Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 339 (2017) 52–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvolgeores

Stability of volcanic conduits during explosive eruptions

Álvaro Aravena a,⁎, Mattia de' Michieli Vitturi b, Raffaello Cioni a, Augusto Neri b
a
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università di Firenze, Via Giorgio La Pira 4, I-50121 Firenze, Italy
b
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione di Pisa, Via della Faggiola 32, I-56126 Pisa, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Geological evidences of volcanic conduit widening are common in most pyroclastic deposits (e.g. presence of lith-
Received 16 March 2017 ic fragments from different depths), suggesting a continuous modification of the conduit geometry during volca-
Received in revised form 4 May 2017 nic eruptions. However, the controlling factors of the mechanisms driving conduit enlargement (e.g. erosion,
Accepted 4 May 2017
local collapse) are still partially unclear, as well as the influence of conduit geometry on the eruptive dynamics.
Available online 5 May 2017
Although numerical models have been systematically employed to study volcanic conduits, their mechanical sta-
Keywords:
bility and the eruptive dynamics related to non-cylindrical conduits have been poorly addressed.
Volcanology We present here a 1D steady-state model which includes the main processes experimented by ascending
Conduit stability magmas (i.e. crystallization, rheological changes, fragmentation, drag forces, outgassing and degassing), and
Rhyolitic magmas the application of two mechanical stability criteria (Mohr–Coulomb and Mogi–Coulomb), in order to study the
Numerical modelling collapse conditions of volcanic conduits during a representative explosive rhyolitic eruption. It emerges that me-
Explosive volcanism chanical stability of volcanic conduits is mainly controlled by its radial dimension, and a minimum radius for
reaching stable conditions can be computed, as a function of water content and inlet overpressure. Additionally,
for a set of input parameters thought typical of explosive rhyolitic volcanism, we estimated a minimum magma
flux for developing a mechanically stable conduit (~7∙107 − 3∙108 kg/s). Results are consistent with the unsteady
character usually observed in sub-Plinian eruptions, opposite to mainly stationary Plinian eruptions, commonly
characterized by higher magma discharge rates. We suggest that cylindrical conduits represent a mechanically
stable configuration only for large radii. Because the instability conditions are not uniform along the conduit,
the widening processes probably lead to conduit geometries with depth-varying width. Consequently, as our
model is able to consider volcanic conduits with depth-dependent radius, two plausible and previously untested
geometries have been studied, evidencing major and complex modifications in some eruptive parameters (par-
ticularly, exit pressure and mass discharge rate), and suggesting that the geometry acquired by the conduit as it is
widened influences the eruptive dynamics.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Geological evidences of changes in volcanic conduit geometry (i.e.

Volcanic conduit processes have proved to be important controlling
factors of eruptive dynamics (Houghton et al., 2004; Kennedy et al.,
2005; Pioli et al., 2009). In explosive eruptions, the eruptive dynamics
seem to be mainly controlled by the relation between magma supply
and discharge rate (Scandone and Malone, 1985; Bursik, 1993), which
are functions of magma chamber conditions (e.g. overpressure, volatile
content, temperature) and volcanic conduit geometry. Several studies
have addressed the relation between eruptive dynamics and the nature
of the magma source (Civetta et al., 1997; Gurioli et al., 2005; La Spina et
al., 2015), whereas the relative importance of volcanic conduit geome-
try on the eruptive dynamics remains poorly understood (Costa et al.,
2007; de'Michieli Vitturi et al., 2008; Koyaguchi et al., 2010).
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alvaro.aravenaponce@unifi.it (Á. Aravena).
erosive processes) are common in the volcanic record, as revealed by
the occurrence of lithic fragments in most pyroclastic deposits, reaching
frequently mass concentrations higher than 20% (Calder et al., 2000;
Maeno and Taniguchi, 2009). Lithic fragments can proceed from differ-
ent depths because of the occurrence of craterization and/or conduit en-
largement. These erosion mechanisms are two different processes that
often act together during volcanic eruptions, and the knowledge of sub-
surface stratigraphy of a given volcano can help to distinguish them
(Barberi et al., 1989). However, the controlling factors of the erosive
mechanisms (and thus, incorporation of lithic fragments during
magma ascent) are still partially unclear, and quantitative studies for
analyzing them are scarce. Macedonio et al. (1994) identified four
main erosive mechanisms: (1) impact of pyroclasts, (2) fluid shear
stress, (3) conduit wall collapse and (4) volcanic tremor; and indicated
the zones where each one is probably dominant. In particular, in order
to study conduit wall collapse, Macedonio et al. [1994] used a criterion
based on the difference between conduit and lithostatic pressures,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2017.05.003
0377-0273/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 Á. Aravena et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 339 (2017) 52–62 53

