A review of volcanic ash aggregation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2011.11.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Most volcanic ash particles with diameters <63 μm settle from eruption clouds as particle aggregates that cumulatively have larger sizes, lower densities, and higher terminal fall velocities than individual constituent particles. Particle aggregation reduces the atmospheric residence time of fine ash, which results in a proportional increase in fine ash fallout within 10–100 s km from the volcano and a reduction in airborne fine ash mass concentrations 1000 s km from the volcano. Aggregate characteristics vary with distance from the volcano: proximal aggregates are typically larger (up to cm size) with concentric structures, while distal aggregates are typically smaller (sub-millimetre size). Particles comprising ash aggregates are bound through hydro-bonds (liquid and ice water) and electrostatic forces, and the rate of particle aggregation correlates with cloud liquid water availability. Eruption source parameters (including initial particle size distribution, erupted mass, eruption column height, cloud water content and temperature) and the eruption plume temperature lapse rate, coupled with the environmental parameters, determines the type and spatiotemporal distribution of aggregates. Field studies, lab experiments and modelling investigations have already provided important insights on the process of particle aggregation. However, new integrated observations that combine remote sensing studies of ash clouds with field measurement and sampling, and lab experiments are required to fill current gaps in knowledge surrounding the theory of ash aggregate formation.

Highlights

► The state of knowledge of ash aggregation in volcanic ash clouds. ► How and why aggregation reduces the atmospheric residence time of fine ash. ► Insights from field, lab + modelling investigations on particle aggregation processes. ► Propose that integrated observations are required to fill current gaps in knowledge.

Introduction

Explosive volcanic eruptions generate large amounts (>50% of total erupted mass) of fine ash particles (here defined as particles with diameter <63 μm) which are dispersed into the atmosphere by buoyant plumes above volcanic vents and pyroclastic density currents (PDCs; Carey and Sigurdsson, 1982, Hildreth and Drake, 1992, Durant and Rose, 2009). Most volcanic ash finer than 125 μm settles out of the atmosphere as particle aggregates that have higher settling velocities than individual constituent particles (Carey and Sigurdsson, 1982, Sorem, 1982, Lane et al., 1993). While aggregation exerts a first order control on the dispersal of fine ash within eruption clouds, the physical and chemical processes involved are not completely understood despite significant progress over the past 20 years (Schumacher and Schmincke, 1995, Gilbert and Lane, 1994, James et al., 2002, James et al., 2003, Textor et al., 2006a, Textor et al., 2006b, Durant et al., 2009, Costa et al., 2010). Fine airborne particles adhere to each other as a result of electrostatic attraction, moist adhesion between particles (e.g., Sorem, 1982, Gilbert and Lane, 1994, Schumacher and Schmincke, 1991, Schumacher and Schmincke, 1995, James et al., 2002) and hydrometeor formation (e.g., Veitch and Woods, 2001, Textor et al., 2006a, Durant et al., 2009). The atmospheric residence time of fine ash determines the hazard to aviation (Casadevall, 1994), and ash fallout impacts local environments and infrastructure (Stewart et al., 2006, Spence et al., 2005, Wardman et al., this issue) and may present a health hazard over an extended period of exposure (Horwell and Baxter, 2006).

Over the past few decades, models of varying complexity have been developed for the dispersal and sedimentation of volcanic particles. These models include analytical solutions, used widely for investigations of particle sedimentation and for hazard assessments (e.g., Armienti et al., 1988, Bonadonna et al., 2005a, Bonadonna et al., 2005b, Bursik et al., 1992a, Bursik et al., 1992b, Connor et al., 2001, Connor and Connor, 2006, Glaze and Self, 1991, Hurst and Turner, 1999, Koyaguchi and Ohno, 2001, Macedonio et al., 2005, Suzuki, 1983), and numerical models for real-time forecast of plume evolution and sedimentation (e.g., Barsotti and Neri, 2008, Barsotti et al., 2008, Costa et al., 2006, Searcy et al., 1998). Both types have been validated with field data and are now used regularly for both these purposes. However, the majority of these models do not account for ash aggregation and as a consequence tend to underestimate proximal fallout and overestimate ash concentrations in the atmosphere far from source, in particular in case of ash-rich volcanic plumes.

This paper reviews the current understanding of ash aggregation, summarises observations of aggregate fallout, the structure and morphology of ash aggregates, and reviews the effects of aggregation on the dispersal of tephra. We draw together observations of eruptions, field studies of deposits, experimental studies and numerical modelling. Observations of recent eruptions indicate that the type of aggregate falling from ash clouds changes with distance from the volcano (Rosenbaum and Waitt, 1981, Hobbs et al., 1981, Sorem, 1982): proximal aggregates are larger and can contain water on deposition (liquid or frozen); distal aggregates are much smaller, fragile, and often reach the surface without direct evidence for the involvement of water in the process (we loosely use the term proximal for regions within the plume corner, i.e. <15 km depending on plume height; Bonadonna and Phillips, 2003, and distal for regions beyond the plume corner). We support improved observation and documentation of ash aggregates both during eruptions and within deposits in order to advance knowledge of this important topic.

Ash aggregates present a range of sizes, textures and shapes, from fragile sub-millimetre-size clusters of ash to centimetre-size concentric-laminated aggregates displaying variously sharp and graded laminations (e.g., Moore and Peck, 1962, Fisher and Schmincke, 1984, Reimer, 1983, Scolamacchia et al., 2005). An early line of studies on particle aggregation focused on proximal aggregates often associated with phreatomagmatic activity (e.g., Lorenz, 1974, Rosi, 1992, Gilbert and Lane, 1994). Later studies of aggregation processes brought to light the complexities of particle aggregation and the greater variety of particle aggregates from other types of eruptions, and also included more focus on laboratory study (e.g., Sorem, 1982, James et al., 2002, James et al., 2003, Durant et al., 2009). As a consequence, aggregation terminology has evolved and a number of different classification schemes have been proposed (Reimer, 1983, Schumacher and Schmincke, 1991, Thordarson, 2004, Brown et al., 2010). No classification scheme has yet been widely adopted and, over the past 20 years, the term ‘accretionary lapilli’ has been used to describe unstructured aggregates (e.g., Hayakawa, 1990, Rosi, 1992, Sisson, 1995, Watanabe et al., 1999, Trusdell et al., 2005), multiple concentric-laminated aggregates (e.g., Cole and Scarpati, 1993, Junqueira-Brod et al., 2005, Edgar et al., 2007), aggregates with a single fine-grained coating around a massive ash core (Branney, 1991) and ash-coated lithic clasts (Bednarz and Schmincke, 1990, Palladino et al., 2001). There are other examples in the literature where the term accretionary lapilli is used without an accompanying description of the aggregates. Usage of terms is inconsistent and confusion exists particularly around the term ‘accretionary lapilli’, which includes all lapilli-sized ash aggregates, but not aggregates smaller than 2 mm. Consistent use of terminology is important for clear communication of ideas. In recognition that the term ‘lapilli’ is a particle size denominator and that many aggregates commonly referred to as ‘accretionary lapilli’ are <2 mm, we propose to replace this term with ‘accretionary pellet’, which avoids particle size connotations. Accretionary pellets may be divided into three subcategories (AP1, AP2 and AP3) based only on internal structure, which avoids any implications regarding formation mechanisms. We define a second group of aggregates called particle clusters, which include ‘ash clusters’ (PC1; e.g., Sorem, 1982) and coated particles (PC2). Revised definitions for aggregate types are provided in Table 1 and illustrated in Fig. 1.

Section snippets

Visual observations

Ash aggregates have been observed falling during many historic explosive eruptions (Table 1; see examples in Fig. 1). Fallout of fine ash >100 s km downwind appears exclusively dominated by millimetre-scale loosely-bound ash clusters (PC1) that rarely survive impact, whereas aggregate fallout from the column may include ash cluster formation, but is dominated by denser, typically spherical or subspherical aggregates (e.g., AP1, AP2 and AP3). As a result of aggregation, many distal ash fall

Aggregation within ash plumes: conditions and downwind changes

Large variations in particle aggregate morphology as a function of distance from source suggests that there are multiple aggregation pathways, which implies formation processes evolve with time during transport. The availability and abundance of water in the eruption cloud exerts a dominant control on aggregation (Gilbert and Lane, 1994, Veitch and Woods, 2001, Durant et al., 2009, Costa et al., 2010, Folch et al., 2010, Textor et al., 2006a, Textor et al., 2006b). Initial fragmentation,

Experimental studies on aggregation

Experimental studies over the last couple of decades have provided fundamental insight on both accretionary pellet and ash cluster formation (Gilbert and Lane, 1994, James et al., 2002, James et al., 2003, Schumacher, 1994, Schumacher and Schmincke, 1995, Kueppers et al., 2011). As an example, even though ash clusters (PC1, Table 1) are difficult to document and analyse due to their low preservation potential, drag coefficients, aggregation coefficients and particle size distribution have been

Empirical and numerical studies on aggregation

Empirical parameterizations have been devised by some authors to understand particle aggregation. In particular, in order to simulate the Campanian Y-5 ash layer, Cornell et al. (1983) assumed aggregation of 50, 75 and 100 wt.% of particles in the size range 125–63 μm, 63–31 μm and <31 μm respectively with all aggregates (of unspecified type) having a diameter of 250 μm (φ = 2) and density of 2000 kg m−3. The distal mass accumulation maximum (the “Ritzville bulge”) of the Mount St. Helens 1980 eruption

Discussion, conclusions and suggestions for future work

Aggregation plays a fundamental role in the sedimentation of fine volcanic particles, both in proximal and distal areas, and influences atmospheric ash concentrations and tephra deposition. Fine ash particle aggregation results in greater fallout of fine ash close to source and has the effect of reducing distal (100 s–1000 s km) atmospheric ash concentrations. Even though ash-poor deposits can still be described without accounting for particle aggregation (Bonadonna and Phillips, 2003), models

Acknowledgements

AJD gratefully acknowledges support from the Natural Environment Research Council. Jennie Gilbert is kindly thanked for discussion and comments. The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for thoughtful and constructive reviews that improved the manuscript and Ulrich Kueppers, Yan Lavallée and Jacopo Taddeucci for editorial assistance.

References (145)

  • T.C. Junqueira-Brod et al.

    Kamafugitic diatremes: their textures and field relationships with examples from the Goia’s alkaline province, Brazil

    J. South Am. Earth. Sci.

    (2005)
  • G. Macedonio et al.

    A computer model for volcanic ash fallout and assessment of subsequent hazard

    Comput. Geosci.

    (2005)
  • J. McPhie

    Primary and redeposited facies from a large-magnitude rhyolitic, phreatomagmatic eruption: Cana Creek tuff, Late Carboniferous, Australia

    J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.

    (1986)
  • J.M. Oberhuber et al.

    Volcanic plume simulation on large scales

    J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.

    (1998)
  • N. Oskarsson

    The interaction between volcanic gases and tephra: fluorine adhering to tephra of the 1970 Hekla eruption

    J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.

    (1980)
  • A.J. Prata et al.

    Retrieval of volcanic ash particle size, mass and optical depth from a ground-based thermal infrared camera

    J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.

    (2009)
  • G.E. Alvarado et al.

    Pyroclastic flow generated by crater-wall collapse and outpouring of the lava pool of Arenal volcano, Costa Rica

    Bull. Volcanol.

    (2002)
  • G.D.M. Andrews et al.

    Rhyolitic PDC deposits in the Rogerson graben, southern Snake River plain volcanic province. Volcanic stratigraphy, eruption history and basin evolution

    Bull. Volcanol.

    (2008)
  • P. Armienti et al.

    A numerical-model for simulation of tephra transport and deposition – applications to May 18, 1980, Mount-St-Helens eruption

    J. Geophys. Res.

    (1988)
  • E.M. Baer et al.

    Turbulent transport and deposition of the Ito pyroclastic flow: determinations using anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility

    J. Geophys. Res.

    (1997)
  • B.A. Baker et al.

    In situ observations of the microphysical properties of wave, cirrus, and anvil clouds. Part I: wave clouds

    J. Atmos. Sci.

    (2006)
  • S. Barsotti et al.

    The J

    Geophys. Res.

    (2008)
  • S. Barsotti et al.

    The VOL-CALPUFF model for atmospheric ash dispersal: 1. Approach and physical formulation

    J. Geophy. Res.

    (2008)
  • P.J. Baxter et al.

    Cristobalite in volcanic ash of the Soufrière Hills Volcano, Montserrat: hazards implications

    Science

    (1999)
  • U. Bednarz et al.

    Evolution of the quaternary melilite–nephelinite Herchenberg volcano East Eifel

    Bull. Volcanol.

    (1990)
  • C. Bonadonna et al.

    Sedimentation from strong volcanic plumes

    J. Geophys Res.

    (2003)
  • C. Bonadonna et al.

    Numerical modelling of tephra fallout associated with dome collapses and Vulcanian explosions: application to hazard assessment in Montserrat

  • C. Bonadonna et al.

    Probabilistic modeling of tephra dispersion: hazard assessment of a multiphase eruption at Tarawera

    NZ J. Geophys. Res.

    (2005)
  • C. Bonadonna et al.

    Modelling tephra sedimentation from a Ruapehu weak plume eruption

    J. Geophys. Res.

    (2005)
  • Bonadonna, C., Folch, A., Loughlin, S., Puempel, H., 2011a. Ash Dispersal Forecast and Civil Aviation Workshop –...
  • Bonadonna, C., Genco, R., Gouhier, M., Pistolesi, M., Cioni, R., Alfano, F., Hoskuldsson, A., Ripepe, M., 2011b. Tephra...
  • Bonnadonna, C., Mayberry, G.C., Calder, E.S., Sparks, R.S.J., Choux, C., Jackson, Lejeune, A.M., Loughlin, S.C.,...
  • M.J. Branney

    Eruption and depositional facies of the Whorneyside Tuff Formation, Lake District: an exceptionally large-magnitude phreatoplinian eruption

    Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.

    (1991)
  • M.J. Branney et al.

    Snake River SR-type volcanism on the Yellowstone hotspot track: distinctive products of unusual high-temperature silicic super-eruptions

    Bull. Volcanol.

    (2007)
  • R.J. Brown et al.

    Event-stratigraphy of a caldera-forming PDC deposit eruption on Tenerife: the 273 ka Poris formation

    Bull. Volcanol.

    (2004)
  • R.J. Brown et al.

    The quaternary pyroclastic succession of southern Tenerife, Canary Islands: explosive eruptions, related subsidence and sector collapse

    Geol. Mag.

    (2003)
  • R.J. Brown et al.

    Widespread dispersal of pyroclastic density currents during the construction of a large tuff-ring: the Ordovician Glaramara Tuff, English Lake District

    Sedimentology

    (2007)
  • R.J. Brown et al.

    Origin of accretionary lapilli within ground-hugging density currents: evidence from pyroclastic couplets on Tenerife

    Bull. Geol. Soc. Am.

    (2010)
  • M.I. Bursik et al.

    A gravity current model for the May 18, 1980 Mount St. Helens plume

    Geophys. Res. Lett.

    (1992)
  • M.I. Bursik et al.

    Sedimentation of tephra by volcanic plumes: I. Theory and its comparison with a study of the Fogo A plinian deposit, São Miguel (Azores)

    Bull. Volcanol.

    (1992)
  • S.N. Carey et al.

    Influence of particle aggregation on deposition of distal tephra from the May 18 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens volcano

    J. Geophy. Res.

    (1982)
  • S. Carey et al.

    Pyroclastic flows and surges over water: an example from the 1883 Krakatau eruption

    Bull. Volcanol.

    (1996)
  • D. Cole et al.

    A facies interpretation of the eruption and emplacement mechanisms of the upper part of the Neapolitan Yellow Tuff, Campi Flegrei, southern Italy

    Bull. Volcanol.

    (1993)
  • P.D. Cole et al.

    Capelinhos 1957–1958, Faial, Azores: deposits formed by an emergent surtseyan eruption

    Bull. Volcanol.

    (2001)
  • A. Collela et al.

    Pyroclastic surges of the Pleistocene Monte Guardia sequence Lipari Island, Italy: depositional processes

    Sedimentology

    (1997)
  • Connor, L.G., Connor, C.B., 2006. Inversion is the key to dispersion: understanding eruption dynamics by inverting...
  • C.B. Connor et al.

    Estimation of volcanic hazards from tephra fallout

    Nat. Hazard. Rev.

    (2001)
  • A. Costa et al.

    A model for wet aggregation of ash particles in volcanic plumes and clouds: 1. Theoretical formulation

    J. Geophys. Res.

    (2010)
  • R. D’Amours et al.

    Application of the atmospheric Lagrangian particle dispersion model MLDP0 to the 2008 eruptions of Okmok and Kasatochi volcanoes

    J. Geophys. Res.

    (2010)
  • S. Dartevelle et al.

    Origin of the Mount Pinatubo climactic eruption cloud: implications for volcanic hazards and atmospheric impacts

    Geology

    (2002)
  • Cited by (202)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text