Abstract
Gravity-driven, ground-hugging gas-pyroclast mixtures produced during explosive volcanic eruptions define a full spectrum of particle concentration, flow regime and particle support mechanisms. To describe these phenomena, the term “pyroclastic density current” (PDC) has become increasingly popular in the last few tens of years. Here, I question the general application of the term PDC to the whole flow spectrum and, instead, I propose the simpler term “pyroclastic current”.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Gravity-driven, ground-hugging mixtures of pyroclasts and gas, one of the most hazardous geological events, are produced during volcanic eruptions by a variety of mechanisms, including column collapse, low fountaining, dome collapse, hydromagmatic explosions, overpressured blasts (e.g. Walker 1983; Fisher and Schmincke 1984; Cas and Wright 1987; Druitt 1998 and reference therein). To describe these phenomena, the term “pyroclastic density current” (PDC) has become increasingly popular among volcanologists in the last few tens of years (e.g. Druitt 1998; Branney and Kokelaar 2002; Burgisser and Bergantz 2002; Dellino et al. 2008; Sulpizio et al. 2014; Bonadonna et al. 2016; Breard et al. 2016; Dufek 2016). Here, I question the general application of this term within the full spectrum of particle concentration, flow regime and particle support mechanisms (i.e. including “pyroclastic flows” and “pyroclastic surges” of the classical nomenclature; e.g. Sparks 1976; Fisher 1979; Wilson and Walker 1982; Fisher and Schmincke 1984; Cas and Wright 1987 and reference therein). Instead, I propose the simpler term “pyroclastic current”.
By definition, a density current is any current in either liquid or gas that is kept in motion by the force of gravity acting on differences in density between the current and its surroundings. A density difference can exist between two fluids because of a difference in temperature, salinity or concentration of suspended material. For example, a turbidity current is a subaqueous density current that flows along the bottom of a sea or lake because the sediments in suspension make it denser than the surrounding waters. The difference in density slows down the mixing of the current with the surrounding waters, enabling it to maintain itself for relatively long distances.
In light of well-established conceptual models and interpretive criteria for deposits, to reconcile the complex physical nature of multiphase gas-pyroclast flows, two end-member types are recognised depending on particle concentration and dominant flow regime, i.e. (1) dilute, turbulent suspensions, in which particle concentration is no more than a few volume percent (i.e. bulk flow density 1–100 kg/m3) (broadly corresponding to pyroclastic surges) and (2) high-concentration flows, in which particle content is in the order of tens of volume percent (i.e. bulk flow density 100–1000 kg/m3) (pyroclastic flows). Accordingly, fluid turbulence is the main particle support mechanism in the first case, while particle interactions (friction, collisions, dispersive pressure), matrix strength and/or buoyancy forces become dominant with increasing concentration; turbulence is mostly suppressed in the main body of these flows, while it may act at flow boundaries (e.g. Sparks 1976; Sparks et al. 1978; Fisher 1979; Sheridan 1979; Wilson 1985; Valentine 1987; Branney and Kokelaar 1992; Dade and Huppert 1996; Druitt 1998; Anilkumar et al. 1993; Palladino and Valentine 1995; Branney and Kokelaar 2002; Burgisser and Bergantz 2002; Dufek 2016).
Individual flows may, however, show a transitional or composite behaviour, with significant time-space changes of particle concentration, flow properties and dynamics (and consequent particle support and deposition mechanisms) along the flow path and/or the vertical flow profile. Different portions of the current may even decouple and move independently (e.g. concentrated underflows, co-ignimbrite ash clouds and ash cloud surges; Denlinger 1987; Fisher et al. 1993; Druitt 1998; Breard et al. 2016). For example, high-density dispersions may exist as an independently moving bulk flow, as a thin discrete layer beneath a thick dilute flow, as the basal part of a continuous density distribution or as a transient depositional layer (Valentine 1987; Druitt 1998; Kneller and Buckee 2000; Palladino and Simei 2002; Doyle et al. 2010, 2011).
In spite of recent theoretical advances, also supported by numerical simulations (e.g. Doronzo et al. 2011; Dioguardi and Dellino 2014) and laboratory experiments (e.g. Dellino et al. 2007; Andrews and Manga 2011; Rowley et al. 2014; Sulpizio et al. 2014; Lube et al. 2015; Breard et al. 2016; Roche et al. 2016) and of alternative views (i.e. a new subdivision based on forced convection-dominated and inertia-dominated end members; Doronzo 2012), the term PDC spans indiscriminately currents ranging from highly dilute and turbulent blasts to dense block-and-ash flows from gravitational dome collapse (Charbonnier et al. 2013), often with a specification that echoes the dual nature of these currents in terms of density: e.g. cf. dilute PDCs (Palladino and Taddeucci 1998; Dellino et al. 2008; Dioguardi and Dellino 2014) vs. dense or concentrated PDCs (Dufek et al. 2009; Rowley et al. 2014; Sulpizio et al. 2016).
The dynamics of dilute, turbulent flows are described in the volcanological literature by analogy with other suspension currents (e.g. turbidity currents) (Valentine 1987; Sohn and Chough 1989; Fisher 1990; Druitt 1992; Cole and Scarpati 1993; Palladino and Taddeucci 1998; Dellino and La Volpe 2000; Kneller and Buckee 2000; type 1 current of Palladino and Simei 2002). As the flow power declines with distance from source, the settling of particles according to their Rouse number determines a vertical concentration profile (density-stratified flow; Valentine 1987). Due to air entrainment, elutriation of fines and bedload deposition, the bulk flow density decreases downcurrent, until the density contrast with the surrounding atmosphere will drop to zero and the lateral flow motion ceases (eventually giving birth to a buoyant “phoenix” cloud; Bursik and Woods 1996). Flow density and runout may be enhanced by splash-driven particle entrainment from the substrate (Fauria et al. 2016). Thus, the runout distance of a dilute current is primarily controlled by the positive density contrast with the surrounding medium (i.e. true density current).
High-concentration flows have been described in volcanology by three main types of physical models: (1) viscoplastic, (2) sliding block and (3) rapid granular flow models (Druitt 1998). The first model type, which mostly includes plug flow models (Sparks 1976; Wilson and Head 1981; Valentine and Fisher 1986; Battaglia 1993) and laminar flow models (coupled to a granular flow model; Palladino and Valentine 1995; type 3 currents, Palladino and Simei 2002), assumes that the particle-gas mixture is a continuum fluid, characterized by viscosity and yield strength, in which flow turbulence is damped by high particle concentration and coarse-clast support is controlled by the density contrast of large clasts with the matrix. These viscoplastic models have close analogies with models for cohesive debris flows (Postma 1986). Among viscoplastic models, very fast examples, even though dense, have been viewed as turbulent flows (McEwan and Malin 1989; Levine and Kieffer 1991).
The sliding block and the rapid granular flow models treat dense gas-pyroclast dispersions respectively as slow- or fast-moving granular mass flows (cohesionless debris flows; Postma 1986), in which the stress tensor is dominated respectively by intergranular friction or by short-lived intergranular collisions, and the role of the interstitial fluid (if present) is negligible (Bagnold 1956; Savage 1984; Palladino and Valentine 1995; Straub 1996; Iverson 1997; Iverson and Vallance 2001; type 2 currents, Palladino and Simei 2002; Dartevelle et al. 2004; Schwarzkopf et al. 2005; Lube et al. 2007; Rowley et al. 2014; Sulpizio et al. 2016).
High-density particulate flows thus share the key characteristics of polydisperse granular avalanches (Gray and Ancey 2011) and/or viscoplastic rheologies typical of cohesive debris flows. The physics of granular mass flows and rheological analysis (e.g. plastic vs. Coulomb rheologies; Kelfoun 2011) indicates that the emplacement of high-density flows may occur by en-masse freezing, rapid stacking of flow laminae and/or progressive sedimentation (e.g. Sparks 1976; Palladino and Valentine 1995; Girolami et al. 2010). The simple Mohr-Coulomb model, commonly applied to rock avalanches (e.g. Hsü 1989), considers the motion of a sliding rigid block for slope angles greater than the internal angle of friction of the granular material. At any point downslope, the total energy is given by the sum of potential energy + kinetic energy + frictional loss. Due to its own momentum, such a flow can climb all relief below the energy line (i.e. the straight line connecting the point of flow origin to the most distal flow reach). Flow mobility is expressed by the ratio of the total vertical drop vs. the total horizontal distance travelled (H/L, Heim coefficient). In this regard, pyroclastic flows share the negative dependence of H/L with volume that is observed for cold, dry rock avalanches (Hayashi and Self 1992).
To summarize, ground-hugging gas-pyroclast currents (thus without referring to air-suspended column jets and plumes) are fluid-particle mixtures that move by virtue of the force of gravity and exhibit a positive density difference with the ambient fluid. With the exception of overpressured blasts, which are essentially driven by pressure (rather than density) differences, the other currents can be viewed as part of a continuum from fluid gravity flows to sediment gravity flows (Hsü 1989). In very dilute gas-particle dispersions (i.e. true suspension currents), the motion of the fluid (i.e. the fluid medium of volcanic gases, ingested air and ground water plus suspended particles) is driven by the density contrast with the ambient fluid, and particle interactions are negligible. Conversely, in highly concentrated gas-particle mixtures, it is the gravity acting on the pyroclasts which makes the interstitial fluid move, and particle interactions dominate the transport system.
In the first case, where a thick, dilute suspension current supplies and drives a thin, dense bedload (also cf. Todd 1989), the density contrast is a crucial parameter that actually controls flow motion over the landscape. The term “density current”, when referring specifically to relatively dilute examples of the flow spectrum (e.g. Palladino and Taddeucci 1998; Dellino et al. 2008), may be useful to stress that the gas-pyroclast mixture is kept in motion so long as it remains denser than the surrounding atmosphere. In the second case, where a dense basal avalanche feeds an upper dilute ash cloud, the bulk flow density of the driving avalanche is always well beyond (2–3 orders of magnitude) that of ambient air even when the flow eventually stops. Sustained, very long runout (>170 km from source) examples are reported that show evidence of regional transport as dense granular dispersions (Roche et al. 2016). Because it is not the waning excess density that controls the magnitude of final flow runout, the term “density current” seems at least redundant for a high-density mass of pyroclasts and entrapped gas that travels across the landscape in a way similar to a dry rock avalanche or a mass of billiard balls.
Thus, the term “PDC” suggests a dynamic characterization of the flow (i.e. density- vs. pressure-driven; dilute, turbulent suspension controlled by density contrast vs. granular flow regime), which can be somehow qualitative and ambiguous, also considering space-time changes within individual flow events. A flow of electrons is defined “electrical current”; likewise, I propose to call a flow of pyroclasts simply a “pyroclastic current” (PC), irrespective of envisaged/inferred/assessed flow properties (including density) and regimes. Since its early appearance (e.g. Fisher 1995; Palladino and Valentine 1995), the term “PC” has been used in a broad sense in relatively few cases (e.g. Palladino and Simei 2002; Taddeucci and Palladino 2002; Doyle et al. 2010 in the article title, yet PDC in the text). Also, “PC” is more apt than “PDC” for further qualification (e.g. low-density, high-density or density-stratified PC). When necessary, to avoid possible ambiguity, it can be specified to “ground-hugging PC” vs. “air-suspended (or unconfined) PC” (i.e. eruptive jets and plumes). Finally, the term “PC” (instead of “PDC”) might be still valid in the future, as the integration of new theoretical studies, computer simulations, analogue experiments and field studies of deposits, will refine what appears a well-established theoretical framework, even though nature will surprise us by showing new as yet unimagined processes.
References
Andrews BJ, Manga M (2011) Effects of topography on pyroclastic density current runout and formation of coignimbrites. Geology 39(12):1099–1102
Anilkumar AV, Sparks RSJ, Sturtevant B (1993) Geological implications and applications of high-velocity two-phase flow experiments. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 56:145–160
Bagnold RA (1956) The flow of cohesionless grains in fluids. Philos Trans R Soc Geol Lond A249:235–297
Battaglia M (1993) On pyroclastic flow emplacement. J Geophys Res 98:22,269–22,272
Bonadonna C, Cioni R, Costa A, Druitt T, Phillips J, Pioli L, Andronico D, Harris A, Scollo S, Bachmann O, Bagheri G, Biass S, Brogi F, Cashman K, Dominguez L, Dürig T, Galland O, Giordano G, Gudmundsson M, Hort M, Höskuldsson A, Houghton B, Komorowski JC, Küppers U, Lacanna G, Le Pennec JL, Macedonio G, Manga M, Manzella I, de’ Michieli Vitturi M, Neri A, Pistolesi M, Polacci M, Ripepe M, Rossi E, Scheu B, Sulpizio R, Tripoli B, Valade S, Valentine G, Vidal C, Wallenstein N (2016) MeMoVolc report on classification and dynamics of volcanic explosive eruptions. Bull Volcanol 78:84
Branney MJ, Kokelaar P (1992) A reappraisal of ignimbrite emplacement: progressive aggradation and changes from particulate to non-particulate flow during emplacement of high-grade ignimbrite. Bull Volcanol 54:504–520
Branney MJ, Kokelaar P (2002) Pyroclastic density currents and the sedimentation of ignimbrites. Geol Soc London Mem 27:1–143
Breard ECP, Lube G, Jones JR, Dufek J, Cronin SJ, Valentine GA, Moebis A (2016) Coupling of turbulent and non-turbulent flow regimes within pyroclastic density currents. Nat Geosci 9:767–771
Burgisser A, Bergantz GW (2002) Reconciling pyroclastic flow and surge: the multiphase physics of pyroclastic density currents. Earth Planet Sci Lett 202:405–418
Bursik MI, Woods AW (1996) The dynamics and thermodynamics of large ash flows. Bull Volcanol 58:175–193
Cas RAF, Wright JV (1987) Volcanic successions. Modern and ancient. Chapman and Hall, London, 528 pp
Charbonnier SJ, Germa A, Connor CB, Gertisser R, Preece K, Komorowski J-C, Lavigne F, Dixon T, Connor L (2013) Evaluation of the impact of the 2010 pyroclastic density currents at Merapi volcano from high-resolution satellite imagery, field investigations and numerical simulations. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 261:295–315
Cole PD, Scarpati C (1993) A facies interpretation of the eruption and emplacement mechanisms of the upper part of the Neapolitan Yellow Tuff, Campi Flegrei, southern Italy. Bull Volcanol 55:311–326
Dade WB, Huppert HE (1996) Emplacement of the Taupo ignimbrite by a dilute, turbulent flow. Nature 381:509–512
Dartevelle S, Rose WI, Stix J, Kelfoun K, Vallance JW (2004) Numerical modeling of geophysical granular flows: 2. Computer simulation of Plinian clouds and pyroclastic flows and surges. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 5:Q08004
Dellino P, La Volpe L (2000) Structures and grain size distribution in surge deposits as a tool for modelling the dynamics of dilute pyroclastic density currents at La Fossa di Vulcano (Aeolian Islands, Italy). J Volcanol Geotherm Res 96:57–78
Dellino P, Mele D, Sulpizio R, La Volpe L, Braia G (2008) A method for the calculation of the impact parameters of dilute pyroclastic density currents based on deposit particle characteristics. J Geophys Res-Solid Earth 113:B07206
Dellino P, Zimanowski B, Büttner R, La Volpe L, Mele D, Sulpizio R (2007) Large-scale experiments on the mechanics of pyroclastic flows: design, engineering, and first results. J Geophys Res-Solid Earth 112:B04202
Denlinger RP (1987) A model for the generation of ash clouds by pyroclastic flows, with application to the 1980 eruptions at Mount St. Helens, Washington. J Geophys Res 92:10,284–10,298
Dioguardi F, Dellino P (2014) PYFLOW: a computer code for the calculation of the impact parameters of dilute pyroclastic density currents (DPDC) based on field data. Comput Geosci 66:200–210
Doronzo DM (2012) Two new end members of pyroclastic density currents: forced convection-dominated and inertia-dominated. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 219-220:87–91
