Advertisement

Arabian Journal of Geosciences

, Volume 8, Issue 7, pp 4717–4739 | Cite as

The applications of Monte Carlo algorithm and energy cone model to produce the probability of block-and-ash flows of the 2010 eruption of Merapi volcano in Central Java, Indonesia

  • Fajar Yulianto
  • Boedi Tjahjono
  • Syaiful Anwar
Original Paper

Abstract

Volcanic eruption hazard mapping is very important to fulfill information needs to prepare for emergency situations. Rapid mapping is one of the steps necessary for emergency response in disaster mitigation effort. Limitations of time, data, and knowledge mapping techniques can be a problem when performing the operational work. In this research, the combinations of the Monte Carlo algorithm and energy cone model have been applied to reproduce the probability of block-and-ash type of pyroclastic flows of the 2010 eruption of Merapi volcano. These approaches are applied as an alternative method of rapid, objective, and reproducible for hazard mapping of pyroclastic flows. In addition, the method of Interferometry Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) has been used in this research to update the digital elevation model (DEM) data. The availability of DEM data updates was required as input of topography, which determines the pyroclastic flows. This research has produced DEM PALSAR 2010 pre-eruption of Merapi volcano, with a spatial resolution of 30 m. The result of the vertical accuracy calculations was performed using the root mean square error (RMSE) approach, which show the value of RMSE at 9.08 m. There are four eruptive phases, which have been used for the simulation scenarios, namely: phase 1 (period 26–29 October 2010), phase 2 (period 30 October–3 November 2010), phase 3 (period 4–5 November 2010), and phase 4 (period 6–23 November 2010). The results of the Monte Carlo algorithm to reproduce the effects of the 2010 eruption of Merapi volcano, has show that the height correction (hc) on the DEM data gives effect to the probability distribution of pyroclastic flows. At the hc = 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 m, the value of overall accuracy based on cross-correlation matrix of the reference map are 76.38, 77.38, 77.00, 77.75, and 77.25 %, respectively. In these scenarios, the hc = 4 m can give the best accuracy. Meanwhile, the results of the comparison of the results of the difference of the average run out on the energy cone model obtained from the reference map is 843 m.

Keywords

Monte Carlo algorithm Energy cone InSAR method Pyroclastic flows Merapi volcano Central Java Indonesia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This article is derived from research in progress by F. Yulianto on “The potential risk of pyroclastic flows after the events of the 2010 eruption of Merapi volcano using remotely sensed data in Central Java, Indonesia.” This project is being done at the Disaster Mitigation and Land Degradation (MBK), Faculty of Agriculture, Bogor Agricultural University (IPB), Bogor, West Java, Indonesia. This study is supported by the Indonesian National Institute of Aeronautics and Space (LAPAN). ALOS PALSAR data were provided by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). Topographic maps were provided by the Geospatial Information Agency (BIG). The authors express their gratitude to the reviewers for their helpful advice.

