Options
Herzog, M.
Loading...
Preferred name
Herzog, M.
2 results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- PublicationRestrictedInter-comparison of three-dimensional models of volcanic plumes(2016)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ;We performed an inter-comparison study of three-dimensional models of volcanic plumes. A set of common volca- nological input parameters and meteorological conditions were provided for two kinds of eruptions, representing a weak and a strong eruption column. From the different models, we compared the maximum plume height, neutral buoyancy level (where plume density equals that of the atmosphere), and level of maximum radial spreading of the umbrella cloud. We also compared the vertical profiles of eruption column properties, integrated across cross- sections of the plume (integral variables). Although the models use different numerical procedures and treatments of subgrid turbulence and particle dynamics, the inter-comparison shows qualitatively consistent results. In the weak plume case (mass eruption rate 1.5 × 106 kg s− 1), the vertical profiles of plume properties (e.g., vertical veloc- ity, temperature) are similar among models, especially in the buoyant plume region. Variability among the simulat- ed maximum heights is ~ 20%, whereas neutral buoyancy level and level of maximum radial spreading vary by ~ 10%. Time-averaging of the three-dimensional (3D) flow fields indicates an effective entrainment coefficient around 0.1 in the buoyant plume region, with much lower values in the jet region, which is consistent with findings of small- scale laboratory experiments. On the other hand, the strong plume case (mass eruption rate 1.5 × 109 kg s− 1) shows greater variability in the vertical plume profiles predicted by the different models. Our analysis suggests that the un- stable flow dynamics in the strong plume enhances differences in the formulation and numerical solution of the models. This is especially evident in the overshooting top of the plume, which extends a significant portion (~1/ 8) of the maximum plume height. Nonetheless, overall variability in the spreading level and neutral buoyancy level is ~20%, whereas that of maximum height is ~10%. This inter-comparison study has highlighted the different capabilities of 3D volcanic plume models, and identified key features of weak and strong plumes, including the roles of jet stability, entrainment efficiency, and particle non-equilibrium, which deserve future investigation in field, laboratory, and numerical studies.235 6 - PublicationRestrictedResults of the eruptive column model inter-comparison study(2016)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ;; ; ; ; ;; ;; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;This study compares and evaluates one-dimensional (1D) and three-dimensional (3D) numerical models of volcanic eruption columns in a set of different inter-comparison exercises. The exercises were designed as a blind test in which a set of common input parameters was given for two reference eruptions, representing a strong and a weak eruption column under different meteorological conditions. Comparing the results of the different models allows us to evaluate their capabilities and target areas for future improvement. Despite their different formulations, the 1D and 3D models provide reasonably consistent predictions of some of the key global descriptors of the volcanic plumes. Variability in plume height, estimated from the standard deviation of model predictions, is within ~20% for the weak plume and ~10% for the strong plume. Predictions of neutral buoyancy level are also in reasonably good agreement among the different models, with a standard deviation ranging from 9 to 19% (the latter for the weak plume in a windy atmosphere). Overall, these discrepancies are in the range of observational uncertainty of column height. However, there are important differences amongst models in terms of local properties along the plume axis, particularly for the strong plume. Our analysis suggests that the simpli- fied treatment of entrainment in 1D models is adequate to resolve the general behaviour of the weak plume. However, it is inadequate to capture complex features of the strong plume, such as large vortices, partial column collapse, or gravitational fountaining that strongly enhance entrainment in the lower atmosphere. We conclude that there is a need to more accurately quantify entrainment rates, improve the representation of plume radius, and incorporate the effects of column instability in future versions of 1D volcanic plume models.314 43