The baseline for equivalence is derived from TNT's characteristics, where 1 metric (1,000 kg) of TNT is defined to yield approximately 4.184 gigajoules (4.184 × 10^9 joules) of energy, equivalent to about 1,000 megacalories. This value stems from calorimetric measurements of TNT's of , adjusted for , and serves as the for scaling yields—e.g., a 1-kiloton event corresponds to 1,000 s of TNT. Equivalence ratios for other materials are determined experimentally through methods like cratering tests, air-blast recordings, or expansion, revealing that many high explosives (e.g., PETN or ) exhibit TNT equivalences exceeding 1.0 due to higher velocities and , while factors like confinement or afterburn can alter effective yields.

Standard Units

The standard unit for TNT equivalent is the tonne of TNT, defined using the metric (1,000 kilograms) as the base mass equivalent. This unit quantifies energy release by convention, with one tonne of TNT equivalent to exactly 4.184 gigajoules (4.184 × 10^9 joules). This defined value derives from the international calorie standard (1 kcal = 4.184 kJ), equating to one gigacalorie per tonne, rather than empirical measurements of TNT, which vary between 4.0 and 4.3 gigajoules due to composition factors like purity and efficiency. For scaling larger yields, metric prefixes are applied: one kilotonne (kt or kT) equals 1,000 (4.184 × 10^12 joules), and one megatonne (Mt) equals 1,000,000 (4.184 × 10^15 joules). These units facilitate comparisons across explosive events, converting directly to SI joules for precise calculations while providing intuitive mass-based scaling for non-specialists. Although occasionally expressed in short tons (907 kg) in U.S. contexts, international standards prioritize the metric to align with global .

Historical Development

Origins and Derivation

The concept of TNT equivalence originated in practices to standardize comparisons of explosive performance across different materials, addressing the absence of a universal metric for blast effects, cratering, or structural damage prior to widespread adoption in and industrial testing. Trinitrotoluene (TNT) was selected as the reference standard owing to its , insensitivity to shock, consistent of about 6,900 m/s, and reproducible energy output under controlled conditions, allowing reliable benchmarking against more variable s like or . Derivation of TNT equivalence relies on empirical testing rather than purely thermodynamic calculations, as blast effects depend on factors such as detonation pressure, , and gas expansion, which correlate imperfectly with chemical heat of explosion. Common methods include the ballistic mortar test, where the explosive's ability to propel a mortar is measured against TNT; the sand crush or Trauzl lead block expansion test for relative volume displacement; and air blast recordings scaled to TNT's characteristic impulse profile. These yield a relative effectiveness factor (often denoted as RE factor), where TNT is defined as 1.0, enabling conversion such that an explosive's yield in TNT tons equals its mass times its RE factor. The baseline energy release for TNT is calibrated at 4.184 megajoules per , derived from bomb calorimetry of its products (primarily CO, CO₂, N₂, and H₂O), though equivalence ratios frequently deviate from this value due to differences in efficiency to air or ground— for instance, high explosives like may show 1.5–1.6 RE in blast tests despite similar or higher . This approach prioritizes observable hydrodynamic and shock phenomena over isolated , reflecting causal mechanisms in real detonations where incomplete energy transfer to mechanical work occurs.

Evolution in Measurement Standards

The concept of TNT equivalence originated in the late with empirical tests designed to quantify relative explosive power, such as the Trauzl lead block test introduced around 1880, which measured volume expansion in a lead container to assess , and the ballistic mortar test, which gauged as a proxy for total output. These methods compared an unknown explosive's performance directly to TNT under controlled conditions but suffered from variability due to factors like , confinement, and test , with no absolute . Sand crush and plate dent tests later supplemented these, focusing on shock pressure and detonation products, yet equivalence ratios often differed by 20-50% across tests, reflecting TNT's selection as a reference for its and reproducible of approximately 6,900 m/s. During and the , the advent of nuclear weapons necessitated scalable yield comparisons, shifting emphasis toward air blast overpressure and impulse measurements, calibrated against large-scale TNT detonations like those in (1962-1965), which validated scaling laws for spherical charges. Early nuclear yield estimates, such as the 1945 test's 21 kilotons, relied on empirical correlations from conventional explosives, but inconsistencies in TNT's effective energy release—due to incomplete combustion and afterburning—prompted refinements in measurement protocols, including standardized densities (typically 1.6 g/cm³) and hemispherical charge geometries for blast equivalence. By the , military standards like those in U.S. Army manuals incorporated multiple metrics, recognizing that heat-of-explosion equivalence (around 4.2 MJ/kg for TNT) diverged from blast equivalence, where only about 50% of converts to air shock waves. In the post-war era, the convention evolved into a fixed energy-based standard for consistency across applications: one metric tonne of TNT is defined as releasing exactly 4.184 × 10⁹ joules, derived from approximating TNT's heat of detonation at 1 international kilocalorie per gram (4.184 MJ/kg), though laboratory measurements vary from 4.0 MJ/kg in open conditions to 4.6 MJ/kg under confinement due to differences in reaction completeness. This value, solidified by the 1960s in nuclear effects literature and engineering handbooks, prioritizes computational uniformity over precise calorimetry, enabling hopkinson-cranz scaling for blast predictions (Z = R/W^{1/3}, where W is TNT mass). Contemporary critiques highlight ongoing limitations, as equivalence depends on phenomenology—e.g., lower for impulse than peak pressure—and recommend supplementing with absolute performance data from high-speed gauging and hydrodynamic simulations to address historical variabilities.

Calculation and Methodology

Energy Release Basis

The TNT equivalent on an energy release basis quantifies the total chemical energy liberated per unit mass during detonation, standardized for trinitrotoluene (TNT) at 4.184 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg). This defined value establishes that one metric tonne of TNT releases precisely 4.184 gigajoules (GJ), equivalent to 10910^9 thermochemical calories, aligning the unit with historical calorimetric standards for computational convenience in yield assessments. Empirical measurements of TNT's heat of , accounting for the rapid decomposition reaction \ce2C7H5N3O6−>3N2+5H2O+12CO+7C\ce{2C7H5N3O6 -> 3N2 + 5H2O + 12CO + 7C} (or variants with CO2 formation under oxygen-rich conditions), typically yield 4.0–4.7 MJ/kg, influenced by factors such as , confinement, and post-detonation combustion of carbon residues. The standardized 4.184 MJ/kg, however, prioritizes uniformity over variability in lab-derived values, enabling direct proportionality for equivalence: the TNT mass mm is m=E/(4.184×106)m = E / (4.184 \times 10^6) kg, where EE is the total event energy in joules. This basis treats the as a near-complete conversion of molecular into gaseous expansion, heat, and of products, with approximately 25–30% of the output manifesting as in air bursts. For non-chemical events like or impacts, equivalence scales the prompt release analogously, though differences in fractions or multi-phase dynamics necessitate adjustments for specific applications. Limitations arise when total poorly predicts localized effects, as equivalence ratios can deviate by 20–50% from pressure-based metrics due to variances in (around 6900 m/s for TNT) and .

