Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Bull Volcanol (1992) 54:156-167

Voli log
9 Springer-Verlag1992

Another look at the calculation of fallout tephra volumes


Judy Fierstein and Manuel Nathenson
U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA

Received May 30, 1990/Accepted March 18, 1991

Abstract. The calculation of volumes of fallout tephra Several methods have previously been proposed to deal
layers is difficult because of the nonlinear dependence with these difficulties.
of thickness on area and because of the extrapolations The trapezoidal rule is a numerical integration
required at the vent and in distal regions. Calculation method for calculating the area under a curve that is
using the trapezoidal rule, straight lines on log-log plots easily applied (e.g. Froggatt 1982). The major problems
of area versus thickness, straight lines on plots of log with using numerical integration are developing a ra-
thickness versus area 1/2, and the crystal-concentration tionale for projecting thickness to the vent and having
method are reviewed and the problems with each to neglect the volume between the last isopach and in-
method discussed. The method using straight lines on finity. An additional hidden problem is that the method
plots of log thickness versus area 1/2 is the most geolog- can be inaccurate if there are too few isopachs, because
ically reasonable because most deposits thin exponen- the trapezoidal approximation for the nonlinear curve
tially from source and therefore plot as straight lines of thickness versus area becomes poorer as the number
using these coordinates. Errors and uncertainties in of isopachs decreases. If too few isopachs are available,
previous derivations for using this method are dis- the error from not matching the nonlinearity of the data
cussed and more general formulas presented. The leads to an overestimate of the volume, while the fail-
method is also used to gain perspective on the "miss- ure to extrapolate to infinity leads to an underesti-
ing" distal volumes calculated by the crystal-concentra- mate.
tion method compared to those calculated based only Plots of the logarithm of area versus the logarithm of
on isopach data. thickness have been used to deal with the problems of
nonlinearity and projection to inifinity. Rose et al.
(1973) proposed that data plotted as log area versus log
thickness be approximated by two straight lines in or-
Introduction der to calculate volume. Problems with this method are
that the exponential dependence of thickness on area
The calculation of volumes of tephra deposits is sur- causes the log-log plot to be a curve, not two straight
prisingly difficult. The reasons for this difficulty are: lines, and that the projection to infinity tends to be very
1. Thickness versus area is a strongly nonlinear func- sensitive to the thickness and area values of the last iso-
tion, and integration of this function is subject to large pach. In cases where the available data define only a
errors because of limitations on the amount of field single straight line on the log-log plot, the calculation
data obtainable, especially in distal areas where ash is of volume must be stopped at the last isopach to get a
thin and readily disturbed. finite volume.
2. Mathematically the integration should be done to in- Recently, Pyle (1989) proposed that a better method
finite area (zero thickness). The extrapolation of field is to plot the logarithm of thickness versus area 1/2. This
data to infinity is difficult unless the appropriate meth- method exploits the observation that tephra deposits
odology is chosen. thin exponentially away from source. Based on finding
3. Data are rarely available or reliable in the immediate that most tephra layers can be defined by one or two
vicinity of the vent because of burial, erosion, pyroclas- straight-line segments that closely follow the data on
tic flow contributions, and vent collapse, so an extrapo- such a plot, this provides a more rigorous method for
lation must be done to make up for the missing data. calculating volumes because the straight-line behavior
gives confidence in the interpolations and extrapola-
tions that are necessary to calculate total volume. Pyle's
Offprint requests to: J Fierstein derivation of the formulas for calculating volumes,
157
20[~
however, is based on assuming that isopachs are circu-
Mount St. Helens
lar or elliptical in shape.
The p u r p o s e of this p a p e r is to review each of the 15
methods o f volume calculation and to present examples
of using each method. The limitations of the trapezoi-
T (cm) lo
dal rule and log-log plot methods are discussed. For the
log thickness versus area 1/2 method, a more general
derivation is presented showing that one need not as- 5

sume that the isopachs are circular or elliptical in


shape. Finally, the log thickness versus area 1/2 method 0 " ~ 1 1 I " ; "
is used to discuss volume calculations using the crystal- 50000 100000 150000 200000
concentration method of Walker (1980). A (km 2)
Fig. 1. Thickness versus isopach area for the 18 May 1980 plinian
eruption of Mount St. Helens (based on isopach map in Sarna-
The linear scale and the trapezoidal rule Wojcicki et al. 1981). Data points for two proximal isopachs
shown as open squares are not used in some calculations of vol-
Figure 1 shows the data for the 18 M a y 1980 eruption ume
for M o u n t St. Helens as an example of the character of
thickness versus area data (Sarna-Wojcicki et al. 1981).
The values for the two proximal isopachs are shown, Table 1. Isopach data for the 18 May 1980 plinian eruption of
but they will not be included in calculations until a Mount St. Helens obtained by planimeter from the isopach map
later section in order to simplify the mathematical dis- in Sarna-Wojcicki et al. (1981). Areas of isopachs that have two
cussion now and to facilitate comparisons later. We separate areas of closure have been added together
have used a planimeter to measure areas of the pub- T (cm) A (km2)
lished isopach m a p ; areas of secondary thickness iso-
pachs (i.e. isopachs that have two separate areas o f clo- 20 200
sure) have been added together (Table 1). The data in 10 460
Fig. 1 show the strongly nonlinear character of thick- 7 640
ness versus isopach area. The M o u n t St. Helens data set 6 840
4 2500
is better than most because it includes 12 isopachs 3 7600
ranging in thickness f r o m 20 cm to 0.05 cm. Both the 2 12800
n u m b e r and range of isopachs is unusual, and we use 1 30000
this to show the drawbacks of relying on the trapezoi- 0.5 48 000
dal rule for calculating volumes. 0.25 79 000
Figure 2 shows that the trapezoidal rule is an ap- 0.1 118000
0.05 167000
proximation to a curve using a straight line joining the
end points. The formula for the volume between iso-
pach T,, of area A, and isopach T, + 1 of area A, + 1 (the
area of a single trapezoid approximating a part o f the
curve of thickness versus area) m a y be written:
AV,+I = T , + I ( A , + I - A , , ) + 71 ( Z. - T . + I ) ( A . + a - A , , ) , ( I a )
Tn
\
1
= ~-(T, +, + T,)(A,+, -A,,), (lb)
where the first term in Eq. l a is the area of the rectangle
and the second term is the area of the triangle that
make up the trapezoid. Figure 2 shows that the trape- "In+ 1 - -

zoidal rule is an overestimate of the volume, but this is


not a significant overestimate when the intervals be-
An An+l
tween isopachs are small. As an illustration of the inac-
curacy of the method when using less-than-ideal data, Fig. 2. Graphical representation of the calculation of volume us-
Table 2 gives values based on the trapezoidal rule for ing the trapezoidal rule between isopach T, of area A, and iso-
the cumulative volumes outboard of the 7-cm isopach pach T,+I of area An+1. Straight line between points is linear ap-
using ten isopachs (all of the isopachs except for the proximation to nonlinear function
two proximal ones), and selected data sets of six and
four isopachs. The straight-line approximations to the
data for the latter two sets are shown in Fig. 3. The total thinning; however, the factor should be less than 0.5,
volumes calculated for the limited data sets are progres- not greater, and varies in a m a n n e r that depends on the
sively overestimated as the n u m b e r of isopachs is re- intervals of the isopach areas. For numerous closely
duced. Limited data sets are more typical o f most field spaced isopachs, the original trapezoidal rule is appro-
data. Froggatt (1982) p r o p o s e d that the factor 1/2 in priate; while for widely spaced isopachs, the trapezoi-
Eq. l a be changed to 0.6 to account for the exponential dal rule should not be used.
158

Table 2. Volume calculation using the trapezoidal rule for the 18


May 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens using ten, six, and four
isopachs. Cumulative volume is from zero area to area listed
Six isopachs
T (cm) A (km2) Cumulative volume (km 3)
T (cm) for number of isopachs
- Four isopachs

i 10 6 4
i

l 7 640 0.045 0.0_45 0.045


) 6 840 0.058
0 I I ; --~ . . . .
4 2500 0.141 0.147
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
3 7600 0.319
A (km 2) 2 12 800 0.449 0.456 0.592
1 30000 0.707
Fig. 3. Thickness versus area data for the 18 May 1980 eruption of 0.5 48 000 0.842 0.896 1.032
Mount St. Helens along with the approximation using the trape- 0.25 79 000 0.959
zoidal rule for six and four isopachs o. 1 118 000 1.027 1.106
0.05 167000 1.064 1.143 1.359

No attempt has been made in this example to deal


with either proximal or distal extrapolations; neglect-
ing the latter w o u l d be a significant source of underes- 100
timation of volume in a data set that had a less com-
plete range of thickness and area data. If one stopped 10
at the 0.5-cm isopach in the four-isopach example (Ta-
ble 2), the total volume of 1.03 km 3 is close to the value T (crn) 1
obtained using all isopachs (1.06 km 3) because of com-
pensating errors. 0,1

Log-log scale and two straight-lines approximation 0.01 I i I

100 1000 10000 100000 1000000


In order to deal with the nonlinearity of the data, one A (km2)
can plot it using log-log scales as shown in Fig. 4a. This 1000000
tends to reduce the nonlinearity of the data, and
prompted Rose et al. (1973) to suggest a two-straight-
line approximation in order to calculate volumes. They 100000 c
used thickness as the independent coordinate and pro-
posed the power-law functional form:
A (km2) 10000
~A'oT q O<_T<_Tip
A = [A,o,TC~ T~v<T<~176 (2)

where:
1000 - I [
[]

A'o TT~ = A'o' T~~ - A~v (3) Tip []


100
The quantities Aft and A~' are the values of area where 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
the thickness is 1 in the units being used, Tip and Aip are T (cm)
the thickness and area at the point where the two Fig. 4. a Log-log plot of thickness versus area for the 18 May 1980
straight lines intercept, and ca and c2 are the values for eruption of Mount St. Helens. b Log-log plot of area versus thick-
the slopes of the two lines (Fig. 4b). As the thickness ness along with approximation using two straight-lines to calcu-
goes to zero, the area must go to infinity in Eq. 2, neces- late volume. Two proximal isopachs (open squares) are not in-
sitating the constraint that ca < 0. As the thickness goes cluded in the calculation (see text). Area Alp and thickness T~p at
the point of interception are shown. Slopes of the line segments
to infinity, the area must go to zero, and the second
are cl and c2
constraint is that c2 < 0. The volume of the deposit is
obtained by integrating this function:

V= ~AdT In order to prevent the values of these expressions from


0 being infinite at the limits zero and infinity, we have the
additional constraints that ca + 1 > 0 and c2 + 1 < O.
o T~p Combining these with the previous constraints, the

A~ [Tq+a]oT,, ' + [TC2+a]~,," (4)


= +---i-
Cl
159

slopes of the lines on a log-log plot (Fig. 4b) must sa- 1000000
tisfy the following inequalities: ~~-':-.~.,~. a

0>c1> - 1 (5a) 100000 " ~ "


c2 < - 1. (5b)
Assuming that the slopes satisfy these inequalities, the
A (km 2) 1oooo ,
volume is:

V- A'o TTA + , _ _
A6' T~p~+ ~ (6a)
1000
C1+1 C2q-1

= Aip Tip c 1 + 1 c2+1 "


100 I r [
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
The simplification from Eq. 6a to 6b is done using the
matching condition at the point of interception (3). Be- 1000000 ~ b
cause of the constraint (5a), the volume calculated from
Eq. 6b is very sensitive to the slope cl, especially when
the value is close to - 1. Constraints (5a) and (5b) show
100000 -'~-
that a single line cannot be used to calculate total vol-
ume, because a single slope cannot satisfy b o t h con-
A (km2) 10000
straints (Rose et al. 1973).
Figure 4b shows the data for M o u n t St. Helens with
the axes being area versus thickness, consistent with us-
1000
ing thickness as the independent variable. The two
straight lines are fitted using least squares calculations
with the line representing more distal deposits (with
100 I , 9
slope c]) fitted to the five thinnest isopachs and the line
o,oi o.~ i 1o 1oo
representing m o r e proximal deposits (with slope c2) fit-
T (cm)
ted to the next five isopachs. As before, the values for
the two most proximal isopachs are shown but are not Fig. 5. Log-log plot of area versus thickness for the 18 May 1980
included in the fit. In order to show the sensitivity of eruption of Mount St. Helens along with two-straight-line approx-
slope cl, Fig. 5a shows how the fits change as the num- imations for calculating volume, a Lines shown are calculated for
ber of isopachs used in the calculation are reduced in all distal isopachs (All) and for removing one, two, or three iso-
the distal region. The data for mount St. Helens include pachs ( - 1, - 2, and - 3) and recalculating the slope of the line. b
Lines shown are calculated for all distal isopachs (broken lines us-
areas for thinner isopachs than can be obtained for ing filled squares and open diamonds) and recalculated for the
most eruptions. The plot illustrates removing only the slope of the line based on the remaining three isopachs after re-
three thinnest isopachs. Removing the fourth isopach moving the last three (solid lines using only filled squares)
results in the distal slope cl being less than - 1 (calcu-
lating the distal slope using the remaining two thinnest
isopachs and the proximal slope using the next four) Table 3. Values obtained from straight-line fits to data using log-
and the volume going to infinity. Table 3 gives the log coordinates for the eruption of Mount St. Helens of 18 May
slopes and constants for the various fits and the result- 1980. All calculations ignore the two proximal isopachs. Rose and
ing volumes. The volume is higher by 19% after the sec- Hoffman (1982) calculated a volume of 1.3 k m 3 using the same
method, however the slopes given in their Fig. I are not what were
ond isopach is r e m o v e d and by 14% after the third is used to calculate the volume reported (WI Rose, Jr, oral commu-
removed. After removing three isopachs, the line is de- nication, 1989). The values in their Table 3 for volumes outside
termined by only two points, and one would more the isopachs listed are actually volumes from the thickness given
likely use the last three of the remaining isopachs to to zero thickness (WI Rose, Jr, oral communication, 1989)
determine the line. In such a case, one would get a line
with a m u c h steeper slope than that obtained using all Number A'o e] Ag e2 Tie Aip V
isopachs km 2 km2 cm km2 km3
the data, as shown in Fig. 5b, and the calculated vol-
ume would then be 6.1 km 3 instead of the 1.2 km 3 cal- All(lO) 32100 -0.568 90400 -2.552 1.69 23900 1.19
culated by using all of the data. 9 31300 -0.601 90400 -2.552 1.72 22600 1.23
Although the fit of the two straight lines in Fig. 4b is 8 29900 -0.698 90400 -2,552 1.82 19700 1,42
quite good, the plot in Fig. 4a shows that actually every 7 30000 -0.678 90400 -2.552 1.80 20100 1.36
three points define a different straight line with the 6 30000 -1.229 166000 -2.912 2.76 8612 oo
slope changing in a Systematic manner. Ignoring the Use 2, 1, and O.5-cm isopachs to determine e~
two proximal data points, there are four different 7 26400 -0.953 166000 -2.912 2.55 10800 6.07
straight lines that have been a p p r o x i m a t e d by two. In
addition, the functional form imposes an infinite thick-
ness at zero area, which is not consistent with real de-
posit distributions. The integral of this infinite thick-
160

ness is finite, as long as the constraint in Eq. 5b is satis- rather than assume a shape for the isopachs. The vol-
fied. For deposits with limited data that plot on a single ume integral is:
straight line, the integration must be stopped at a finite
thickness to avoid calculating an infinite volume. v= I raA. (9)
As with the trapezoidal method, a two-straight-line 0

approximation on a log-log scale may substantially Changing variables, the integral may be written as:
overestimate tephra volumes if the data set is not com-
plete enough. The curved trend of the data do not ren- V = T Td('41/2) 2
der this a good method by which to extrapolate for dis- 0
tal or proximal portions.
= ~ T2Al/2dA */2, (10)
0

L o g t h i c k n e s s versus area 1/2 and substituting Eq. 7:

Single straight-line segment V = T 2 To exp(-kA1/2)A1/2dA l/z (11)


0

Thorarinsson (1954) found that thickness decays ex- -2T0


ponentially with distance from source and that a plot of - k ~ [(kA1/2+ 1) exp(-kA1/2)]g
the logarithm of thickness versus average distance (the
2T0
radius of a circle whose area is equal to the area of the = k2 . (12)
isopach) also decays exponentially. Pyle (1989) has
used this observation to suggest that plotting the logar- Note that this result is valid for any shape of isopachs
ithm of thickness versus A 1/2 should result in straight- where Eq. 7 is valid and is independent of the assump-
line behavior (e.g. Fig. 6) and extended the method by tion of circular or elliptical isopachs. Pyle (1989) de-
recognizing that some deposits are best represented by rived a similar result based on the assumption of circu-
two straight lines on such a plot. Treating the simplest lar isopachs.
case of a single straight line, the equation for thickness In addition to total volume, it is useful to be able to
as an exponential function of area 1/2 is: calculate the volume between two isopachs a and b (for
T= To exp(-kA1/2), (7) example between 1 cm and zero). Note that the volume
that we want to calculate is that between area Aa of
where To is the extrapolated thickness at A = 0, and - k thickness Ta and area Ab of thickness Tb. Changing the
is the slope of the line on a In T versus A 1/2 plot. This limits in Eq. 11, the result is:
slope may be calculated from any two points on the
line using: 2To
V = ~g-[(kA 1/2 + 1) exp(-kA~/2)
In T b - In Ta
-k = 9 (8) - (kA ~/2 + 1) exp ( - kA ~/2)]. (13)
If the thickness of the second isopach is zero, the vol-
In order to calculate volume, Pyle (1989) assumed
ume from isopach Aa to infinity is obtained by taking
the isopachs to be elliptical in shape and integrated
the limit as Ab goes to infinity, or:
with respect to thickness. We choose to directly inte-
grate Eq. 7 using area as the independent variable 2To (kA]/2 + 1) exp(-kAla/2),
V=~ (14)

This formula is used in a later section to calculate the


100
volume from the isopach defined by the 1-cm contour
[] to infinity.
10 [] Figure 6 shows a plot of the data for the 18 May
" % . _ _ 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens in the log thickness
versus area 1/2 coordinates. The data are fitted very well
T (cm) 1 ' ~ ~ . ~ _
by a single straight line (except for the two proximal
isopachs), and the calculated volume is 1.07 km 3. If we
0.1 remove the last four data points, the calculated volume
increases by only 0.02 km 3, to 1.09 km 3. For compari-
0.01 I I I , i son, if one removes the last four isopachs on the log-log
100 200 300 400 500 600 plot (Fig. 5a), the calculated volume is infinite. The lack
A 1/2 (kin) of any break in slope between the 6-cm and 0.05-cm
isopachs in Fig. 6 shows that three of the four breaks in
Fig. 6. Log of thickness versus the square root of area for the 18 slope on the log-log plot of Fig. 4a are an artifact of the
May 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens along with calculated
best-fit straight line for calculating volume. Two proximal iso-
log-log coordinates, and the logarithm of thickness ver-
pachs (open squares) are not included in the calculation (see sus area 1/2 are more natural coordinates for the prob-
text) lem. The two proximal data points that define a fourth
161

break in slope in Fig. 4a also define a break in slope on _ - 2 To [(kA ~/2 + 1) e x p ( - kA ~/2)]oA~;~
Fig. 6, and the next section gives formulas for calculat- k2
ing the volume using two straight-line segments.
-2T1
k2 [(klA 1/2 +1) exp( - - K ~.A. . . . . IIA~/2
.

Two straight-line segments 2To 2To


- ~k- k: [(kAle2 + 1) exp(-kAg2)]
For the case where the thickness relation involves two
straight-line segments, we have: + ~2T1 [(klA,,1/2 + 1) exp(_klAg2)]. (17)
~To e x p ( - k A 1/2) O<A <_a,p (15)
Substituting Eq. 16, this may be simplified to:
T = [T1 e x p ( - k l A l/z) A i p < A < oo
V__2To
where To and - k are the intercept and slope of the line k2
segment in the near-vent region and/'1 and - k l are the
intercept and slope of the line segment in the distal por- +2To[(klAi~2~+[
~ 1) (kA]p/2k
2 + 1)] exp(_kA~2).(18)
tion. Area Aip is the value at the point of interception of
the two straight lines (Fig. 7a). The parameter 7"1 is the
Figure 7a shows the Mount St. Helens data, includ-
thickness where the projected distal line segment inter-
ing the two proximal isopachs, fitted by two straight-
sects A =0; it is not the thickness at the point of inter-
line segments. The calculated volume is 1.12 km 3, ver-
ception. The two functions have the same value at the
sus 1.07 km 3 for the volume calculated using a single
point of interception, and we obtain the relation:
line segment and neglecting the proximal isopachs. The
To exp(-kA]p/2) = 7"1 exp ( - kl A ]J2). (16) difference in calculated volumes for other deposits is
Substituting Eq. 15 into 10 and evaluating the integral, not always this small, depending on where the break in
we obtain: slope occurs. Breaks in slope at small values of Aip
probably reflect near-vent phenomena such as intercal-
V= ~ 2 To exp ( - kA 1/2)A 1/2 dA 1/2 ated surges and fallback ejecta, and represent little ad-
o ditional volume. Slope breaks at larger values of Aip,
however, may be due to the incorporation of co-plinian
+ ~ 2 7"1 e x p ( - k l A ~ / 2 ) A l / 2 d A w2 or co-ignimbrite additions to distal ash, with significant
A~r portions of the total volume represented both proxi-
mally and distally (Fierstein and Hildreth in press; Hil-
dreth 1990).
Figure 7b shows the Mount St. Helens data and
100 ~,~T_____~,~,~T_____TO Mount St. Helens best-fit straight lines as well as the replotted approxi-
mation from the two straight lines in the log-log plot of
Figure 4b. The two-straight-line approximation from
the log-log plot appears as two curves in these coordi-
T (cm) 1 nates, but deviates most from the data near its change
in slope, where it adds a bump. The most striking dif-
0.1 ference in the methods, however, is the extrapolation
beyond the last data point. The exponential goes to
zero at a faster rate than the power law dependence. In
I

,00
the Mount St. Helens case, where the data set is large
600 700
and isopachs extend to small thicknesses, the difference
100
in calculated volumes is small.

10
Calculation for elliptical isopachs
T (cm) t
Because of the common occurrence of elliptically
shaped isopachs, we show here how they give the same
0.1
result as the A 1/2 formulation, and we compare the rela-
Q ,~r,,~-Power
. . law tions that use the minor versus the major axis of an el-
Expo n en t i a l - - - P - " ' ~ -.. _. _
0.01 lipse to calculate volumes. Assuming that x is the major
~oo zoo aoo 400 500 600 700 axis, y the minor axis, and a = y / x is the (constant) ratio
A 1/2 (km) of the length of the axes, the area of an elliptical iso-
pach is:
Fig. 7. Log of thickness versus the square root of area for the 18
May 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens along with the calculated A ---~xy = ~zxZa = rcy2/a, (19)
best-fit two straightlines for calculatingvolume.Two-straight-line
approximation (dashed) from Fig. 4b shown
162

and the thickness relations for single straight-line seg- summary formulas given in Pyle (1990). Some deriva-
ments are: tions of formulas in Pyle (1989) are difficult to follow,
T = To e x p ( - k A 1/2) because he uses k to mean one slope in the text and a
different slope in Appendix 1 ; he introduced variables r
= To e x p ( - m x x ) = To e x p ( - myy), (20) and y without giving a relation between them; and Eq.
where - m~ and - my are the slopes of In T versus dis- A1.3 is missing 1/a in the first term and contains what
tance along the major and minor axes and are not appear to be two extraneous integrals. The parameter bt
equal. Since the thickness at an area given by Eq. 20 in Pyle's Eq. 9 is defined as the distance in which the
must be the same as that given by the relations along an thickness decays to half its original value on a radial
axis, the slope on an area 1/z plot can be related to the plot for circular isopachs after his Eq. 1, and for the
slopes on the axis plots by combining Eq. 19 and 20: thickness to decay to half its original value on a plot for
2 my2/~
one of the axes of an ellipse after his Eq. 4. Because his
k2 _ mx _ (21) definition depends on the model isopachs chosen, b, is
not a good quantity to use. It would have been more
From Eq. 19, the elemental areas are: useful if a new quantity had been defined for the new
In Tversus A 1/2 plot; however, the common occurrence
dA = 2Jraxdx = 2~rydy/ a. of two straight lines makes it problematic to define
Evaluating the integrals, we obtain: such a quantity.

V = ~ To e x p ( - m x x ) 2 ~ a x d x - 2~aTo (22)
0 Volume by crystal concentration method
and:
The log thickness versus area 1/2 method provides a
2~rTo good estimate of the total volume of a tephra layer if
V = T To exp(-myy)21rydy/ot - 2 " (23)
there are adequate isopach data. It is instructive to use
0 rn~a
this method to gain perspective on the crystal-concen-
Froggatt (1982) obtained the result in Eq. 22 while Pyle tration method of calculating total volumes developed
(1989) obtained the result in Eq. 23. Using Eq. 21 in by Walker (1980) for the case of limited isopach data.
(22) and (23), we obtain: The original application of this method was to the
2T0 2~aTo 2JrTo Taupo plinian deposit where the thinnest isopach avail-
V~- k2 mZx m~ct (24) able on land is 12.5 cm, and it is clear that there is sub-
stantial mass beyond the last isopach. A better example
Thus, whether one uses the minor axis, the major axis, for our purpose is the Hatepe plinian deposit (Walker
or the area formulation, the resulting calculated volume 1981), which is much smaller in total volume but has
will be the same; however, the area formulation is not isopachs on land as thin as 3 cm. The isopach and mass
dependent on the use of model isopachs. In addition,
the area formulation makes it unnecessary to obtain a
value for a. This is especially useful since many fall de- Table 4. Thickness, mass loadings, and areas for the Hatepe plin-
posits do not have simply shaped elliptical isopachs, ian deposit obtained by planimetering the maps in Walker
and the ratio between the axes may not be constant. (1981)
Pyle (1989) obtained an equation for the volume for
Isopachs Mass loading
two straight-line segments by using the assumption
of elliptical isopachs. In our notation, his equation T (cm) A (kin2) (g/cm 2) A (km2)
may be obtained from Eq. 17 by adding the term
O=2T~/k~-2T~/k~ and the term O=Aip-Aio and rear- 200 170 100 160
ranging to: 100 530 50 490
50 1100 25 1230
2Tl 25 1780 12 2120
12 2970 6 3600
6 4800 3 5600
3 9300 1.6 11500
+gTo [2 exp (kA ]p/2) - kZAip _ _.~.gt'Aipl/a_ 21

x e x p ( - t~A !/;~ - 7"1 [2 exp(kaA~S 2)


"-"P " k~ < 2 mm pumice Crystals Lithics
-- k2Aip - 2k~A~ 2 - 2] exp( - ~1 A ivl/2"~).
(g/cm 2) A(km ~) (g/cm z) A(km 2) (g/cm 2) A(km 2)
Comparing this to Eqs. 8 and 9 in Pyle (1989), the result
is the same if the principal volume in his Eq. 9 is calcu- 16 160 4 310
8 1540 2 1100 2 1490
lated using the distal slope (not in agreement with his 4 3100 1 2500 1 3100
symbols) and his parameter R is interpreted to be 2 5400 0.5 4700 0.5 5200
A ,p
~/2, not (A~p/Jr)~/2 as one is likely to think from his use 1 11100 0.25 11400 0.25 11700
of r in his Eq. 1. This interpretation is confirmed by the
163

T (cm)
100
1000

10
!
I
Hatepe Lapilli
Table 5. Calculations of lost mass and volume using the crystal-
concentration method of Walker (1980) for the Hatepe plinian de-
posit. Measured on-land values are from Walker (198l) calculated
using only isopleth data on land. Measured values for this study
are based on the two-slope extrapolations shown in Fig. 9

On land This study

Measured

Isopleth mass (10~5g) 1.13 1.45


1 i I I ; I ~ Vitric (<2 mm pumice fraction) (1015 g) 0.44 0.55
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Crystals (1015 g) 0.09 0.14
A 1/2 (km) Lithics (1015 g) 0.I1 0.15
Fig. 8. Log of thickness versus the square root of area for the Ha- Calculation of lost mass
tepe plinian deposit along with two-straight-line approximation
for calculating volume Total vitric = (96.7/3.3) x measured
crystals (1015 g) 2.64 4.10
Lost vitric = Total vitric- measured
1000
Hatepe
vitric (1015 g) 2.20 3.55
Lost lithics =0.17 10st vitfic (1015 g) 0.37 0.60
100 "'\*\
Total lost mass = lost vitric + lost
\
lithics (10I5 g) 2.57 4.15
--. "e.

M/A (g/cm2) 10 <~.. "'--.a .... "~+ Total Calculation of total volume
"~<x-.. "'A... ~, ~ , ~ Mass
~..~=. Lithic~ .............~ - +----
Measured volume (kin3) 2.33 2.47
1 v Crystals "w":X"<'~:S m'm............ ~.~- Lost volume = Total lost mass/0.7 g
cm -3 (km3) 3.67 5.93
Total volume = Measured volume + lost
0.1 , , i t , , "~'~ volume (km3) 6.00 8.40
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
A 1/2 (krn)

Fig. 9. Mass loadings for the entire deposit (total mass), < 2-mm (isopleth) maps by substituting M / A for To in Eq. 18.
pumice fraction, lithic s, and free crystals for the Hatepe plinian
deposit Table 5 gives our calculated values as well as Walker's
values. Our values are somewhat higher, but it is clear
that the mass on land comprises most of the mass deter-
loading data are given in Table 4, and a plot of the iso- mined by extrapolating the mass loading plots.
pach data is shown in Fig. 8. In this case, the point of In order to calculate the total mass by the crystal-
interception is at an A~p/2 of 61 km versus 27 km for the concentration method, Table 5 shows that the total vit-
18 May 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. The calcu- ric mass is obtained by multiplying the mass of crystals
lated total volume using Eq. 18 is 2.5 km 3. by the vitric/crystal ratio of 96.7/3.3 found in several
The crystal-concentration method is based on three large pumice fragments. The lost vitric component is
major assumptions (Walker 1981): (1) large pieces of obtained by subtracting the measured vitric from the to-
pumice are representative of the original magma and tal mass of vitric material. Walker assumes that the
may be used to obtain the ratio of crystal to vitric com- amount of lost lithics is 0.17 times the mass o f lost vitric
ponents; (2) when crystals are liberated during an ex- material. The total lost mass is the sum of these two
plosive eruption, some of the magma is fragmented to components, and the lost volume is calculated assum-
an assemblage of particles equal ifi size to, or finer ing an average density of 0.7 g / c m 3.
than, the largest phenocryst size (commonly about The lost volume of 5.9 krrt3 is quite large compared
2 mm); (3) during eolian fractionation in the ash cloud, to the measured volume of 2.5 km 3. The major reason
crystals fall closer to the vent than do lighter pumiceous for this increased volume is that, for the < 2-mm frac-
particles of the same size, hence are concentrated tion of the deposit, the ratio of crystals to crystal-plus-
there. vitric components of 0.20 [ = 0.14/(0.14 + 0.55)] is much
In applying this method, Walker (1981, Figure 14) greater than the value of 0.033 found by Walker (1981)
made measurements of loading per unit area of total for large pumice fragments. Some perspective on this
mass, mass of vitric component (pumice < 2 mm in can be gained from the distribution of mass loadings
size), mass of free crystals, and mass of lithics < 2 mm shown in Fig. 9. The slopes of the three plots for the
in size. He then calculated the on-land mass of each of < 2-mm fraction of the deposit for the vitric, crystal,
these components. Figure 9 shows these data plotted and lithic components are all quite similar. If there
versus area ~/2. The plot shows that each of the four were a large concentration of the crystal component re-
quantities follows a reasonable two-line-segment be- lative to the vitric component in the proximal region,
havior; therefore we can calculate the total mass of one would expect a thickening of the vitric component
each component implied by the mass loading contour in the distal region compared to the crystal and lithic
164

components. Unfortunately, the distal slopes of all points. In previous studies, the extrapolation needed to
three components are not well constrained. Although obtain the volume calculated by the crystal-concentra-
there may be a more distal enrichment of the vitric tion method has been shown on log area versus log
component, the available data do not show any indica- thickness plots. In log-log coordinates, the extrapola-
tion of this large amount of lost vitric material, If, in tion appears as a line with a slightly steeper slope than
fact, there is not a large amount of lost vitric compo- the line defined by the data themselves. Plotting the
nent, one is left with a major conflict between the de- data as log thickness versus area 1/2 (Fig. 10), however,
posit data that yield a crystal/vitric ratio of 0.20/0.80 shows that the added volume results in a large change
and the large pumice fragments with a crystal/vitric ra- in slope compared to that defined by the available iso-
tio of 0.033/0.967. Because one expects that the large pach data. The area of the 1-cm isopach consistent with
pumice fragments are approximately representative of a volume of 2.5 km 3 (using only isopach data) is
the original magma, the lost vitric component is appar- 19500 km 2, with 4.0 km ~ (using Walker's crystal con-
ently so fine and lightweight that it is deposited in a centration method with mass loading extrapolation but
very thin layer over a very large area beyond the 3-cm using different assumptions) is 60 000 km 2, with 6.0 km 3
isopach. (using Walker's crystal concentration method) is
Because the calculation of lost volume is sensitive to 108000 km 2, and with 8.4 km 3 (using Walker's crystal
the assumptions used, it is worthwhile to show how dif- concentration method with mass loading extrapolation)
ferent assumptions change the value. Based on Fig. % a is 163000 km 2. Thus, the areas of the ~cm isopach
reasonable assumption is that there may be no lost li- needed to obtain the crystal concentration volumes are
thics. The lost volume calculation is quite sensitive to three, six, and eight times the area based on projecting
the crystal-vitric ratio, and a value of 0.05/0.95 might the isopach data itself. The fraction of the calculated
still be reasonable. The assumed density for the fine vit- volume beyond the 1-cm isopach are 6, 26, 38, and 45%,
ric component might be as high as 1.4 g/cm 2 rather respectively. In the next section, data for various other
than 0.7 g/cm 3. Using these assumptions, the lost vol- deposits will be used to get some perspective on how
ume is 1.5 km 3 rather than 5.9 km 3, and the total vol- much volume is usually calculated beyond the 1-cm iso-
ume is 4.0 km 3. This amount of lost volume is much pach.
easier to accommodate to the isopach data.
If the lost volume is combined with the available iso-
pach data, the slope on the thickness-area ~/2 plot can Discussion of volumes beyond the 1-cm isopach
be recalculated to accommodate the added volume.
Figure 10 shows the original isopach data and best-fit A crucial problem in studying fallout tephra layers is
slopes, along with additional slopes that are necessary how far from source isopach data must be measured in
to accommodate the extra volume from both calcula- order to be confident that the total integrated volumes
tions in Table 5 as well the calculation using the differ- are accurate measures of the total erupted volumes. Ta-
ent assumptions (given above). The extra volume calcu- ble 6 gives the parameters we have used to calculate
lated by the crystal-concentration method is compatible volumes for a number of deposits based on using either
with the isopach data only if the slope is much less tabulated data for areas and thicknesses or areas ob-
steep than that obtained by using the last two data tained by planimetering the published isopach maps.
For most of the deposits listed, exponential decay is an
1000
excellent match to the isopach data. In additon to total
volume V, the volume from the 1-cm isopach to infinity
Vl_cmis given, and the entry T~astis the thickness of the
last isopach that we feel can reasonably be closed to
100
obtain the area of the most distal isopach.
T (cm) Several deposits have a volume calculated using the
crystal-concentration method as well as a volume calcu-
10
lated using just the isopachs; both are given in Table 6.
6.0 km 3 8.~- km 3 For entries 24-27 in Table 6, the slopes kl for the distal
distributions were adjusted (as in the previous section)
! , 2.5 ~=-~-:~=
kms "~-~.01 km "~"-~l~-='="
. . . . . ~-l
. . . . ~-. .- - - - - ~
to match the total volumes calculated using the crystal-
50 100 150 200 250 300
concentration method.
A 1/2 (km)
The ratio of the volume between the 1-cm isopach
and infinity to the total volume calculated (V1_o,~/V) is
Fig. 10. Log of thickness versus the square root of area for the
Hatepe tephra layer along with the two straight lines for calculat- given in Table 6 and is plotted in Fig. 11 versus the total
ing volumes. Volume of 2.5 km 3 is based on isopach data alone. volume. The seven deposits where the ratio is 0.01 to
Volume of 6.0 km 3 is based on isopach data plus lost volume from 0.03 all have a last isopach of 12 cm or greater; based
Walker's (198l) crystal-concentration calculation using on-land on the other examples, it is likely that more data would
values from isopleth maps. Volume of 8.4 km 3 is based on isopach result in significantly larger volume estimates for the
data plus lost volume from crystal-concentration calculation using distal portions. For most deposits, however, our calcu-
the two-straight-line calculation to extrapolate data from isopleth
maps. Volume of 4.0 km 3 is based on similar calculation with dif- lations for the volume beyond the 1-cm isopach is less
ferent assumptions than 20% of the total, and we can be confident that dis-
165

Table 6. Parameters (defined in the text) for the calculation of volume for tephra layers listed. T~a~tis thickness of last isopach that can
reasonably be closed to obtain an area

Name To k A i~2 T1 kl V V>cm gl..cm/ g Tlast


(cm) (km - 1) (km) (cm) (km - 1) (km 3) (km 3) (cm)

Two slopes

1. Apoyo Layer A 1630 0.121 27 280 0.055 2.9 0.044 0.02 25


2. Askja 1875 300 0.32 8.9 26 0.042 0.32 0.048 0.15 1
3. Cerro Negro 1971 183 0.34 11.9 12.0 0.110 0.042 0.0058 0.14 0.5
4. Los Chocoyos 510 0.029 101 32 0.0020 174 23 0,13 1
5. Fogo 1563 1420 0.41 4.0 510 0.160 0,43 0.0056 0.01 50
6. Fuego 1971 45 0.184 11.7 7.9 0.034 0.142 0.052 0.37 1
7. Hatepe 480 0.069 61 35 0.026 2.5 0.140 0.06 3
8. Hekla 1947 110 0.131 39 1.50 0.021 0.181 0.059 0.33 0.006
9. Hekla 1970 43 0.25 8.3 7.9 0.050 0.066 0.024 0.36 0.1
10. Novarupta A 336 0.058 47 41 0.0140 5.1 0.48 0.09 1
11. Novarupta BIB2B3 137 0.053 46 25 0.016 2.3 0.33 0.14 1
12. Novarupta C D + E 820 0.100 41 34 0,021 2.7 0.20 0.07 1
13. Novarupta F G + H 820 0.130 26 37 0.0108 7.1 0.80 0.11 1
14. Minoan 890 0.127 21 73 0.0062 39 2.8 0.07 5
15. Quizapu 1300 0.098 48 17.0 0.0067 9.9 1.71 0.17 0.1
16. St. Helens 18 May 76 0.094 27 8.4 0.0126 1.12 0.39 0.35 0.05
17, Santa Maria 1902 154 0,021 250 5.7 0.0075 7.8 0.90 0.12 0.1
18. Waimihia 1190 0.050 59 410 0.032 11.3 0.140 0.01 12

