Grain-size features of two large eruptions from Cotopaxi volcano (Ecuador) and implications for the calculation of the total grain-size distribution
- 343 Downloads
Studies of grain-size distributions of explosive volcanic eruptions provide important insights into fragmentation mechanisms and eruptive conditions and are crucial to the modeling of tephra dispersal. As a result of sedimentation processes and plume dynamics, grain-size features vary significantly both in the downwind and crosswind directions and are difficult to characterize. We have analyzed grain-size features in the downwind and crosswind directions of the two largest eruptions of the last 2000 years of Cotopaxi volcano activity (Ecuador). Crosswind grain-size variations are similar for both eruptions (i.e., layers 3 and 5), while at any given downwind distance from vent, the layer 3 deposit is coarser than the layer 5 one. This suggests that layers 3 and 5 were characterized by similar plume height but that layer 3 was advected by a stronger wind. In addition, both deposits are coarsest along the dispersal axis and become richer in ash in the crosswind direction showing a Gaussian decreasing rate. Deposit thickness also shows a Gaussian crosswind decay, but layer 3 is significantly thicker at all points than is layer 5 due to the former's larger erupted mass. Based on both quantitative analysis of field data and on numerical simulations, we show that tephra deposits associated with large explosive eruptions (i.e., plume height of 30 km) should be sampled out to at least 200 km from the vent (depending on wind speed and tropopause height) in order to derive complete grain-size distributions that are not depleted in fines. Eruptions occurring in a strong wind field at high latitudes (e.g., Iceland) require lesser representative-sampling distances because of the lower tropopause heights.
KeywordsTephra Total grain-size distribution Plinian eruptions Voronoi tessellation Mdphi
This project was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (No. 200021-116335). We thank Raffaello Cioni, Marco Pistolesi, Sebastien Biass, Licia Costantini, and Mauro Rosi for the support during our field work in Cotopaxi and Sebastien Biass also for his support during the writing phase of this manuscript. We appreciate three reviewers for their helpful comments and advices.
- Bonadonna C, Phillips JC (2003) Sedimentation from strong volcanic plumes. J Geophys Res 108(B7):2340–2368Google Scholar
- Connor LJ, Connor CB (2006) Inversion is the key to dispersion understanding eruption dynamics by inverting tephra fallout. In: Mader HM, Connor CB, Coles SG, Connor LJ (eds) Statistics in volcanology special publications of IAVCEI, 1. Geological Society, London, pp 231–242Google Scholar
- Costantini L (2010) Understanding basaltic explosive volcanism. PhD dissertation, Université de Genève, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Inman DL (1952) Measures for describing the size distribution of sediments. J Sediment Petrol 22:125–145Google Scholar
- Mastin LG, Guffanti M, Servranckx R, Webley P, Barsotti S, Dean K, Durant A, Ewert JW, Neri A, Rose WI, Schneider D, Siebert L, Stunder B, Swanson G, Tupper A, Volentik A, Waythomas CF (2009) A multidisciplinary effort to assign realistic source parameters to models of volcanic ash-cloud transport and dispersion during eruptions. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 186:10–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Newhall CG, Self S (1982) The volcanic explosivity index (VEI) an estimate of explosive magnitude for historical volcanism. J Geophys Res 87:1231–1238Google Scholar
- Walker GPL (1981c) The Waimihia and Hatepe plinian deposits from the rhyolitic Taupo Volcanic Centre. N Z J Geol Geophys 24:305–324Google Scholar