Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/11722
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-20T09:06:21Zen
dc.date.available2018-04-20T09:06:21Zen
dc.date.issued2016en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2122/11722en
dc.description.abstractWe 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.en
dc.language.isoEnglishen
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Volcanology and Geothermal Researchen
dc.relation.ispartofseries/326 (2016)en
dc.titleInter-comparison of three-dimensional models of volcanic plumesen
dc.typearticleen
dc.description.statusPublisheden
dc.description.pagenumber26-42en
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2016.06.011en
dc.description.obiettivoSpecifico5V. Dinamica dei processi eruttivi e post-eruttivien
dc.description.obiettivoSpecifico6V. Pericolosità vulcanica e contributi alla stima del rischioen
dc.description.journalTypeJCR Journalen
dc.contributor.authorSuzuki, Y. J.en
dc.contributor.authorCosta, Antonioen
dc.contributor.authorCerminara, Matteoen
dc.contributor.authorEsposti Ongaro, Tomasoen
dc.contributor.authorHerzog, M.en
dc.contributor.authorVan Eaton, A.R.en
dc.contributor.authorDenby, L.C.en
dc.contributor.departmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Bologna, Bologna, Italiaen
dc.contributor.departmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Pisa, Pisa, Italiaen
dc.contributor.departmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Pisa, Pisa, Italiaen
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.openairetypearticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextrestricted-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Bologna, Bologna, Italia-
crisitem.author.deptIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Pisa, Pisa, Italia-
crisitem.author.deptIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Pisa, Pisa, Italia-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0001-7477-1367-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-4987-6471-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0001-5155-5872-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-6663-5311-
crisitem.author.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.author.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.author.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.department.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.department.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.department.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
Appears in Collections:Article published / in press
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat Existing users please Login
suzcos2016a.pdf1.72 MBAdobe PDF
Show simple item record

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations 1

18
checked on Feb 10, 2021

Page view(s)

189
checked on Nov 27, 2022

Download(s)

6
checked on Nov 27, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric