Volcanic Ash: Hazard Observation

Volcanic Ash

Hazard Observation

Editors

Shona Mackie

University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

Katharine Cashman

University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

Hugo Ricketts

National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Manchester, United Kingdom

Alison Rust

University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

Matt Watson

University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

List of Contributors

Part 1. Introduction

Introduction

1. Volcanic Ash: Hazard Observation

Part 2. Volcanic Ash: Generation and Spatial Variations

Introduction

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. An Overview of Ash Formation and Eruption Styles

3. Tephra Components and Composition

4. Spatial and Temporal Variations in the Grain Size of Volcanic Deposits

5. Ash Shape, Density, and Settling Velocity

6. Implications for Ash Tracking and Forecasting

Part 3. Observations of Ash on the Ground

Introduction

Chapter 1. Field Observations of Tephra Fallout Deposits

1. Introduction

2. Fallout Deposits

3. Piecing Together the Geological Record of Past Eruptions

4. Measuring the Scale of Eruptions

5. Mapping Fallout Deposits

6. Volcano Metrics: Eruption Size

7. Volcano Metrics: Eruption Intensity

8. Quantifying Erupted Volumes From Sparse Field Observations

9. Observations of Historical and Ancient Fallout Deposits

10. Errors and Uncertainties

11. Preservation Potential and Cryptotephra

12. Conclusions

Chapter 2. Aerodynamics of Volcanic Particles: Characterization of Size, Shape, and Settling Velocity

1. Introduction

2. Particle Size Characterization

3. Particle Shape Characterization

4. Terminal Velocity and Drag Coefficient of Volcanic Particles

5. Discussion and Concluding Remarks

Chapter 3. Ash Aggregation in Volcanic Clouds

1. Introduction

2. Ash Aggregate Types

3. Observations of Ash Aggregates Falling From Recent Volcanic Clouds

4. Textural Characteristics of Aggregated Ash Deposits

5. Overview of Aggregate Formation in Volcanic Ash Clouds

6. Summary

Chapter 4. Contribution of Fine Ash to the Atmosphere From Plumes Associated With Pyroclastic Density Currents

1. Introduction

2. Overview

3. Characteristics of Co-pyroclastic Density Current Deposits

4. Controls on Co-pyroclastic Density Current Plume Formation and Dynamics

5. Dispersion and Sedimentation of Co-pyroclastic Density Current Ash

6. Conclusions

Part 4. Observations of Ash in the Air

Introduction

Chapter 5. In Situ Observations of Airborne Ash From Manned Aircraft

1. Introduction

2. Instrumentation and Sampling

3. Basic Considerations for Choice of Aircraft

4. Case Studies: Eyjafjallajökull, Grímsvötn, Sakurajima, and Holuhraun Campaigns

5. Results, Data Analysis, and Visualization

6. Plume Physics and Fitting to Models

7. Conclusions

Chapter 6. Electrostatics and In Situ Sampling of Volcanic Plumes

1. Introduction

2. Volcanic Lightning and Charge in Volcanic Plumes

3. Charging Mechanisms and Laboratory Studies of Charging

4. In Situ Sampling of Volcanic Plumes With Meteorological Sounding Balloons

5. Conclusions and Future Measurements

Chapter 7. In Situ Observations of Volatile and Nonvolatile Particle Size Distributions From Balloon-Borne Platforms

1. Introduction

2. Aerosol Profiles With Heated Descents Following Pinatubo

3. Evolution of Particle Concentration as a Function of Size Following Pinatubo

4. Profiles of Aerosol Using Heated and Ambient Intakes Following Kelud

5. Conclusions

Part 5. Aircraft and Ground-Based Remote Sensing of Ash

Introduction

Chapter 8. Detection of Airborne Volcanic Ash Using Radar

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical Background

3. Observations of Volcanic Ash Using Radar

4. Outlook and Conclusion

Chapter 9. Lidar Observations of Volcanic Particles

1. Introduction

2. History of Lidar in the Context of Volcanic Eruptions

3. Aerosol Lidar Techniques

4. The Retrieval of Concentrations and the Synergy With Sun Photometers

5. Lidar Observations of Volcanic Particles

6. Conclusions and Perspectives

Chapter 10. Quantitative Ground-Based Imaging of Volcanic Ash

1. Introduction

2. Infrared Ground-Based Imaging of Volcanic Ash

3. Ultraviolet Ground-Based Imaging of Volcanic Ash

4. Conclusions

Part 6. Observing Airborne Ash From Space

Introduction

Chapter 11. Infrared Sounding of Volcanic Ash

1. Infrared Radiation and Volcanic Ash

2. Ash Detection

3. Retrieval Algorithms

4. Validation

5. Outlook

Chapter 12. Ultraviolet Satellite Measurements of Volcanic Ash

1. Introduction

2. Ultraviolet Ash Detection and Retrieval Algorithms

3. Case Studies

4. Conclusion

Chapter 13. Applications of Satellite Observations of Volcanic Ash in Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling

1. Introduction

2. Interpretation and Evaluation of Model Output

3. Data Assimilation

4. Uncertainties, Limitations, and Assumptions

5. Conclusions

Appendix A

Part 7. Conclusions and Future Directions

Introduction

References

Index

Copyright

Elsevier

Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN: 978-0-08-100405-0

For information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/

Publisher: Candice G Janco

Acquisition Editor: Marisa LaFleur

Editorial Project Manager: Marisa LaFleur

Production Project Manager: Mohanapriyan Rajendran

Designer: Maria Ines Cruz

Typeset by TNQ Books and Journals

List of Contributors

K.L. Aplin,     University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

G. Bagheri,     University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

A. Benedetti,     European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, United Kingdom

A.J. Bennett,     Biral Ltd, Bristol, United Kingdom

C. Bonadonna,     University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

R.J. Brown,     Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom

M. Burton,     School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

S.A. Carn,     Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, United States

K. Cashman,     School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

L. Clarisse,     Spectroscopie de l'atmosphère, Service de Chimie Quantique et Photophysique, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium

T. Deshler,     University of Wyoming, Laramie, United States

A.J. Durant

University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, United States

J. Eliasson

University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland

University of Kyoto, Kyoto, Japan

S. Engwell,     National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, Sezione di Pisa, Italy (Present address: British Geological Survey, The Lyell Centre, Edinburgh)

J. Eychenne,     University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

R.G. Harrison,     University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom

M. Hort,     Institut für Geophysik, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

I.M.P. Houghton,     University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

N.I. Kristiansen,     Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, Norway

N.A. Krotkov,     NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States

A.C. Lange

Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Institute for Energy and Climate Research – Troposphere, Jülich, Germany

Rhenish Institute for Environmental Research at the University of Cologne, Köln, Germany

S. Mackie,     School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

F. Marenco,     Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom

L. Mona,     Istituto di Metodologie per l'Analisi Ambientale (CNR-IMAA), Potenza, Italy

F. Prata,     Nicarnica Aviation AS 2007, Kjeller, Norway

D.M. Pyle,     University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

H. Ricketts,     National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

A. Rust,     School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

L. Scharff,     Institut für Geophysik, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

I.M. Watson,     School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

K. Weber,     University of Applied Sciences, Dusseldorf, Germany

K.L. Wilkins,     School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

Part 1

Introduction

Outline

Introduction

Introduction

S. Mackie¹

K. Cashman¹

H. Ricketts²

A. Rust¹

I.M. Watson¹

¹School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom     ²National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Photograph of the eruption of Sarychev Peak in 2009, taken from the International Space Station. Image courtesy of NASA.

1. Volcanic Ash: Hazard Observation

Airborne volcanic ash presents a well-publicized risk to aviation, health, and agriculture; for this reason, an important goal of volcano science relates to volcanic ash, including both its transport through the air during volcanic crises and its ultimate distribution over the ground and sea. The state of the science has advanced rapidly in the years since 2010, in large part because of interest generated by the high economic cost of the Eyjafjallajökull eruption in Iceland in that year and the disruption it caused to aviation and aviation-dependent industries. Specifically, the eruption prompted a rapid change in the management of risk to aviation from volcanic ash clouds, precipitated by the use of safety thresholds for flight. Since that eruption, there has been a drive to improve volcanic ash detection and forecasting techniques (Watson, 2015) that allow Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers (VAACs) to issue the most relevant advice to aviation authorities. These management needs have highlighted the extent to which complementary expertise from different fields needs to be combined, both to reduce duplication of effort and to advance ash studies in all fields.

Here, we aim to advance volcanic ash studies by providing an overview of current understanding and methods used for observing and monitoring ash, both while it is in the air and once it is on the ground. We start with a review of volcanic ash itself: where it has come from, and what governs its physical and chemical properties during transport through the atmosphere and deposition on the ground (Part 2). We then review state-of-the-art techniques for data collection, interpretation, and modeling from the perspectives of ash deposition on the ground (Part 3) and in situ ash sampling in the air (Part 4), followed by remote sensing from ground-based (Part 5) and satellite-based (Part 6) platforms. We conclude by summarizing the strengths and limitations of all approaches, and by highlighting the most pressing knowledge gaps in volcanic ash studies. Surprisingly, there are only a handful of eruptions for which ash deposition is sufficiently well characterized to test ways of correlating ash deposits on the ground with estimates of ash in the air. For this reason, these eruptions—of Mount St. Helens, USA, in 1980; of Mount Spurr, USA, in 1992; and of Eyjafjallajökull, Iceland, in 2010—form a common basis for study and for tuning models and algorithms. The strength of this approach is that multiple approaches are brought to bear on the same eruptions; the danger, however, is that tuning to a few events could reduce flexibility in our response to the next ash crisis.

Studies of ash on the ground are not new, and they provide the fundamental observations that underpin our understanding of explosive volcanic eruptions (Part 2). Since the 1970s, the spatial variations of ash (and tephra) thickness, mass, grain size, and components have been documented for numerous eruptions, both observed and ancient. These data can be used to constrain the eruption magnitude (erupted mass), intensity (mass eruption rate), and eruption style, as well as to address underlying controls on eruptive behavior. Understanding controls on eruption style is important not only for anticipating volcanic hazards, but also for choosing input parameters (ESPs, or eruption source parameters) for both ash dispersion models and remote sensing ash retrieval algorithms. Most critically, eruptions vary substantially in the size distributions of the particles that they inject into volcanic plumes, as well as in the shapes and densities of those particles. Additionally, ground based studies of ash deposits, which record conditions of ash sedimentation from volcanic plumes, show systematic changes in ash properties with transport distance.

After, and sometimes during, an eruption, it is possible to collect and study ash that has been transported through the air before deposition on the ground and in the oceans. Data from these deposits can provide valuable insights into the likely properties of the parts of the plume that remained aloft, particularly when examined within a temporal and spatial framework that identifies ash properties characteristic of long atmospheric residence times. There are great advantages to investigating ash properties by examining real samples rather than inferring properties from indirectly measured quantities (as remote sensing methods must do), and it is generally more straightforward to collect samples of deposited ash than samples of airborne ash. Part 3 of this book focuses on methods for observing ash deposits and the techniques by which eruption parameters and ash sedimentation properties can be inferred from these observations.

Perhaps the most fundamental property of a volcanic eruption is its magnitude, a characteristic that is surprisingly difficult to measure for explosive eruptions, particularly for past eruptions (Chapter 1). Accurate mass measurements are also problematic for modern eruptions, however, particularly where ash deposits are thin, when wind directions and velocities are highly variable, or when much of the ash load is deposited in the ocean. Critically, Chapter 1 also reviews the limits of ground-based deposit characterization, particularly the preservation of deposit thickness (mass) over time and the likely errors in mass estimates of distal (far-traveled) ash abundance derived from field measurements. Also important for relating ash on the ground to ash in the air are spatial and temporal variations in tephra deposits, as these variations are intimately linked to changing conditions in the transporting volcanic cloud. In general, deposit mass decreases systematically away from the vent, with larger, faster particles settling before smaller, slower particles. Importantly, new developments in 3-D imaging and high-speed photography are providing critical data that can be used to relate particle shape to measured fall velocities; these data can then be used to develop and test models of particle sedimentation behavior (Chapter 2). Not all ash particles settle singly, however; instead, small ash particles are likely to sediment as aggregates of widely varying form, size, and density (Chapter 3). Chapter 3 also introduces possible interactions between volcanic clouds and meteorology, particularly conditions of hydrometeor formation in wet volcanic plumes. From the perspective of ash hazards, the most disruptive volcanic eruptions are those that produce plumes that are laden with very small ash particles (fine ash). Particularly important from this perspective are eruptions where primary ash generating mechanisms are enhanced by secondary processes, such as those that act in pyroclastic density currents (PDCs; Chapter 4). Volcanic clouds (and resulting deposits) produced by these eruptions integrate small ash particles from two different sources: primary ash formed at the volcanic vent and secondary ash formed by processes acting within pyroclastic density currents. Interestingly, these deposits are often characterized by regions of secondary thickness maxima, commonly at hundreds of kilometers from the volcanic vent.

The only means of directly measuring some properties of airborne ash is in situ sampling, which can be carried out by manned aircraft, balloons, or powered unmanned aerial vehicles. The instrumentation that can be used to make these measurements and the challenges associated with their deployment are presented in Part 4. Recent eruptions in Iceland, have prompted new attempts to measure ash within volcanic plumes using optical particle counters with manned aircraft, although this approach is clearly limited to parts of the plume that have ash concentrations that are sufficiently dilute to not badly damage plane engines (Chapter 5). The use of manned aircraft is typically only sanctioned in extremis, due to the inherent risks of flying through ash. An alternative approach is to use meteorological balloons for both measurements of electrostatic properties (Chapter 6) and where they have also been deployed with optical particle counters for measurement of both liquid phase aerosol and particulates within volcanic plumes (Chapter 7).

In situ sampling can provide very accurate data on volcanic ash properties, but this is not always possible, due to cost or practical considerations. Remote sensing, as the name suggests, allows the volcanic ash to be measured from a distant location, either while it is close to the volcano or many kilometers away. Ground-based instrumentation can provide detailed remote sensing observations of ash as it passes over strategic locations. [Repetition and wrong use of ‘Ground-based instrumentation’] Remote sensing instruments can also be fitted to an aircraft and therefore measurements can be made over more targeted locations. Part 5 discusses the different instruments and techniques used for inferring ash properties from the ground and the air. Most commonly used are radar and lidar systems. Importantly, while both techniques analyze the scattering of electromagnetic waves by volcanic ash particles, they can provide different, and complementary, information. Radar is most sensitive to large particles and can penetrate an optically thick plume close to the source (Chapter 8). Lidar systems, in contrast, rely on light and are therefore most useful for optically thin plumes, such as those typically observed far from the source (Chapter 9). UV and IR techniques are also employed for ground-based volcano monitoring, although until 2008, UV systems were tuned exclusively to measure gas species in volcanic plumes, particularly SO2, and IR systems were used primarily for satellite-based ash monitoring. Chapter 10 reviews the challenges of using these techniques from the ground, and for the purpose of detecting and quantifying ash loads and properties.

The final section in this book (Part 6) presents an overview of the instruments and methods used to observe and monitor airborne ash from space. No other observation method provides the spatial coverage offered by satellite observations, which have the additional advantage that the instruments are already in place, meaning that observations are available for the full duration of an eruption and lifetime of the ash in the atmosphere, including the onset. In this section, the different instrumentation and associated sensitivities are discussed, infrared observations from both broad and hyperspectral sensors are presented, and different methods for interpreting the data are explained and discussed in terms of the uncertainties associated with each data stream and with the different methods of interpretation. (Chapter 11). Although not available at nighttime, UV observations are also valuable for ash monitoring, since they are subject to different uncertainties and can therefore sometimes provide useful data where infrared measurements are too uncertain to be useful (Chapter 12). Lastly, this section of the book examines the use of satellite-derived information about the likely properties of an ash plume to aid ash forecasting, either by validating the dispersion models used for predicting ash transport and evolution or by constraining those models to ensure that they are based on a reasonable picture of reality (Chapter 13). Different approaches to these problems are presented and discussed with reference to the uncertainties associated with both dispersion models and observation data. These uncertainties are key to determining the appropriate use of satellite-derived data. Critically, interpretations of volcanic ash observations often rely on models that have uncertainties on a scale similar to those associated with the (reference) dispersion models. This summary of current state-of-the-art methods for using satellite observations for ash monitoring and forecasting explains the principles behind each method and presents arguments for and against the different techniques, with some reflection on the direction that the field may take in future.

We conclude with a short summary of the lessons learned from the preceding sections and some thoughts on the strengths and limitations of each approach (Part 7). We highlight areas of overlap that could benefit from more interdisciplinary work, and discuss important data gaps that need to be addressed to improve remote sensing capabilities. Finally, we look forward to the future of volcanic ash studies and suggest ways of developing truly integrated ash monitoring strategies.

Part 2

Volcanic Ash: Generation and Spatial Variations

Outline

Introduction

Introduction

K. Cashman

A. Rust

School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

Abstract

Real-time tracking and predictive modeling of volcanic ash dispersion, transport, and deposition (VATD) rely largely on simple assumptions of ash properties. In this chapter, we examine these assumptions by reviewing the properties of volcanic ash from the perspective of both generative processes and evolution within volcanic clouds, as evidenced by deposits on the ground. We show that total grain size distributions (TGSDs) produced during explosive eruptions vary widely as a function not only of eruption intensity and magma composition, but also in the extent to which secondary ash-generating processes contribute to the deposit. Compilation of grain size data as a function of absolute distance from the vent shows that large eruptions are capable of transporting abundant ash particles over great distances, that the median particle size in ground-based deposits may exceed 63  μm (the fine ash limit) over hundreds of kilometers from the volcanic vent, and that the rate at which a deposit thins with distance is a sensitive measure of the abundance and transport properties of the very fine ash fraction. We also show that distal deposits are dominated by micropumice and glass shards that (1) are often more evolved (chemically) than the bulk erupted composition; and (2) have density and shape characteristics that cause the particles to have anomalously slow settling velocities for their size. Together, these data provide a guide for selecting appropriate eruption source parameters (ESPs) used to initiate VATD models and to invert satellite imagery for calculations of ash loading.

Keywords

Ash properties, Eruption types, Grain size, Tephra, Volcanic ash

Blast Intaglio print (59  ×  49  cm) by Emma Stibbon RA; original used volcanic ash from Iceland.

1. Introduction

The term volcanic ash refers strictly to all particles ejected by a volcano that are ≤2  mm in diameter, regardless of composition. It is thus a subset of the entire population of fragmented particles produced by an explosive volcanic eruption, material that is broadly termed tephra, a collective term for pyroclasts derived from a Greek term used by Aristotle for volcanic ash. We follow this convention and use the term tephra when referring to the entire ensemble of explosively erupted particles, and ash when referring specifically to the small size fraction. Our focus, however, is on volcanic ash, which comes in many sizes, compositions, shapes, and densities and, as a result, has a wide range of optical characteristics and transport properties. This variability has important implications for detecting, tracking, and forecasting the behavior of ash transported within volcanic plumes.

There are numerous excellent volcanological resources on volcanic ash and its properties, including Heiken's (1974) classic Atlas of Volcanic Ash and two data-rich textbooks from the 1980s: Fisher and Schmincke's (1984) Pyroclastic Rocks and Cas and Wright's (1987) Volcanic Successions: Modern and Ancient. Reviews of recent work on specific aspects of volcanic ash properties and deposits are provided in Part 3 of this book. Here, we present a general overview of volcanic ash formation, its physical characteristics, and spatial variations in ash properties within a range of volcanic deposits. We focus primarily on data derived from deposits on the ground, as these provide a detailed integrated record of material that was transported through the air during volcanic eruptions. Throughout we follow recent reviews (eg, Mastin et al., 2009; Beckett et al., 2014; Stevenson et al., 2015) by compiling data in a form that we hope will be useful for applications to ash detection, tracking, and forecasting during volcanic crises (ie, Parts 4–6 of this book). Specifically, we collate data that record changes in tephra properties with distance, and pay particular attention to distal and ultra-distal deposits that furnish information on far-traveled ash. In this regard, our focus is different from most volcanological literature, where the goal is to understand the details of individual eruptions.

Our examples come primarily from recent (past 100  years) eruptions in the Americas, where volcanoes lie along the western edge of the continent, and the prevailing westerly winds produce spatially extensive deposits on land that are easily accessible for analysis (eg, Sarna-Wocjicki et al., 1981a; Watt et al., 2009; Pistolesi et al., 2015; Chapter 1). This stands in marked contrast to many volcanic settings, where much of the ash budget ends up in the ocean (eg, Ninkovich et al., 1978; Wiesner et al., 1995; Engwell et al., 2014). As recent eruptions exhibit only a limited range of magnitudes, however, we add data from well-characterized very large prehistoric eruptions that allow us to constrain maximum limits of tephra distribution and properties.

2. An Overview of Ash Formation and Eruption Styles

2.1. Ash Formation

Ash forms when magma fragments during explosive eruptions. Fragmentation transforms magma from a continuous liquid phase with dispersed gas bubbles (+/−crystalline solids) to a gas phase with dispersed magma fragments (Cashman and Scheu, 2015). In magmatic eruptions, magma ascent, expansion, and fragmentation are driven primarily by volatiles, that is, chemical components that are dissolved in the magma at high pressure but exsolve to form a separate gas phase at low pressures (eg, H2O and CO2). Ascending magma may also interact with groundwater or surface water, and in the solid (ice and snow) or liquid state. Expansion of external water to steam provides additional energy; for this reason, hydromagmatic eruptions tend to be highly explosive (Zimanowski et al., 2015). It is important to note that in volcanology, the term explosive refers to conversion of the potential energy of the expanding mixture to the kinetic energy of the gas phase and individual pyroclasts; most volcanic energy is then dissipated as heat, which drives expansion of the gas–particle mixture.

Fragmentation can be viewed as both primary and secondary (Cashman and Scheu, 2015). Primary fragmentation may occur via rapid expansion, rapid decompression, or rapid quenching of melt. Rapid expansion occurs when bubble nucleation and growth provide the primary driving force for magma acceleration; the resulting high strain rates cause magma fragmentation by either fluid instabilities in low viscosity (basaltic) melts or brittle fracture when the tensile strength of the melt is exceeded in high viscosity (rhyolitic) melts. Rapid decompression caused by sudden unloading (eg, by flank failure or dome collapse) imposes a large pressure gradient that causes fragmentation. Rapid quenching occurs when magma intersects near surface water. Here, fragmentation may be driven by premixing of water into the melt followed by rapid steam expansion (molten fuel coolant interactions) or by thermal stresses imposed by rapid cooling (Mastin et al., 2009; Zimanowski et al., 2015). In general, fragmentation by rapid quenching produces smaller particles than other primary fragmentation mechanisms (eg, Liu et al., 2015a). Secondary fragmentation refers to continued grain size reduction after initial breakage, either within volcanic plumes or during transport in pyroclastic density currents (PDCs; see Chapter 4). Secondary fragmentation occurs by both breakage during collision and rounding during abrasion of large, and often fragile, solid clasts. Abrasion, in particular, creates abundant very small ash particles (Dufek and Manga, 2008; Rose and Durant, 2009).

2.2. Eruptions and Tephra Deposits

Once created, volcanic particles are transported within, and deposited from, hot plumes that rise to tens of kilometers above the volcanic vent. Volcanic plumes may be weak or strong, depending on the relative rates of buoyant plume rise, which is controlled by mass eruption rate and temperature, and advection by winds (eg, Bonadonna et al., 1998; Bonadonna and Phillips, 2003; Woodhouse et al., 2013). Weak plumes are affected by ambient winds even as they rise through the troposphere. Strong plumes rise vertically to a maximum plume height (HT) determined by the momentum of the buoyant column (Fig. 1A, inset). When HT is greater than the level of neutral buoyancy (HB), plumes collapse back to HB as gravity currents (eg, Bursik et al., 1992; Baines and Sparks, 2005). The resulting umbrella cloud spreads at a velocity controlled by the momentum of the gravity current and meteorological conditions such as wind direction and strength. Evidence for ash transport over great distances suggests that the distal portions of large plumes maintain sufficient turbulence to keep very fine ash particles suspended for long times (Koyaguchi et al., 2009; Engwell et al., 2014).

Figure 1  Volcanic plumes and eruptions (A) observed range of plume heights as a function of eruption intensity I for recent (observed and well-documented) eruptions. Red field shows 50% confidence interval around best-fit line (shown on the diagram, where H is the mass eruption rate, in kg/s). Inset shows the difference between H T and H B , the height of neutral buoyancy. (B) Measured magnitude ( M ) versus duration (s) for selected eruptions that span the recent (well-observed) range of explosive activity; contours show intensity ( I ). Colors denote composition (red   =   basalt; orange   =   basaltic andesite; yellow   =   andesite; green   =   dacite/trachyte; blue   =   rhyolite). Labels are as follows: Pn , Pinatubo, 1991; Qz , Quizapu, 1932; Hd , Hudson, 1991; Msh , Mount St. Helens, 1980 ( Crosweller et al., 2012 ); Rn , Rungwe ( Fontijn et al., 2011 ); EC , El Chichón, 1982; Ch , Chaiten (Alfano et al., 2011); CC , Cordon Caulle ( Pistolesi et al., 2015 ); H47 , Hekla, 1947; F74 , Fuego, 1974; Os , Oshima 1986 ( Mannen, 2006 ); Ru , Ruapehu, 1996; E01 , Etna 2001; E07 , Etna 2007 (Scollo et al., 2007); Sk , Sakurajima ( Miwa et al., 2013 ); Sf , Soufriere Hills ( Druitt et al., 2002 ). All data from Mastin, L.G., Guffanti, M., Servranckx, R., Webley, P., Barsotti, S., Dean, K., Durant, A., Ewert, J.W., Neri, A., Rose, W.I., Schneider, D., Siebert, L., Stunder, B., Swanson, G., Tupper, A., Volentik, A., Waythomas, C.F., 2009. A multidisciplinary effort to assign realistic source parameters to models of volcanic ash-cloud transport and dispersion during eruptions. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 186 (1–2), 10–21, unless otherwise noted.

Tephra deposits formed from volcanic plumes have spatial extents and thickness variations that reflect both eruption and transport conditions (eg, Scollo et al., 2008a,b). These deposits preserve information on the size and strength of the eruption. For this reason, tephra fall deposits form the basis of a commonly used method of eruption classification (Walker et al., 1973; Pyle, 1989), which has been linked to descriptive classifications based on type volcanoes or volcanic eruptions. Examples include large, sustained Plinian eruptions that generate high volcanic plumes and widespread tephra deposits, intense but short-lived vulcanian eruptions initiated by gas overpressure and disruption of a lava plug, and basaltic Hawaiian eruptions characterized by small tephra deposits but extensive lava flows. The utility of these descriptive terms is limited, however, and the volcanology community has increasingly turned to more quantitative measures of eruptive activity. Here, we use a classification scheme based on eruption magnitude (M) and intensity (I; Pyle, 2000):

[1a]

[1b]

The definition of M was designed to overlap with the integer-scale volcanic explosivity index (Newhall and Self, 1982), but, like I, has the advantage of being noninteger and therefore continuous.

In theory, M can be calculated directly from measurements of either the thickness or mass distributions of tephra deposits. In practice, however, numerous problems are introduced by data incompleteness, particularly of far-traveled ash (eg, Bonadonna et al., 2015; Chapter 1). For witnessed eruptions, an average value of I can be calculated directly from M and the known eruption duration. Alternatively, the maximum intensity (Imax) can be inferred from estimates of eruption column height determined by comparing the spatial extent of different grain size classes with modeled clast transport in volcanic plumes (Carey and Sparks, 1986). The relation between mass eruption rate and plume height has been established empirically and falls close to theoretical predictions of plume behavior. This relation is shown in Fig. 1A where, for comparison with modeling parameters, we show plume height as a function of I. Plume height is controlled by buoyancy, which relies on heat transfer from fragmented particles to air entrained into the plume and is thus sensitive to both the total mass in the plume and to the grain size distribution. Syn-eruptive variations in plume height (intensity) can be inferred from analysis of grain size variations throughout key stratigraphic sections (eg, Cioni et al., 2015; Houghton and Carey, 2015), or grain size data can be inverted for M and I. Accurate inversions require knowledge of the physical characteristics of the erupted material, the atmospheric conditions (particularly the wind speed as a function of altitude) and the mass distribution within the plume (Fero et al., 2008, 2009; Klawonn et al., 2012; Mannen et al., 2014).

It has long been recognized that the largest explosive eruptions also have the highest intensities, and that these eruptions typically involve silicic (dacite to rhyolite) rather than mafic (basalt to basaltic andesite) magma (Fisher, 1964; Walker, 1973). In Fig. 1B, we show observed values of M and duration for several well-documented eruptions that are used as examples in this chapter. Gas-driven eruptions, such as single vulcanian blasts from Sakurajima Volcano (Sk), are distinguished from magmatic eruptions by their short durations (tens of seconds) and relatively small magnitudes. Longer duration, magma-driven eruptions vary extensively in both duration and magnitude. The largest, Plinian, eruptions are defined by M  ≥  5. In our data set of well-observed eruptions, all Plinian eruptions are silicic (blue and green symbols) and have lasted for several hours (I  ≥  11). Mafic explosive eruptions tend to be smaller and erupted at lower intensities (orange and red symbols). Although there are exceptions, compositional (and related rheological) controls on eruption style can be explained, at least in part, by the relative ease of gas exsolution, expansion, and bubble rise during magma ascent.

3. Tephra Components and Composition

Volcanic particles cover a wide compositional range and may include those formed from juvenile (new) magma as well as accidental or lithic clasts of older rocks incorporated into the explosive eruption column. The term magma refers to silicate melt that contains variable amounts of bubbles and crystals; when cooled rapidly during an eruption, the melt is quenched to glass. The juvenile fragments can thus have components that are glassy or crystalline, and dense or vesicular (ie, containing gas bubbles). Below, we examine the covariation in magma composition and components as a function of transport processes.

3.1. Composition

The bulk compositions of erupted magmas vary substantially, as do the bubble and crystal contents of those magmas. Bubbles form during magma ascent and decompression. Ascending magma may also transport crystals (phenocrysts) that formed long before eruption from the storage region, to the surface, and decompression-driven exsolution of water from the melt can drive crystallization during ascent. Importantly, as the magma crystallizes, the residual melt evolves in composition. For this reason, the chemistry of glassy particles (quenched melt) is typically different from the bulk chemistry of the erupted magma, and the bulk magma composition is most reliably determined from analysis of large individual clasts that contain representative proportions of crystals and glass.

Pairs of glass SiO2 and bulk magma SiO2 are shown in Fig. 2 for eruptions with bulk compositions that range from 50 to 76% SiO2. Where the fragmenting magma is dominantly melt, the glassy ash has the same SiO2 content as the bulk magma. Crystal-poor magmas are erupted close to their liquidus temperature and are often also depleted in H2O. Examples include the silicic eruptions of Askja, Iceland, and Chaitén, Chile (72–75% SiO2); the tracytic eruptions of Rungwe, Kenya, and Campania, Italy (62% SiO2); the mafic eruptions of Heimaey and Grímsvötn in Iceland (50–51% SiO2); and both the mafic phase 1 (∼52% SiO2) and intermediate phase 2 (∼62% SiO2) of Hudson volcano, Chile (Castro and Dingwell, 2009; Kratzmann et al., 2010; Naranjo and Stern, 1998; Sigmarsson et al., 2013; Watt et al., 2009).

With the exception of quartz, the crystals are less silicic (lower in SiO2) than the melt from which they crystallized, which means that the glass component is more silicic than the bulk magma. For this reason, crystal-rich magmas have glass compositions that are more evolved than the bulk magma. Fig. 2 shows that without exception, dacite magmas with bulk compositions of ∼63  <  SiO2  <  70  wt% have crystallized sufficiently prior to eruption to produce rhyolitic glass (72–76% SiO2). In contrast, hydrous basalt and andesite magmas (50–60% SiO2) are especially susceptible to ascent-driven crystallization, which creates a large range of glass compositions for a narrow range in bulk composition (vertical lines in Fig. 2). Importantly, ascent-driven crystallization is modulated by magma rise rate, as illustrated by a series of eruptions of Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador (Wright et al., 2012). Here, volcanic ash particles with a uniform bulk composition of ∼58% SiO2 have glass compositions that increased from 60% to 70% SiO2 (30–60% crystallinity) as the magma supply rate increased from ∼2.8 to 6.5  ×  10−⁴  m³/s (Wright et al., 2012). If we assume a conduit radius of 10  m, this variation in magma supply rate equates to an increase in decompression rate from ∼10−⁶ to 10−³  MPa/s, or decompression times of weeks to minutes for ascent from 4  km (100  MPa). Similar ranges in pyroclast glass compositions are shown in Fig. 2 for recent mafic to intermediate eruptions of Fuego volcano, Guatemala; Mt. Spurr, Alaska; and Ruapehu, New Zealand.

Figure 2  Comparison of SiO 2 content of bulk magma (normalized to anhydrous) and matrix glass for a range of eruption styles and compositions. Eruption magnitude is denoted by symbols: Cross – M   ≥   7; large triangles – M   >   4.5; medium squares – 3.5   <   M   <   4.5; small circles – M   <   3.5. Colored lines mark approximately linear compositional trends within individual eruptions; symbols at the ends of these lines indicate M . Dashed arrows show trends for melt evolution caused by pre- and syn-eruptive crystallization. Data sources provided in Supplementary Table S1 (http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780081004050/).

3.2. Ash Components

Both crystals and fragmented glassy particles tend to be ash-sized and are easily segregated during transport and deposition because of their contrasting settling properties (chapter 2). For this reason, the relative abundance of different components varies as a function of distance from the volcano. We illustrate this phenomenon using two well-documented examples: the M6 1932 Quizapu eruption (Chile; Hildreth and Drake, 1992) and the M4.8 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption (USA; Carey and Sigurdsson, 1982). In deposits from both eruptions, free crystals have a limited size range (typically 0.1–1  mm) and uniform density, and are deposited within ∼200  km of the respective vents (Fig. 3A). In detail, the bulk magma responsible for the Quizapu eruption contained 15% phenocrysts; the deposit, however, had 59  wt% crystals at a site 112  km from the volcano, but only 5  wt% crystals 810  km from the source. Similarly, the free crystal content of ash from the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens increased from magmatic values of 25–30% (Cashman and Taggart, 1983) to >60% at distances of ∼100  km from the vent before dropping to 15% in more distal regions. The same pattern can be seen in the dense lithic components. The Quizapu deposit has a lithic content of ∼1.7% at 17  km from the source, but only trace quantities at distances ≥100  km, and even the lithic-rich (∼50%) Mount St. Helens 1980 deposit shows a reduction of the lithic content to 10% at 250  km from source.