establishing a maximum value for a stable conduit, as a function of the (continuous phase); while phase 2 is composed by the exsolved gas
tensile strength of the country rocks. Two additional remarkable bubbles (dispersed phase). On the other hand, above the fragmentation
works have addressed some aspects of conduit erosion during effusive level, phase 1 is constituted by magma fragments (dispersed phase) and
eruptions (Dragoni and Santini, 2007; Piombo et al., 2016), showing phase 2 is the exsolved gas mixture (continuous phase). Following
that shear traction would make the conduit section closer to a circular Sparks (1978) and Starostin et al. (2005), magma fragmentation is as-
shape and that conduit enlargement is needed to explain the typical sumed to occur when the exsolved gas volumetric fraction reaches a
evolution of effusion rate during basaltic eruptions. Nonetheless, quan- critical value (αg = 0.7).
tifications of the stability of volcanic conduits have never been ad- Each component of the system is characterized by an equation of
dressed. The main limitation for studying numerically this issue is our state, and the specific energy is given as a function of density and entro-
insufficient knowledge about conduit stability criteria and conduit ge- py, obtained by a linearized form of the Mie-Grüneisen equations. Addi-
ometry evolution during volcanic eruptions. tionally, the pressure (pi) and temperature (Ti) of both phases are
On the other hand, wall collapse conditions along a vertically ex- derived from the internal energy (ei):
tended cavity have been systematically analyzed in the geothermal re-
search field and petroleum industry for the analysis of borehole ∂ei
pi ¼ ρ2i ð1Þ
stability (Rahman et al., 2000; Aadnoy and Edland, 2001). For studying ∂ρi
rock failure phenomena, the most frequently used procedure is the ap-
plication of the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. It considers the maximum and ∂ei
minimum principal stresses and some parameters of the country rocks, Ti ¼ ð2Þ
∂si
ignoring the intermediate principal stress, and therefore it is expected
to be a conservative criterion (Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman, 2006). Because
The system of equations is composed by the conservation laws of
numerous cases have been reported where the Mohr–Coulomb criteri-
total mass (Eq. (3)), momentum (Eq. (4)), energy (Eq. (5)) and mass
on predicted deficient results and because it has been suggested a sig-
of phase 1 (Eq. (6)).
nificant effect of the intermediate principal stress on rocks behavior
(Vernik and Zoback, 1992; Single et al., 1998), Al-Ajmi and
∂
Zimmerman (2006) developed the Mogi–Coulomb collapse criterion, ðρuÞ ¼ 0 ð3Þ
∂z
whose formulation includes the intermediate principal stress, so
predicting a larger resistance of rocks. Although these collapse criteria
∂
 8μu
can be applied to the analysis of mechanical stability of volcanic con- α 1 ρ1 u21 þ α 2 ρ2 u22 þ α 1 p1 þ α 2 p2 ¼ ρg  2 ð4Þ
∂z R
duits, they have never been used in volcanological studies.
In this study, we address numerically the mechanical stability of vol-      
∂ p u2 p u2
canic conduits. For that, we analyzed the collapse conditions of cylindri- α 1 ρ1 u1 e1 þ 1 þ 1 þ α 2 ρ2 u2 e2 þ 2 þ 2  ρx1 x2 ðu1  u2 Þðs1  s2 ÞT
∂z ρ1 2 ρ2 2
cal conduits, using a modified version of the 1D steady-state model
4μu2
presented by de'Michieli Vitturi et al. (2011) and applying the collapse ¼ ρgu 
criteria described by Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman (2006). Additionally, R2
ð5Þ
we test the effects of non-cylindrical geometries in the eruptive dynam-
ics, by analyzing conduits with depth-varying width. This study consists
of five parts: (1) we present a general description of the 1D steady-state ∂ 1

ðα 1 ρ1 u1 Þ ¼ ðdÞ xd  xeq α 1 ðρ1  α c ρc Þ ð6Þ
model used in this work; (2) we describe a procedure for applying the ∂z τ d

collapse criteria presented by Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman (2006)

(Mohr–Coulomb and Mogi–Coulomb) and the set of input and geomet-
ric parameters that we imposed in this study, in order to model repre-
sentative explosive rhyolitic eruptions; (3) we present the results
related to cylindrical conduit simulations, including a global sensitivity
analysis of our results; (4) we describe simulations of volcanic conduits
where z is the vertical coordinate, ρ is the mixture density, u is the mix-
ture velocity, g is the acceleration of gravity, μ is the mixture viscosity, R
is the conduit radius, xi is the mass fraction of phase i, T is the mixture
temperature, τ(d) is the relaxation parameter which controls the gas ex-
solution rate, xd is the mass fraction of the dissolved gas, xeq
d is the equi-

with depth-dependent radius (here referred as non-cylindrical geome- librium value of the same parameter, αc is the volume fraction of
tries), focusing on the influence of conduit geometry on the eruptive dy- crystals and ρc is the density of crystals.
namics (e.g. exit pressure, mass discharge rate); and (5) we discuss our Additionally, the phase 1 volume fraction is governed by the follow-
results, trying to provide some lights about the applicability of these col- ing equation:
lapse criteria in volcanic conduits, and the significance of conduit stabil-
ity in the dynamics of explosive eruptions. ∂ 1
ðρuα 1 Þ ¼  ðpÞ ðp2  p1 Þ ð7Þ
∂z τ
2. Methodology
where τ(p) is the relaxation parameter which controls the pressure dif-
2.1. Steady-state conduit model ference between both phases.
Furthermore, we include the following equation for the relative ve-
In this work, we employed a modified version of the 1D multiphase locity between the phases:
steady-state model presented in de'Michieli Vitturi et al. (2011) (http://  
demichie.github.io/MAMMA). The system of conservation equations is ∂ u21 u22 p p
 þ e1 þ 1  e2  2  ðs1  s2 ÞT
derived from the theory of thermodynamically compatible systems ∂z 2 2 ρ1 ρ2
(Romenski et al., 2010), considering the effects of the main processes 8μu ρ
¼ g  χ j  δðu1  u2 Þ ð8Þ
that magmas experiment during ascent, such as crystallization, rheolog- α j ρ j R2 α 1 ρ1 α 2 ρ2
ical changes, fragmentation, physical interaction with the conduit walls,
outgassing and degassing. The system is described as a mixture of two where δ is a drag factor, j is the continuous phase index (1 or 2, function
phases (i = 1 , 2), each one characterized by a volumetric fraction (αi), of the relative position of the fragmentation level), while χj controls the
density (ρi), velocity (ui) and specific entropy (si). Below the fragmenta- sign of the viscous term contribution (1 or −1, it is also function of the
tion level, phase 1 is a mixture of crystals, dissolved water and melt continuous phase index).
54 Á. Aravena et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 339 (2017) 52–62

Finally, we include the mass conservation laws of crystals (Eq. (9)) 2.2.2. Solubility model
and dissolved gas (Eq. (10)). Water is considered the only dissolved volatile component. We
adopted the following solubility model:
∂ 1

ðρ α l α c ul Þ ¼ ðcÞ α l ρc α c  α eq ð9Þ xeq ¼ σ  ðpg =1½PaÞϵ ð15Þ
∂z c τ c
d

∂ 1
 where pg is the pressure of the gas component, σ is the solubility coeffi-

½xd α 1 ðρ1  α c ρc Þu1  ¼  ðdÞ xd  xeq α 1 ðρ1  α c ρc Þ ð10Þ cient and ϵ is the solubility exponent. Based on Zhang (1999), we set the
∂z τ d
following values: σ= 4.11∙10−6 and ϵ = 0.5.

where τ(c) is the relaxation parameter of the crystallization process, αeqc

2.2.3. Crystallization model
is the equilibrium volume fraction of crystals and the subscript l refers to
We adopted the crystallization model presented by de'Michieli
the liquid component of the system.
Vitturi et al. (2010) (Eq. (16)).
For the numerical solution of the model equations we employ a nu-
merical shooting technique: for a given inlet pressure, the model adjusts  0:5226

the inlet flow rate until the appropriate boundary condition (choked α eq
c ¼ min α c;max ; α c;0 þ 0:55  ð0:58815  p Þ ð16Þ
flow or atmospheric pressure) is reached. For the spatial integration of
the equations, a well-established proportional-integral step-size control where αc,max is the maximum crystallinity, αc,0 is the initial volume frac-
technique is adopted, with the relaxation terms treated implicitly to tion of crystals and min[∙] is the minimum function (Supplementary
guarantee the stability of the numerical scheme. Table S1).

2.2. Constitutive equations 2.2.4. Outgassing model

Because a non-linear relationship between pressure gradient and
In order to apply the described 1D steady-state model to a represen- gas flow rate has been recognized, the outgassing process is described
tative case of explosive rhyolitic volcanism, we employed appropriate using the Forchheimer's law (Rust and Cashman, 2004; Degruyter et
constitutive equations to describe the rheological evolution, crystalliza- al., 2012), which includes the influence of viscous (linear term) and in-
tion, gas exsolution, outgassing and the equations of state of the compo- ertial forces (quadratic term):
nents of the system.

dp μ g ðΔuÞ ρg
¼ þ ðΔuÞ2 ð17Þ
2.2.1. Magma rheology model dz kD kI
According to Hess and Dingwell (1996), melt viscosity (μmelt) is eval-
uated using the following empirical relationship: where Δu is the velocity difference between both phases, the subscript g
refers to the exsolved gas phase, while kD and kI are the Darcian and in-
 9601  2368  lnðwÞ ertial permeabilities, respectively, which are computed using the fol-
log10 ðμ melt Þ ¼  3:545 þ 0:833  lnðwÞ ð11Þ
T  195:7  32:35  lnðwÞ lowing equations:

2
ð f rb rb Þ m
where w is the dissolved H2O concentration in weight percent, T is kD ¼ αg ð18Þ
expressed in Kelvin and the resulting viscosity value is measured in 8
Pa ∙ s.
On the other hand, below the fragmentation level, phase 1 viscosity f rb r b ð1þ3mÞ=2
kI ¼ αg ð19Þ
is computed using the following equation: f

!1=3
μ l ¼ μ melt  θðα lc Þ ð12Þ αg
rb ¼ ð20Þ
bd α l
4π
3 N
where θ is a factor which considers the effect of the crystals (Caricchi et
al., 2007). It is function of the volumetric fraction of crystals (αc) and it where frb is the throat-bubble size ratio, rb is the average bubble size, Nbd
was imposed following Costa (2005): is the bubble density number and f and m are fitting parameters. In this
work, we employed the following values: frb = 0.1, Nbd = 1015 m− 3,
f = 10 and m =3.5.
θ ¼ ½1  Fðα c ; c1 ; c2 ; c3 ÞB=c1 ð13Þ
2.2.5. Equations of state
hpffiffiffi
π α c c2 i In order to define the specific internal energy of the melt, crystals
Fðα c ; c1 ; c2 ; c3 Þ ¼ c1  erf αc þ ð14Þ
2 ð1  α c Þc3 and dissolved water, we adopted a linearized version of the Mie-
Grüneisen equations of state (Le Métayer et al., 2005; La Spina and
de'Michieli Vitturi, 2012):
where B, c1, c2 and c3 are fitting parameters (Supplementary Table S1).
Our model includes an additional term for controlling the effect of
bubbles on rheology. However, despite it has been suggested a non-neg- ρ0;k C 20;k  γk p0;k
ek ðρk ; TÞ ¼ ek þ cv;k T þ ð21Þ
ligible effect of bubbles on rheology (Llewellin and Manga, 2005), since γ k ρk
there are no systematic agreements about the dependence between
bubbles and magma viscosity (at least, hardly applicable to general where ek represents the formation energy, cv,k is the specific heat capac-
cases) (Mader et al., 2013; Truby et al., 2015) and its influence is expect- ity at constant volume, ρ0,k and C0,k are the density and sound speed at a
ed to be sensibly lower than other processes such as crystallization and reference state, γk is the adiabatic exponent, while p0,k is the pressure at
exsolution of volatiles (Manga and Loewenberg, 2001; Truby et al., a reference state. Here the subscript k refers to the melt, dissolved water
2015), here we have ignored its effect. or crystals.
 Á. Aravena et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 339 (2017) 52–62
For the exsolved water, we adopted the Van der Waals equations of
state:
eg ðρg ; TÞ ¼ cv;g T  α  ρ þ eg
 2
2
27 cv;g γg  1 T cr;g
2
a¼
64 pcr;g

1 cv;g γ g  1 T cr;g
b¼
8 pcr;g
where pcr,g and Tcr,g are the critical pressure and temperature of
water, respectively.
The parameters that we used in the equations of state are shown in
Supplementary Table S2, and Table 4 exhibits a notation summary.
2.3. Conduit collapse criteria
In order to evaluate the stability conditions of cylindrical conduits,
we compared the minimum pressure needed to avoid conduit collapse
(Pcollapse(z), predicted by Mohr–Coulomb and Mogi–Coulomb collapse
criteria, Table 1) (Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman, 2006) and the conduit pres-
sure profile (P(z), computed with the 1D steady-state model). In partic-
ular, we used the pressure profile of phase 1, but in any case, the
pressure relaxation parameter here adopted (τ(p)) produces negligible
differences between both pressure profiles (i.e. continuous and dis-
persed phases). The Mohr–Coulomb and Mogi–Coulomb collapse
criteria have been developed for studying boreholes stability, where
an appropriate methodology for calculating the critical mud pressure
in order to avoid borehole collapse is a crucial research topic (Gholami
et al., 2014; Curry et al., 2016). Indeed, it is required for performing dril-
ling activities and lowering the operating costs (Al-Ajmi and
Zimmerman, 2006). These stability criteria have been widely applied
in the petroleum industry during the last decade (Gholami et al.,
2014) and, based on the intrinsic similarities between these systems
and volcanic conduits, we assume that these collapse criteria can be ap-
plied to the analysis of mechanical stability of volcanic conduits, as
shown here. Note that here we study exclusively the collapse conditions
of volcanic conduits, whereas the fracture criteria presented by Al-Ajmi
Table 1
Mohr–Coulomb and Mogi–Coulomb criteria for collapse pressure (Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman, 2006).
Mohr–Coulomb
Case σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3
1 σz ≥ σθ ≥σr
2 σθ ≥ σz ≥σr
3 σθ ≥ σr ≥σz
Mogi–Coulomb
Case σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥σ3
1 σz ≥ σθ ≥σr
2 σθ ≥ σz ≥σr
3 σθ ≥ σr ≥σz
Pcollapse: Minimum pressure needed to avoid conduit collapse.
σz: Vertical stress. σr: Radial stress. σθ: Tangential stress.
a′=2c∙cos (ϕ). b'=sin(ϕ). c: Cohesion. ϕ: Angle of internal friction.
A=3σH −σh. σH: Maximum horizontal stress. σh: Minimum horizontal stress.
B=σV +2υ(σH −σh). σV: Vertical stress. υ: Poisson ratio.
C=2c∙cos(ϕ)/(1−sin(ϕ))−P0(q−1). P0: Pore pressure. q=tan2(π/4+ϕ/2).
G=K+b'A.
H=A2(4b'2 −3)+(B2 −AB)(4b'2 −12).
K=a′+b'(B−2P0).
55
and Zimmerman (2006) and thus failure processes due overpressure
conditions were not addressed in this work.
The key parameters of the country rocks for applying the Mohr–Cou-
ð22Þ lomb and Mogi–Coulomb collapse criteria are: cohesion (c), angle of in-
ternal friction (ϕ) and the horizontal and vertical stress gradients (σH/z,
σh/z and σV/z). Additionally, the presence of fluids in the country rock
ð23Þ pores (e.g. presence of aquifers) is expected to produce a destabilizing
effect, whereas a strong difference between the two horizontal stress
gradients tend to increase the country rock strength. In this study, we
used representative values of natural conditions for the country rock
mechanical parameters (Table 2), and we analyzed three different mea-
ð24Þ
sures for addressing the instability character of the conduit. It is impor-
tant to highlight that the definition of the country rock mechanical
parameters presents a strong uncertainty, mainly derived from the ver-
tical variability of lithologies and structures commonly observed in vol-
canic fields, and also the eventual depth-dependence of other
parameters, such as cohesion and friction angle. However, in any case,
the expected cohesion variations because of the lithostatic pressure in
the depth ranges here studied are much lower than the intrinsic cohe-
sion variability derived from lithological variations and geological struc-
tures and thus, following Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman (2006), we assumed
constant values of cohesion and friction angle.
2.4. Input and geometric parameters
The input parameters that we employed in the numerical simula-
tions can be considered representative of typical conditions of explosive
rhyolitic volcanism. We varied three input parameters: inlet pressure,
water content and conduit dimensions (Table 3). We imposed a conduit
length of 5 km, which implies a lithostatic pressure at the conduit bot-
tom of 127.4 MPa. Since radius variations do not limit the applicability
of the 1D steady-state model that we adopted, in order to test the effect
of different conduit geometries, three cases were considered and com-
pared: (1) cylindrical conduit (geometry C), (2) cylindrical conduit
with a local enlargement along a vertical distance zr (geometry NC1),
and (3) conduit with two coaxial cylindrical portions connected by a lin-
ear enlarging transitional zone of length zr (geometry NC2) (Fig. 1). For
geometries with depth-dependent diameter (i.e. NC1 and NC2), we
fixed the middle level of the variable-radius zone (zc, Fig. 1) around
the fragmentation level computed in the equivalent cylindrical case
(i.e. Rfixed(Cyl.) = Rmin(Non Cyl.), using the same input parameters of
Collapse occurs if P(z) ≤Pcollapse(z)
Pcollapse = (B − C)/q
Pcollapse = (A − C)/(1 + q)
Pcollapse = A − C − qB
Collapse occurs if P(z) ≤ Pcollapse(z)
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 0 0
P collapse ¼  ð3A þ 2b KÞ  H þ 12ðK 2 þ b AKÞ
62b0 2
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
A 0 2
P collapse ¼  16 12½a0 þ b ðA  2P 0 Þ  3ðA  2BÞ2
2  q ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 0 0
P collapse ¼  ð3A  2b GÞ  H þ 12ðG2  b AGÞ
62b0 2
56 Á. Aravena et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 339 (2017) 52–62

Table 2
Parameters related to the application of stability criteria, representative of typical condi-
tions of country rocks in nature (Hoek and Brown, 1997). As a reference, reported values
of cohesion ranges between ~1 MPa and ~10 MPa, whereas the friction angle varies be-
tween ~30° and ~45°.

Parameter (symbol) Value

Rock cohesion (c) 5 MPa

Angle of friction (ϕ) 38°
Vertical stress gradient (σV/z) 26 kPa/m
Both horizontal stress gradients (σH/z, σh/z) 18 kPa/m

inlet pressure and water content), for different values of Rmax/Rmin and
zr (Table 3). This assumption and the choice of these conduit geometries
are based on the expected nature of the gravitational collapse process,
because of the typical location of the instability zones, as discussed in
the following sections. On the other hand, although the model is poten- Fig. 1. (a) Cylindrical conduit (geometry C). (b) Cylindrical conduit with a local
tially able to deal with conduits characterized by elliptical cross-sec- enlargement along a vertical distance (zr) (geometry NC1). (c) Conduit with two coaxial
tions, this would make more complex the application of the stability cylindrical portions connected by a linear enlarging transitional zone of length zr
criteria here adopted, so we preferred to restrict this work to vertical (geometry NC2).
conduits with circular cross sections.

