Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · pp17694

A parametric study of the January 2006 explosive eruptions of Augustine Volcano, using seismic, infrasonic, and lightning data: Chapter 4 in The 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano, Alaska

Abstract

A series of 13 explosive eruptions occurred at Augustine Volcano, Alaska, from January 11&ndash;28, 2006. Each lasted 2.5 to 19 minutes and produced ash columns 3.8 to 13.5 km above mean sea level. We investigated various parameters to determine systematic trends, including durations, seismic amplitudes, frequency contents, signal characteristics, peak acoustic pressures, ash column heights, lightning occurrence, and lengths of pre-event and post-event quiescence. Individual tephra volumes are not known. There is no clear correlation between acoustic peak pressure and ash column height or between peak seismic amplitude and duration. However, several trends are evident. Two events, January 11 at 0444 AKST (1344 UTC) and January 27 at 2337 AKST (0837 UTC) are short (180 and 140 seconds) and have very impulsive onsets and high acoustic peak pressures of 93 and 105 Pa, as well as high peak seismic amplitudes. We interpret these to be mainly gas releases. Two of the largest events followed quiescent intervals of 3 days or longer: January 17 at 0758 AKST (1658 UTC), and January 27 at 2024 AKST (January 28 at 0524 UTC). These two events had reduced displacements ( D R ) of 11.4 and 7.5 cm 2 , respectively. Although these D R values are typical for eruptions with ash columns to 9 to 14 km, most other D R values of 1.6 to 3.6 cm 2 are low for the 7.0 to 10.5 km ash column heights observed. The combination of short durations, small D R and high ash columns suggests that these events are highly explosive, in agreement with Vulcanian eruption type. Several events had long durations on individual seismic stations but not on others; we interpret these to represent pyroclastic or other flows passing near the affected stations so that tractions or momentum exchange from the cloud or flow adds energy to the ground only near those stations. The eruption on January 27 at 2024 AKST had more than 300 lightning flashes, whereas the following eruptions on January 28 at 0204 AKST and 0742 AKST had only 28 and 6 lightning flashes. The 2024 AKST eruption had a longer duration (1,180 versus <460 seconds), a higher ash column height (10.5 versus 7.0&ndash;7.2 km) and higher acoustic peak pressure (83 versus 66 and 24 Pa). The data suggest that the lightning-rich 2024 AKST eruption produced more tephra than the following eruptions, hence there were more charge carriers injected to the atmosphere. Seismic signals preceded the infrasound signals by 0 to 5 seconds with no obvious pattern in terms of the above groupings. The explosive eruption phase overlapped with the subsequent continuous phase by about 2 days. Parametric data may be useful to estimate eruption conditions in near real time.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 59.31076795603884° to 59.428315784042574° latitude; -153.60260009765625° to -153.31695556640625° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Stephen R. McNutt, Guy Tytgat, Steven A. Estes, Scott D. Stihler. 2010. A parametric study of the January 2006 explosive eruptions of Augustine Volcano, using seismic, infrasonic, and lightning data: Chapter 4 in The 2006 eruption of Augustine Volcano, Alaska. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp17694

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Arizona

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper