Visualization and Analysis of NW Rota-1 Eruptive Plumes Utilizing QPSFledermaus Software Packages

Susan G. Merle Geo 510 internship

ROV frame grab showing CO2 bubbles rising from the eruptive vent during explosive bursts in
2006, from Chadwick et al. (2008).

Background
The NOAA Vents program and associates have participated in 5+ expeditions to NW Rota
submarine volcano in the Mariana arc. (Figs. 1 and 2) The first was in 2003 when the seamounts
of the Mariana arc were mapped using the R/V Thompson EM300 multibeam system. Figure 3 is
a 3d image of the entire NW Rota volcanic edifice from the summit (517m) to the base
(~3000m). Intense particle plumes were indicated by CTD tow-yos over the volcano (Fig 4).
The group returned to the area and conducted ROV dives in 2004, and that is when the explosive
nature of the eruptive vent, Brimstone, was first observed. Eruptive activity was again observed
during ROV dives made by members of the NOAA Vents program and associates in 2006 and
2009. When the group returned to NW Rota in 2010 for another series of ROV dives it was
apparent that something had changed. Surface differencing of bathymetric grids, comparing the
2010 pass over the summit to the data collected in 2009, revealed a large landslide event had
occurred after the 2009 cruise. An in-situ hydrophone deployed by Bob Dziak (OSU / NOAA
Vents) confirmed that an eruptive burst had triggered a major landslide in August 2009 [Dziak et
al., 2009; Dziak et al., 2011]. Chadwick states that the nature of the earthquakes in August, and
previous pre-cursor quakes, plus the fact that the earthquake swarm did not follow a mainshockaftershock pattern, indicates that the cause was magmatic intrusion, not tectonic [Chadwick et
al., 2012]. ROV dives in 2010 revealed a very different eruptive venting scenario than in
previous years, when Brimstone was the only eruptive vent near the summit. In 2010 Brimstone
was less active, but 4 other eruptive vents had popped up in a NW/SE line below the summit
extending ~100m from the westernmost to easternmost vents (Fig. 5).
Mid-water data
During the 2010 expedition we had the opportunity to use the new mapping system on the R/V
Kilo Moana. The EM122 (12 kHz) system collects seafloor bathymetry and backscatter data, as
well as data in the water column. The simultaneous collection of mid-water data is a new
technology only made available to the research community within the last couple years.
For the Geo 510 internship my goal has been to image and analyze the results of this new
magmatic plumbing system by observing changes in the eruptive vents near the summit over
time. Throughout the expedition we made numerous passes over the volcano summit and
observed the bubble plumes that rose off the eruptive vents. The bubbles consist mainly of CO2,
and have been commonly observed rising from the seafloor during ROV dives. A vast midwater data set was collected during the 2010 expedition over NW Rota. Numerous passes over
the summit to image the bubble plumes were designed to observe the variability of the plume
over time. The mid-water data set is big, 120 gigabytes, totaling >95 hours of observations over
a 12-day period (Fig. 6). This sonar data was mainly collected between daily 12-hour ROV
dives. Generally, we had the ship drive repeatedly over the eruptive vents at a range of ship
speeds (0.5-4 knots) and headings. In addition, we collected some sonar data during the last
three ROV dives when the ship was stationary over the eruptive vents to look for changes in the

plume at a fixed location over time. In total, we have ~120 passes over the eruptive vents and
~44 hours of data collected while stationary over the vents [from Chadwick NSF proposal].
Data processing steps
Software called FMMidwater has been designed to deal with this new mid-water technology.
Maurice Doucet (QPS Fledermaus) gave me a tutorial of the beta version of the software in
2010. He has shared valuable insights regarding midwater data visualization over the past 2
years. The first data processing step is to convert the raw multibeam files to a generic water
column (gwc) format. The gwc files can be analyzed with the FMMidwater tool in a number of
ways. (Fig.7). 3d volume objects can be created if the eruptive plumes contain enough gas to
isolate them from the surrounding water column amplitude (often referred to as intensity) values.
a) Stack view
The first step is to view the gwc data perpendicular to the ship trackline in a stacked view. The
stacked view is a valuable way to see the entire file quickly, start to finish, from left to right.
Plumes with high amplitude values are easily discernable in the stack view. The FMMidwater
manual states that the stack view takes all of the beams in the swath, collapses them down
together in an overlapped manner and displays the maximum signal level for every discrete range
increment in the display. Threshold filtering is used to isolate the plumes from the surrounding
water column. The stack view is not geometrically corrected (Fig 8).
I wanted to compare the 3d objects derived from the threshold filtering with the images I saw in
the stack view. I was aware that the entire plume could not be presented as a volume object,
only those voxels (3d volume cubes) that had high enough amplitude values to survive threshold
filtering comprised the volume object. I inserted the 2d vertical plane stack image into a
Fledermaus scene by determining the start and end coordinates of the line and using those
positions to define the bounds for the vertical plane (Fig. 9). Since the ship does not travel a
perfectly straight line from start to end, the placement of the stack in the 3d view is approximate.
One will notice a dark red trace on the stack that follows the seafloor. That is the seafloor, not to
be mistaken for high-intensity values in the water column. The difference between the high
amplitude seafloor values and high amplitude values in the water column is easily discerned by
the trained eye.
b) Beam fan
A beam fan object can be exported from FMMidwater (Fig. 10 bottom). It is a geometrically
correct beam fan from the ship transducer to the seafloor, ping by ping, travelling through time
from start to end of the file. The beam fan object can be brought into Fledermaus and moved
with the time slider, making this truly a 4d time-aware object. Noting high amplitude values
near the seafloor that rise as one moves the time slider can assist in determining where the
plumes originate.

Other export options from FMMidwater include creating beam curtains, and point cloud objects.
3d objects created with FMMidwater can then be brought into Fledermaus where they are
geographically referenced in 3+ dimensions.
Data analyzed to date
Lines 209 258 were analyzed for this internship project, which is only 1/3 of the 150 total data
files collected. This data set was collected at a slow speed (0.5 - 2 knots) therefore the data
density is good, with more pings to define the plumes. Also, for all but 5 of the lines, the same
direction was followed (NW/SE) along the summit in the same orientation as the 5 eruptive
vents. That survey pattern led to better data density over the vents (lots of pings), which in turn
made it easier to differentiate plumes rising from individual vents on the seafloor. Lines 209
258 consisted of 28 passes over the summit vents in 18.25 hours. The interval between passes
over the vents varied from 20 to 50 minutes, with the exception of 1 two-hour interval between
lines 230 and 233, when the ship re-alignined to pass over the vents in a N/S pattern. For each
line a group of figures was created including a 2d stack view with annotation, a 3d volume object
above the summit, and a 2d stack view inserted into the 3d scene as a vertical plane. Figures 8,
9, and 10 are the group of figures created for Line 254.
Remaining data analysis
The next series of water column data to process is lines 102 122 (3/21/10 19:18 3/22/10
01:47). It is a series of 6.5 hours of continuous data collected moving 4-5 knots.
We also collected water column data while stationary over the vents with the ship parked, only
moving when ROV navigators needed to move. Those data include lines during dives J2-493,
J2-494, J2-495, as well as during a plankton haul. From the data Ive looked at during ROV
dives it is difficult to discern any kind of plume data in the stack view. Because the ship is more
or less parked in the same spot during a dive, perhaps not directly over the vents, eruptive
activity on the seafloor may not be seen in the midwater data. The best way to proceed with the
data collected during ROV dives is to determine when we saw bubbles on the seafloor and then
go to that part of the water column file to try to see that venting in 1 or 2 pings of the data. I
dont believe I will be able to create 3d volume objects from the stationary data, but I havent
looked at enough of it to determine that absolutely.
Statistics
An excel spreadsheet has been created to accompany the 3D visualization techniques. Also refer
to the poster that accompanies this document for images and information about each summit
plume.
Major attributes noted:
Line #, time, speed, direction, survey comments at sea, water column data comments, plumes
(yes or no), number of vents involved in plume creation, height of plume tops, height of plume