One slope

1% Chuseri 1110 0.097 2,4 0.017 0.01 25


20. Nambu 480 0.099 0.98 0.015 0.02 12
21. Tambora 1815 125 0.0051 95 4.4 0.05 1
22. Taupo 197 0.022 7.8 0.25 0.03 12.5
23. Utarube 280 0.115 0.42 0.010 0.02 12

Crystal concentration volumes

24. Hatepe 420 0.063 77 4.2 0.0036 8.4 3.8 0.45


25. Santa Maria 1902 154 0.021 350 0.12 0.00035 27 19.9 0.74
26. Taupo 197 0.022 122 23 0.0049 23 3.4 0.15
27. Waimihia 1000 0.044 101 18.0 0.0036 36 6.0 0.17

References for isopach data: 1. Sussman (1985); 2. Sparks et al, (1981); 3. Rose et al. (1973); 4. Drexler et al. (1980); 5. Walker and
Croasdale (1971); 6. Rose et al. (1973); 7. Walker (1981); 8. Thorarinsson (1954); 9. Thorarinsson and Sigvaldason (1972); 10-13. Fierstein
and Hildreth (in press); 14. Pyle (1990); 15. Hildreth (1990); 16. Sarna-Wojcicki et al. (1981); 17. Williams and Self (1983); 18. Walker
(1981); 19-20. Hayakawa (1985); 21. Self et al. (1984); 22. Walker (1980); 23. Hayakawa (1985); 24, 27. Walker (1981) with total masses
recalculated using method in this study; 25. Williams and Self (1983) with lost vitric calculated as total vitric minus measured vitric; and
26. Walker (1980)

tal d a t a m e a s u r e d to t h e 1-cm i s o p a c h will give a rea- f r a c t i o n o f m a t e r i a l b e y o n d t h e 1-cm i s o p a c h o b t a i n e d


sonably good estimate of the total volume. The Taupo from the crystal-concentration calculation for the Ha-
a n d W a i m i h i a d e p o s i t s h a v e o n l y 3 a n d 1% o f t h e i r vol- t e p e l a y e r is 45% f o r a v o l u m e o f 8.4 k m 3. T h e H a t e p e
u m e s b e y o n d the 1-cm i s o p a c h b a s e d o n t h e i s o p a c h c r y s t a l - c o n c e n t r a t i o n v a l u e is h i g h e r t h a n t h e v a l u e s
d a t a a l o n e , w h i l e the c r y s t a l - c o n c e n t r a t i o n c a l c u l a t i o n c a l c u l a t e d f r o m i s o p a c h d a t a in T a b l e 6, w h i c h r a n g e to
y i e l d s 15% a n d 17%, respectively. I n b o t h cases, the 37%, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the c a l c u l a t e d v o l u m e m a y b e
t h i n n e s t c l o s e d i s o p a c h t h a t c o u l d b e o b t a i n e d was s o m e w h a t high.
a b o u t 12 cm, b e c a u s e d a t a were o n l y a v a i l a b l e o n l a n d . T h e f r a c t i o n o f m a t e r i a l b e y o n d t h e 1-cm i s o p a c h
Although the added volumes from the crystal-concen- o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e c r y s t a l - c o n c e n t r a t i o n c a l c u l a t i o n for
t r a t i o n m e t h o d are large, the v o l u m e s b a s e d o n i s o p a c h t h e S a n t a M a r i a 1902 d e p o s i t is 74%; this is d i f f i c u l t to
d a t a a l o n e a r e p r o b a b l y l o w b e c a u s e o f t h e l i m i t e d iso- a c c e p t . I s o p a c h d a t a for this d e p o s i t are a v a i l a b l e to
pach data. 0.1 cm, a n d the c a l c u l a t e d v o l u m e b y o u r m e t h o d is
T h e r e a r e s e v e r a l d e p o s i t s w h e r e the v o l u m e b e y o n d 7.8 k m 3 a n d b y t h e crystal c o n c e n t r a t i o n m e t h o d is
the 1-cm i s o p a c h is l a r g e r t h a n 20%. F o u r o f t h e s e cases 27 k m 3. B e c a u s e t h e c r y s t a l / v i t r i c m a s s r a t i o is 0 . 2 4 7 /
are for r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l v o l u m e e r u p t i o n s ( ~ 1 k m 3 o r 0.753 f o r large p u m i c e f r a g m e n t s ( W i l l i a m s a n d Self
less), a n d o n l y t h e H e k l a 1947 l a y e r r e q u i r e s i s o p a c h 1983), t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t o t a l vitric v o l u m e is n o t as
d a t a t h i n n e r t h a n 1 c m to e s t a b l i s h t h e s l o p e t h a t y i e l d s sensitive to this r a t i o as it is for H a t e p e w h e r e the r a t i o
the c a l c u l a t e d v o l u m e b e y o n d the 1-cm i s o p a c h . T h e is 0.033/0.967. F r o m the d a t a o f W i l l i a m s a n d S e l f
166
1.00
9 Two slopes
ponentially from the vent, and because it allows distal
extrapolation more certainly. Most deposits plot with
L2 Single slope
0,80 either one or two straight lines on such coordinates,
<> Crystal concentration ~SM and this behavior gives confidence in the extrapolations
/
I and interpolations needed to calculate deposit volumes.
0.60 /
/ However, limited isopach data, even using the A 1/2
/
Vl-cm plot, can lead to significant underestimation of deposit
Ht 9 i/
0,40 // / volume because many deposits have a break in slope in
v HTOI IF71 9
/
/
/
/ medial or distal regions. Fall deposits with data to the
H47
/! I 1-cm isopach are thought to give reasonably good esti-
0.20 !
/ tl TO/<> W mates of total volumes.
9 I/ i II //I Based on the comparisons of volumes calculated
~lI / // 9 []
0.00 from the crystal-concentration method and from iso-
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 pach data plotted as log thickness v e r s u s A 1/2, we can
V (km3) reach some tentative conclusions. For the Taupo and
Waimihia deposits the small fraction of volume beyond
Fig. 1L Ratio of volume from i-cm isopach to infinity to total the 1-cm isopach calculated from the isopach data
volume (Vl_cm/V) versus total volume for tephra layers given in alone suggests that the total volume is an underesti-
Table 6. Labels for tephra layers are: F71, Fuego 1971; H47, Hekla mate. Additional isopach data beyond 12 cm would
1947; H7e, Hekla 1970; Ht, Hatepe; SH, Mount St. Helens 18
May 1980; SM, Santa Maria'1902; T, Taupe; W, Waimihia. De- probably result in a shallow distal slope significantly
posits that plot as a single straight line on a log thickness versus increasing the total volume. Whether the volume is as
area 1/2 plot are shown as open squares and those that plot as two large as that calculated from the crystal-concentration
straight lines as filled squares. Volumes calculated using the crys- method cannot be addressed; however, the fraction
tal concentration method are shown as open diamonds, and are beyond the 1-cm isopach for the crystal-concentration
joined to their corresponding values obtained from the log thick- volume is similar to that found for other deposits with
ness versus area ~/2 plots by a broken line
more complete data. For the Hatepe deposit, the plots
of log mass loading versus area 1/2 suggest that the
amounts of lost vitric material, and thus the lost vol-
(1983), the crystal/vitric ratio for the deposit is 0.66/ ume, are not as large as that calculated using the crys-
0.33, nearly opposite the proportions in the large pu- tal-concentration method. For all three deposits the
mice clasts. Although one can propose that the areas crystal/vitric ratio is quite sensitive to the small amount
for the 1- and 0.1-cm isopachs are somewhat larger of crystals in the large pieces of pumice, and slight
than Sapper (1904) reported, it is difficult to reconcile changes in the assumed ratio would result in large
this large lost volume with the deposit isopachs. To add changes in the amount of lost material calculated. F.or
this lost volume to the deposit, the distal slope in Table the Santa Maria deposit, the volume calculated by the
6 was recalculated by adding a 0.01-cm isopach with an crystal-concentration method does not seem consistent
area of 5.1 x 107 km 2 (a swath around the entire globe with areas of the 1- and 0.1-cm isopachs found by Sap-
1300 km wide). Alternatively the area of the 0.1-cm iso- per (1904).
pach could be increased from Sapper's value of
286000 km 2 to 5.2 x 10 6 km 2. However, Sapper's data Acknowledgements. Paul Froggatt, Wes Hildreth, Stephen Self,
and Herbert Shaw provided helpful reviews.
do not suggest that the isopach area could be that large.
Another possibility is that the lost vitric material was so
fine and lightweight that it was distributed in a manner
References
that did not follow exponential thinning and was car-
ried beyond the 0.1-cm isopach, ultimately settling Drexler JW, Rose WI Jr, Sparks RSJ, Ledbetter MT (1980) The
away from the rest of the deposit. This seems somewhat Los Chocoyos Ash, Guatemala: A major stratigraphic marker
problematic for 19 km 3 of material, although Williams in Middle America and in three ocean basins. Quat Res
and Self (1983) document that the deposit is very fine- 13: 327-345
grained compared to other deposits. We are unable to Fierstein J, Hildreth W (1992) The plinian eruptions of 1912 at
satisfactorily resolve this difference, but think that it Novarupta, Katmai National Park, Alaska. Bull Volcanol (in
press)
does suggest caution in accepting the large volume cal- Froggatt PC (1982) Review of methods of estimating rhyolitic
culated using the crystal-concentration method for this tephra volumes; applications to the Taupe Volcanic Zone,
deposit. New Zealand. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 14:301-318
Hayakawa Y (1985) Pyroclastic geology of Towada Volcano. Bull
Earthquake Res Inst, U Tokyo 60:507-590
Hildreth W (1990) The 1932 plinian eruption of Quizapu, Chilean
Conclusions Andes (abstr). Abstract Volume, International Volcanological
Congress, Mainz, September 3-8, 1990, International Associa-
For the calculation of volumes of tephra deposits from tion of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior
isopach data, we consider the use of log thickness ver- Pyle DM (1989) The thickness, volume and grainsize of tephra fall
sus A1/2 plots to be the best method because it is based deposits. Bull Volcanol 51 : 1-15
on the geologic observation that tephra layers thin ex-
167

