Advertisement

Bulletin of Volcanology

, Volume 72, Issue 8, pp 961–970 | Cite as

The coalescence and organization of lahars at Semeru volcano, Indonesia

  • E. E. Doyle
  • S. J. Cronin
  • S. E. Cole
  • J.-C. Thouret
Research Article

Abstract

We present multi-parameter geophysical measurements of rainfall-induced lahars at Semeru Volcano, East Java, using two observation sites 510 m apart, 11.5 km from the summit. Our study site in the Curah Lengkong channel is composed of a 30-m wide box-valley, with a base of gravel and lava bedrock, representing an ideal geometry for high density measurements of active lahars. Instrumentation included pore-pressure sensors (stage), a broad-band seismograph (arrival times, vibrational energy, and turbulence), video footage, and direct bucket sampling. A total of 8 rainfall-induced lahars were recorded, with durations of 1–3 h, heights 0.5–2 m, and peak velocities 3–6 m/s. Flow types ranged from dilute to dense hyperconcentrated flows. These recorded flows were commonly composed of partly coalesced, discrete and unsteady gravity current packets, represented by multiple peaks within each lahar. These packets most likely originate from multiple lahar sources, and can be traced between instrument sites. Those with the highest concentrations and greatest wetted areas were often located mid-lahar at our measured reach, accelerating towards the flow front. As these lahars travel downstream, the individual packets thus coalesce and the flow develops a more organised structure. Observations of different degrees of coalescence between these discrete flow packets illustrate that a single mature debris flow may have formed from multiple dynamically independent lahars, each with different origins.

Keywords

Lahar Hyperconcentrated flow Debris flow Velocity Sediment concentration Seismometer Density 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Céline Dumaisnil, Yves Bru, the Lengkong villagers, Mahjum and Latif Usman for field assistance, Gert Lube for helpful discussions and Jenny Barclay, Chris Waythomas, and an anonymous journal reviewer for helpful comments to improve our presentation. EED and SJC are supported by the Marsden Fund (MAUX0512) and the NZ FRST (MAUX0401). SEC thanks the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme and Massey University Graduate Research School. JCT was supported by the French-Indonesian VELI (Volcanisme Explosif Laboratoire Indonésien) research and exchange programme.