wisps, maximum amplitude (intensity) in the stack view, min/max height of 3d volume object,
min/max amplitudes in 3d volume object, whether the vents are deflecting and in what direction,
deflection from vertical and how far off the seafloor does that start, 3d reach of the volume
object above the seafloor.
Major attribute values:
Largest number of plumes seen on stack view: 4 plumes on line 230. All 5 eruptive
vents contributing.
One pass (line 256) only 1 plume was visible.
Every pass over the summit there were plumes visible in the water column data.
Highest amplitude value: A=26 Styx (line 250)
Lowest (high) amplitude value: A=-15 (Line 235) could not create 3d volume object
Highest plumes: (line 230) Z=175m, 415m rise from Charon; (line 233) Z=215m, 345m
rise from Phantom
Highest plume wisp: (line 233) Z=90m, 470m rise from Phantom
Only 1 line when the plumes were not deflecting (line 238)
Main plume deflection direction: WSW
Plume deflection started at the seafloor in > 1/3 of the passes. Deflection height above
the seafloor varied from 0 (at seafloor) to 200m above the seafloor.
Deflection of the plume from vertical varied widely.
Farthest plume reach above the seafloor, determined from 3d objects, was 200m from
Styx/Charon (line 242). That plume deflected from vertical 45 100m above the seafloor.
(Aside: 3d volume objects were used to determine deflection values although the actual
plumes do extend out farther and higher than the volume object does so this is a
minimum measurement.)
Significant findings from the water column data
I believe that the water column data can be used as a proxy to determine the level of eruptive
activity above submarine volcanoes that have robust CO2 bubble plumes. It may not be totally
quantifiable, but the water column data can give us some qualitative information about the vents,
like the major attribute data listed above.
Styx was the most active of the vents and often had the highest amplitude values. Sulfur was
next in the mix, often active and displaying relatively high amplitude values. Plumes rise from
the individual vents and often combine above the seafloor. The highest plumes were a
combination of Styx and Charon, the easternmost summit vents. Charon is the deepest of the
eruptive vents near the summit, 30m deeper than Styx and Sulfur. It was difficult to create 3d
volume objects that start at the base of Charon, but the beam fan object helped hone in on that
vents activity. The data indicates there may be more bubble plume venting to the east of
Charon, but if so it is low amplitude, appearing like a haze on the eastern side of the stack and
beamfan objects. ROV dives confirm that there are vents to the east of Charon, but not the

eruptive type observed at the summit. Its possible that we have not discovered all the eruptive
vents formed after the landslide. Given that, it is also important to remember that the vents are
ephemeral, and that the plumbing system could re-arrange itself again and we could find a
whole new eruptive scenario in the future.
Most plume deflection was to the WSW and SSW, but the plumes also deflected to the W,
NNW, NNE and SSE. Plumes deflect at different heights above the seafloor and even change
deflection angle from vertical as the plume rises. Deflection from vertical is likely caused by
currents near the seafloor. On one line (238) there was little to no deflection of the main plume.
There was one instance, line 244, were the plumes split and deflect in different directions.
During lines 209 226 (6.5 hours) venting was fairly subdued, usually 2 vents erupting at the
same time, sometimes 3. Plumes rise 150 to 300 meters above the vents. Then on line 228 more
vents are active and the plumes are rising higher in the water column. On the next pass (line
230) all 5 summit vents are active. This is the only instance in this series where all 5 vents were
erupting at the same time. This pass over the summit also saw the highest main plume rising to
z=175, a 415m rise from Charon. Plume wisps rose to within 115m of the sea surface. After that
there is a 2 hour gap in the data series as the ship took a different course (N/S). That next pass
over the summit (line 233) the highest plume wisps were observed 90m from the sea surface, a
470m rise from Phantom, but the amplitude values had fallen sharply (from 7 to -7). On the next
pass (line 235) the amplitude values were so low that a 3d object could not be made. After that
the venting gradually increases again until on line 250 the highest amplitude values of this data
series were recorded (A=26 from Styx). Venting after that is steady with 2 plumes visible. The
exception is line 256, when only 1 plume is visible above the summit. (See the poster that
accompanies this document).
Future plans
Bill Chadwick submitted an NSF proposal entitled Collaborative Research: Dynamics of
eruptive plumes above a submarine arc volcano. Future plans include analyzing the rest of the
water column data. All those data will be integrated with other temporal geophysical data sets
including:
Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) data will help unravel the current regime in
the area on NW Rota during the 2010 expedition
In-situ hydrophone data from a moored hydrophone near the summit and a small portable
hydrophone deployed 50m from the eruptive vent Brimstone. The hydrophone data will
be compared to variations seen in the water column data.
ROV observations on the seafloor will indicate when vents were active. Those
observations will be compared to the hydrophone data and the water column data.
Tidal data during the expedition in 2010 should also be analyzed. Tidal data may
influence plume heights, etc.
A 3d plume model will also be created for NW Rota tracking temperature, salinity and bubble
concentration during the bubble plume surveys. The results of this study will hopefully produce