Pyle DM (1990) New estimates for the volume of the Minoan Sparks RSJ, Wilson L, Sigurdsson H (1981) The pyroclastic de-
eruption. Thera and the Aegean World III, 2, Earth Sciences, posits of the 1875 eruption of Askja, Iceland. Phil Trans R Soc
113-121 : London, The Thera Foundation Lond 299:241-273
Rose WI Jr, Hoffman MF (1982) The May 18, 1980, eruption of Sussman D (1985) Apoyo caldera, Nicaragua: A major Quater-
Mount St. Helens: The nature of the eruption; with an atmos- nary silicic eruptive center. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 24:249-
pheric perspective. In: Deepak A (ed) Atmospheric effects and 282
potential climatic impact of the 1980 eruptions of Mount St. Thorarinsson S (1954) The tephra-fall from Hekla on March 29th
Helens. Nat Aer and Space Admin, Conf Pub 2240, pp 1-14 1947, in The eruption of Hekla 1947-1948 II, 3. Societas Scien-
Rose WI Jr, Bonis S, Stoiber RE, Keller M, Bickford T (1973) tiariurn Islandica, Reykjavik
Studies of volcanic ash from two recent Central American Thorarinsson S, Sigvaldason GE (1972) The Hekla eruption of
eruptions. Bull Volcanol 37:338-364 1970. Bull Volcanol 36:269-288
Sapper K (1904) Die vulcanischen Ereignisse in Mittelamerika im Walker GPL (1980) The Taupo pumice: Product of the most pow-
Jahre 1902. Neues Jahr Mineral Geol Palaeontol 1:39-90 erful known (ultraplinian) eruption ? J Volcanol Geotherm Res
Sarna-Wojcicki AM, Shipley S, Waitt RB Jr, Dzurisin D, Wood 8: 69-94
SH (1981) Areal distribution, thickness, mass, volume, and Walker GPL (1981) The Waimihia and Hatepe plinian deposits
grain size of air-fall ash from the six major eruptions of 1980. from 'the rhyolitic Taupo Volcanic Centre. N Z J Geol Geo~
In: Lipman PW, Mullineaux DR (eds)The 1980 Eruptions of phys 24:305-324
Mount St. Helens, Washington. US Geol Surv Prof Pap Walker GPL, Croasdale R (1971) Two Plinian-type eruptions in
1250:577-600 The Azores. J Geol Soc Lond 127:17-55
Self S,~Rampino MR, Newton MS, Wolff JA (1984) Volcanologi- Williams SN, Self S (1983) The October 1902 plinian eruption of
cal study of the great Tambora eruptions of 1815. Geology Santa Maria volcano, Guatemala. J Volcanol Geotherm Res
12:659-663 16:33-56