USGS Science⌕ Search

Geology topics

Julia P. Griswold

Publications and source records attributed to Julia P. Griswold.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2019

Thermal, deformation, and degassing remote sensing time-series (A.D. 2000-2017) at the 47 most active volcanoes in Latin America: Implications for volcanic systems

Volcanoes are hazardous to local and global populations, but only a fraction are continuously monitored by ground-based sensors. For example, in Latin America, more than 60% of Holocene volcanoes are unmonitored, meaning long-term multi-parameter datasets of volcanic activity are rare and sparse. We use satellite observations of degassing, thermal anomalies, and surface deformation spanning 17 years at 47 of the most active volcanoes in Latin America, and compare these datasets to ground-based observations archived by the Global Volcanism Program (GVP). This first comparison of multi-satellite time-series on a regional scale provides information regarding volcanic behavior during, non-, pre-, syn- and post-eruptive periods. For example, at Copahue volcano, deviations from background activity in all three types of satellite measurements were manifested months to years in advance of renewed eruptive activity in 2012. By quantifying the amount of degassing, thermal output, and deformation measured at each of these volcanoes, we test the classification of these volcanoes as open or closed volcanic systems. We find that ~28% of the volcanoes do not fall into either classification and the rest show elements of both, demonstrating a dynamic range of behavior that can change over time. Finally, we recommend how volcano monitoring could be improved through better coordination of available satellite-based capabilities and new instruments.

Journal of Geophysical Research↗
USGS2019

Construction of probabilistic event trees for eruption forecasting at Sinabung volcano, Indonesia 2013–14

Eruptions of Sinabung volcano , Indonesia have been ongoing since 2013. Since that time, the character of eruptions has changed, from phreatic to phreatomagmatic to magmatic explosive eruptions, and from production of a lava dome that collapsed to a subsequent thick lava flow that slowly ceased to be active, and later, to a new lava dome. As the eruption progressed, event trees were constructed to forecast eruptive behavior six times, with forecast windows that ranged from 2 weeks to 1 year: November 7–10, December 12–14, and December 27, 2013; and January 9–10, May 13, and October 7, 2014. These event trees were successful in helping to frame the forecast scenarios, to collate current monitoring information, and to document outstanding questions and unknowns. The highest probability forecasts closely matched outcomes of eruption size (including extrusion of the first dome), production of pyroclastic density currents, and pyroclastic density current runout distances. Events assigned low probabilities also occurred, including total collapse of the lava dome in January 2014 and production of a small blast pyroclastic density current in February 2014.

Sinabung volcano↗
USGS2019

Monitoring, forecasting collapse events, and mapping pyroclastic deposits at Sinabung volcano with satellite imagery

During the ongoing (2013–present) eruption of Sinabung volcano, north Sumatra, we have routinely used a variety of satellite remote sensing data to observe and forecast lava dome and lava flow collapse events, to map the resulting pyroclastic deposits, and to estimate effusion rates. In this paper, we focus on the first two years of the current eruption (September 2013–December 2015), and we summarize major events in 2016. We divide the eruption into 5 major phases: 1) phreatomagmatic (July 2013–18 December 2013), 2) first dome growth and collapse (18 December 2013–10 January 2014), 3) lava-flow (10 January 2014–mid-September 2014), 4) second lava dome and collapse (mid-September 2014–July 2015), 5) lava dome collapse and ash explosion phase (August 2015–present). Throughout the eruption, remotely sensed information has been instrumental in assessing the stability of the lava dome and flow and to forecast collapse events that produce pyroclastic density currents (PDCs: block-and-ash flows, co-ignimbrite surges, and blasts). Forecasts based on remote sensing data in combination with seismic, geodetic and gas-monitoring data have also helped inform decisions related to alert levels and evacuations. Relatively unusual aspects of the Sinabung eruption include the transition from dome to flow morphology (phase 2 to phase 3 transition) and the frequent occurrence during phase 3 of collapses from the lava flow-front and flow-margins—collapses that produced extensive pyroclastic density currents. By analogy to the well-known “Merapi type” collapses and pyroclastic deposits, we propose that lava flow-front and flow-margin collapses with associated PDCs be known as “Sinabung type.” Although detailed study of deposits has not been possible due to continuing hazards, our observations suggest that the transition from lava dome to lava flow and the occurrence of flow-front and flow-margin collapses reflect a particular combination of lava viscosity and steepness of slope. Our observations also show clear evidence of at least one slope-parallel high-velocity and dilute PDC (a “blast”) that emanated from a lava-margin collapse site 500 m downslope from the vent. This 1 February 2014 blast downed and singed a forest out to at least 3.9 km from the collapse site and killed 16 people. We also use a combination of field and remotely sensed data to map the distribution of Sinabung deposits. We estimate eruptive volumes and extrusion rates by combining sequential measurements of lava surface and pyroclastic flow areas with thickness estimates derived from simple geometric assumptions, oblique photographs and Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) derived from remotely sensed data. Our estimates of short-term effusion rates vary widely on a daily to weekly basis, from <1 to >20 m 3 s −1 . In a few cases, periods of increased extrusion precede lava flow-front collapses by a few days to a week, suggesting delays in transmittance of effusion pulses as lava moves from vent to flow front. We find that, as of 1 January 2016, the total area of deposits is 10 7 m 2 , and their approximate deposit volume is about 0.3 km 3 , equivalent to 0.2 km 3 Dense Rock Equivalent (DRE). We anticipate that our deposit maps will be valuable in the future as a framework for the study of the magmatic and textural evolution of eruptive products through time.

Sinabung volcano↗
USGS2018

Modeled inundation limits of potential lahars from Mount Adams in the White Salmon River Valley, Washington

Lahars large enough to reach populated areas are a hazard at Mount Adams, a massive volcano in the southern Cascade Range of Washington State (fig. 1). It is considered to be still active and has the potential to erupt again. By definition, lahars are gravity-driven flows of water-saturated mixtures of mud and rock (plus or minus ice, wood, and other debris), which originate from volcanoes and have a variety of potential triggering mechanisms (Vallance, 2000; Vallance and Iverson, 2015). Flowing mixtures can range in fluid consistency from something like a milkshake to something more like wet concrete, and they behave like flash floods, in that they can appear suddenly in river channels with little warning and commonly have boulder- or log-choked flow fronts. Lahars are hazardous because they can flow rapidly in confined valleys (commonly 20–35 miles per hour [mph] or 9–16 meters per second [m/s]), can travel more than 100 miles (mi) (161 kilometers [km]) from a source volcano, and can move with incredible destructive force, carrying multi-ton boulders and logs that can act as battering rams (Pierson, 1998). The biggest threats from lahars to downstream communities are present during eruptive activity, and impacts to communities can be dire. For example, a very large eruption-triggered lahar in Colombia in 1985 surprised and killed more than 20,000 people in a large town located about 45 mi (72 km) downstream and out of sight of the volcano that produced it (Pierson and others, 1990). Mount Adams, one of the largest volcanoes in the Cascade Range, is a composite stratocone composed primarily of andesite lava flows. It has been the most continuously active volcano within the 480-mi 2 Mount Adams volcanic field—a region covering parts of Klickitat, Skamania, Yakima, andLewis Counties and part of the Yakama Nation Reservation in Washington State (Hildreth and Fierstein,1995, 1997). About 500,000 years in age, Mount Adams reached its present size by about 15,000 years ago, primarily through the episodic effusion of lava flows; it has not had a history of major explosive eruptions like Mount St. Helens, its neighbor to the west. Timing of the most recent eruptive activity (recorded by four thin tephra layers) is on the order of 1,000 years ago; the tephras are bracketed by 2,500-year-old and 500-year-old ash layers from Mount St. Helens (Hildreth and Fierstein, 1995, 1997). Mount Adams currently shows no signs of renewed unrest. Eruptive history does not tell us everything we need to know about hazards at Mount Adams, however, which are fully addressed in the volcano hazard assessment for Mount Adams (W.E. Scott and others, 1995). This volcano has had a long-active hydrothermal system that circulated acidic hydrothermal fluids, formed by the solution of volcanic gases in heated groundwater, through fractures and permeable zones into upper parts of the volcanic cone. Acid sulfate leaching of rocks in the summit area may still be occurring, but chemical and thermal evidence suggests that the main hydrothermal system is no longer active at Mount Adams (Nathenson and Mariner, 2013). However, these rock-weakening chemical reactions have operated long enough to change about 0.4 cubic miles (mi 3 ) (1.7 cubic kilometers [km 3 ]) of the hard lava rock in the volcano’s upper cone to a much weaker clay-rich rock, thus significantly reducing rock strength and thereby slope stability in parts of the cone (Finn and others, 2007). The two largest previous lahars from Mount Adams were triggered by landslides of hydrothermally altered rock from the upper southwestern flank of the cone, and any future large lahars are likely to be triggered by the same mechanism. Mount Rainier also has had extensive hydrothermal alteration of rock in its upper edifice, and it also has a history of large landslides that transform into lahars (K.M. Scott and others, 1995; Vallance and Scott, 1997; Reid and others, 2001). The spatial depiction of modeled lahar inundation zones accompanying this report, shown in two different map perspectives, is intended to augment (not replace) the existing hazard maps for Mount Adams (W.E. Scott and others, 1995; Vallance, 1999). The maps in this report show potential areas of inundation by lahars of different initial volumes, which are determined by a computer model, LAHARZ (Iverson and others, 1998; Schilling, 1998). One map sheet presents LAHARZ-determined inundation areas on a normal plan-view shaded-relief map of the study area; the other gives an oblique perspective of the landscape with raised topography, as if one were viewing the landscape at an angle from an aircraft (Jenny and Patterson, 2007). LAHARZ was developed after the original hazard maps (based only on mapping of geologic deposits) were made. Predicted inundation zones on these maps provide an alternative approach to estimation of areas that could be inundated as lahars of different volumes pass through the valley. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the exact location of the hazard-zone boundaries shown on these maps, as well as on earlier maps.

Washington↗
USGS2013

The Chaitén rhyolite lava dome: Eruption sequence, lava dome volumes, rapid effusion rates and source of the rhyolite magma

We use geologic field mapping and sampling, photogrammetric analysis of oblique aerial photographs, and digital elevation models to document the 2008-2009 eruptive sequence at Chaitén Volcano and to estimate volumes and effusion rates for the lava dome. We also present geochemical and petrologic data that contribute to understanding the source of the rhyolite and its unusually rapid effusion rates. The eruption consisted of five major phases: 1. An explosive phase (1-11 May 2008); 2. A transitional phase (11-31 May 2008) in which low-altitude tephra columns and simultaneous lava extrusion took place; 3. An exogenous lava flow phase (June-September 2008); 4. A spine extrusion and endogenous growth phase (October 2008-February 2009); and 5. A mainly endogenous growth phase that began after the collapse of a prominent Peléean spine on 19 February 2009 and continued until the end of the eruption (late 2009 or possibly earliest 2010). The 2008-2009 rhyolite lava dome has a total volume of approximately 0.8 km3. The effusion rate averaged 66 m3s-1 during the first two weeks and averaged 45 m3s-1 for the first four months of the eruption, during which 0.5 km3 of rhyolite lava was erupted. These are among the highest rates measured world-wide for historical eruptions of silicic lava. Chaitén’s 2008-2009 lava is phenocryst-poor obsidian and microcrystalline rhyolite with 75.3±0.3% SiO2. The lava was erupted at relatively high temperature and is remarkably similar in composition and petrography to Chaitén’s pre-historic rhyolite. The rhyolite’s normative composition plots close to that of low pressure (100-200 MPa) minimum melts in the granite system, consistent with estimates of approximately 5 to 10 km source depths based on phase equilibria and geodetic studies. Calcic plagioclase, magnesian orthopyroxene and aluminous amphibole among the sparse phenocrysts suggest derivation of the rhyolite by melt extraction from a more mafic magmatic mush. High temperature and relatively low viscosity enabled rapid magma ascent and high effusion rates during the dome-forming phases of the 2008-2009 eruption.

Chaitén Volcano↗
USGS2013

Merapi 2010 eruption—Chronology and extrusion rates monitored with satellite radar and used in eruption forecasting

Despite dense cloud cover, satellite-borne commercial Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) enabled frequent monitoring of Merapi volcano's 2010 eruption. Near-real-time interpretation of images derived from the amplitude of the SAR signals and timely delivery of these interpretations to those responsible for warnings, allowed satellite remote sensing for the first time to play an equal role with in situ seismic, geodetic and gas monitoring in guiding life-saving decisions during a major volcanic crisis. Our remotely sensed data provide an observational chronology for the main phase of the 2010 eruption, which lasted 12 days (26 October–7 November, 2010). Unlike the prolonged low-rate and relatively low explosivity dome-forming and collapse eruptions of recent decades at Merapi, the eruption began with an explosive eruption that produced a new summit crater on 26 October and was accompanied by an ash column and pyroclastic flows that extended 8 km down the flanks. This initial explosive event was followed by smaller explosive eruptions on 29 October–1 November, then by a period of rapid dome growth on 1–4 November, which produced a summit lava dome with a volume of ~ 5 × 10 6 m 3 . A paroxysmal VEI 4 magmatic eruption (with ash column to 17 km altitude) destroyed this dome, greatly enlarged the new summit crater and produced extensive pyroclastic flows (to ~ 16 km radial distance in the Gendol drainage) and surges during the night of 4–5 November. The paroxysmal eruption was followed by a period of jetting of gas and tephra and by a second short period (12 h) of rapid dome growth on 6 November. The eruption ended with low-level ash and steam emissions that buried the 6 November dome with tephra and continued at low levels until seismicity decreased to background levels by about 23 November. Our near-real-time commercial SAR documented the explosive events on 26 October and 4–5 November and high rates of dome growth (> 25 m 3 s − 1 ). An event tree analysis for the previous 2006 Merapi eruption indicated that for lava dome extrusion rates > 1.2 m 3 s − 1 , the probability of a large (1872-scale) eruption was ~ 10%. Consequently, the order-of-magnitude greater rates in 2010, along with the explosive start of the eruption on 26 October, the large volume of lava accumulating at the summit by 4 November, and the rapid and large increases in seismic energy release, deformation and gas emissions were the basis for warnings of an unusually large eruption by the Indonesian Geological Agency's Center for Volcanology and Geologic Hazard Mitigation (CVGHM) and their Volcano Research and Technology Development Center (BPPTK) in Yogyakarta — warnings that saved thousands of lives.

Merapi Volcano↗
USGS2012

Recent explosive eruptions and volcano hazards at Soputan volcano—a basalt stratovolcano in north Sulawesi, Indonesia

Soputan is a high-alumina basalt stratovolcano located in the active North Sulawesi-Sangihe Islands magmatic arc. Although immediately adjacent to the still geothermally active Quaternary Tondono Caldera, Soputan’s magmas are geochemically distinct from those of the caldera and from other magmas in the arc. Unusual for a basalt volcano, Soputan produces summit lava domes and explosive eruptions with high-altitude ash plumes and pyroclastic flows—eight explosive eruptions during the period 2003–2011. Our field observations, remote sensing, gas emission, seismic, and petrologic analyses indicate that Soputan is an open-vent-type volcano that taps basalt magma derived from the arc-mantle wedge, accumulated and fractionated in a deep-crustal reservoir and transported slowly or staged at shallow levels prior to eruption. A combination of high phenocryst content, extensive microlite crystallization and separation of a gas phase at shallow levels results in a highly viscous basalt magma and explosive eruptive style. The open-vent structure and frequent eruptions indicate that Soputan will likely erupt again in the next decade, perhaps repeatedly. Explosive eruptions in the Volcano Explosivity Index (VEI) 2–3 range and lava dome growth are most probable, with a small chance of larger VEI 4 eruptions. A rapid ramp up in seismicity preceding the recent eruptions suggests that future eruptions may have no more than a few days of seismic warning. Risk to population in the region is currently greatest for villages located on the southern and western flanks of the volcano where flow deposits are directed by topography. In addition, Soputan’s explosive eruptions produce high-altitude ash clouds that pose a risk to air traffic in the region.

Bulletin of Volcanology↗
USGS2012

The 2010 explosive eruption of Java's Merapi volcano—A ‘100-year’ event

Merapi volcano (Indonesia) is one of the most active and hazardous volcanoes in the world. It is known for frequent small to moderate eruptions, pyroclastic flows produced by lava dome collapse, and the large population settled on and around the flanks of the volcano that is at risk. Its usual behavior for the last decades abruptly changed in late October and early November 2010, when the volcano produced its largest and most explosive eruptions in more than a century, displacing at least a third of a million people, and claiming nearly 400 lives. Despite the challenges involved in forecasting this ‘hundred year eruption’, we show that the magnitude of precursory signals (seismicity, ground deformation, gas emissions) was proportional to the large size and intensity of the eruption. In addition and for the first time, near-real-time satellite radar imagery played an equal role with seismic, geodetic, and gas observations in monitoring eruptive activity during a major volcanic crisis. The Indonesian Center of Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation (CVGHM) issued timely forecasts of the magnitude of the eruption phases, saving 10,000–20,000 lives. In addition to reporting on aspects of the crisis management, we report the first synthesis of scientific observations of the eruption. Our monitoring and petrologic data show that the 2010 eruption was fed by rapid ascent of magma from depths ranging from 5 to 30 km. Magma reached the surface with variable gas content resulting in alternating explosive and rapid effusive eruptions, and released a total of ~ 0.44 Tg of SO 2 . The eruptive behavior seems also related to the seismicity along a tectonic fault more than 40 km from the volcano, highlighting both the complex stress pattern of the Merapi region of Java and the role of magmatic pressurization in activating regional faults. We suggest a dynamic triggering of the main explosions on 3 and 4 November by the passing seismic waves generated by regional earthquakes on these days.

Merapi volcano↗
USGS2008

Mobility statistics and automated hazard mapping for debris flows and rock avalanches

Power-law equations that are physically motivated and statistically tested and calibrated provide a basis for forecasting areas likely to be inundated by debris flows, rock avalanches, and lahars with diverse volumes. The equations A=α 1 V 2/3 and B=α 2 V 2/3 are based on the postulate that the maximum valley cross-sectional area (A) and total valley planimetric area (B) likely to be inundated by a flow depend only on its volume (V) and the topography of the flow path. Testing of these equations involves determining whether or not they fit data for documented flows satisfactorily, and calibration entails determining best-fit values of the coefficients α 1 and α 2 for debris flows, rock avalanches, and lahars. This report describes statistical testing and calibration of the equations by using field data compiled from many sources, and it describes application of the equations to delineation of debris-flow hazard zones. Statistical results show that for each type of flow (debris flows, rock avalanches, and lahars), the dependence of A and B on V is described well by power laws with exponents equal to 2/3. This value of the exponent produces fits that are effectively indistinguishable from the best fits obtained by using adjustable power-law exponents. Statistically calibrated values of the coefficients α 1 and α 2 provide scale-invariant indices of the relative mobilities of rock avalanches (α 1 = 0.2, α 2 = 20), nonvolcanic debris flows (α 1 = 0.1, α 2 = 20), and lahars (α 1 = 0.05, α 2 = 200). These values show, for example, that a lahar of specified volume can be expected to inundate a planimetric area ten times larger than that inundated by a rock avalanche or nonvolcanic debris flow of the same volume. The utility of the calibrated debris-flow inundation equations A=0.1V 2/3 and B=20V 2/3 is demonstrated by using them within the GIS program LAHARZ to delineate nested hazard zones for future debris flows in an area bordering the Umpqua River in the south-central Oregon Coast Range. This application requires use of high-resolution topographic data derived form LIDAR surveys, knowledge of local geology to specify a suitable range of prospective debris-flow volumes, and development and use of a new algorithm for identification of prospective debris-flow source areas in finely dissected terrain.

Oregon↗