peer-reviewed manuscripts fostering better understanding of eruptive processes at submarine

volcanoes.
References
Chadwick, W. W., Jr., R. P. Dziak, J. H. Haxel, R. W. Embley, and H. Matsumoto (2012), Submarine
landslide triggered by volcanic eruption recorded by in-situ hydrophone, Geology, 40(1), 51-54,
doi:10.1130/G32495.1.
Dziak, R. P., R. W. Embley, E. T. Baker, W. W. Chadwick, Jr., J. A. Resing, H. Matsumoto, J. H. Haxel,
S. L. Walker, and D. R. Bohnenstiehl (2009), Long-term explosion records from two erupting
submarine volcanoes in the Mariana and Tonga island-arcs, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(52, Fall Meet.
Suppl.), Abstract V44B-02
Dziak, R. P., E. T. Baker, A. M. Shaw, D. R. Bohnenstiehl, W. W. Chadwick, Jr., J. H. Haxel, H.
Matsumoto, and S. L. Walker (2011), Gas flux measurements from a year-long hydroacoustic
record at an erupting submarine volcano. Abstract V52C-07, presented at 2011 Fall Meeting,
AGU, San Francisco, Calif., 5-9 Dec.
Smith, W. H. F., and D. T. Sandwell, Global seafloor topography from satellite altimetry and ship depth
soundings, Science, v. 277, p. 1957-1962, 26 Sept., 1997.
Walker, S. L., E. T. Baker, J. A. Resing, W. W. Chadwick, Jr., G. T. Lebon, J. E. Lupton, and S. G. Merle
(2008), Eruption-fed particle plumes and volcaniclastic deposits at a submarine volcano: NWRota-1, Mariana Arc, J. Geophys. Res., 113, B08S11, doi:10.1029/2007JB005441

Figure 1. Location map of the western Pacific highlighting NW Rota volcano. Mercator projection.
Base layer created from satellite altimetry data at 1800 meter resolution [Smith and Sandwell, 1997].

Figure 2. NW Rota volcano. EM300 bathymetry data. 25 meter resolution. 50 meter contours. Mercator
projection.

Figure 3. NW Rota volcano. EM122 bathymetry data. 25 meter resolution. Depths range from 517m at
the summit to ~3000m at the base.

Figure 4. Two-dimensional profiles of particle plumes at NW Rota-1 in (a) 2003 and (b) 2004, from
Walker et al. (2008), showing well-defined plumes above the summit, rising about 100 m above the
eruptive vent. Saw-toothed tow path of the CTDO during tow-yos is shown (light gray lines). Deeper
plumes in 2004 are from small landslide events. NTU are nephelometric turbidity units.

Figure 5. NW Rota volcano summit eruptive vents. SM2000 bathymetry data at 2 meter resolution
overlaid on EM122 multibeam data at 25m resolution. Distance between westernmost (PH) and
easternmost (CH) vents is ~100m. Vent abbreviations: PH=Phantom, SU=Sulfur, BR=Brimstone,
ST=Styx, CH=Charon.

Figure 6. Timeline in late March 2010 showing times of ROV dives (blue), when mid-water
multibeam data were collected (red), and when mid-water multibeam data were collect during
ROV dives (purple).

Figure 7. Screen shots of the FMMidwater software program, showing processing windows
displaying mid-water multibeam data from the 2010 expedition to NW Rota-1 volcano, in (a)
beam fan mode (displaying a single ping), and (b) data in stacked mode (displaying multiple
pings along a trackline).

Figure 8. 2d stack view showing 2 lines concatenated together. Vent positions and times are
noted as well as amplitude values and plume heights.

Figure 9. Top) Just the stack view inserted as a vertical plane into the 3d scene. Bottom) Stack
view inserted as a vertical plane and 3d volume object. This view allows one to see how much of
the total plume is preserved in the 3d object.

Figure 10. Top) 3d view showing volume objects representing the eruptive plumes above the
summit vents. Amplitude values for the 3d object are on the right. Those values are lower than
in the stack view. Bottom) 3d side view of volume object with the beam fan object in the
background. The plume wisp can be easily detected on the beamfan, but usually cannot be
preserved in the 3d volume object because of lower amplitude levels as it ascends.