Application of tephra volume models to ejecta volumes from subsurface explosion experiments
Deposit volume is a critical factor for reconstructing an explosive eruption. Volume estimate models typically used for large Plinian deposits have been adapted and improved repeatedly over the last few decades. Less work has been done to refine a method for estimating the volume from smaller deposits produced by discrete phreatic and phreatomagmatic explosions. The characterization of the volume and distribution of deposits is required to quantify the physical hazards presented by different explosion types and develop appropriate models of future eruptions. Six classic tephra volume models were assessed using a dataset from subsurface explosion experiments. The models typically did a poor job modelling the volume of proximal deposits as a component of total deposit volume of discrete explosion deposits. Models reproduced medial and distal deposit volumes with greater success, particularly the Exponential model and a more recent Linear Regression model. It is therefore recommended, when possible, to use digital elevation models produced from GPS or laser-based methods to characterize proximal deposits separately and to use tephra volume estimates for medial and distal deposits. Additionally, this dataset enabled the comparison of ejecta volumes with crater diameters and highlighted that this relationship only holds for simple crater scenarios without any lateral vent migration, collapse or erosion of the crater under study. The assessment and improvement of these methods are required to ensure accurate deposit volumes as they serve as one of the most important inputs to hazard assessments and numerical models.
Another look at the calculation of fallout tephra volumes
The calculation of volumes of fallout tephra layers is difficult because of the nonlinear dependence of thickness on area and because of the extrapolations required at the vent and in distal regions. Calculation using the trapezoidal rule, straight lines on log-log plots of area versus thickness, straight lines on plots of log thickness versus area1/2, and the crystal-concentration method are reviewed and the problems with each method discussed. The method using straight lines on plots of log thickness versus area1/2 is the most geologically reasonable because most deposits thin exponentially from source and therefore plot as straight lines using these coordinates. Errors and uncertainties in previous derivations for using this method are discussed and more general formulas presented. The method is also used to gain perspective on the “missing” distal volumes calculated by the crystal-concentration method compared to those calculated based only on isopach data.
Geomagnetic micropulsations due to the motion of ocean waves
When sea waves move in the magnetic field of the earth, electric currents are generated in the water volume. These currents give rise to a small magnetic field which perturbs the earth's field. For plane trochoidal waves, this perturbing field decays exponentially with altitude and lies in a vertical plane which is oriented in the direction of wave propagation. The magnitude of the perturbing field also depends upon the magnitude and dip angle of the earth's field, and upon the height, wavelength, and propagation direction of the sea waves. For north-south waves, sea state 5, and an altitude of 100 feet, the perturbation is of the order of 0.1 gamma.