References

  1. Arattano M, Moia F (1999) Monitoring the propagation of a debris flow along a torrent. Hydrol Sci J 44:811–823Google Scholar
  2. Arattano M, Marchi L (2008) Systems and sensors for debris-flow monitoring and warning. Sensors 8:2436–2452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beverage J, Culbertson J (1964) Hyperconcentrations of suspended sediment. Am Soc Civ Eng 90:117–126Google Scholar
  4. Carrivick JL, Manville V, Cronin SJ (2008) A fluid dynamics approach to modelling the 18th March 2007 lahar at Mt. Ruapehu, New Zealand. Bull Volcanol 71:153–169. doi: 10.1007/s00445-008-0213-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole S, Cronin S, Sherburn S, Manville V (2009) Seismic signals of snow- slurry lahars in motion: 25 Sept. 2007, Mt. Ruapehu, N.Z. Geophys Res Lett 36:L09405. doi: 10.1029/2009GL038030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coussot P, Meunier M (1996) Recognition, classification and mechanical description of debris flows. Earth Sci Rev 40:209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cronin SJ, Neall VE, Lecointre JA, Palmer AS (1997) Changes in Whangaehu River lahar characteristics during the 1995 eruption sequence, Ruapehu volcano, N.Z. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 76:47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronin SJ, Neall VE, Lecointre JA, Palmer AS (1999) Dynamic interactions between lahars and stream flow: a case study from Ruapehu volcano, N.Z. Geol Soc Am Bull 111:28–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doyle EE, Cronin SJ, Cole SE, Thouret J-C (2009) The challenges of incorporating temporal and spatial changes into numerical models of lahars. In: Proceedings of the 18th World International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, Cairns, 13–17 July 2009Google Scholar
  10. Dumaisnil C, Thouret J-C, Chambon G, Doyle EE, Cronin SJ (2010) Distinctive hydraulic characteristics and a frictional model apply to lahar flows at Semeru volcano (Indonesia). Earth Surf Proc Landf. doi: 10.1002/esp.2003
  11. Fagents SA, Baloga SM (2006) Toward a model for the bulking and debulking of lahars. J Geophys Res 111:B10201. doi: 10.1029/2005JB003986 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huang CJ, Shieh CL, Yin HY (2004) Laboratory study of the underground sound generated by debris flows. J Geophys Res 109:F01008. doi: 10.1029/2003JF000048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang C-J, Yin H-Y, Chen C-Y, Yeh C-H, Wang C-L (2007) Ground vibrations produced by rock motions and debris flows. J Geophys Res 112:F02014. doi: 10.1029/2005JF000437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hürlimann M, Rickenmann D, Graf C (2003) Field and monitoring data of debris-flow events in the Swiss Alps. Can Geotech J 40:161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 35:245–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iverson RM, Denlinger RP (2001) Flow of variably fluidized granular masses across three-dimensional terrain. 1. Coulomb mixture theory. J Geophys Res 106:537–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iverson RM, Reid ME, LaHusen RG (1997) Debris-flow mobilization from landslides. Ann Rev Earth Planet Sci 25:85–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavigne S, Suwa H (2004) Contrasts between debris flows, hyperconcentrated flows and stream flows at a channel of Mt. Semeru, East Java, Indonesia. Geomorphology 61:41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lavigne F, Thouret J-C, Voight B, Young K, La Husen R, Marso J, Suwa H, Sumaryono A, Sayudi DS, Dejean M (2000) Instrumental lahar monitoring at Merapi volcano. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 100:457–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lavigne F, Tirel A, Le Froch D, Veyrat-Charvillon S (2003) A real-time assessment of lahar dynamics and sediment load based on video-camera recording at Semeru volcano, Indonesia. In: Rickenman D, Chen C (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction and assessment, vol 2. Millpress, Rotterdam, pp 871–882Google Scholar
  21. Macedonio G, Pareschi M (1992) Numerical simulation of some lahars from Mount St. Helens. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 54:65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Major JJ (1997) Depositional processes in large-scale debris-flow experiments. J Geol 105:345–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manville V, Cronin SJ (2007) Breakout lahar from New Zealand’s Crater Lake. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 88(43):441–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marchi L, Arattano M, Deganutti AM (2002) Ten years of debris-flow monitoring in the Moscardo Torrent (Italian Alps). Geomorphology 46:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marcial S, Melosantos AA, Hadley KC, LaHusen RG, Marso JN (1996) Instrumental lahar monitoring at Mt. Pinatubo. In: Newhall CG, Punongbayan RS (eds) Fire and mud: eruptions and lahars of Mt. Pinatubo, Philippines. Seattle, University of Washington Press, pp 1015–1022Google Scholar
  26. Massimo A (2000) On debris flow front evolution along a torrent. Phys Chem Earth (B) 25:733–740Google Scholar
  27. O’Brien JS (1999) FLO-2D users manual, version 99.2, pp 157Google Scholar
  28. Okuda S, Suwa K, Okunishi K, Yokoyama K, Ogawa K, Hamana S (1979) Synthetic observation of debris flows (part 5). Annuals of Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, 22:175–204. Japanese with English Abstract.Google Scholar
  29. Pierson TC (2005) Hyperconcentrated flow transition process between water flow and debris flow. In: Jakob M, Hungr O (eds) Debris flow hazards and related phenomena. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 159–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rickenmann D, McArdel BW (2007) Continuous measurement of sediment transport in the Erlenbach stream using piezoelectric bedload impact sensors. Earth Surf Proc Landf 32:1362–1378. doi: 10.1002/esp.1478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schilling SP (1998) LAHARZ, GIS programs for automated mapping of lahar-inundation hazard zones. US Geol Surv Open-File Rep 98–638:1–79Google Scholar
  32. Suwa H, Yamakoshi T, Sato K (2000) Relationship between debris-flow discharge and ground vibration. In: Wieczorek G, Naeser N (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction and assessment. Millpress, Rotterdam, pp 311–318Google Scholar
  33. Takahashi T (ed) (2007) Debris flow: mechanics, prediction and countermeasures. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Witham C (2005) Volcanic disasters and incidents: A new database. J Volcanol Geotherm Res. 148:191–233. doi: 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2005.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zanuttigh B, Lamberti A (2007) Instability and surge development in debris flows. Rev Geophys 45:RG3006. doi: 10.1029/2005RG000175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zobin VM, Plascencia I, Reyes G, Navarro C (2009) The characteristics of seismic signals produced by lahars and pyroclastic flows: Volcán de Colima, México. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 179:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. E. Doyle
    • 1
  • S. J. Cronin
    • 1
  • S. E. Cole
    • 1
  • J.-C. Thouret
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Natural ResourcesMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand
  2. 2.Laboratoire Magmas et Volcans, UMR 6524 CNRSUniversité Blaise PascalClermont-FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations