USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70189265

Benchmarking computational fluid dynamics models of lava flow simulation for hazard assessment, forecasting, and risk management

Abstract

Numerical simulations of lava flow emplacement are valuable for assessing lava flow hazards, forecasting active flows, designing flow mitigation measures, interpreting past eruptions, and understanding the controls on lava flow behavior. Existing lava flow models vary in simplifying assumptions, physics, dimensionality, and the degree to which they have been validated against analytical solutions, experiments, and natural observations. In order to assess existing models and guide the development of new codes, we conduct a benchmarking study of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models for lava flow emplacement, including VolcFlow, OpenFOAM, FLOW-3D, COMSOL, and MOLASSES. We model viscous, cooling, and solidifying flows over horizontal planes, sloping surfaces, and into topographic obstacles. We compare model results to physical observations made during well-controlled analogue and molten basalt experiments, and to analytical theory when available. Overall, the models accurately simulate viscous flow with some variability in flow thickness where flows intersect obstacles. OpenFOAM, COMSOL, and FLOW-3D can each reproduce experimental measurements of cooling viscous flows, and OpenFOAM and FLOW-3D simulations with temperature-dependent rheology match results from molten basalt experiments. We assess the goodness-of-fit of the simulation results and the computational cost. Our results guide the selection of numerical simulation codes for different applications, including inferring emplacement conditions of past lava flows, modeling the temporal evolution of ongoing flows during eruption, and probabilistic assessment of lava flow hazard prior to eruption. Finally, we outline potential experiments and desired key observational data from future flows that would extend existing benchmarking data sets.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hannah R. Dietterich, Einat Lev, Jiangzhi Chen, Jacob A. Richardson, Katharine V. Cashman. 2017-05-31. Benchmarking computational fluid dynamics models of lava flow simulation for hazard assessment, forecasting, and risk management. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-017-0061-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Getting the story straight: Common misconceptions around volcanoes and eruptions with case studies of recent events

The ability to rapidly disseminate scientific knowledge across the world has never been greater. This is paralleled by the ability of rumors to spread equally far and fast. Popular misconceptions can take root and, without correction, take on the appearance of facts. Commonly misunderstood topics include those with attention-grabbing phrasing (e.g. “Pacific Ring of Fire”, “supervolcanoes”, or “mega-tsunamis”), the intersection of volcanic research with high-profile science topics (climate or human health), aspirational science goals (eruption forecasts), and basic terminology (volcanic ash versus smoke, or magma “chambers”). In this paper, we describe eighteen misconceptions grouped in six themes (seismology, volcanoes and climate, systems and structures, volcanic hazards, timescales, photographs and footage) commonly encountered by volcanologists who are actively engaging with the public and media both during and between eruptions. Each misconception description is accompanied by takeaway points and summaries of recent research to assist the reader with the information necessary to describe the issues. Finally, we present seven case studies where incorrect information was widely shared and counteracted at well-known volcanoes and recent eruptions at Mount Agung (Bali, Indonesia), Mount Etna (Sicily, Italy), Kīlauea (Hawaii, U.S.A.), Tajogaite (La Palma, Spain), La Soufrière (St. Vincent), Taal Volcano (Philippines), and Yellowstone caldera (U.S.A.). This work is intended to help both volcanologists and non-specialists get the story straight, and to effectively communicate processes and scales of volcanism and volcanic hazards, impacts, and risks.

Journal of Applied Volcanology

Seeing is believing: Livestream video monitoring of Hawaiian eruptions

Livestream video has become a crucial tool for volcano monitoring in recent years, building upon the use of webcam snapshots that have been common for the past two decades. In Hawaii, livestream video was first tested in 2018, and today, livestream video is a vital tool for the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory and partner agencies (National Park Service and Hawaiʻi County Civil Defense) as well as the public. Its role in volcano monitoring has been highlighted by the 2024–present summit eruption of Kīlauea—where three livestream video feeds provide a continuous and easily accessible view of the activity for the public. Here, we describe the methodology and equipment used for the livestream cameras in Hawaii and discuss the benefits and challenges of livestream video monitoring. We show how the nature of livestream video has fundamentally changed volcano monitoring, providing an “up-close” view to the world that was previously limited to observatory field staff. The livestream video feeds, coupled with the historical summit lava fountains, have provided an unprecedented level of engagement with the public, both local and worldwide.

Hawaii

PDCD-DAT: A global database of pyroclastic density current deposit field data

Pyroclastic density currents represent one of the deadliest hazards posed by active volcanoes. Analysis of their deposits provides valuable insights into their internal dynamics and informs numerical simulations of pyroclastic density currents which underpin many volcanic hazard assessments. We present PDCD-DAT, a global database of pyroclastic density current deposit characteristics compiled from peer-reviewed literature. The database includes both quantitative datasets (e.g., grain size, density, bedform dimensions, thickness) and qualitative descriptors (e.g., sedimentary structures, lithofacies). PDCD-DAT includes data from 85 source publications, covering 97 eruptions or eruptive phases, and 214 individual depositional units from 55 globally distributed volcanoes. Eruptions recorded in the database range from VEI 1–8. We highlight examples of potential applications of the database, which include (i) comparison of single deposit case studies to global datasets, (ii) informing input parameters and conditions for numerical and analogue models of pyroclastic density currents, (iii) validation of numerical and analogue models against a wide variety of natural case study deposit architectures, and (iv) estimating hazard impact metrics of pyroclastic density currents from past eruptions. We show that the database represents a useful tool for improving our ability to model pyroclastic density currents, predict their associated hazards, and understand the relationships between the internal dynamics of pyroclastic density currents and the properties of their deposits. PDCD-DAT is integrated with the FlowDat Mass Flow Database, which provides a sustainable platform for the database. We aim for PDCD-DAT to be expanded in the future through addition of pyroclastic density current deposit datasets from new field studies conducted by the volcanology research community.

Journal of Applied Volcanology