Geology topics

Sarah E. Ogburn

Publications and source records attributed to Sarah E. Ogburn.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

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↗

USGS2023

The diversity of volcanic hazard maps around the world: Insights from map makers

The IAVCEI Working Group on Hazard Mapping has been active since 2014 and has facilitated several activities to enable sharing of experiences of how volcanic hazard maps are developed and used around the world. One key activity was a global survey of 90 map makers and practitioners to collect data about official, published volcanic hazard maps and how they were developed. The survey asked questions about map content, design, and input data, as well as about the map development process and key lessons learned. Here we present the results of this global survey, which are then used to quantitatively describe and summarise current practices in volcanic hazard map development. We received entries related to 89 volcanic hazard maps (78% long-term/background maps and 22% short-term/crisis hazard maps), covering a total of 80 volcanoes across 28 countries. Although most maps captured in the survey are volcano-scale maps of stratovolcanoes that show similar types of content, such as primary hazard footprints or zones, they vary greatly in input data, communication style, format, appearance, scale, content, and visual design. This diversity stems from a range of factors, including differences in map purpose, the methodology used, the level of understanding of past eruptive history, the prevailing scientific and cartographic practice at the time, the state of volcanic activity, and variations in culture, national map standards and legal requirements. Experiences and lessons shared by our respondents can be divided into six main themes: map design considerations; the process of map development; map audience and map user needs; hazard assessment approach; map availability and accessibility; and external (e.g., political) influences. Insights shared included the importance of: visual design elements, map testing and evaluation, working with stakeholders and end users to improve a map’s efficacy and relevance, and considering possible unanticipated uses of hazard maps. These free-form text insights (i.e., responses to open-ended questions) from map makers and practitioners familiar with the maps lend depth and clarity to our results. They provide a rich complement to our more quantitative analysis of design elements and of approaches used to determine and delineate map zones. Results from our global survey of hazard map makers and practitioners, together with insights from other key initiatives of the Working Group on Hazard Mapping such as the Volcanic Hazard Maps Database (VHMD; https://volcanichazardmaps.org/ ), provide a snapshot of the wide variety of volcanic hazard maps generated over the past decades, and improve our understanding of the diversity across volcanic hazard mapping practices. These initiatives represent important steps towards fulfilling the aims of the Working Group, namely, to construct a framework for a classification scheme for volcanic hazard maps and to promote harmonized terminology, as well as to identify and categorise good practices and considerations for volcanic hazard mapping.

Journal of Applied Volcanology↗

USGS2023

The Volcanic Hazard Maps Database: An initiative of the IAVCEI Commission on Volcanic Hazards and Risk

In this work we present the International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth’s Interior (IAVCEI) Commission on Volcanic Hazards and Risk (CVHR) Volcanic Hazard Maps Database and the accompanying volcanichazardmaps.org website. Using input from a series of IAVCEI CVHR Working Group on Hazard Mapping workshops, we developed a classification scheme and terminology framework for categorizing, discussing, naming, and searching for hazard maps. ≥ The database and website aim to serve as a resource for the volcanology community to explore how different aspects of hazard map development and design have been addressed in different countries, for different hazard processes, and for different intended purposes and audiences. Additionally, they act as a tool for presenting hazard map options to stakeholder groups and serve as a learning resource that can be incorporated into educational materials and training courses. In this work, we present the database and website, discuss the classification scheme, explore the enormous diversity of hazard maps, and suggest ways that the database and website can be used by the volcanic hazard mapping community.

Journal of Applied Volcanology↗

USGS2021

Indicators of volcanic eruptions revealed by global M4+ earthquakes

Determining whether seismicity near volcanoes is due primarily to tectonic or magmatic processes is a challenging but critical endeavor for volcanic eruption forecasting and detection, especially at poorly monitored volcanoes. Global statistics on the occurrence and timing of earthquakes near volcanoes both within and outside of eruptive periods reveal patterns in eruptive seismicity that may improve our ability to discern magmatically driven seismicity from purely tectonic seismicity. In this paper, we catalog magnitude four and greater (M4+) earthquakes near volcanoes globally and compute statistics on their occurrence with respect to various eruptive and volcanic attributes, evaluating their utility as diagnostic indicators of eruptions. Using a 2‐week time window and a 30 km radius around the volcanoes, we find that 11% of eruptions are preceded by at least one M4+ earthquake, but only 1% of such earthquakes is followed by eruption. However, earthquakes located 5–15 km from the volcano, those with normal faulting mechanisms and/or large nondouble‐couple components, and those occurring as groups are more commonly associated with eruptions, providing significant forecasting utility in some cases. Similarly, certain volcanoes are more likely to exhibit such precursors, such as those with long repose periods. We illustrate the use of these data in eruption forecasting scenarios, including rapid identification of analogous earthquake sequences at other volcanoes. When integrated within the context of multiparametric, multidisciplinary probabilistic assessments of volcanic activity, global earthquake statistics can improve eruption forecasts, and our work provides a model for use on other rapidly expanding global volcanological databases.

Journal of Geophysical Research↗

USGS2020

Volcanic hazard assessment for an eruption hiatus, or post-eruption unrest context: Modeling continued dome collapse hazards for Soufrière Hills Volcano

Effective volcanic hazard management in regions where populations live in close proximity to persistent volcanic activity involves understanding the dynamic nature of hazards, and associated risk. Emphasis until now has been placed on identification and forecasting of the escalation phase of activity, in order to provide adequate warning of what might be to come. However, understanding eruption hiatus and post-eruption unrest hazards, or how to quantify residual hazard after the end of an eruption, is also important and often key to timely post-eruption recovery. Unfortunately, in many cases when the level of activity lessens, the hazards, although reduced, do not necessarily cease altogether. This is due to both the imprecise nature of determination of the “end” of an eruptive phase as well as to the possibility that post-eruption hazardous processes may continue to occur. An example of the latter is continued dome collapse hazard from lava domes which have ceased to grow, or sector collapse of parts of volcanic edifices, including lava dome complexes. We present a new probabilistic model for forecasting pyroclastic density currents (PDCs) from lava dome collapse that takes into account the heavy-tailed distribution of the lengths of eruptive phases, the periods of quiescence, and the forecast window of interest. In the hazard analysis, we also consider probabilistic scenario models describing the flow’s volume and initial direction. Further, with the use of statistical emulators, we combine these models with physics-based simulations of PDCs at Soufrière Hills Volcano to produce a series of probabilistic hazard maps for flow inundation over 5, 10, and 20 year periods. The development and application of this assessment approach is the first of its kind for the quantification of periods of diminished volcanic activity. As such, it offers evidence-based guidance for dome collapse hazards that can be used to inform decision-making around provisions of access and reoccupation in areas around volcanoes that are becoming less active over time.

Soufrière Hills Volcano↗

USGS2019

The 2017-19 activity at Mount Agung in Bali (Indonesia): Intense unrest, monitoring, crisis response, evacuation, and eruption

After 53 years of quiescence, Mount Agung awoke in August 2017, with intense seismicity, measurable ground deformation, and thermal anomalies in the summit crater. Although the seismic unrest peaked in late September and early October, the volcano did not start erupting until 21 November. The most intense explosive eruptions with accompanying rapid lava effusion occurred between 25 and 29 November. Smaller infrequent explosions and extrusions continue through the present (June 2019). The delay between intense unrest and eruption caused considerable challenges to emergency responders, local and national governmental agencies, and the population of Bali near the volcano, including over 140,000 evacuees. This paper provides an overview of the volcanic activity at Mount Agung from the viewpoint of the volcano observatory and other scientists responding to the volcanic crisis. We discuss the volcanic activity as well as key data streams used to track it. We provide evidence that magma intruded into the mid-crust in early 2017, and again in August of that year, prior to intrusion of an inferred dike between Mount Agung and Batur Caldera that initiated an earthquake swarm in late September. We summarize efforts to forecast the behavior of the volcano, to quantify exclusion zones for evacuations, and to work with emergency responders and other government agencies to make decisions during a complex and tense volcanic crisis.