Blast and Pressure Equivalence Methods

Blast equivalence methods for determining TNT equivalent yield focus on matching the profiles of the produced by an unknown to those generated by a reference TNT charge under comparable conditions, typically in free air. These approaches prioritize observable blast effects, such as peak incident (side-on) PsP_s and positive-phase impulse isi_s, over total release, as propagation depends on factors like , product temperature, and gas expansion efficiency. Experimental setups involve detonating the test at ground zero or in a spherical charge configuration, with piezoelectric gauges positioned at multiple scaled distances Z=r/W1/3Z = r / W^{1/3} (where rr is radial distance in meters and WW is equivalent TNT mass in kilograms) to capture time-resolved histories. The equivalence factor ff is then derived as f=(Wtest/WTNT)f = (W_{\text{test}} / W_{\text{TNT}}), where WTNTW_{\text{TNT}} is back-calculated from measured parameters using TNT-calibrated models to achieve parity in PsP_s or isi_s at specified ZZ. A primary tool for this is the Kingery-Bulmash parameterization, an empirical curve fit to large datasets of TNT air-blast measurements, expressing PsP_s, isi_s, and duration as functions of ZZ for hemispherical surface bursts or spherical free-air detonations. For a given measured PsP_s at distance rr, the method inverts the fit to solve for WTNTW_{\text{TNT}} such that the predicted PsP_s matches the observation, yielding f=Wtest/WTNTf = W_{\text{test}} / W_{\text{TNT}}. This yields blast-specific equivalences, which can diverge from calorimetric values; for instance, high-brisance explosives like PETN exhibit f≈1.4−1.6f \approx 1.4-1.6 for peak due to sharper shock fronts, but lower ff for impulse owing to faster decay in the afterflow phase. Impulse-based equivalence, computed as ∫0td(P(t)−P0)dt\int_0^{t_d} (P(t) - P_0) dt where tdt_d is positive duration and P0P_0 , better captures structural loading and is preferred for damage assessment, as it integrates both peak and duration effects. Pressure equivalence is particularly useful for near-field applications, where initial shock strength dominates, and can be estimated from detonation parameters via Ps∝ρ0D2P_s \propto \rho_0 D^2 (initial density ρ0\rho_0, velocity DD), scaled to TNT's Ps,TNT≈2.0×105P_{s,\text{TNT}} \approx 2.0 \times 10^5 MPa at the Chapman-Jouguet plane. However, discrepancies arise for explosives with afterburning or non-ideal detonation, as TNT's lower detonation temperature (≈3200 K) results in more efficient far-field coupling compared to hotter aluminized compositions, potentially underpredicting ff by 10-20% if impulse is ignored. Validation requires multiple gauges to confirm self-similarity in the intermediate-to-far field (Z>1Z > 1 m/kg^{1/3}), with uncertainties reduced via least-squares fitting to curve families. These methods underpin standards like those in UFC 3-340-02 for munitions testing, emphasizing empirical measurement over theoretical prediction due to variability in explosive composition and confinement.

Applications

Conventional Explosives

The TNT equivalent provides a standardized measure for evaluating the blast effects and energy output of conventional explosives, enabling consistent comparisons across diverse chemical formulations such as , , and . This metric accounts for differences in characteristics, including heat of explosion and propagation, relative to TNT as the baseline. In and industrial contexts, it informs weapon design, storage safety distances, and hazard assessments by correlating explosive mass with equivalent TNT yield via experimentally derived relative effectiveness factors or direct blast testing. The reference energy release for TNT detonation is 4.184 megajoules per kilogram, derived from calorimetric measurements of its complete under explosive conditions. Equivalence for other conventional is often calculated as multiplied by a relative effectiveness (RE) factor, where TNT has an RE of 1.0; for example, PETN-based charges exhibit higher air-blast equivalence due to greater detonation , as determined through arena tests measuring peak . This approach prioritizes empirical validation over theoretical predictions, as blast scaling laws like Hopkinson-Cranz exhibit deviations for non-ideal at varying distances and geometries. In military applications, yields of conventional bombs are typically expressed in tons of TNT equivalent to gauge lethality and . The U.S. GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (), deployed in 2017, contains 8,500 kg of H-6 explosive (a mixture including and aluminum) and delivers approximately 11 short tons (10 metric tonnes) TNT equivalent, producing a exceeding 150 meters for lethal overpressures. Russia's Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power (FOAB), tested on , 2007, reportedly achieves 44 tons TNT equivalent through volumetric combustion enhancement, surpassing the by a factor of four despite a similar total mass, though independent verification remains limited to Russian Ministry of Defense statements. Smaller munitions, such as the U.S. with 192 kg fill (TNT plus aluminum), equate to about 200 kg TNT, scaling effects proportionally via cubed-root laws for incident pressure. Large-scale or accidental detonations of conventional stockpiles demonstrate kiloton-scale potentials. The on December 6, 1917, resulted from the collision involving laden with 2,653 tons of high explosives (primarily and TNT), releasing 2.9 kilotons TNT equivalent and generating a that devastated 2 square kilometers. Similarly, the August 4, 2020, port explosion of 2,750 tons produced 0.5 to 1.1 kilotons TNT equivalent, as seismically recorded and modeled, underscoring ammonium nitrate's variable RE factor of 0.3 to 0.42 depending on confinement and . These events highlight TNT equivalence's utility in forensic reconstruction and risk modeling, where actual yields often fall below theoretical maxima due to incomplete or fragmentation losses.

Nuclear Weapons

The explosive yield of nuclear weapons is measured in TNT equivalents to standardize comparisons of their release, with yields typically expressed in kilotons (kt) or megatons (Mt) of TNT, where 1 kt equals the from exploding 1,000 tons of TNT, or approximately 4.184 × 10^{12} joules. This metric derives from the total imparted to the bomb casing and subsequent , primarily from fission of or in atomic bombs and additional fusion in thermonuclear devices. Yields are calculated theoretically from the mass of and efficiency of the chain reaction, using E = mc² to convert mass defect to , then scaled by empirical test . Post-detonation yields from tests are verified empirically through methods such as analyzing seismic magnitudes, readings of fireball brightness, radiochemical debris sampling, and hydrodynamic simulations calibrated against known explosions. For instance, the test on July 16, 1945, at , produced a yield initially assessed at 18.6 kt but later refined through multiple analyses. The uranium-based "Little Boy" device airburst over on August 6, 1945, at an altitude of about 580 meters, yielded approximately 15 kt, fissioning roughly 0.7% of its 64 kg of highly core. The plutonium bomb over three days later achieved 21 kt. Thermonuclear weapons dramatically increased yields via multi-stage designs, where a fission primary triggers fusion in a secondary stage, releasing energies orders of magnitude greater than fission alone. The U.S. test on November 1, 1952, yielded 10.4 Mt, while the Soviet AN602 "," detonated on October 30, 1961, over , produced 50 Mt—the highest ever tested—equivalent to fusing about 2.4 kg of deuterium-tritium at near-perfect efficiency, though designed for up to 100 Mt but scaled down to reduce fallout. These measurements rely on cross-verified data from instruments, as theoretical predictions alone underestimate real-world inefficiencies like losses and incomplete burn-up. While TNT equivalence captures total prompt energy, nuclear blasts differ from chemical explosions in delivering a higher fraction as and ionizing particles, altering damage profiles beyond simple pressure scaling.

Non-Military Examples

The TNT equivalent is applied to quantify energies from , providing a standardized measure for comparing seismic, volcanic, and impact events to yields. Earthquakes release vast seismic , often expressed in this unit via established conversion formulas relating moment magnitude to joules, then to TNT tons (1 ton TNT ≈ 4.184 × 10^9 joules). The (moment magnitude 9.5), the largest recorded, released seismic estimated at 2 to 3 gigatons of TNT equivalent, calculated from log₁₀(E) ≈ 5.24 + 1.44 × M_w where E is in joules. This dwarfs the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake (M_w 9.0–9.1), at approximately 475 megatons, yet illustrates how each full magnitude increase multiplies by roughly 31.6 times. Volcanic supereruptions also yield immense energies. The most recent major eruption, around 640,000 years ago, expelled over 1,000 km³ of material with an estimated total energy release exceeding 2 million megatons of TNT, far surpassing modern nuclear arsenals. and impacts provide extreme examples. The Chicxulub impactor, linked to the – ~66 million years ago, delivered kinetic energy equivalent to 100 teratons (100 million megatons) of TNT, vaporizing rock and triggering global climate disruption. The 1908 , an airburst over , released about 10–20 megatons, flattening 2,000 km² of forest without forming a crater. Similarly, 's fragments struck in 1994, with total impact energy around 300–6,000 gigatons of TNT equivalent, producing fireballs larger than . Industrial accidents occasionally use TNT equivalents for analysis, such as the 2020 Beirut port explosion from 2,750 tons of , yielding roughly 1–1.5 kilotons TNT equivalent—comparable to a small tactical nuclear device but non-military in origin. These measurements aid without implying direct explosivity parallels, as natural events involve different dissipation mechanisms like seismic waves or .

Limitations and Criticisms

Inherent Inaccuracies

The TNT equivalent is fundamentally an , as experimental determinations introduce errors from uncompensated energy losses, such as those due to shock heating, gas expansion, and interactions with test apparatus like steel casings, which can consume up to 500 cal/g in standard configurations. Air blast tests, commonly used for equivalence, exhibit variations of up to 25% in reported factors even for TNT itself, arising from differences in profiles that evolve with standoff distance and fail to fully capture impulse or negative phase accurately. Standard testing methods exacerbate these issues through inconsistencies like unspecified or uncontrolled charge densities, which directly influence Chapman-Jouguet pressures and overall output predictions. For example, the sand crush test skews results by neglecting density effects on , while the Trauzl test shows poor correlation with of explosion values, limiting its reliability for broad equivalence assessments. Ballistic mortar and plate dent tests similarly suffer from unaccounted deformation energies and confinement artifacts, yielding equivalence values that diverge significantly across methods for the same . Literature-reported TNT equivalence factors for identical explosives display substantial scatter, often spanning ranges that propagate large uncertainties into modeling and estimates. This variability stems partly from the metric's sensitivity to specific blast parameters—equivalence for peak rarely matches that for total impulse—and is compounded in non-ideal or confined environments, where oxygen availability and wall interactions alter partitioning beyond free-air chemical benchmarks. For aluminized or composite explosives, standard models underestimate yields by overlooking post- afterburning, as these late-phase reactions contribute additional not reflected in initial states. Such discrepancies highlight the caloric basis of TNT equivalence as a convenient but inherently limited proxy, particularly when extrapolating to heterogeneous events like nuclear yields where and fractions dominate over pure hydrodynamic effects.

Debates on Applicability

The applicability of TNT equivalence to events beyond conventional chemical high explosives is contested due to discrepancies in energy partitioning and release mechanisms. For nuclear weapons, the measure quantifies total fission or fusion yield but overlooks how energy is distributed—typically 35% to blast, 50% to , and 15% to initial nuclear in an —contrasting with TNT's near-total conversion to mechanical shock and heat without prompt ionizing effects or electromagnetic pulses. Critics argue this renders the equivalence insufficient for assessing comprehensive damage, as and fallout extend lethal radii far beyond blast zones comparable to a TNT of equivalent mass. In assessments of non-ideal or aluminized explosives, such as those used in ordnance, TNT equivalence varies significantly by metric: up to 25% deviation in air-blast scaling with distance from the source, and differing factors for peak versus impulse, complicating predictions of structural response or fragment hazards. Empirical tests, including cylinder expansion and air-blast measurements, reveal that equivalence derived from one method (e.g., ) poorly predicts outcomes in others, prompting recommendations to favor Chapman-Jouguet calculations for precision in heterogeneous compositions. For geophysical events like impacts or volcanic eruptions, TNT equivalence serves as a rough total- proxy but misleads on localized effects, as kinetic or magmatic energy dissipates primarily into seismic waves, cratering, and rather than isotropic air blasts akin to surface detonations. airbursts, for instance, channel energy into thermal pulses and shock waves with minimal ground coupling, yielding blast radii divergent from TNT models despite matched yields; a 500-kiloton event like in 2013 produced overpressures akin to a nuclear device but without subsurface excavation. Similarly, magnitudes equate to TNT via seismic efficiency (around 1-10% of elastic strain energy as radiated waves), yet the protracted release precludes explosive overpressures, rendering the metric irrelevant for blast damage analogies.

Conversions and Comparisons

To Other Energy Units

The TNT equivalent for one metric tonne is defined as exactly 4.184 gigajoules (GJ), or 4.184 × 10⁹ joules (J), a convention established to standardize measurements independent of variations in actual TNT efficiency. This value aligns with the thermochemical , where one TNT corresponds to exactly 10⁹ calories (cal), as the thermochemical is defined as precisely 4.184 J. Equivalent values in other common units, derived from the joule definition and standard conversion factors, include:
UnitEquivalent for 1 TNT
(BTU, international table)3.965667 × 10⁶ BTU
Foot-pound force (ft·lbf)3.08596 × 10⁹ ft·lbf
Watt-hour (Wh)1.162222 × 10⁶ Wh
These conversions facilitate comparisons across scientific, , and imperial systems, though practical yields may deviate slightly due to non-ideal conditions.

