Hazards of Large Volcanic Debris Avalanches and Associated Eruptive Phenomena

Siebert, Lee

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-80087-0_16

Cited by 68 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For the historical period (∼ 300 years), these sites have experienced volcanic influence only by minor ashfalls and minor flooding in outermost suburbs. Collapses of high, steep volcanoes can produce very mobile and hazardous debris avalanches (Siebert, 1984(Siebert, , 1996, which may bury an area under thick cover of debris and may change river drainages (as in Waythomas, 2001). Prediction of collapses on Kliuchevskoi, Avachinsky and Koriaksky highlights the importance of closer studies of their structure and stability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Kamchatka, preHolocene collapse(s) on Shiveluch are matched in scale only by Late Pleistocene collapses of Avachinsky volcano (see below). Worldwide most reported subaerial collapses of similar volumes also occurred in Late Pleistocene (Siebert, 1996;Siebert et al, 2004), while Holocene collapses tend to be under 10 km 3 (McGuire, 1996). Note: Holocene debris avalanche deposits, their numbers and ages according to Ponomareva et al (1998) with minor later corrections.…”

Section: Volcanoes Of the Central Kamchatka Depressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sector collapses and large landslides on Late Pleistocene–Holocene volcanoes in Kamchatka, Russia

Пономарева

Мелекесцев

Dirksen

2006

Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On Kamchatka, detailed geologic and geomorphologic mapping of young volcanic terrains and observations on historical eruptions reveal that landslides of various scales, from small (0.001 km 3 ) to catastrophic (up to 20-30 km 3 ), are widespread. Moreover, these processes are among the most effective and most rapid geomorphic agents. Of 30 recently active Kamchatka volcanoes, at least 18 have experienced sector collapses, some of them repetitively. The largest sector collapses identified so far on Kamchatka volcanoes, with volumes of 20-30 km 3 of resulting debris-avalanche deposits, occurred at Shiveluch and Avachinsky volcanoes in the Late Pleistocene. During the last 10,000 yr the most voluminous sector collapses have occurred on extinct Kamen' (4-6 km 3 ) and active Kambalny (5-10 km 3 ) volcanoes. The largest number of repetitive debris avalanches (> 10 during just the Holocene) has occurred at Shiveluch volcano. Landslides from the volcanoes cut by ring-faults of the large collapse calderas were ubiquitous. Large failures have happened on both mafic and silicic volcanoes, mostly related to volcanic activity. Orientation of collapse craters is controlled by local tectonic stress fields rather than regional fault systems.Specific features of some debris avalanche deposits are toreva blocks -huge almost intact fragments of volcanic edifices involved in the failure; some have been erroneously mapped as individual volcanoes. One of the largest toreva blocks is Mt. Monastyr' -a ∼ 2 km 3 piece of Avachinsky Somma involved in a major sector collapse 30-40 ka BP.Long-term forecast of sector collapses on Kliuchevskoi, Koriaksky, Young Cone of Avachinsky and some other volcanoes highlights the importance of closer studies of their structure and stability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Volcanoes Of the Central Kamchatka Depressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sector collapses and large landslides on Late Pleistocene–Holocene volcanoes in Kamchatka, Russia

Пономарева

Мелекесцев

Dirksen

2006

Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Minimum values of H/L ratios for lahars in combination with debris avalanches (corresponding to a maximum runout distance) based on empirical data have been proposed and range from about b 0.02 to 0.1 (e.g. Crandell, 1989;Siebert, 1996;Scott et al, 2001). However, for lahars the definition of a minimum H/L ratio is considerably complicated by processes such as flow transformation.…”

Section: Runout Component Of Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of ASTER and SRTM DEM data for lahar modeling: A case study on lahars from Popocatépetl Volcano, Mexico

Huggel

Schneider

Miranda

et al. 2008

Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lahars are among the most serious and far-reaching volcanic hazards. In regions with potential interactions of lahars with populated areas and human structures the assessment of the related hazards is crucial for undertaking appropriate mitigating actions and reduce the associated risks. Modeling of lahars has become an important tool in such assessments, in particular where the geologic record of past events is insufficient. Mass-flow modeling strongly relies on digital terrain data. Availability of digital elevation models (DEMs), however, is often limited and thus an obstacle to lahar modeling. Remote-sensing technology has now opened new perspectives in generating DEMs. In this study, we evaluate the feasibility of DEMs derived from the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) and the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) for lahar modeling on Popocatépetl Volcano, Mexico. Two GIS-based models are used for lahar modeling, LAHARZ and a flow-routing-based debris-flow model (modified single-flow direction model, MSF), both predicting areas potentially affected by lahars. Results of the lahar modeling show that both the ASTER and SRTM DEMs are basically suitable for use with LAHARZ and MSF. Flow-path prediction is found to be more reliable with SRTM data, though with a coarser spatial resolution. Errors of the ASTER DEM affecting the prediction of flow paths due to the sensor geometry are associated with deeply incised gorges with north-facing slopes. LAHARZ is more sensitive to errors of the ASTER DEM than the MSF model. Lahar modeling with the ASTER DEM results in a more finely spaced predicted inundation area but does not add any significant information in comparison with the SRTM DEM. Lahars at Popocatépetl are modeled with volumes of 1 × 10 5 to 8 × 10 6 m 3 based on ice-melt scenarios of the glaciers on top of the volcano and data on recent and historical lahar events. As regards recently observed lahars, the travel distance of lahars of corresponding volume modeled with LAHARZ falls short by 2 to 4 km. An important finding is that the travel distance of potential lahar events modeled with LAHARZ may differ by about 2 km when using SRTM or ASTER data because of varying lateral flow-volume distribution. As a consequence, verification and sensitivity analysis of the DEM is fundamental to deriving hazard maps from predicted modeled inundation areas. Because of the global coverage of this type of remote-sensing data, the conclusion that both SRTM and ASTER-derived DEMs are feasible for lahar modeling opens a wide field of application in volcanic-hazards studies.