3. Results conduits, a monotonic tendency can be observed between instability

3.1. Cylindrical conduits
Fig. 2 shows a typical pressure profile (P(z)) of an unstable conduit,
where the minimum pressures needed to avoid conduit collapse
(Pcollapse(z)) are estimated using both collapse criteria. Three measures
of the instability character of the conduit have been evaluated:
(1) The integral along the conduit of max(0,Pcollapse(z) − P(z)).
(2) The length of the unstable domain of the conduit.
(3) max(Pcollapse(z) − P(z)).
The collapse conditions are preferably reached near the fragmenta-
tion level, in correspondence with a sharp gradient in the upward de-
crease of P(z); and Mohr–Coulomb criterion predicts more unstable
conduits than Mogi–Coulomb criterion, as expected. In the following
sections, we only use the third instability measure (hereafter, instability
index) because it provides useful data even for stable conduits and, in
any case, similar conclusions can be obtained with the other two insta-
bility measures.
Fig. 3 illustrates the relationships between some key variables of the
eruption and the instability index when inlet pressure, water content
and geometry are varied. Conduit stability is highly conditioned by the
resulting fragmentation depth (Fig. 3a), which is explained because
deep fragmentation produces low-pressure fields in domains character-
ized by high lithostatic pressures, leading to favorable conditions for
conduit collapse. As shallow fragmentation levels are favored by wide
index and conduit radius (Supplementary Fig. S1). Because of the direct
relation between conduit radius and mass discharge rate, this fact is
clearly reflected in the relation between the instability index and
magma flux (Fig. 3b). An interesting result is that a minimum mass dis-
charge rate for a stable conduit can be estimated (~ 7 ∙ 107 kg/s and
~3 ∙ 108 kg/s, depending on the stability criteria), for the set of constitu-
tive equations here adopted (representative of rhyolitic explosive erup-
tions with a 5000 m-length conduit).
For given values of inlet pressure and water content, the instability
index is a decreasing function of conduit radius (Supplementary Fig.
S1), and a minimum radius for a stable conduit can be inferred (critical
radius, hereafter). Fig. 4 shows the critical radius as a function of inlet
pressure and water content, using both stability criteria. Despite the ob-
tained values of critical radius are sensitive to mechanical parameters of
the country rocks (Supplementary Fig. S2), there are significant differ-
ences between both collapse criteria, which confirm an important effect
of the intermediate principal stress on the country rock strength. Critical
radius results to be mainly controlled by the inlet pressure, while the
water content only exhibits a weak influence.
Additionally, in order to test the influence of the conduit length,
we developed some additional simulations using values between
3000 m and 9000 m. Stability conditions are favored by short con-
duits (Supplementary Figs. S3 and S4), which is partially explained
by the deeper magma fragmentations obtained when long conduits
are considered. Nonetheless, it does not imply a significant control
of the conduit length on the critical radius results, as it is shown in
the following section.

Table 3
Input and geometric parameters used in the numerical simulations. (1) In order to test the influence of conduit length, we performed some additional simulations varying the values of
conduit length and inlet pressure. They are reported in supplementary Figs. S3 and S4, and Section 3.1.1. (2) Some additional simulations were performed in order to improve the quality of
the interpolations of critical radius (defined in Section 3.1).

Parameter Geometry C Geometry NC1 Geometry NC2

Water content 4.5–6.5 wt% 4.5–6.5 wt% 4.5–6.5 wt%

Inlet pressure (1) 115–135 115–135 MPa 115–135 MPa
MPa
Temperature 850 °C 850 °C 850 °C
Conduit length (1) 5000 m 5000 m 5000 m
Fixed radius (2) 25–115 m – –
Minimum radius – 35 m–75 m 35 m–75 m
Maximum radius/minimum radius – 1.1–1.2 1.1–1.2
Depth of the central point of the variable-radius domain – Fragmentation level of the cylindrical case Fragmentation level of the cylindrical case
(zc) (R = Rmin) (R = Rmin)
Length of the variable-radius zone of the conduit (zr) – 100 m–1000 m 100 m–1000 m
 Á. Aravena et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 339 (2017) 52–62 57

Table 4
Notation summary.

Symbol Name Units

α Volumetric fraction −
γ Adiabatic exponent −
δ Drag factor kg/(s∙m3)
ϵ Solubility exponent −
θ Parameter for controlling the crystal influence on viscosity −
μ Viscosity Pa∙s
ρ Density kg/m3
σ Solubility coefficient −
τ(c) Relaxation parameter for controlling the crystallization rate s
τ(d) Relaxation parameter for controlling the gas exsolution rate s
τ(p) Relaxation parameter for controlling the pressure disequilibrium m2/s
χ Parameter for controlling the direction of the viscous term contribution −
Δu Relative velocity between phases m/s
a Auxiliary parameter in equations of state m5/(kg∙s2)
b Auxiliary parameter in equations of state m3/kg
c Specific heat capacity J/(kg∙K)
c1 Fitting parameter of rheological model −
c2 Fitting parameter of rheological model −
c3 Fitting parameter of rheological model −
e Internal energy J/kg
e Formation energy J/kg
f Fitting parameter of outgassing model −
frb Throat-bubble size ratio −
g Acceleration of gravity m/s2
kD Darcian permeability m2
kI Inertial permeability m
m Fitting parameter of outgassing model −
p Pressure Pa
rb Average bubble size m
s Specific entropy J/(kg∙K)
u Velocity m/s
w Dissolved water concentration wt . %
x Mass fraction −
z Vertical coordinate m
B Fitting parameter of rheological model −
C Sound speed m/s
F Auxiliary parameter in rheological model −
Nbd Bubble density number m−3
R Conduit radius m
T Temperature K

Global subscripts and superscripts Referred to

c Crystals
cr Critical value
d Dissolved gas
eq Equilibrium value
g Exsolved gas
i Phases 1 and 2
j Continuous phase
k Components of phase 1
l Liquid component of phase 1
max Maximum value
v At constant volume
0 Initial or reference value
1 Phase 1
2 Phase 2
No subscript Mixture or global parameter

3.1.1. Sensitivity analysis of the critical radius
We developed a global sensitivity analysis of the critical radius
based on a Monte Carlo sampling scheme. We assumed uniform
probability distributions for three input parameters: (a) inlet over-
pressure (X1), between − 12.4 and 7.6 MPa with respect to the
lithostatic value (these values have been set in order to be consistent
with the pressure range employed in Section 3.1); (b) water content
(X2), ranging from 4.5 to 6.5 wt%; and (c) conduit length (X3), be-
tween 4000 and 6000 m.
For each set of input parameters, we performed eight simulations
with different conduit radii (random values between 35 m and
115 m), which allow us to estimate the critical radius (Yj), using both
stability criteria (j= 1 for Mohr–Coulomb, j = 2 for Mogi–Coulomb).
As a sensitivity parameter, we calculated the first order Sobol sensi-
tivity index (Sij) (Sobol, 2001), which is defined following Eq. (25), and
represents the fraction of the output variability (Yj) only attributed to
the variability assigned to the input parameter Xi.
VarðEðY j jXi ÞÞ
Sij ¼ ð25Þ
VarðY j Þ
On the other hand, the expression for calculating the total effect sen-
sitivity index (STij) is shown in Eq. (26), and measures the contribution
to the output variance (Yj) of the input Xi, including all interactions
58 Á. Aravena et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 339 (2017) 52–62
Fig. 2. Depth versus pressure in the conduit and minimum pressures needed to avoid
conduit collapse, using both stability criteria. These results were obtained in a specific
simulation (radius of 35 m, water content of 6.5% and inlet pressure of 125 MPa), and
they represent a typical case of an unstable conduit.
with the other parameters.
EðVarðY j jX∼i ÞÞ
STij ¼ ð26Þ
VarðY j Þ
Sensitivity analysis results (Fig. 5) confirm that the most important
factor controlling the critical radius is the inlet overpressure
(S11 = 0.83 and S12 = 0.85, for Mohr–Coulomb and Mogi–Coulomb col-
lapse criteria, respectively), while water content exhibits a weak influ-
ence, higher when the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is employed
(S21 = 0.11 and S22 = 0.02, for Mohr–Coulomb and Mogi–Coulomb col-
lapse criteria, respectively). Conduit length has a minor effect on the
critical radius, more significant when the Mogi–Coulomb criterion is
employed (S31 = 0.04 and S32 = 0.14, for Mohr–Coulomb and Mogi–
Coulomb collapse criteria, respectively). Because the sum of the first
order sensitivity indexes is only slightly lower than 1 and the differ-
ences between both sensitivity indexes are relatively small, the output
variance is mainly controlled by the first order contributions, and the ef-
fect of interactions between input parameters plays a secondary role.
3.2. Conduits with depth-dependent radius
A viable evolution of a volcanic conduit passes through the initial
formation of a vertical dyke in which the magma ascending path rapidly
focuses into more cylindrical zones of lower friction (Bruce and
Huppert, 1989). We can then assume that these zones are progressively
Fig. 3. (a) Instability index versus fragmentation level, for different radii in cylindrical conduits. (b) Instability index versus mass discharge rate, for different radii in cylindrical conduits.
We present here the results related to simulations with variable values of inlet pressure (115–135 MPa) and water content (4.5–6.5 wt%).
widened up to reach the minimum radius for stable conditions, as a con-
sequence of variations in both inlet pressure and water content. Howev-
er, collapse conditions may vary along the conduit (i.e. they are
preferably reached near and above the fragmentation level, Fig. 2),
and therefore, preservation of a cylindrical geometry is very unlikely
in natural conditions. In this section, we explore the eruptive dynamics
of conduits with depth-dependent radius (here referred as non-cylin-
drical conduits), in order to study their changes with plausible conduit
geometries produced by wall instabilities. Additional simulations were
performed, introducing small geometric perturbations in the conduit
(10% and 20% of relative difference between maximum and minimum
radius), using the non-cylindrical geometries previously described
(Section 2.4, Figs. 1 and 6).
3.2.1. Geometry NC1
Fig. 6a–b exhibits the general results related to geometry NC1. The
pressure profile along the conduit exhibits a low-pressure zone coinci-
dent with the conduit widening, as expected (Supplementary Fig. S5).
This geometry produces deeper fragmentation levels than the equiva-
lent cylindrical case (differences up to ~200 m, Fig. 6a), which is maxi-
mized for high values of zr and Rmax/Rmin (Supplementary Fig. S6).
Additionally, this geometry generates higher magma discharge rates
than the equivalent cylindrical case (mass discharge rate increment be-
tween ~ 3% and ~ 13%, Fig. 6b). On the other hand, counterintuitively,
exit pressures are up to ~ 14% higher than the values obtained with
the equivalent cylindrical case, while the consequent increase in exit ve-
locity (at choked conditions) is lower than 1% (Fig. 6a–b). However,
during the subsequent decompression to atmospheric conditions, an
important acceleration of the mixture is expected, which would in-
crease its velocity near the vent and would produce higher convective
plumes (Carcano et al., 2013). All the tendencies previously described
are more pronounced for water-rich magmas.
3.2.2. Geometry NC2
Fig. 6c–d shows the results related to geometry NC2. The pressure
profile shows a slightly larger pressure drop at the fragmentation level
and lower pressures above it, in relation to the equivalent cylindrical
case (Supplementary Fig. S5). This geometry produces a more complex
behavior:
(a) Wide conduits with high water contents: they produce deeper
fragmentation levels than the equivalent cylindrical case (up to
~ 100 m of depth difference, Fig. 6c) and slightly higher mass fluxes
(up to 3% of the mass flux with respect to the equivalent cylindrical
case, Fig. 6d).
 Á. Aravena et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 339 (2017) 52–62 59

Fig. 4. Critical radius (i.e. minimum radius for a stable conduit) for different conditions of inlet pressure and water content. (a) Mohr–Coulomb criterion. (b) Mogi–Coulomb criterion.

(b) Narrow conduits with low water contents: they produce
shallower magma fragmentations than the equivalent cylindrical case
(40 m or so of depth difference, Fig. 6c) and lower mass discharge rates
(about 90% of the mass flux of the equivalent cylindrical case, Fig. 6d).
Both cases generate lower exit velocities and pressures than the
equivalent cylindrical case, with more important differences for narrow
conduits. These changes in the eruptive dynamics can have important
effects on decreasing the buoyancy of eruptive plumes.
4. Discussion
Despite stability conditions of eruptive conduits are highly
sensitive to mechanical parameters of the country rocks and the
applied collapse criterion, for eruptions of high viscosity magmas,
we suggest that cylindrical conduits are mechanically stable only
for large radii, and therefore, the occurrence of widening process-
es is very likely. This is not a surprising result because it is consis-
tent with the commonly observed presence of lithic fragments in
pyroclastic deposits (Barberi et al., 1989; Varekamp, 1993;
Calder et al., 2000; Maeno and Taniguchi, 2009), whose concentra-
tion is determined by the relative importance of the erosive rate
with respect to the magma discharge rate through the conduit.
Consequently, as conduit widening produces higher mass dis-
charge rates, it is not necessarily manifested in lithic-rich horizons
in pyroclastic deposits or in an increase of the relative amount of
lithic clasts.