Relative Effectiveness Factors

The relative effectiveness factor (RE factor), synonymous with TNT equivalence in many contexts, measures the or blast power of an relative to TNT on a -for- basis. It is calculated as the ratio of the of TNT needed to achieve the same specific effect (such as peak or impulse) as one unit of the tested , enabling scaling of effects for , , and assessment purposes. This factor is not a fixed property but varies with the performance metric—e.g., cylinder expansion for , air blast parameters for , or cratering for ground effects—and experimental conditions like charge confinement, , and geometry. RE factors are derived empirically through standardized tests, including ballistic mortar for work output, plate dent for high-pressure effects, or arena tests for air blast scaling. Theoretical estimates may supplement data using parameters like Chapman-Jouguet or of , but discrepancies arise for non-ideal explosives (e.g., those with afterburning components like aluminum), where energy release timing affects outcomes. For instance, aluminized compositions often show lower RE in early blast phases but higher total impulse due to delayed . In regulatory and applications, conservative RE values are selected to ensure safe standoff distances and storage separations. The following table summarizes RE factors from air blast measurements for select high explosives, based on scaled tests comparing peak incident and positive-phase impulse to TNT baselines (values expressed as decimals relative to TNT=1.0):
ExplosivePeak Overpressure REImpulse RE
1.101.15
1.221.67
(60/40)0.950.59
Ammonium Picrate0.850.74
These air blast-derived factors, obtained from hemispherical surface burst experiments, highlight metric-specific variations; Torpex's elevated impulse RE reflects its oxygen-balanced formulation enhancing sustained pressure. For applications, RE may align more closely with tests, where values for RDX-based fills exceed 1.5. Practitioners must validate RE for specific scenarios, as universal application overlooks hydrodynamic differences in products.

References

  1. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/10168254
  2. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADP005385.pdf
  3. https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/AlexRoslyakov.shtml
  4. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/hiroshima-nagasaki-and-subsequent-weapons-testin
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914725000303
  6. https://up.codes/d/tnt-equivalent
  7. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/15002352
  8. https://www.nist.gov/pml/special-publication-811/nist-guide-si-appendix-b-conversion-factors/nist-guide-si-appendix-b9
  9. https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/fireballs/intro.html
  10. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc674149/m2/1/high_res_d/3648.pdf
  11. https://psemc.com/resources/pyrotechnic-white-papers/properties-of-selected-high-explosives-rev/
  12. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article/94/5/2514/627142/Chemical-Blast-Standard-1-kg
  13. https://www.quora.com/Which-ton-is-referred-to-in-a-ton-of-TNT-How-much-energy-does-an-actual-ton-of-TNT-release-upon-detonation-Read-details
  14. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/tnt-equivalent
  15. https://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jul2000/964039884.Ch.r.html
  16. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/15/8/085229/3360900/Energy-release-characteristics-of-confined
  17. https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/120039.pdf
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/trinitrotoluene
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304389496017918
  20. http://unsaferguard.org/un-saferguard/kingery-bulmash
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31158584/
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389419306223
  23. https://science.howstuffworks.com/moab.htm
  24. https://www.dvidshub.net/news/257829/know-about-gbu-43-b-mother-all-bombs
  25. https://www.livescience.com/13201-top-10-greatest-explosions-chernobyl-supernova.html
  26. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54420033
  27. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D-PURL-gpo106759/pdf/GOVPUB-D-PURL-gpo106759.pdf
  28. https://cgsr.llnl.gov/sites/cgsr/files/2024-08/CGSR_NW101_Policy_Wonks_11-04-21_WEB_v5.pdf
  29. https://ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/sts152_02/handout02.pdf
  30. https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1988/8838/883809.PDF
  31. https://www.lanl.gov/media/publications/1663/0922-revising-trinity
  32. https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/publications/LANLHiroshimaNagasakiYields.pdf
  33. https://thebulletin.org/2021/11/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-biggest-nuclear-bomb/
  34. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/earthquake-magnitude-energy-release-and-shaking-intensity
  35. https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/earthquakes/energy.html
  36. https://www.nsf.gov/science-matters/moment-changed-earth
  37. https://www2.tulane.edu/~sanelson/Natural_Disasters/impacts.htm
  38. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc97/pdf/1351.pdf
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389419304716
  40. https://fissilematerials.org/library/gla77.pdf
  41. https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/02/19/on-meteors-and-megatons/
  42. https://ndia.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/2018/intexpsafety/Fuchs2.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.