(This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.)
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 231–232 (2012) 39–49
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvolgeores
Numerical simulation of tephra transport and deposition of the 1982 El Chichón
eruption and implications for hazard assessment
Rosanna Bonasia a,⁎, Antonio Costa b, Arnau Folch c, Giovanni Macedonio d, Lucia Capra a
a
Centro de Geociencias, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Campus Juriquilla, 76230 Queretaro, Mexico
Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading RG 6Al, UK and Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione “Osservatorio Vesuviano”, via Diocleziano 328, Napoli,
Italy
c
Barcelona Supercomputing Center-Centro Nacional de Supercomputación, Barcelona, Spain
d
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione “Osservatorio Vesuviano”, via Diocleziano 328, Napoli, Italy
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 2 December 2011
Accepted 2 April 2012
Available online 11 April 2012
Keywords:
Fallout deposit
1982 El Chichón eruption
HAZMAP
FALL3D
Hazard assessment
a b s t r a c t
El Chichón volcano, Chiapas, Mexico, erupted explosively on March 29th, 1982, after a repose period of about
550 years. Amongst ten eruptive episodes documented between March 29th and April 4th, only the three
that occurred on March 29th and April 4th produced significant pyroclastic tephra deposits. Here we use analytical (HAZMAP) and numerical (FALL3D) tephra transport models to reconstruct the deposits and the atmospheric plume dispersal associated with the three main fallout units of the 1982 eruption. On the basis of
such a reconstruction, we produce hazard maps of tephra fallout associated to a Plinian eruption and discuss
the implications of such a severe eruption scenario.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In March 1982 the volcano El Chichón, Chiapas, southern Mexico,
reawakened after a maximum dormant period of 550 years (Tilling
et al., 1984). Between March 29th and April 4th a series of ten explosive eruptions occurred, generating fallout, pyroclastic density currents and debris flows which destroyed, either totally or partially,
nine villages within a devastated wide area surrounding the volcano.
An area of roughly 50.000 km 2, extending east and north-east of the
volcano, was blanketed with tephra fallout (Varekamp et al., 1984),
and large amounts of fine ash and volatiles were injected into the atmosphere forming an aerosol cloud which circled the globe in 21 days
(Matson, 1982).
This eruption had a strong social and environmental impact (Luhr,
1991). It occurred in a remote place with limited access, without
neither a monitoring system nor a previous volcano hazard assessment and caused 2000 fatalities (Tilling, 1989).
After the occurrence of the eruption, great deal of information has
been gathered regarding the Holocene eruptive records of the El Chichón
volcano (Rose et al., 1984; Tilling et al., 1984; Espíndola et al., 2000;
Macías et al., 2003), and the recent activity (Capaccioni et al., 2004;
Rouwet et al., 2004). The abundance of new data has permitted the preparation of field-based hazard maps focused on the stratigraphic records
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Bonasia).
0377-0273/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2012.04.006
of Holocene eruptions, on the basis of the areas covered and volumes
of the deposits of the recognized eruption (Macías et al., 2008).
Despite this, more quantitative ash fallout hazard assessments for
potential Plinian activity at El Chichón volcano are still lacking.
Fallout of tephra can affect vast areas, causing damage to proximal, medial and distal regions downwind. Accumulation of tephra
can produce roof collapse, interruption of lifelines, disruption to airport operations and damage to communications. Moreover, airborne
ash can seriously affect aerial navigation (Casadevall, 1994), and
may have impacts on public health.
In this work we present a reconstruction of the three main tephra
fallout layers and associated volcanic plumes of the 1982 eruption,
then, on the basis of such a reconstruction, we produce hazard
maps of tephra fallout associated to a Plinian eruption of El Chichón.
The remainder of the paper is organized as it follows. First, we provide a short overview of the eruptive history of the 1982 eruption. Second, using the analytical model HAZMAP (Macedonio et al., 2005) and
assuming a uniform wind profile (obtained from NCEP reanalysis 2,
Kalnay et al., 1996; Compo et al., 2006), we reconstruct the key eruption parameters (e.g. total erupted mass, column height) by best fitting the medial tephra deposits measured by Carey and Sigurdsson
(1986). Third, we investigate and characterize eruption plume dynamics by means of the plume model implemented in FALL3D (Costa
et al., 2006; Folch et al., 2009), based on the Buoyant Plume Theory
(Bursik, 2001; Carazzo et al., 2006). Then, using the parameters
obtained in the second and third steps above and a complete 3D
time-dependent wind field (Kalnay et al., 1996; Compo et al., 2006),
Author's personal copy
40
R. Bonasia et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 231–232 (2012) 39–49
we reconstruct the distal deposits and the large atmospheric dispersal
of fine ash using the numerical FALL3D code (Costa et al., 2006; Folch
et al., 2009) and compare the simulations with satellite observations
(Pollak et al., 1982; Seftor et al., 1997; Schneider et al., 1999). Finally,
we produce some tephra load probability maps for two Plinian eruption scenarios at El Chichón and conclude with a discussion on the implications for hazard assessment of such scenarios.
2. Eruptive history of the 1982 El Chichón volcano eruptions
El Chichón, a late Pleistocene–Holocene volcano, is located in the
State of Chiapas, southeast Mexico. Historic eruptions of this volcano
are unknown, although rumblings were reported in the 1920's
(Mülleried, 1932). After an episode of seismic unrest in 1930, accompanied by fumarolic activity that lasted a few months (Mülleried,
1933), the volcano returned to background levels with the presence
of weak fumaroles until 1980 (Sulpizio et al., 2008). After 550 years
of quiescence (Espíndola et al., 2000; Macías et al., 2003), the volcano
reawakened in 1982.
Ten eruptive episodes were documented between March 29th and
April 4th 1982 (e.g. McCalland et al., 1989), but only the three that occurred on March 29th and April 4th produced significant pyroclastic
deposits (Sigurdsson et al., 1984).
The first Plinian phase began at 0532 UTC on March 29th with a duration of about 6 h. It blasted a new 1-km wide and 230 m deep crater
(De la Cruz Reyna and Martin Del Pozzo, 2009; Tilling, 2009) in the prehistoric summit dome of the volcano and formed an eruption column
with height of ~20 km (Carey and Sigurdsson, 1986). This event deposited the fall layer A1 (Fig. 1), a pumice-rich clast-supported layer with
normal grading (Sigurdsson et al., 1984; Macías et al., 1997).
Subsequently a series of hydromagmatic explosions that dispersed
highly turbulent pyroclastic density currents around the volcano occurred (Sigurdsson et al., 1984; Macías et al., 1997; Scolamacchia
and Macías, 2005). The second major event began at 0135 UTC on
April 4th, and lasted for ca. 4.5 h. This event produced an eruption
cloud from which it issued a pyroclastic surge, that spreaded in all directions, but mainly to the south, up to 8 km from crater. According to
Sigurdsson et al. (1984), this eruption column was the most energetic, with a maximum height of 32 km (Carey and Sigurdsson, 1986).
This Plinian event deposited the fall layer B (Fig. 1), a reddish clastsupported layer rich in lapilli-sized hydrothermally altered lithic fragments, minor lithics, pumice and crystals (Macías et al., 1997).
The final event began at 1122 UTC on April 4th and had a duration of
~7 h. The Plinian eruption column reached the height of about 29 km
(Carey and Sigurdsson, 1986), producing the deposit C (Fig. 1), a
normal-graded clast-supported layer, rich in pumice lapilli and minor
amount of hydrothermally altered lithic clasts (Macías et al., 1997).
This eruption also terminated with hydromagmatic explosions that
dispersed dilute turbulent PDCs.
The eruption completely flattened ca. 100 km 2 of jungle with the
emission of more than 2.0 km 3 of trachyandesitic pyroclastic material
(Carey and Sigurdsson, 1986).
In this study we use analytical and numerical tephra transport
models to reconstruct the deposits and atmospheric plume dispersal
associated with the main ash fallout units (i.e. A1, B and C in Fig. 1).
Key parameters of this eruption are well constrained from few independent observations and estimations. This eruption represents for
us a very good case study to validate and compare ash transport
models and best fit procedures, reconstruct key eruption parameters,
and then use the results to carry out tephra fallout hazard assessment
associated to a possible Plinian eruption in case of renewal activity at
El Chichón. Moreover, it is important to stress the importance that
this kind of study has for Mexican volcanoes and more especifically
for poorly studied and monitored ones as in the case of El Chichón.
3. Reconstruction of tephra fallout layers and of the associated
volcanic plumes
3.1. Reconstruction of the medial tephra deposits using HAZMAP
In this section we apply a best-fitting procedure to reconstruct
field deposit data (Carey and Sigurdsson, 1986) using the HAZMAP
model (Macedonio et al., 2005). Fitting was performed using the
least-squares method comparing measured and calculated deposit
thicknesses and grain-sizes (e.g. Pfeiffer et al., 2005; Costa et al.,
2009; Bonasia et al., 2010). Eruption parameters are defined by
minimizing the residual function:
2
χ ¼
N
h
i2
1 X
wi Y obs;i −Y mod;i
N−p i¼1
ð1Þ
where wi is weighting function factors, N is the number of observed
data, p is the number of free parameters, Yobs, i denotes the observed
thickness and Ymod, i the values predicted by the model.
Fig. 1. Composite stratigraphic section of the 1982 eruption. Capital letters stand for: P = pyroclastic, F = flow, S = surge, IU = Intermediate Unit, and A, B and C fall deposits.
After Sulpizio et al. (2008).
Author's personal copy
R. Bonasia et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 231–232 (2012) 39–49
41
Fig. 2. Location map of the stratigraphic sections considered in this work. UTM coordinates are in km (UTM Zone: 15Q).
Table 1
Best results of the best-fit HAZMAP runs obtained fixing the TGSD of Fig. 3b and using
the statistical weighting factor.
a)
14
12
10
wt%
8
6
4
2
0
-4 -3 -2 -1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
phi
b)
60
50
40
wt%
Deposit thicknesses, measured by Carey and Sigurdsson (1986),
were used and typical deposit densities from 900 to 1300 kg/m 3
were assumed for converting thickness in mass loading. Carey and
Sigurdsson (1986) mapped the layers up to a distance of 70 km
from the source. In this work we selected the 41 stratigraphic sections
located to a distance of at least 8 km from the vent (Fig. 2), because of
the limitations of the model at shorter distances (Macedonio et al.,
2005).
The mass distribution within the eruption column is described
using the empirical formula of Suzuki (1983) as modified in Pfeiffer
et al. (2005).
The wind profiles were extracted from the meteorological data
corresponding to the point of the NCEP/NCAR global mesh nearest
to the El Chichón volcano, with latitude: 17.5°N and longitude:
267.5°E, as given by the 4-times daily NCEP/NCAR reanalysis
(http://www.cdc.noaa.gov) for the days March 29th and April 4th
1982. In our cases, wind profiles from NCEP reanalysis are not able
to reproduce the observed tephra dispersion direction. For this reason
30
20
10
Plinian phases
A1
B
C
Total mass (kg)
Column height (km)
Column shape factors (A/λ)
Diffusion coefficients (m2/s)a
Rotation angle of the wind profilesb
1.8 × 1012
24
4/1
10,000
44°
2.2 × 1012
32
3/1
4000
15°
2.0 × 1012
30
3.5/1
4000
8°
a
b
Turbulent diffusion coefficients were found in the interval 1000 and 10,000 m2/s.
Winds profiles were rotated with respect their original direction anticlockwise.
0
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
phi
Fig. 3. a): TGSD estimated for phases B and C of the 1982 El Chichón eruption, based on
variable amounts of distal ash fall volumes. b): Rose and Durant (2009)'s TGSD modified with the aggregation model of Cornell et al. (1983).
After Rose and Durant (2009).
Author's personal copy
42
R. Bonasia et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 231–232 (2012) 39–49
the entire wind profiles were systematically rotated with respect to
their original direction by choosing the angle that better reproduce
the observed deposits (see Table 1).
The Total Grain Size Distribution (TGSD) is a crucial eruptive parameter, and is essential in tephra dispersal modeling. For what concerns
the 1982 El Chichón eruption, Varekamp et al. (1984) pointed out the
dominance of fine ash proportions in the eruption deposits. They estimated that beyond 50 km from the vent overall more than 50% of the
mass of ash consisted of particles finer than 63 μm in diameter.
A complete reconstruction of the TGSD of phases B and C of the
eruption is available in Rose and Durant (2009). The authors estimated the TGSD weighting by mass, by isopach volume and using the
Voronoi method (Fig. 3a).
According to Varekamp et al. (1984) and Scolamacchia et al.
(2005), particle aggregation is a common feature in El Chichón tephra, leading to coarse aggregate tails on the dry-sieved sized distributions of distal samples. Since fine particles aggregation dramatically
changes the sedimentation dynamics and reduces the atmospheric
residence time of the very fine ash particles (Sparks et al., 1997;
Costa et al., 2010; Folch et al., 2010), here we take into account the effect of aggregates using the model of Cornell et al. (1983). According
to this model, 50% of the 63–44 μm ash, 75% of the 44–31 μm ash
and 100% of the less than 31 μm ash are treated as aggregate
particles with a diameter of 200 microns and density of 200 kg/m 3.
The obtained TGSD is shown in Fig. 3b.
We performed a series of inversion runs using HAZMAP and fixing
the TGSD of Fig. 3b for the three Plinian phases of the eruption. Best
results, summarized in Table 1, were obtained using the statistical
weighting factor in Eq. (1).
Reconstructed ground load maps for each eruptive phase and the
total deposit are shown in Fig. 4. Comparison between the observed
and calculated deposits is given in Fig. 5.
3.2. Reconstruction of the eruption column by means of a BPT model
Eruption column dynamics for the three Plinian phases, were also
investigated by means of the eruption column model implemented in
FALL3D (Costa et al., 2006; Folch et al., 2009) that is based on the
Buoyant Plume Theory (BPT) (Bursik, 2001; Carazzo et al., 2006).
This eruption column model allows us to compute the Mass Flow
Rate (MFR), the vertical distribution of mass as function of column
Phase B
Phase A1
94˚
92˚
93˚
94˚
92˚
93˚
5
10
10
20
10
20
18˚ 18˚
0
18˚
18˚
Villahermosa
50
10
Villahermosa
50
10
5
Chichon
200
20
0
Chichon
200
10
50
50
Pichucalco
10
0
5
Pichucalco
5
17˚
17˚ 17˚
20
17˚
10
Tuxtla
94˚
Tuxtla
93˚
92˚
94˚
92˚
94˚
Phase C
94˚
92˚
93˚
Total
93˚
92˚
93˚
20
5
18˚
Villahermosa
10
50
10
5
18˚ 18˚
Villahermosa
18˚
0
10
20
Pichucalco
50
Chichon
20
17˚ 17˚
17˚
0
100
10
Chichon
200 100
20
50
20
Pichucalco
5
17˚
10
Tuxtla
94˚
93˚
5
92˚
94˚
Tuxtla
93˚
92˚
Fig. 4. Fallout deposits of the three phases of the 1982 El Chichón eruption and of the effective total deposit, obtained using the HAZMAP model. Contours are ash loading in kg/m2.
Author's personal copy
R. Bonasia et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 231–232 (2012) 39–49
Phase A1
Computed ground load (kg/m2)
10000
1000
100
10
1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Observed ground load (kg/m2)
Phase B
Computed ground load (kg/m2)
10000
1000
100
10
Following the analysis above, eruptive column heights were found
being 24, 28 and 27 km for phases A1, B and C respectively. These
values are generally in good agreement with our previous empirical
estimations, with values determined by Carey and Sigurdsson
(1986), and with satellite observations (e.g. Pollak et al., 1982;
Seftor et al., 1997; Schneider et al., 1999). According to Carey and
Sigurdsson (1986), values of radial velocity of the horizontal expansion of the eruptive plume, suggest that all of the El Chichón eruption
columns were initially in excess of 25 km. However, based on considerations of tephra volumes, eruption durations and transport directions, the same authors infer that column heights were sustained
for sometime at an altitude of at least 22 km for all the major events.
Column heights used in this work, are in the range of the average
values calculated using different approaches.
Results of total mass and MFR obtained using the BPT model are
shown in Table 2. Beside estimates made with the BPT model we
also calculated the total mass and MFR using the empirical relationship given by Mastin et al. (2009) and distributing mass along the column using the Suzuki, (1983)'s distribution (Pfeiffer et al., 2005). For
comparison reasons, in Table 2, we show also results of the HAZMAP
inversion runs (see Section 3.1) and values of total mass calculated by
Carey and Sigurdsson (1986).
Total mass values obtained using the BPT model are in excess of
Carey and Sigurdsson, (1986) values, but in the same order of magnitude of the values obtained by solving the inverse problem with
HAZMAP, and similar to the results obtained by applying the Mastin
et al. (2009) relationship.
3.3. Reconstruction of the distal deposit and volcanic plume dispersion
1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Observed ground load (kg/m2)
Phase C
10000
Computed ground load (kg/m2)
43
1000
100
10
1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Observed ground load (kg/m2)
Fig. 5. Log-log plot of the observed tephra deposits (kg/m2) versus the calculated tephra deposits (kg/m2) of the inversion runs obtained fixing the TGSD of Fig. 3b and using
the statistical weighting factor. Dotted lines delimit the confidence interval.
height (or viceversa) and mixture properties at the vent (exit temperature, velocity, water content and TGSD).
We varied the mean MFR in order to reproduce column height
consistent with the observations that, at the same time, reasonably
can reproduce the observed deposits. The MFR was searched in the
range of order of magnitude between 10 7 and 10 9 kg/s, interval
broad enough to include eruptive columns heights in the range between 20 and 30 km, and eruption durations between 4 and 7 h.
Conditions at the vent were set to an exit velocity of 350 m/s, a
water content of 4% in weight, and an exit temperature of 850 °C, a
value that matches with the theoretical and empirical estimations of
Rye et al. (1984), Luhr et al. (1984) and Luhr (1990).
To reconstruct the distal deposit and the volcanic plume dispersion we used the FALL3D model (Costa et al., 2006; Folch et al.,
2009). This is a transient tephra dispersal model that can run at any
scale, from micro-local to mesoscale global, and is able to compute accumulation rate, deposit thickness and atmospheric ash concentration. The model solves the advection–diffusion–sedimentation
equation with an atmospheric turbulent diffusion given by the gradient transport theory, semi-empirical particle terminal velocity parametrizations, and a time-dependent three-dimensional wind field
furnished by global or mesoscale meteorological models.
For this work we used meteorological data from the NCEP reanalysis 1 (Kalnay et al., 1996) for the period between March 28th and
April 6th 1982, available at the web-site: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/
psd/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis.html.
For the calculation of particle settling velocity of fine particles we
used the model of Wilson and Huang (1979) with an average particle
shape factor of 0.43. The horizontal diffusion was set as constant at a
value of 5000 m 2 s − 1 that represents a typical value for such a computational domain (Macedonio et al., 1988; Macedonio et al., 2008;
Costa et al., 2009).
Volcanological inputs required by FALL3D are the source term (i.e.
the flow of mass released from the eruptive column for each particle)
and the TGSD. The source term was estimated by means of the BPT as
explained in the previous section. TGSD is the one reconstructed by
Rose and Durant (2009) to which we applied the Cornell et al.
(1983) model, shown in Fig. 3b.
Reconstruction of the distal deposit and of the volcanic plume dispersion was performed using the parallel version of the FALL3D code.
Each simulation took around 2 h using 36 CPUs.
Reconstructed ground load maps for each eruptive phase are
shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 7 shows the comparison between the observed
deposits and the FALL3D results simulations, for the three phases of
the eruption.
Fig. 8a give a snapshot of the FALL3D ash cloud simulation for the
phase A1 showing the ash column load on March 29th at 1330 UTC.
For comparison, Fig. 8b shows the dispersal of the plume recorded
Author's personal copy
44
R. Bonasia et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 231–232 (2012) 39–49
Table 2
Values of total mass and MFR obtained with the BPT model and the Mastin et al. (2009) relationship. Values of column heights obtained with the BPT model are also presented. For
comparison reasons we show the HAZMAP inversion results and Carey and Sigurdsson (1986) values.
Plinian phases
Total mass (kg)
BPT
Mastin et al. (2009)
Hazmap
Carey and Sigurdsson (1986)
BPT
Mastin et al. (2009)
Hazmapa
Carey and Sigurdsson (1986)
BPT
Hazmap
Carey and Sigurdsson (1986)
MFR (kg/s)
Column height (km)
a
A1
B
C
1.10 × 1012
1.1 × 1012
1.8 × 1012
0.8 × 1012
0.52 × 108
0.53 × 108
0.59 × 108
0.37 × 108
24
24
20
3.7 × 1012
2.1 × 1012
2.2 × 1012
1.02 × 1012
0.23 × 109
1.3 × 108
1.01 × 108
0.63 × 108
28
32
32
5.1 × 1012
2.9 × 1012
2.0 × 1012
1.04 × 1012
1.9 × 108
1.1 × 108
0.9 × 108
0.41 × 108
27
30
29
Values of MRF calculated dividing total mass values obtained with the HAZMAP model by the eruption durations (A1: 6 h, B: 4.5 h, C = 7 h)
by the GOES-East weather satellite (Carey and Sigurdsson, 1986). As
observed in the satellite image, our simulation shows that the A1
event was characterized by plume dispersal along two principal directions: east-northeast and south-southwest.
Fig. 9a and b, shows two time slices of the FALL3D ash cloud simulation at 0930 UTC and 2100 UTC on April 4th, when both phases B
and C were already developed. Snapshots of the ash cloud as seen
with imagery from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
(AVHRR) (Schneider et al., 1999), at the same instant time slices of
our simulations are shown in Fig. 9c and d. Results reveal that the
simulations reproduce the main qualitative features of the ash cloud
evolution described in Carey and Sigurdsson (1986) and Schneider
et al. (1999).
An animated gif file showing the ash mass load from April 4th to
5th is available as online material.
4. Implication for hazard assessment
According to Espíndola et al. (2000), 11 eruptive events prior to
the 1982 eruption occurred within the crater in the same vent
Phase A1 - Dep. load
Phase B - Dep. load
92˚
93˚
94˚
19˚
92˚
93˚
94˚
91˚
19˚ 19˚
91˚
19˚
1
Ciudad del Carmen
Ciudad del Carmen
1
2
5
18˚
18˚ 18˚
10
Villahermosa
1
Villahermosa
18˚
2
10
5
0
10
50
Chichon
200
2
1
2
Tuxtla
10
20
50
17˚
Tuxtla
93˚
94˚
93˚
91˚
94˚
19˚ 19˚
93˚
91˚
92˚
Phase C - Dep. load
94˚
100
1
17˚ 17˚
17˚
94˚
20
Pichucalco
5
20
0
5
10
Pichucalco
20
Chichon
Total - Dep. load
92˚
93˚
91˚
92˚
19˚
91˚
19˚
92˚
1
Ciudad del Carmen
Ciudad del Carmen
2
2
1
5
10
2
Villahermosa
1
1
18˚
18˚ 18˚
18˚
Villahermosa
10
Pichucalco
0
20
50
5
200
Chichon
0
10
10
2
17˚
50
0
Chichon
10
20
20
Pichucalco
20
5
20
10
50
5
17˚ 17˚
1
17˚
2
1
Tuxtla
94˚
93˚
Tuxtla
92˚
91˚
94˚
93˚
92˚
91˚
Fig. 6. Fallout deposits of the three phases of the 1982 El Chichón eruption and of the effective total deposit, obtained using the FALL3D model. Contours are ash loading in kg/m2.
Author's personal copy
R. Bonasia et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 231–232 (2012) 39–49
Phase A1
Computed ground load (kg/m2)
10000
1000
100
10
1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Observed ground load (kg/m2)
Phase B
Computed ground load (kg/m2)
10000
1000
100
10
1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Observed ground load (kg/m2)
Phase C
Computed ground load (kg/m2)
10000
1000
100
10
1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Observed ground load (kg/m2)
Fig. 7. Log-log plot of the observed tephra deposits (kg/m2) versus the calculated tephra deposits (kg/m2) obtained with the FALL3D simulations. Dotted lines delimit the
confidence interval.
reactivated during the 1982 eruption. Of these 11 eruptions, nine
were at least similar to the 1982 event, two of which probably involving the destruction of an andesitic central dome. Moreover, both
Espíndola et al. (2000) and Mendoza-Rosas and De la Cruz-Reyna
(2008) find that future activity, related to open vent eruptions,
could have a magnitude similar to that of the 1982 eruption
(Espíndola et al., 2000). Mendoza-Rosas and De la Cruz-Reyna
(2008) used historical and geological eruption time series of different
Mexican volcanoes, including El Chichón, to obtain precise estimates
of volcanic hazard, by means of probabilistic analysis. They found
45
that the higher probability of occurrence of an eruption over 100
and 500 years regards eruptions with VEI b 4. For what concerns eruptions of the same magnitude of the 1982 eruption, the same authors
found that the probability of occurrence of at least one eruption exceeding a VEI magnitude of 4 over 100 years is 10%, and 39% over
500 years. The authors estimate that an eruption with VEI > 5 has 5%
probability of occurrence over 100 years, and 24% over 500 years. If
the pattern of the activity of El Chichón volcano continues at the
same rate of the past several millennia, it is clear the need for a quantitative hazard assessment.
Macías et al. (2008) presented an updated hazard map based on
the stratigraphic record of Holocene eruptions, the eruptive styles,
and reoccurrence. In Macías et al. (2008) the delimitation of the hazard zonation involves principally computer simulations of past flowage events, including pyroclastic flows and lahars. However, hazard
related to ash fallout is described by means of a circle traced by
using the maximum radius of the 10-cm isopach of the 1982 eruption.
This approach in the construction of fallout hazard maps is an approximation that takes into account the hazard to which the proximal
areas only are subject. The risk to infrastructures in the proximity of
the eruptive center represents a serious threat, but it is not the only
one.
Here, probability maps for two different Plinian scenarios are
obtained using 20 years of daily wind data, in the period 1991–2010,
extracted from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis database.
We selected the phase A1, that has a total mass of tephra of
~1 × 10 12 kg (resulting from BPT model calculations, see Table 2), as
a VEI > 4 eruption scenario, and an eruption with a total tephra
mass of ~1 × 10 13 kg, which is the sum of the masses erupted during
the three major events (A1 + B + C, see Table 2), as representative
of a VEI > 5 scenario. We computed ash loading probability maps for
several threshold values from 100 to 500 kg/m 2. Here we present
only maps for loading thresholds of 100 and 300 kg/m 2. These threshold values are considered critical for collapse of low to mediumquality buildings (Baxter, 1999; Spence et al., 2005), and may cause
the inflow of the ash which, in turn, may partially bury or suffocate
people (Baxter, 1999; Spence et al., 2005).
The probability contours in Fig. 10 show areas that will likely experience mass loading in excess of 100 and 300 kg/m 2 during the
A1 Plinian scenario. The loading threshold curves of 100 kg/m 2
(Fig. 10a) involve an area that extends towards the east. The lower
probability values, between 2 and 10%, involve an area that extends
roughly over 4200 km 2. Higher probability values (>10%) affect an
area of roughly 3200 km 2. The city of Pichucalco, with a population
of 29,813 (from INEGI 2010, http://www.inegi.org.mx) inhabitants,
has 20 to 50% probability of being affected by a tephra loading of
>100 kg/m 2.
The probability of a mass load in excess of 300 kg/m 2 (Fig. 10b) is
greater than 2% in an area of 1900 km 2. For a tephra loading >300%,
the city of Pichucalco is comprised in the curves with probability
value higher than 5%. With such a Plinian scenario, nor the city of Villahermosa, nor Tuxtla Gutiérrez would be affected by an ash loading
in excess of 100 and 300 kg/m 2.
Fig. 11 shows ash loading probability maps for the A1 + B + C Plinian
scenario. The probability map with a loading of 100 kg/m2 (Fig. 11a) involves a wide area that extends east to west. In this map the lower probability value (2%) affects an area that extends roughly over 22,000 km2.
Higher probability values (e.g. >10%) affect an area of ~30,000 km 2, involving the capital city of the state of Tabasco, Villahermosa. The city of
Pichucalco has 50% probability of being affected by a loading threshold
greater than 100 kg/m2.
For a tephra loading >300 kg/m 2 (Fig. 11b) the probability contours > 2% involve a wide area that extends east to west, affecting
the cities of Villahermosa and Tuxtla Gutiérrez. In this map the city
of Pichucalco is at the limit between the 20 and 50% probability
curves.
Author's personal copy
46
R. Bonasia et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 231–232 (2012) 39–49
Fig. 8. a) FALL3D ash cloud simulation of A1 phase run for the day 29 March at 1330 UTC. Contours are column loading in tn/km2. b) Lateral growth of the A1 phase cloud as
recorded by GOES weather satellite. Contours are in one hour intervals. Two snapshots correspond approximately to 29 March at 1330 UTC.
After Carey and Sigurdsson (1986).
Fig. 9. Snapshots of the FALL3D ash cloud simulations on April 4 at 0930 UTC (a) and 2100 UTC (b). Contours are column loading loads in tn/km2. Volcanic ash as seen with the
Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) on April 4 at 0945 UTC (c) and 2100 UTC (d).
After Schneider et al. (1999).
5. Summary and discussion
Medial tephra deposits of the three Plinian phases of El Chichón
1982 eruption were reconstructed using the HAZMAP model. Input
parameters required by HAZMAP were obtained by means of a bestfitting procedure, comparing measured and calculated deposit thicknesses. The used TGSD, an important requirement for tephra transport models, was reconstructed by Rose and Durant (2009), to
Author's personal copy
R. Bonasia et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 231–232 (2012) 39–49
a)
47
a)
94˚
92˚
93˚
19˚
91˚
19˚
94˚
19˚
91˚
92˚
93˚
19˚
Ciudad del Carmen
Ciudad del Carmen
5
18˚
18˚
Villahermosa
18˚
10
Villahermosa
18˚
2
Pichucalco
Chichon
10
20
Pichucalco
2
Chichon
5
50
50
20
17˚
17˚
17˚
Tuxtla
94˚
17˚
10
Tuxtla
93˚
92˚
91˚
93˚
92˚
91˚
94˚
b)
5
92˚
93˚
91˚
b)
94˚
19˚
19˚
94˚
92˚
93˚
19˚
Ciudad del Carmen
18˚
Ciudad del Carmen
18˚
Villahermosa
18˚
2
20
Pichucalco
Chichon
5
18˚
Villahermosa
Pichucalco
10
91˚
19˚
Chichon
20
50
2
5
10
17˚
17˚
17˚
2
17˚
Tuxtla
94˚
93˚
Tuxtla
92˚
91˚
94˚
93˚
92˚
91˚
Fig. 10. Ash loading probability maps for the A1 Plinian scenario. a): 100 kg/m2 and b):
300 kg/m2.
Fig. 11. Ash loading probability maps for the A1 + B + C Plinian scenario. a): 100 kg/m2
and b): 300 kg/m2.
which an ash aggregation is accounted for applying the Cornell et al.
(1983) model. The total mass results obtained are slightly higher
than those calculated by Carey and Sigurdsson (1986) using classical
methods. This can be explained considering that in Carey and
Sigurdsson (1986) the authors do not take into account the loss of
fine particles. On the other hand, values of column heights are in
agreement. Reconstructed ground load maps for each eruptive
phase are consistent with isopach maps drawn by Carey and
Sigurdsson (1986) (see Fig. 5 in Carey and Sigurdsson, 1986).
MFR, for the three phases of the eruption, was obtained by means
of an eruption column model based on the BPT. In order to compare
these results with the ones obtained by means of HAZMAP and to better constrain the strong vertical eruptive columns, we calculated the
MFR also using the empirical relationship given by Mastin et al.
(2009) and distributing the mass along the column in accord to
Suzuki (1983). Results obtained with the BPT model are in excess of
values estimated by Carey and Sigurdsson (1986), but very similar
to the results obtained solving the inverse problem with HAZMAP.
Moreover, obtained MFRs of 0.52 × 10 8 kg/s (phase A1),
0.23 × 10 9 kg/s (phase B) and 0.19 × 10 9 kg/s (phase C), are close to
the results obtained by applying the Mastin et al. (2009) relationship.
Our best estimates of MRF, together with a three-dimensional
wind field obtained from the NCEP reanalysis 1 for the period between March 28th and April 6th 1982 were used as input parameters
for the FALL3D code to reconstruct the distal deposit and the distal
volcanic plume dispersion. Reconstructed ground load maps for the
different phases of the eruption show that the phase A1 deposit
(March 29th) was mainly dispersed towards NE, blanketing a wide
area up to the coast, reaching also the city of Ciudad del Carmen
with an ash accumulation between 1 and 2 kg/m 2. These results are
consistent with observations reported in (Varekamp et al., 1984),
according to which the mushroom like cloud expanded to over
100 km blanketing an area up to the state of Yukatan. From our simulations it results that during this first phase of the eruption, cities
like Pichucalco and Villahermosa were affected by an ash ground
load between 50 and 100 kg/m 2, and between 5 and 10 kg/m 2 respectively. During phases B and C (April 4th), the deposit was mainly dispersed toward the east. Deposit of phase B did not reach the coast and
the city of Villahermosa was not affected by ash fallout. However, a
few hours later, the formation of another eruptive column, produced
the phase C deposit, which reached the coast with an accumulation
between 1 and 2 kg/m 2.
The use of a fully numerical dispersal model, FALL3D, allowed us
also to simulate the volcanic plume dispersion into the atmosphere.
This is a novel contribution, because, in previous works on this eruption, much attention has been focused on the massive injection of sulfur, as SO2, into the stratosphere and the potential for climatic
modification (e.g. Pollak et al., 1982; Seftor et al., 1997; Schneider et
al., 1999), while the reconstruction of the volcanic plume was mainly
done using the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) (Seftor et
Author's personal copy
48
R. Bonasia et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 231–232 (2012) 39–49
al., 1997; Schneider et al., 1999; Krueger et al., 2008) and the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) (Schneider et al.,
1999).
So far, the evaluation of volcanic ash hazard for another Mexican
volcano (i.e. the Colima volcano), has been done using simplified
semi-analytical models (Bonasia et al., 2011). Since semi-analytical
models cannot be applied at large distances or for fine particles and
do not compute airborne concentration, ash hazard maps exist only
for ground loads at proximal and medial distances.
Our simulations for the day April 4th, show that ash cloud was
transported in the east–west directions covering most of the area in
southern Mexico and northern Guatemala. Moreover, the animated
gif file available as online material, shows that on April 5th one section of the cloud moved into the Gulf of Mexico and a column load between 0.01 and 50 tn/km 2 drifted slightly to the south.
On the basis of the reconstruction of the three main phases of the
1982 eruption, we produced hazard maps of tephra fallout associated
to two different Plinian scenarios: one corresponding to the phase A1,
as representative of a VEI ≥ 4 event, and the other taken as the sum of
the three major events of the 1982 eruption, A1 + B + C, as representative of a VEI ≥ 5 scenario. Probability maps for the A1 scenario show
that the 2% probability curve of exceeding a load of 100 kg/m 2, and
300 kg/m 2, at El Chichón, depending on the main wind direction, enclose areas that extend roughly over 4000 km 2 and 2000 km 2 respectively. Whereas for the A1 + B + C scenario, the area having a
probability > 5% of a mass load of 100 kg/m 2 would extend up to an
area of >22,000 km 2 affecting also the capital city of the state of
Tabasco, Villahermosa. For a tephra loading >300 kg/m 2, the probability > 5% involve an area that extends symmetrically east to west, affecting the cities of Villahermosa and Tuxtla Gutiérrez.
It is worth noting that in addition to the damages produced by the
ash deposition, airborne ash can seriously affect aerial navigation (e.g.
Casadevall, 1993; Casadevall, 1994; Miller and Casadevall, 2000;
Folch and Sulpizio, 2010; Folch et al., 2011). The state of Chiapas
has seven airports, three of which international. Amongst them, the
international airport of Tuxtla Gutiérrez has a capacity to handle
350 daily operations and up to 850,000 passengers per year.
Dispersal of plumes from the three major events of the 1982 El
Chichón eruption shows that each event was characterized by ash
dispersal along two principal directions: east-northeast and southsouthwest. The ash cloud dispersion simulation of April 4th shows
that many hours after the beginning of the eruption, 100 tn/km 2 of
ash was still covering a wide area around the vent affecting the
major cities of the state of Chiapas, including Tuxtla Gutiérrez, and
reached also part of Guatemala and Honduras.
Taking into account the increase in air traffic in recent years, the
renewal of the eruptive activity of El Chichón volcano with an eruption of a magnitude similar to that of the 1982 eruption, would
cause a dramatic impact on aerial corridors. To date, long-range ash
hazard from a future explosive eruption of El Chichón is not enclosed
in mitigation plans. The present study, provides ash fallout hazard
maps useful to give support to the risk mitigation strategy, and, in
some way, highlights the urgency to estimate long-range volcanic
ash hazard from the El Chichón volcano, focusing on the potential impact on aerial navigation.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank an anonymous reviewer and
Roberto Sulpizio for constructive reviews of this manuscript. J.L
Macías is also acknowledged for helpful discussions on the eruption
deposits. This work was mainly supported by the CONACYT Project
no. 99486 (Lucia Capra) and the Spanish project ATMOST (CGL200910244). NCEP-reanalysis data were provided by the NOAA/OAR/ESRL
PSD, Boulder, Colorado, USA, from their Web site at http://www.esrl.
noaa.gov/psd/. Reconstruction of the distal deposit and the volcanic
plume dispersion was performed at the MareNostrum supercomputer
(BSC-CBS, Barcelona, Spain) using the parallel version of the FALL3D
code.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at doi:10.
1016/j.jvolgeores.2012.04.006.
References
Baxter, P., 1999. Encyclopedia of volcanoes. Ch Impacts of Eruptions on Human Health.
Academic, San Diego, California, pp. 1035–1043.
Bonasia, R., Capra, L., Costa, A., Macedonio, G., Saucedo, R., 2011. Tephra fallout hazard
assessment for a Plinian eruption scenario at Volcán de Colima (Mexico). Journal of
Volcanology and Geothermal Research 203, 12–22.
Bonasia, R., Macedonio, G., Costa, A., Mele, D., Sulpizio, R., 2010. Numerical inversion
and analysis of tephra fallout deposits from the 472 AD sub-Plinian eruption at Vesuvius (Italy) through a new best-fit procedure. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 189, 238–246. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.11.009.
Bursik, M., 2001. Effect of wind on the rise height of volcanic plumes. Geophysical Research Letters 18, 3621–3624.
Capaccioni, B., Tarán, Y., Tassi, F., Vaselli, O., Mangani, F., Macías, J., 2004. Source conditions and degradation processes of light hydrocarbons in volcanic gases: an example from El Chichón volcano, Chiapas State of Mexico. Chemical Geology 206,
81–96.
Carazzo, G., Kaminski, E., Tait, S., 2006. The route of self-similarity in turbulent jets and
plumes. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 547, 137–148.
Carey, S., Sigurdsson, H., 1986. The 1982 eruptions of El Chichon volcano, Mexico (2):
observations and numerical modelling of tephra-fall distribution. Bulletin of
Volcanology 48, 127–141.
Casadevall, T., 1993. Volcanic hazards and aviation safety, lessons of the past decade.
FAA Aviation Safety Journal 2, 1–11.
Casadevall, T., 1994. Volcanic ash and aviation safety. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Volcanic Ash and Aviation Safety: U. S. Geological Survay
Bullettin, vol. 2047, pp. 1–6.
Compo, G., Whitaker, J., Sardeshmukh, P., 2006. Feasibility of a 100 year reanalysis
using only surface pressure data. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
87, 175–190.
Cornell, W., Carey, S., Sigurdsson, H., 1983. Computer simulation and transport of the
campanian Y-5 ash. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 17, 89–109.
Costa, A., Dell'Erba, F., Di Vito, M., Isaia, R., Macedonio, G., Orsi, G., Pfeiffer, T., 2009.
Tephra fallout hazard assessment at Campi Flegrei caldera (Italy). Bulletin of Volcanology 71 (3), 259–273.
Costa, A., Folch, A., Macedonio, G., 2010. A model for wet aggregation of ash particles in
volcanic plumes and clouds: 1. Theoretical formulation. Journal of Geophysical
Research 115 (B09201).
Costa, A., Macedonio, G., Folch, A., 2006. A three-dimensional Eulerian model for transport and deposition of volcanic ashes. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 241,
634–647.
De la Cruz Reyna, S., Martin Del Pozzo, A., 2009. The 1982 eruption of El Chichón volcano, Mexico: eyewitness of the disaster. Geofísica Internacional 48 (1), 21–31.
Espíndola, J., Macías, J., Tilling, R., Sheridan, M., 2000. Volcanic history of El Chichón
Volcano (Chiapas, Mexico) during the Holocene, and its impact of human activity.
Bulletin of Volcanology 62, 90–104.
Folch, A., Costa, A., Basart, S., 2011. Validation of the FALL3D ash dispersion model using
observations of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull volcanic ash clouds. Atmospheric Environment. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.06.072.
Folch, A., Costa, A., Durant, A., Macedonio, G., 2010. A model for wet aggregation of ash
particles in volcanic plumes and clouds: 2. Model application. Journal of Geophysical Research 115 (B09202).
Folch, A., Costa, A., Macedonio, G., 2009. FALL3D: a computational model for transport
and deposition of volcanic ash. Computers and Geosciences 35 (6), 1334–1342.
Folch, A., Sulpizio, R., 2010. Evaluating long-range volcanic ash hazard using supercomputing facilities: application to Somma-Vesuvius (Italy), and consequences for civil
aviation over the Central Mediterranean area. Bulletin of Volcanology 72,
1039–1059. doi:10.1007/s00445-010-0386-3.
Kalnay, E., Kanamitsu, M., Kister, R., Collins, W., Deaven, D., Gandin, L., Iredell, M., Saha,
S., Woollen, J., Zhu, Y., Chelliah, M., Ebisuzaki, M., Higgins, W., Janowiak, J., Mo, K.,
Ropelewski, C., Wang, J., Leetmaa, A., Reynolds, R., Jenne, R., Jospeh, D., 1996. The
NCEP/NCAR 40-years reanalysis project. Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society 77, 437–470.
Krueger, A., Krotkonov, N., Carn, S., 2008. El Chichón: the genesis of volcanic sulfur dioxide monitoring from space. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research.
doi:10.1016/j.volgeores.2008.02.026.
Luhr, J., 1990. Experimental phase relations of water-and-sulfur saturated arc magmas
and the 1982 eruption of El Chichón volcano. Journal of Petrology 31, 1071–1114.
Luhr, J., 1991. Volcanic shade causes cooling. Nature 354, 104–105.
Luhr, J., Carmichael, I., Varekamp, J., 1984. The 1982 eruption of El Chichón Volcano,
Chiapas, Mexico: mineralogy and petrology of the anhydrite-bearing pumices.
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 23, 69–108.
Author's personal copy
R. Bonasia et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 231–232 (2012) 39–49
Macedonio, G., Costa, A., Folch, A., 2008. Ash fallout at Vesuvius: numerical simulations
and implication for hazard assessment. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal
Research 178, 366–377.
Macedonio, G., Costa, A., Longo, A., 2005. A computer model for volcanic ash fallout and
assessment of subsequent hazard. Computers and Geosciences 31, 837–845.
Macedonio, G., Pareschi, M., Santacroce, R., 1988. A numerical simulation of the Plinian fall
phase of 79 AD eruption of Vesuvius. Journal of Geophysical Research 93, 14817–14827.
Macías, J., Arce, J., Mora, J., Espíndola, J., Saucedo, R., Manetti, P., 2003. The ~ 550 bp
Plinian eruption of El Chichón volcano, Chiapas, Mexico: explosive volcanism
linked to reheating of a magma chamber. Journal of Geophysical Research 108
(B12), 2569.
Macías, J., Capra, L., Arce, J., Espíndola, J., García-Palomo, A., Sheridan, M., 2008. Hazard
map of El Chicón volcano, Chiapas, Mexico: Constraints posed by eruptive history
and computer simulations. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 175,
444–458.
Macías, J., Sheridan, M., Espíndola, J., 1997. Reappraisal of the 1982 eruptions of El
Chichon volcano, Chiapas, Mexico: new data from proximal deposits. Bulletin of
Volcanology 59 (6), 459–471.
Mastin, L., Guffanti, M., Servranckx, R., Webley, P., Barsotti, S., Dean, K., Ewert, J., Neri,
A., Rose, W., Schneider, D., Siebert, L., Stunder, B., Swanson, G., Tupper, A.,
Volentik, A., Waythomas, C., 2009. A multidisciplinary effort to assign realistic
source parameters to models of volcanic ash-cloud transport and dispersion during
eruptions. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 186, 10–21.
Matson, M., 1982. NOAA satellite detection of the El Chichón eruptions and stratospheric clouds: EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union., vol. 63, p. 989.
McCalland, L., Simkin, T., Summers, M., Nielsen, E., Stein, T., 1989. Global Volcanism
1975–1985. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Mendoza-Rosas, A., De la Cruz-Reyna, S., 2008. A statistical method linking geological
and historical eruption time series for volcanic hazard estimations: applications
to active polygenetic volcanoes. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research
176, 277–290.
Miller, T., Casadevall, T., 2000. Volcanic ash hazards to aviation. In: Sigurdsson, H.,
Houghton, B., McNutt, S., Rymes, H., Stix, J. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Volcanoes.
Academic, San Diego, pp. 915–930.
Mülleried, F., 1932. Der Chichón, ein bischer unbekannter tätiger Vulkan im nordlichen Chiapas, Mexiko. Z. Vulkan, XIV, pp. 191–209.
Mülleried, F., 1933. El Chichón, único volcám en actividad descubierto en el estado de
Chiapas. Memorias de la Sociedad Scientifica Antonio Alzate, 54, pp. 411–416.
Pfeiffer, T., Costa, A., Macedonio, G., 2005. A model for the numerical simulation of
tephra fall deposits. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 140, 237–294.
Pollak, J., Ackeman, T., Toon, O., 1982. Influence of the El Chichon Cloud on the Earth's
Radiative Balance: EOS, Trans Am Gephys Union, vol. 63, p. 902.
Rose, W., Bornhorst, J., Halsor, S., Capaul, W., Lumley, S., De la Cruz-Reyna, S., Mena, M.,
Mota, R., 1984. Volcan El Chichón, Mexico: pre-1982 S-rich eruptive activity.
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 23, 147–167.
49
Rose, W., Durant, A., 2009. El Chichón volcano, April 4, 1982: volcanic cloud history and
fine ash fallout. Natural Hazards 51, 363–374.
Rouwet, M., Taran, Y., Varley, N., 2004. Dynamics and mass balance of El Chichón crater
lake, Mexico. Geofisica International 43, 427–434.
Rye, R., Luhr, J., Wasserman, M., 1984. Sulfur and oxygen isotopic systematics of the
1982 eruptions of El Chichón Volcano, Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Volcanology
and Geothermal Research 23, 109–123.
Schneider, D., Rose, W., Coke, L., Bluth, G., 1999. Early evolution of a stratospheric volcanic eruption cloud as observed with TOMS and AVHRR. Journal of Geophysical
Research 104 (D4), 4037–4050.
Scolamacchia, T., Macías, J., 2005. Distribution and stratigraphy of deposits produced by
diluted pyroclastic density currents of the 1982 eruption of El Chichón volcano,
Chiapas, mexico. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas 22 (2), 159–180.
Scolamacchia, T., Macias, J., Sheridan, M., Highes, S., 2005. Morphology of ash aggregates from wet pyroclastic surges of the 1982 eruption of El Chichón Volcano,
Mexico. Bulletin of Volcanology 68, 171–200.
Seftor, C., Hsu, N., Herman, J., Bhartia, P., Torres, O., Rose, W., Schneider, D., Krotkov, N.,
1997. Detection of volcanic ash clouds from Nimbus 7/total ozone mapping spectrometer. Journal of Geophysical Research 102 (D14), 16.749–16.759.
Sigurdsson, H., Carey, S., Espindola, J., 1984. The 1982 eruption of El Chichon volcano,
Mexico: stratigraphy of pyroclastic deposits. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 23, 11–37.
Sparks, R., Bursik, M., Carey, S., Gilbert, J., Glaze, L., Sigurdsson, H., Woods, A., 1997.
Volcanic Plumes. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, U.K.
Spence, R., Kelman, I., Baxter, P., Zuccaro, G., Petrazzuoli, S., 2005. Residential building
and occupant vulnerability to tephra fall. Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Science 5, 477–494. doi:10.5194/nhess-5-477-2005.
Sulpizio, R., Zanella, E., Macías, J., 2008. Deposition temperature of some PDC deposits
from the 1982 eruption of El Chicón volcano (Chiapas, Mexico) inferred from rockmagnetic data. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 175, 494–500.
Suzuki, T., 1983. A theoretical model for dispersion of tephra. In: Shimozuru, D.,
Yokoyama, I. (Eds.), Volcanism: Physics and Tectonics. Terrapub, Tokyo, pp. 95–113.
Tilling, R., 1989. Volcanic hazards and their mitigation: progress and problems.
Reviews of Geophysics 27, 237–269.
Tilling, R., 2009. El Chichon's “surprise” eruption in 1982: Lessons for reducing volcano
risk. Geofísica Internacional 48 (1), 3–19.
Tilling, R., Rubin, M., Sigurdsson, H., Carey, S., Duffield, W., Rose, W., 1984. Prehistoric
eruptive activity of El Chichón volcano, Mexico. Science 224, 747–749.
Varekamp, J., Luhr, J., Prestegaard, K., 1984. The 1982 eruption of El Chichón volcano
(Chiapas, Mexico): character of the eruptions, ash-fall deposits, ang gas phase.
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 23, 39–68.
Wilson, L., Huang, T., 1979. The influence of shape on the atmospheric settling velocity
of volcanic ash particles. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 44, 311–324.