An important consequence of early deposition of crystals and lithics is the concentration of glassy ash particles in distal deposits. This segregation causes systematic changes in the bulk chemistry of ash deposits with distance, particularly where the magma started with abundant phenocrysts, as illustrated in Fig. 3B, where the composition of the bulk deposit is normalized by the bulk magma composition determined from individual pumice clasts. In the most distal sites, the bulk ash chemistry is consistently more silicic than the original magma because of the abundant glassy fragments (Fig. 3A). The missing crystals at distal locations, in turn, help to explain regions closer to the volcano where the bulk tephra is less silicic than the magma because of extra crystals. Note that where present, lithic clasts may also contribute to this trend. This pattern is illustrated nicely by compositional variation in the Quizapu deposit, where the high crystal content at 112  km from the source produces a bulk ash that is less silicic than the original magma, while the crystal-depleted distal deposit at 810  km from source comprises bulk ash that is more silicic than the pumice (Larsson, 1937; Fig. 3B).

Figure 3  (A) Changes in proportions of ash components with distance from source for two eruptions. For Quizapu, only data from locations near the dispersal axis were included (azimuths of 66–90°); the minor lithic component (≤1.7% at these locations) is not shown. (B) Changes in bulk ash composition with distance, measured as ratio of SiO 2 of bulk ash to original magmatic SiO 2 determined from analysis of individual lapilli clasts. Ratio values <1 (ash less evolved than magma) record effects of crystal (+/ − lithic) accumulation; ratio values >1 in all distal ash samples reflect prevalence of (more evolved) matrix glass shards. Data from Larsson (1937), Sarna-Wocjicki et al. (1981a), Hildreth and Drake (1982), and Carey and Sigurdsson (1982).

In summary, crystal-bearing magmas generate fine ash that is composed of both crystals and glassy fragments. Crystals formed prior to eruption are typically relatively large and dense, which causes them to sediment from volcanic plumes more rapidly than co-erupted low density micropumice and small glass shards. Preferential loss of dense lithics and crystals means that far-traveled ash is commonly rhyolitic, and has shapes and densities that reflect the bubble, rather than the crystal, population. These changes are important for monitoring ash cloud evolution, as systematic changes in ash composition with transport distance requires adjustment of input properties (density, shape, glass composition) for ash retrieval algorithms (Parts 4–6). As different components have different densities and particle shapes (Section 5, Ash Shape, Density and Settling Velocity), these data can also help to refine input parameters for sedimentation schemes.

4. Spatial and Temporal Variations in the Grain Size of Volcanic Deposits

Early measurements of the grain size of volcanic deposits used methods developed for sedimentology, which included adoption of the logarithmic size scale ϕ  =  1/2x, where x is particle size in millimeters. This scale derives from methods of grain size measurement, specifically the use of square-mesh sieves that are scaled in size by a factor of two between consecutive (whole number ϕ) sieves. Samples are typically sieved to ϕ  =  3 or 4 (125–62.5  μm), while smaller particles sizes are measured using laser techniques (see Chapters 2 and 4).

In volcanology, grain size data for individual samples are often summarized by the measured median (Mdϕ  =  ϕ50) and standard deviation (σϕ  =  (ϕ84  −  ϕ16)/2) of the distribution. Mdϕ–σϕ plots are used to discriminate between well sorted deposits formed by ash fall from volcanic plumes and poorly sorted deposits formed from PDCs (eg, Fisher, 1964). Calculating grain size parameters in this way assumes (implicitly) that grain size distributions (GSDs) are lognormal (eg, Wohletz et al., 1989). Importantly, this assumption is often not justified, particularly in deposits with extensive contributions of ash from PDCs (Eychenne et al., 2012; Chapter 4). From the perspective of volcanic ash hazards, particles classified as fine ash (<1  mm) and very fine ash (<63  μm) are considered most important because these particles remain suspended in the atmosphere and are therefore transported over the greatest distances (Rose and Durant, 2009). Small particles also have the highest surface area, which controls the efficiency of chemical reactions within the plume (eg, Gislason et al., 2011; Dingwell et al., 2012) and records the mechanical energy consumed by fragmentation (Zimanowski et al., 2003).

4.1. Deposit Thickness and Grain Size

Systematic studies of both recent and ancient tephra deposits have produced a substantial literature on the extent and thickness of deposits formed by a large range of explosive activity (for reviews, see Fisher, 1964; Walker, 1973; Pyle, 1989; Houghton and Gonnermann, 2008). Tephra deposits on the ground are mapped by measuring either deposit thickness or mass per unit area at a range of distances from the volcanic vent. These data are typically presented as isopach (thickness) or isomass maps. When sampling is contemporaneous with, or shortly after deposition, the deposit can be mapped to ≪1  mm, as long as it remains on land and is measured by mass (Chapter 1). Deposit thickness/mass measurements may be accompanied by measurement of the maximum clast size at each site, and less often by sampling for full grain size analysis.

Tephra deposits thin exponentially with distance (Thorarinsson, 1967). Here distance can be measured in two ways: as the maximum extent of a given thickness, or as the radius of the equivalent circle of the enclosing isopach; these measurements yield very different perspectives on ash distribution. The former is most important for studies of ash transport, as it combines the effects of the eruption and the wind conditions and thus records the actual ash trajectories; for this reason, it is the convention that we adopt. The latter allows the total deposit volume to be calculated (Pyle, 1989) and is therefore the convention of choice for volcanological studies. More generally, the thinning behavior of tephra deposits depends on the eruption energy, which controls (1) the height of the eruption column and grain size of the erupted material; (2) the eruption duration, which determines the total volume; and (3) the nature of the constituent particles.

Deposit