Doronzo DM, de Tullio MD, Dellino P, Pascazio G (2011) Numerical simulation of pyroclastic density currents using locally refined Cartesian grids. Computers and Fluids 44:56–67
Doyle EE, Hogg AJ, Mader HM (2011) A two-layer approach to modelling the transformation of dilute pyroclastic currents into dense pyroclastic flows. Proc R Soc A 467:1348–1371
Doyle EE, Hogg AJ, Mader HM, Sparks RSJ (2010) A two-layer model for the evolution and propagation of dense and dilute regions of pyroclastic currents. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 190:365–378
Druitt TH (1992) Emplacement of the 18 May 1980 lateral blast deposit ENE of Mount St. Helens, Washington. Bull Volcanol 54:554–572
Druitt TH (1998) Pyroclastic density currents. In: Gilbert JS, Sparks, RSJ (eds) The physics of explosive volcanic eruptions, Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 145:145–182
Dufek J (2016) The fluid mechanics of pyroclastic density currents. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 48:459–485
Dufek J, Wexler J, Manga M (2009) Transport capacity of pyroclastic density currents: experiments and models of substrate-flow interaction. J Geophys Res 114:B11203
Fauria KE, Manga M, Chamberlain M (2016) Effect of particle entrainment on the runout of pyroclastic density currents. J Geophys Res-Solid Earth 121:6445–6461
Fisher RV (1979) Models for pyroclastic surges and pyroclastic flows. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 6:305–318
Fisher RV (1990) Transport and deposition of a pyroclastic surge across an area of high relief: the 18 May 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, Washington. Geol Soc Am Bull 102:1038–1054
Fisher RV (1995) Decoupling of pyroclastic currents: hazards assessment. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 66:1257–1263
Fisher RV, Orsi G, Ort M, Heiken G (1993) Mobility of a large-volume pyroclastic flow—emplacement of the Campanian Ignimbrite, Italy. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 56:205–220
Fisher RV, Schmincke HU (1984) Pyroclastic rocks. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 472 pp
Girolami L, Roche O, Druitt TH, Corpetti T (2010) Particle velocity fields and depositional processes in laboratory ash flows, with implications for the sedimentation of dense pyroclastic flows. Bull Volcanol 72:747–759
Gray JMNT, Ancey C (2011) Multi-component particle-size segregation in shallow granular avalanches. J Fluid Mech 678:535–588
Hayashi JN, Self S (1992) A comparison of pyroclastic flow and debris avalanche mobility. J Geophys Res 97:9063–9072
Hsü KJ (1989) Physical principles of Sedimentology. Springer, Berlin, 234 pp
Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 35:245–296
Iverson RM, Vallance JW (2001) New views of granular mass flows. Geology 29:115–118
Kelfoun K (2011) Suitability of simple rheological laws for the numerical simulation of dense pyroclastic flows and long-runout volcanic avalanches. J Geophys Res 116:B08209
Kneller B, Buckee C (2000) The structure and fluid mechanics of turbidity currents: a review of some recent studies and their geological implications. Sedimentology 47:62–94
Levine AH, Kieffer SW (1991) Hydraulics of the August 7 1980, pyroclastic flow at Mount St. Helens, Washington. Geology 19:1121–1124
Lube G, Breard ECP, Cronin SJ, Jones J (2015) Synthesizing large-scale pyroclastic flows: experimental design, scaling, and first results from PELE. J Geophys Res 120:1487–1502
Lube G, Cronin SJ, Platz T, Freundt A, Procter JN, Henderson C, Sheridan MF (2007) Flow and deposition of pyroclastic granular flows: a type example from the 1975 Ngauruhoe eruption, New Zealand. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 161:165–186
McEwan AS, Malin MC (1989) Dynamics of Mount St. Helens’ 1980 pyroclastic flows, rock-slide-avalanche, lahars, and blast. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 37:205–231
Palladino DM, Simei S (2002) Three types of pyroclastic currents and their deposits: examples from the Vulsini Volcanoes, Italy. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 116:97–118
Palladino DM, Taddeucci J (1998) The basal ash deposit of the Sovana Eruption (Vulsini Volcanoes, central Italy): the product of a dilute pyroclastic density current. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 87:233–254
Palladino DM, Valentine G (1995) Corse-tail vertical and lateral grading in pyroclastic flow deposits of the Latera Volcanic Complex (Vulsini, central Italy): origins and implications for flow dynamics. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 69:343–364
Postma G (1986) Classification for sediment gravity-flow deposits based on flow conditions during sedimentation. Geology 14:291–294
Roche O, Buesch DC, Valentine GA (2016) Slow-moving and far-travelled dense pyroclastic flows during the Peach Spring super-eruption. Nat Commun 7:Article number 10890
Rowley PJ, Roche O, Druitt TH, Cas R (2014) Experimental study of dense pyroclastic density currents using sustained, gas-fluidized granular flows. Bull Volcanol 76:855
Savage SB (1984) The mechanics of rapid granular flows. Adv Appl Mech 24:289–266
Schwarzkopf LM, Schmincke HU, Cronin SJ (2005) A conceptual model for block-and-ash flow basal avalanche transport and deposition, based on deposit architecture of 1998 and 1994 Merapi flows. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 139:117–134
Sheridan MF (1979) Emplacement of pyroclastic flows: a review. Geol Soc Am Spec Pap 180:125–136
Sohn YK, Chough SK (1989) Depositional processes of the Suwolbong tuff ring, Cheju Island (Korea). Sedimentology 36:837–855
Sparks RSJ (1976) Grain size variations in ignimbrites and implications for the transport of pyroclastic flows. Sedimentology 23:147–188
Sparks RSJ, Wilson L, Hulme G (1978) Theoretical modeling of the generation, movement, and emplacement of pyroclastic flows by column collapse. J Geophys Res 59:1727–1739
Straub S (1996) Self-organization in the rapid flow of granular material: evidence for a major flow mechanism. Geol Rundsch 85:85–91
Sulpizio R, Castioni D, Rodriguez-Sedano LA, Sarocchi D, Lucchi F (2016) The influence of slope-angle ratio on the dynamics of granular flows: insights from laboratory experiments. Bull Volcanol 78:77
Sulpizio R, Dellino P, Doronzo DM, Sarocchi D (2014) Pyroclastic density currents: state of the art and perspectives. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 283:36–65
Taddeucci J, Palladino DM (2002) Particle size-density relationships in pyroclastic deposits: inferences on emplacement processes. Bull Volcanol 64:273–284
Todd SP (1989) Stream-driven, high-density gravelly traction carpets: possible deposits in the Trabeg Conglomerate Formation, SW Ireland and some theoretical considerations of their origin. Sedimentology 36:513–530
Valentine GA (1987) Stratified flow in pyroclastic surges. Bull Volcanol 49:616–630
Valentine GA, Fisher RV (1986) Origin of layer 1 deposits in ignimbrites. Geology 14:146–148
Walker GPL (1983) Ignimbrite types and ignimbrite problems. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 17:65–88
Wilson CJN (1985) The Taupo eruption, New Zealand. II. The Taupo ignimbrite. Philos Trans R Soc Geol Lond A314:229–310
Wilson L, Head JW (1981) Morphology and rheology of pyroclastic flows and their deposits, and guideline for future observations. In: the 1980 eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Lipman PW, Mullineaux, DR (Eds.), US Geol Surv Prof Pap 1250:513–524
Wilson CJN, Walker GPL (1982) Ignimbrite depositional facies: the anatomy of a pyroclastic flow. J Geol Soc Lond 139:581–592
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the Editor, James White, and to an anonymous reviewer for the meaningful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Editorial responsibility: J.D.L. White
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Palladino, D.M. Simply pyroclastic currents. Bull Volcanol 79, 53 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-017-1139-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-017-1139-3