Scientific Reports↗

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↗

USGS2018

Prevalence of seismic rate anomalies preceding volcanic eruptions in Alaska

Seismic rate increases often precede eruptions at volcanoes worldwide. However, many eruptions occur without such precursors. Additionally, identifying seismic rate increases near volcanoes with high levels of background seismicity is non-trivial and many periods of elevated seismicity occur without ensuing eruptions, limiting their usefulness for forecasting in some cases. Although these issues are commonly known, efforts to quantify them are limited. In this study, we consistently apply a common statistical tool, the β-statistic, to seismically monitored eruptions in Alaska of various styles to determine the overall prevalence of seismic rate anomalies immediately preceding eruptions. We find that 6 out of 20 (30%) eruptions have statistically significant precursory seismic rate increases. Of these 6 eruptions, 3 of them occur at volcanoes with relatively felsic compositions, repose periods >15 years, and VEI ≥ 3. Overall, our results confirm that seismic rate increases are common prior to larger eruptions at long dormant, “closed-system” volcanoes, but uncommon preceding smaller eruptions at more frequently active, “open-system” volcanoes with more mafic magmas. We also explore the rate of other anomalies not precursory to eruptions and investigate their origins. Some of these non-eruptive anomalies can be explained by aftershocks of regional seismic events, magmatic activity that did not lead to eruption, or unrest at other nearby volcanoes. Some open-system volcanoes have high non-eruptive anomaly rates and low pre-eruptive anomaly rates and are thus not amenable to forecasting based on earthquake catalogs. In this study, we find that 31% of anomalies lead to eruption. With continued calibration at more volcanoes, the β-statistic that we apply may be used more broadly to analyze future periods of seismic unrest at other volcanoes, properly placing such episodes into the context of the long-term background rate. These results may be useful for informing future eruption forecasts around the world, and the statistical tool may aid volcano observatories in identifying future seismic rate anomalies under changing network conditions.

Alaska↗

USGS2017

The relative effectiveness of empirical and physical models for simulating the dense undercurrent of pyroclastic flows under different emplacement conditions

High concentration pyroclastic density currents (PDCs) are hot avalanches of volcanic rock and gas and are among the most destructive volcanic hazards due to their speed and mobility. Mitigating the risk associated with these flows depends upon accurate forecasting of possible impacted areas, often using empirical or physical models. TITAN2D, VolcFlow, LAHARZ, and Δ H/L or energy cone models each employ different rheologies or empirical relationships and therefore differ in appropriateness of application for different types of mass flows and topographic environments. This work seeks to test different statistically- and physically-based models against a range of PDCs of different volumes, emplaced under different conditions, over different topography in order to test the relative effectiveness, operational aspects, and ultimately, the utility of each model for use in hazard assessments. The purpose of this work is not to rank models, but rather to understand the extent to which the different modeling approaches can replicate reality in certain conditions, and to explore the dynamics of PDCs themselves. In this work, these models are used to recreate the inundation areas of the dense-basal undercurrent of all 13 mapped, land-confined, Soufrière Hills Volcano dome-collapse PDCs emplaced from 1996 to 2010 to test the relative effectiveness of different computational models. Best-fit model results and their input parameters are compared with results using observation- and deposit-derived input parameters. Additional comparison is made between best-fit model results and those using empirically-derived input parameters from the FlowDat global database, which represent “forward” modeling simulations as would be completed for hazard assessment purposes. Results indicate that TITAN2D is able to reproduce inundated areas well using flux sources, although velocities are often unrealistically high. VolcFlow is also able to replicate flow runout well, but does not capture the lateral spreading in distal regions of larger-volume flows. Both models are better at reproducing the inundated area of single-pulse, valley-confined, smaller-volume flows than sustained, highly unsteady, larger-volume flows, which are often partially unchannelized. The simple rheological models of TITAN2D and VolcFlow are not able to recreate all features of these more complex flows. LAHARZ is fast to run and can give a rough approximation of inundation, but may not be appropriate for all PDCs and the designation of starting locations is difficult. The Δ H/L cone model is also very quick to run and gives reasonable approximations of runout distance, but does not inherently model flow channelization or directionality and thus unrealistically covers all interfluves. Empirically-based models like LAHARZ and Δ H/L cones can be quick, first-approximations of flow runout, provided a database of similar flows, e.g., FlowDat, is available to properly calculate coefficients or Δ H/L . For hazard assessment purposes, geophysical models like TITAN2D and VolcFlow can be useful for producing both scenario-based or probabilistic hazard maps, but must be run many times with varying input parameters. LAHARZ and Δ H/L cones can be used to produce simple modeling-based hazard maps when run with a variety of input volumes, but do not explicitly consider the probability of occurrence of different volumes. For forward modeling purposes, the ability to derive potential input parameters from global or local databases is crucial, though important input parameters for VolcFlow cannot be empirically estimated. Not only does this work provide a useful comparison of the operational aspects and behavior of various models for hazard assessment, but it also enriches conceptual understanding of the dynamics of the PDCs themselves.

Frontiers in Earth Science↗