Types and mechanisms of strombolian explosions: characterization of a gas-dominated explosion at Stromboli
- 643 Downloads
Textural and chemical analyses of bombs quenched directly from a normal explosion at Stromboli volcano (Italy) were integrated with coincident seismic, acoustic, and thermal data. The data set defines a new gas-dominated type of “strombolian” eruption, named type 0. These events are characterized by high-velocity emission (150–250 m s−1) of a few relatively small, juvenile particles, with entrained non-juvenile clasts that previously fell back into the vent to be re-erupted. For the studied event, the explosion depth was more than 250 m deep, and the particles showed little residence time in the shallow system. Slug ascent velocities over the final 20–35 m of magma-filled conduit, and the low viscosity of the resident magma, are all consistent with simple bubble burst in a “clean” conduit. This conduit type and eruption style likely fit popular slug ascent and burst models used to explain “strombolian” eruptions. In contrast, the ballistic-dominated type of explosions (type 1) are associated with larger proportions of stagnant material in the shallow system magma mix. We argue that the additional volume of this stagnant material pushes the free surface upward. Because of the larger volume of material available for entrainment into a type 1 slug burst, which has to fragment through a thick cap of degassed material, type 1 events tend to be rich in particles. In contrast, the less spectacular, gas-rich (type 0) events have little material to entrain, thus being poor in lapilli and bombs.
KeywordsStrombolian Explosions Gas Bombs Texture
We thank Christophe Constatin for the thin sections prepared at Laboratoire Magma et Volcans, Clermont-Ferrand. We thank J. Bernard for collecting one of the three precious samples. We also thank the editor and D. Andronico and T. Shea for their corrections and suggestions that really improved the paper, especially the figures, and L. Pioli for a few final precious discussions.
This research was financed by the French Government Laboratory of Excellence initiative no ANR-10-LABX-0006, the Région Auvergne, and the European Regional Development Fund. This is Laboratory of Excellence ClerVolc contribution number 110.
- Andronico D, Lo Castro MD, Sciotto M, Spina L (2013b) The 2010 ash emissions at the summit craters of Mt Etna: relationship with seismo-acoustic signals. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 118. doi: 10.1029/2012JB009895Google Scholar
- Barberi F, Rosi M, Sodi A (1993) Volcanic hazard assessment at Stromboli based on review of historical data. Acta Vulcanol 3:173–187Google Scholar
- Batchelor GK (1967) Introduction to fluid dynamics. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 615Google Scholar
- Braun T, Ripepe M (1993) Interaction of seismic and air waves recorded at Stromboli Volcano. Geophys Res Lett 20:65–68. doi: 10.1029/92GL02543Google Scholar
- Chouet B, Dawson P, Ohminato T, Martini M, Saccarotti G, Giudicepietro F, De Luca G, Milana G, Scarpa R (2003) Source mechanism of explosions at Stromboli Volcano, Italy, determined from moment-tensor inversions of very-long-period data. J Geophys Res 108(B1):2019. doi: 10.1029/2002JB001919 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cigolini C, Laiolo M, Bertolino S (2008) Probing Stromboli volcano from the mantle to paroxysmal eruptions. In: Annen C, Zellmer GF (eds) Dynamics of crustal magma transfer, storage and differentiation. Special Publications 304. Geological Society, London, pp 33–70Google Scholar
- Francalanci L, Davies GR, Lustenmhower W, Tommasini S, Mason PRD, Conticelli S (2005) Old crystal re-cycle and multiple magma reservoirs in the plumbing system of the present day activity at Stromboli volcano, South Italy: Sr-isotope in situ microanalyses. J Petrol 46:1997–2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lautze NC, Taddeucci J, Andronico D, Cannata C, Tornetta L, Scarlato P, Houghton BF, Lo Castro MD (2012) SEM-based methods for the analysis of basaltic ash from weak explosive activity at Etna in 2006 and the 2007 eruptive crisis at Stromboli. Phys Chem Earth 45–46:113–127. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2011.02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lautze N, Taddeucci J, Andronico D, Houghton B, Niemeijer A, Scarlato P (2013) Insights into explosion dynamics and the production of ash at Stromboli from samples collected in real-time, October 2009. In: Rose WI, Palma JL, Delgado Granados H, Varley N (eds) Understanding open-vent volcanism and related hazards, vol 498, Geological Society of America Special Paper., pp 125–139. doi: 10.1130/2013.2498(08) Google Scholar
- Le Voyer M, Rose‐Koga EF, Laubier M, Schiano P (2008) Petrogenesis of arc lavas from the Rucu Pichincha and Pan de Azucar volcanoes (Ecuadorian arc): major, trace element, and boron isotope evidences from olivine‐hosted melt inclusions. Geochem Geophys Geosyst. doi: 10.1029/2008GC002173, ISSN: 1525–2027Google Scholar
- Pistolesi M, Delle Donne D, Pioli L, Rosi M, Ripepe M (2011) The 15 March 2007 explosive crisis at Stromboli volcano, Italy: assessing physical parameters through a multidisciplinary approach. J Geophys Res 116(B12). doi: 10.1029/2011JB008527Google Scholar
- Ripepe M, Poggi P, Marchetti E (2004) Small aperture infrasonic 1010 array monitors activity of Stromboli Volcano. Inframatics 7:1–14Google Scholar