References

  1. Aisyah N, Sumarti S, Dewi S, Santoso, Agus B, Muzani M, Dwiyono, Safari, Sunarto, Kurniadi (2010) Activity of Merapi volcano September–Desember 2010 (Eruption Merapi volcano 26 Oktober–7 November 2010). Bulletin Periodic Merapi/ISSN 1693–9212, Center for Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation. (In Indonesian)Google Scholar
  2. Balai Penyelidikan dan Pengembangan Teknologi Kegunungapian (BPPTK) (2010) Characteristic of Merapi volcano. http://merapi.bgl.esdm.go.id/ informasi_merapi. (In Indonesian)
  3. Barberi F, Ghigliotti M, Macedonio G, Orellana H, Pareschi MT, Rosi M (1992) Volcanic hazard assessment of Guagua Pinchincha (Ecuador) based on past behaviour and numerical models. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 49:53–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biass S, Scaini C, Bonadonna C, Folch A, Smith K, Höskuldsson A (2014) A multi-scale risk assessment for tephra fallout and airborne concentration from multiple Icelandic volcanoes—part 1: hazard assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss 2:2463–2529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biegert EK, Berry JL, Oakley SD (1997) Oil field subsidence monitoring using spaceborne interferometric SAR—ABelridge 4-D Case History. In: Proceeding Annual Meeting of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Dallas, April ‘97Google Scholar
  6. Bignami C, Ruch J, Chini M, Neri M, Buongiorno F (2013) Pyroclastic density current volume estimation after the 2010 Merapi volcano eruption using X-band SAR. J Volcanol Geotherm Res. doi: 10.1016/j.jvolgeores Google Scholar
  7. Brivio PA, Colombo R, Maggi M, Tomasoni R (2002) Integration of remote sensing data and GIS for accurate mapping of flood areas. Int J Remote Sens 23(3):429–441. doi: 10.1080/01431160010014729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calder ESR, Luckett RS, Sparks J, Voight B (2002) The Eruption of Soufriere Hills Volcano, Montserrat from 1995 to 1999. Geol Soc Lond Mem 21:173–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cas RAF, Wright JV (1987) Volcanic successions: modern and ancient. Allen & Unwin, London, pp 1–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charbonnier SJ, Gertisser R (2012) Evaluation of geophysical mass flow models using the 2006 block-and-ash flows of Merapi Volcano, Java, Indonesia: toward a short-term hazard assessment tool. J Volcanol Geotherm ResGoogle Scholar
  11. Charbonnier SJ, Germa A, Connor CB, Gertisser R, Preece K, Komorowski JC, Lavigne F, Dixon T, Connor L (2013) Evaluation of the impact of the 2010 pyroclastic density currents at Merapi volcano from high-resolution satellite imagery, field investigation and numerical simulations. J Volcanol Geotherm ResGoogle Scholar
  12. Ciraudo A, Del Negro C, Herault A, Vicari A (2006) Mapping of lava flows for hazard assessment. Communications to SIMAI Congress, ISSN 1827-9015. DOI:  10.1685/CSC06047
  13. Connor LJ, Connor CB, Meliksetian K, Savov I (2012) Probabilistic approach to modeling lava flow inundation: a lava flow hazard assessment for a nuclear facility in Armenia. J Appl Volcanol. http://www.appliedvolc.com/1/1/3
  14. Darmawan H (2012) Pyroclastic flow modeling using TITAN2D to predict the hazard of hot cloud after the 2010 eruption Merapi volcano. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada University. (In Indonesian)Google Scholar
  15. Felpeto A (2009) VORIS a GIS-based tool for volcanic hazard assessment. User’s Guide Version 2.0.1Google Scholar
  16. Felpeto A, Matri J, Ortiz R (2007) Automatic GIS-based system for volcanic hazard assessment. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 166:106–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hartini SK (2010) Morphological analysis of Merapi edifice in studying merapi-type eruption, to improve volcanic hazard map. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada UniversityGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoffmann J, Zebker HA, Galloway DL, Amelung F (2001) Seasonal subsidence and rebound in Las Vegas valley, Nevada, observed by synthetic aperture radar interferometry. Water Resour Res 37(6):1551–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ILWIS (2013) Integrated land and water information system. Geographic information system. Version 3.8.3. International Institute for Geo-Information and Earth Observation, ITC, Enschede, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  20. Indonesian National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB) (2010) Introduction of characteristics of disasters in Indonesia, and related mitigation efforts. Second edition. Jakarta: Directorate of Mitigasi, Lakhar Bakornas PB. (In Indonesian)Google Scholar
  21. Indonesian of Central Agency Statistics (BPS) (2012) Statistic of Sleman regencyGoogle Scholar
  22. Indonesian of Central Agency Statistics (BPS) (2012) Statistic of Magelang regencyGoogle Scholar
  23. Indonesian of Central Agency Statistics (BPS) (2012) Statistic of Klaten regencyGoogle Scholar
  24. Indonesian of Central Agency Statistics (BPS) (2012) Statistic of Boyolali regencyGoogle Scholar
  25. Jing Z (2010) GIS based urban flood inundation modeling. Second WRI Global Congress on Intelligent Systems; 2: 140–143Google Scholar
  26. Kilburn CJR, Luongo G (1993) Active lavas: monitoring and modeling. UCL Press, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Kriswati E, Agustan, Pamitro Y, Hendrasto, Trisakti B (2012) Volcano deformation analysis using ALOS PALSAR. Working Group 3, Report and Proceedings of ALOS Application and Verification Project in Indonesia-2nd editionGoogle Scholar
  28. Lavigne F, Thouret JC, Voight B, Suwa H, Sumaryono A (2000) Lahars at Merapi volcano, Central Java: an overview. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 100(1–4):423–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lavigne F, Coster B, Juvin N, Flohic F, Gaillard JC, Texier P, Morin J, Sartohadi J (2008) People’sbehaviour in the face of volcanic hazards: perspectives from Javanese communities, Indonesia. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 172(3–4):273–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levieux EG (2009) Where did the term “pyroclastic flow” originate?—Volcanic hazards—Montserrat volcano observatoryGoogle Scholar
  31. Malin MC, Sheridan MF (1982) Computer-assisted mapping of pyroclastic surges. Science 217:637–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marfai MA (2003) GIS modelling of river and tidal flood hazards in a waterfront city: case study, Semarang City, Central Java, Indonesia. M.Sc. thesis, International Institute for Geo-Information and Earth Observation, ITC, Enschede, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  33. Marfai MA, King L (2007) Monitoring land subsidence in Semarang, Indonesia. Environ Geol 53:651–659. doi: 10.1007/s00254-007-0680-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Massonnet D, Feigl KL (1998) Radar interferometri and its application to changes in the earth’s surface. Reviews of Geophysics, 36, 4/November 1998, pages 441–500Google Scholar
  35. McGuire WJ (1996) Volcano instability: a review of contemporary themes. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 110:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Murcia HF, Sheridan MF, Macias JL, Cortes GP (2010) Titan2D simulations of pyroclastic flow at Machín Volcano, Colombia: hazard implications. J S Am Earth Sci 29:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Philibosian B, Simmons M (2011) A survey of volcanic deformation on Java using ALOS PALSAR interferometric time series. Journal Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems. Vol 12, no. 11. ISSN: 1525–2027Google Scholar
  38. Saifuddin, Al-Dousari A, Al-Ghadban A, Aritoshi M (2005) Use of interferometric techniques for detecting subsidence in the oil fields of Kuwait using Synthetic Aperture Radar Data. J Pet Sci Eng 50(2006):1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2005.07.005 Google Scholar
  39. Sambodo KA, Soleh M (2011) Interferometric SAR phase unwrapping ALOS PALSAR data using Least-Squares algorithm Two-Dimentional phase unwapping. In: Proceedings of the national geomatics SAR (GEOSARNAS), Bogor 12–13 September 2011. (In Indonesian)Google Scholar
  40. Sheridan MF, Hubbard B, Carrasco-Nunez G, Siebe C (2004) Pyroclastic flow hazard at Volcán Citlaltépetl. GIS model for volcanic hazard assessment: pyroclastic flows at Volcán Citlaltépetl, México. Nat Hazards 33:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sutanta H (2002) Spatial modeling of the impact of land subsidence and sea level rise in a coastal urban setting, case study: Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia. M.Sc. Thesis, International Institute for GeoInformation and Earth Observation, ITC, Enschede, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  42. Takahashi T, Tsujimoto H (2000) A mechanical model for Merapi-type pyroclastic flow. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 98:91–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Voight B, Hidayat D, Young KD, Subandriyo, Purbawinata MA, Ratdomopurbo, Suharna, Husen R, Marso J, Iguchi M, Ishihara K (2000) Historical eruptions of Merapi Volcano, Central Java, Indonesia 1768–1998. J Volcanol Geotherm ResGoogle Scholar
  44. Widiwijayanti C, Voight B, Hidayat D, Schilling SP (2009) Objective rapid delineation of area at risk from block-and-ash pyroclastic flow and surge. Bull Volcanol 71:687–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Young KD, Voight B, Subandriyo, Sajiman, Miswanto, Casadevall TT (2000) Ground deformation at Merapi Volcano, Java, Indonesia: distance changes, June 1988–October 1995. J Volcanol Geotherm ResGoogle Scholar
  46. Yulianto F, Parwati (2012) Application of probabilistic models to simulate the material flow eruption case study: Merapi volcano, Central Java, Indonesia. J Remote Sens Digit Image Process 9(1):1–11 (In Indonesian)Google Scholar
  47. Yulianto F, Parwati, Khomarudin MR, Haidar M (2013) Extracting the damaging effect of the 2010 eruption of Merapi volcano in Central Java, Indonesia. Nat Hazards. doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0438-4 Google Scholar
  48. Yulianto F, Tjahjono B, Anwar S (2014) Detection settlements and population distribution using GIS and remotely sensed data, in the surrounding area of Merapi volcano Central Java, Indonesia. Int J Emerg Technol Adv Eng 4(3):1–10Google Scholar
  49. Zebker H, Goldstein R (1986) Topographic mapping from interferometric SAR observations. J Geophys Res 91:4993–4999CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fajar Yulianto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Boedi Tjahjono
    • 1
  • Syaiful Anwar
    • 1
  1. 1.Disaster Mitigation and Land Degradation (MBK), Department of Soil Science and Land Resources, Faculty of AgricultureBogor Agricultural University (IPB)BogorIndonesia
  2. 2.Remote Sensing Application CenterIndonesian National Institute of Aeronautics and Space (LAPAN)Pasar ReboIndonesia

Personalised recommendations