show abstract

“…Evaluation of known cases of large-scale failures on volcanoes throughout the world (Voight et al 1981(Voight et al , 1983Ui 1983;Siebert 1984Siebert , 1996Francis and Wells 1988;Moore et al 1989;Siebe et al 1992;Voight and Sousa 1994;Belousov 1995Belousov , 1996Belousov and Belousova 1996) shows that failure can occur, given the right combination of circumstances, at almost any reasonably high volcanic edifice. Structural factors, such as steep dip slopes with interbedded fractured lava flows and unconsolidated pyroclastic materials, high water tables, extensive hydrothermal alteration in areas surrounding the central conduit, and abnormal pore-fluid pressures, are recognised as significant factors (Voight et al 1981(Voight et al , 1983Siebert 1984Siebert , 1996Voight and Elsworth 1997).…”

Section: Primary Causes Of Edifice Collapsementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Structural factors, such as steep dip slopes with interbedded fractured lava flows and unconsolidated pyroclastic materials, high water tables, extensive hydrothermal alteration in areas surrounding the central conduit, and abnormal pore-fluid pressures, are recognised as significant factors (Voight et al 1981(Voight et al , 1983Siebert 1984Siebert , 1996Voight and Elsworth 1997). Most high volcanic edifices appear relatively weak in general, but relative weakness alone is insufficient for large-scale failure.…”

Section: Primary Causes Of Edifice Collapsementioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple edifice failures, debris avalanches and associated eruptions in the Holocene history of Shiveluch volcano, Kamchatka, Russia

Belousov

Belousova

Voight

1999

Bulletin of Volcanology

164

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigation of well-exposed volcaniclastic deposits of Shiveluch volcano indicates that large-scale failures have occurred at least eight times in its history: approximately 10,000, 5700, 3700, 2600, 1600, 1000, 600 14 C BP and 1964 AD. The volcano was stable during the Late Pleistocene, when a large cone was formed (Old Shiveluch), and became unstable in the Holocene when repetitive collapses of a portion of the edifice (Young Shiveluch) generated debris avalanches. The transition in stability was connected with a change in composition of the erupting magma (increased SiO 2 from ca. 55-56% to 60-62%) that resulted in an abrupt increase of viscosity and the production of lava domes. Each failure was triggered by a disturbance of the volcanic edifice related to the ascent of a new batch of viscous magma. The failures occurred before magma intruded into the upper part of the edifice, suggesting that the trigger mechanism was indirectly associated with magma and involved shaking by a moderate to large volcanic earthquake and/or enhancement of edifice pore pressure due to pressurised juvenile gas. The failures typically included: (a) a retrogressive landslide involving backward rotation of slide blocks; (b) fragmentation of the leading blocks and their transformation into a debris avalanche, while the trailing slide blocks decelerate and soon come to rest; and (c) longdistance runout of the avalanche as a transient wave of debris with yield strength that glides on a thin weak layer of mixed facies developed at the avalanche base. All the failures of Young Shiveluch were immediately followed by explosive eruptions that developed along a similar pattern. The slope failure was the first event, followed by a plinian eruption accompanied by partial fountain collapse and the emplacement of pumice flows. In several cases the slope failure depressurised the hydrothermal system to cause phreatic explosions that preceded the magmatic eruption. The collapse-induced plinian eruptions were moderate-sized and ordinary events in the history of the volcano. No evidence for directed blasts was found associated with any of the slope failures.

show abstract

Hazards of Large Volcanic Debris Avalanches and Associated Eruptive Phenomena

Cited by 68 publications

References 79 publications

Sector collapses and large landslides on Late Pleistocene–Holocene volcanoes in Kamchatka, Russia

Sector collapses and large landslides on Late Pleistocene–Holocene volcanoes in Kamchatka, Russia

Evaluation of ASTER and SRTM DEM data for lahar modeling: A case study on lahars from Popocatépetl Volcano, Mexico

Multiple edifice failures, debris avalanches and associated eruptions in the Holocene history of Shiveluch volcano, Kamchatka, Russia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About