Fig. 5. Summary of results related to the sensitivity analysis of critical radius. (a) Critical radius (Mohr–Coulomb) versus inlet overpressure. (b) Critical radius (Mohr–Coulomb) versus
water content. (c) Critical radius (Mohr–Coulomb) versus conduit length. (d) Critical radius (Mogi–Coulomb) versus inlet overpressure. (e) Critical radius (Mogi–Coulomb) versus
water content. (f) Critical radius (Mogi–Coulomb) versus conduit length. (g) First order sensitivity index. (h) Total effect sensitivity index. We used 587 different sets of inlet
parameters (4696 simulations).
60 Á. Aravena et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 339 (2017) 52–62
Fig. 6. (a) Deepening of the fragmentation level versus ratio of exit pressures for geometry NC1 and the equivalent cylindrical case. (b) Ratio of mass discharge rates versus ratio of exit
velocities for geometry NC1 and the equivalent cylindrical case. (c) Deepening of the fragmentation level versus ratio of exit pressures for geometry NC2 and the equivalent cylindrical
case. (d) Ratio of mass discharge rates versus ratio of exit velocities for geometry NC2 and the equivalent cylindrical case. We present here results related to a set of simulations with
variable values of inlet pressure (115 MPa–135 MPa) and Rmin (35–75 m).
Conduit collapse conditions predicted with both stability criteria ex-
hibit significant differences, indicating that the intermediate principal
stress could have an important role in volcanic conduit stability. For a
given set of input parameters (thought typical of explosive rhyolitic vol-
canism) and using the Mogi–Coulomb criterion, we determined that
rhyolitic magmas require conduit radii larger than 50 m for reaching
stability conditions. Critical radius (i.e. minimum radius required to
avoid conduit collapse) is mainly controlled by the inlet overpressure
(Figs. 4 and 5), while the water content has a minor influence. So,
under the assumption that magma chamber conditions during a typical
volcanic eruption follow a depressurizing trend, a continuous widening
process is expected in the conduit. This process could explain the perva-
sive and continuous presence of lithic fragments in most pyroclastic de-
posits, even with stationary properties and conditions of the magma
source (e.g. water content, temperature, composition). Moreover, the
expected conduit widening could increase the magma discharge rate
during explosive events, favoring magma chamber evacuation and
counterbalancing the effect of a depressurizing magma reservoir (in-
deed, for a given conduit radius and water content, a decrease in
magma chamber overpressure is manifested in lower mass discharge
rates) (Macedonio et al., 2005).
Based on the presence of a minimum mass discharge rate required to
support stable conduits (between ~7 ∙ 107 and ~3 ∙ 108 kg/s, function of
the stability criterion), we suggest that the unsteady character com-
monly observed in events with relatively low mass fluxes (e.g. sub-
Plinian eruptions) can be related to unstable conditions of the volcanic
conduit, manifested in episodic collapse events and intermittent dis-
charge rates (Bursik, 1993; Cioni et al., 2003). Conversely, the sustained
and quasi-stationary Plinian eruptions, characterized by higher mass
discharge rates (Cioni et al., 2000), would reflect a prolonged conduit
stability, and the erosive processes could be preferentially controlled
by fluid shear stress and the impact of pyroclasts (Macedonio et al.,
1994). These unsteady phenomena have been observed in some case
studies, such as the 1630 CE eruption of Furnas volcano (Cole et al.,
1995), the Mangaone subgroup eruptions (Jurado-Chichay and
Walker, 2001) and the 1886 Tarawera eruption (Carey et al., 2007),
where the variability of the eruptive dynamics was interpreted as a con-
sequence of variable processes of vent wall collapse. Indeed, the un-
steadiness of volcanic eruptions and its quantification have been
recently studied, and these phenomena are observed in a wide range
of viscosities (Dominguez et al., 2016), whose comprehension can be
relevant for studying explosivity mechanisms. In particular, our results
suggest that conduit stability could be a dominant process in the un-
steady character of Subplinian eruptions.
On the other hand, because instability conditions are not uniform
along the conduit, we suggest that, when collapse conditions are
reached, they trigger localized widening processes. As the other erosive
mechanisms also act preferentially around (fluid shear stress) and
above the fragmentation level (volcanic tremor and impact of
pyroclasts) [Macedonio et al., 1994], it seems unlikely to preserve cylin-
drical geometries in volcanic conduits. Consequently, we considered
two additional conduit geometries (Figs. 1 and 6).
A geometry with a localized enlargement (NC1) produces a more
abrupt pressure decrease near the fragmentation level and higher pres-
sure values above it. This could inhibit the collapsing character at
shallower levels of the conduit and, consequently, it seems a stable ge-
ometry above the wider domain. On the other hand, because a deepen-
ing tendency of the fragmentation level is observed (comparing with
the equivalent cylindrical case) and considering the importance of the
fragmentation level in the stability conditions, a downward-propaga-
tion of the erosive mechanisms could be expected (i.e. extension of
the wider zone), with relevant consequences on the eruptive dynamics,
such as higher exit pressures and mass discharge rates.
On the other hand, a conduit geometry characterized by a wider
upper part (NC2) produces an abrupt pressure decrease near the frag-
mentation level and lower pressure values above it, which could lead
to a continuous erosive process above the fragmentation level, both be-
cause of wall collapse mechanisms and the impact of pyroclasts (i.e.
Rmax-increasing tendency with no major changes of Rmin).
The tested non-cylindrical geometries (i.e. conduits with depth-de-
pendent width) do not necessarily tend to stable conditions, which is
probably reflected in a continuous erosive process and a pervasive pres-
ence of lithic fragments in pyroclastic deposits, even with a steady
magma source (e.g. water content and inlet overpressure). On the
other hand, considering that a uniform widening process of volcanic
conduits (i.e. permanent cylindrical geometry) would produce
shallower fragmentation levels and an increase in mass discharge rate,
exit velocity and exit pressure (Supplementary Fig. S5), it is important
to note that non-cylindrical geometries do not exhibit an intermediate
behavior between the cylindrical cases using R = Rmin and R = Rmax.
Consequently, the sequence of geometries that the conduit acquires as
it is eroded would be manifested in different variation trends of the
 Á. Aravena et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 339 (2017) 52–62
most important eruptive parameters, suggesting that conduit evolution
could play a primary role for controlling syn-eruptive changes of the
eruptive dynamics.
Finally, despite the difficulty to predict the most probable erosive se-
quence in a specific event, some parameters, such as the presence of dif-
ferent lithologies in the country rocks, could represent key information
to understand the geometric evolution of a volcanic conduit and its im-
plications on the eruptive dynamics. Nonetheless, because the scarce
available information about country rocks properties in volcanic fields
(e.g. cohesion, friction angle), there are not enough data for developing
further analysis and corroborating the expected relation between the
dynamics of explosive eruptions and the properties of country rocks.
5. Concluding remarks
(a) In rhyolitic explosive eruptions, cylindrical conduits represent a
mechanically stable geometry only for large radii.
(b) For a given set of magma properties, it is possible to calculate a
minimum mass discharge rate for a mechanically stable conduit,
suggesting that the unsteady character usually observed in low-
mass flux events (e.g. sub-Plinian eruptions) could be produced
by episodic collapse events of the volcanic conduit, opposite to
the mainly stationary high-mass flux events (e.g. Plinian erup-
tions).
(c) The minimum conduit radius needed to avoid conduit collapse is
mainly controlled by the inlet overpressure. If an eruption pro-
ceeds following a typical depressurizing trend of the magma
chamber, we expect a continuous widening process of the con-
duit, even with a steady magma source (e.g. water content, tem-
perature, composition), so justifying the ubiquitous presence of
lithic fragments observed in pyroclastic deposits.
(d) Geometric features that conduits acquire during volcanic erup-
tions represent a first order factor in the eruptive dynamics,
modifying parameters as the magma discharge rate, exit pres-
sure and fragmentation level.
(e) Transient models coupled with the inclusion of an additional
solid phase (lithic fragments) are required for studying the tem-
poral evolution of conduits geometry.
Acknowledgments
This research has been partially framed in the project V1
“Valutazione della pericolosità vulcanica in termini probabilistici”, fi-
nanced by the Italian Civil Protection Department (INGV-DPC 2012-
2015). During this research, Alvaro Aravena was supported by the grant
CONICYT Nº72160016.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2017.05.003.
References
Aadnoy, B.S., Edland, C., 2001. Borehole stability of multilateral junctions. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.
30 (3), 245–255.
Al-Ajmi, A.M., Zimmerman, R.W., 2006. Stability analysis of vertical boreholes using the
Mogi–Coulomb failure criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 43 (8), 1200–1211.
Barberi, F., Cioni, R., Rosi, M., Santacroce, R., Sbrana, A., Vecci, R., 1989. Magmatic and
phreatomagmatic phases in explosive eruptions of Vesuvius as deduced by grain-
size and component analysis of the pyroclastic deposits. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.
38 (3–4), 287–307.
Bruce, P.M., Huppert, H.E., 1989. Thermal control of basaltic fissure eruptions. Nature 342
(6250), 665–667.
Bursik, M., 1993. Subplinian eruption mechanisms inferred from volatile and clast dis-
persal data. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 57 (1), 57–70.
Calder, E., Sparks, R., Gardeweg, M., 2000. Erosion, transport and segregation of pumice
and lithic clasts in pyroclastic flows inferred from ignimbrite at Lascar volcano,
Chile. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 104 (1), 201–235.
61
Carcano, S., Bonaventura, L., Esposti Ongaro, T., Neri, A., 2013. A semi-implicit, second-
order-accurate numerical model for multiphase underexpanded volcanic jets. Geosci.
Model Dev. 6 (6), 1905–1924.
Carey, R., Houghton, B., Sable, J., Wilson, C., 2007. Contrasting grain size and componentry
in complex proximal deposits of the 1886 Tarawera basaltic Plinian eruption. Bull.
Volcanol. 69 (8), 903–926.
Caricchi, L., Burlini, L., Ulmer, P., Gerya, T., Vassalli, M., Papale, P., 2007. Non-Newtonian
rheology of crystal-bearing magmas and implications for magma ascent dynamics.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 264 (3), 402–419.
Cioni, R., Marianelli, P., Santacroce, R., Sbrana, A., 2000. Plinian and subplinian eruptions.
Encyclopedia of Volcanoes. 477-494. Academic, San Diego.
Cioni, R., Sulpizio, R., Garruccio, N., 2003. Variability of the eruption dynamics during a
subplinian event: the greenish pumice eruption of Somma–Vesuvius (Italy).
J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 124 (1), 89–114.
Civetta, L., Orsi, G., Pappalardo, L., Fisher, R., Heiken, G., Ort, M., 1997. Geochemical zoning,
mingling, eruptive dynamics and depositional processes—the Campanian ignimbrite,
Campi Flegrei caldera, Italy. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 75 (3), 183–219.
Cole, P., Queiroz, G., Wallenstein, N., Gaspar, J., Duncan, A., Guest, J., 1995. An historic
subplinian/phreatomagmatic eruption: the 1630 AD eruption of Furnas volcano,
Saõ Miguel, Azores. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 69 (1), 117–135.
Costa, A., 2005. Viscosity of high crystal content melts: dependence on solid fraction.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 32 (22).
Costa, A., Melnik, O., Sparks, R., 2007. Controls of conduit geometry and wallrock elasticity
on lava dome eruptions. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 260 (1), 137–151.
Curry, D., Lourenco, A.M., Ledgerwood III, L.W., Maharidge, R., Fontoura, S.A.B.D., Inoue, N.,
2016. The Effect of Borehole Pressure on the Drilling Process in Salt, SPE Drilling &
Completion.
Degruyter, W., Bachmann, O., Burgisser, A., Manga, M., 2012. The effects of outgassing on
the transition between effusive and explosive silicic eruptions. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
349, 161–170.
Dominguez, L., Pioli, L., Bonadonna, C., Connor, C., Andronico, D., Harris, A., Ripepe, M.,
2016. Quantifying unsteadiness and dynamics of pulsatory volcanic activity. Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett. 444, 160–168.
Dragoni, M., Santini, S., 2007. Lava flow in tubes with elliptical cross sections. J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res. 160 (3), 239–248.
Gholami, R., Moradzadeh, A., Rasouli, V., Hanachi, J., 2014. Practical application of failure
criteria in determining safe mud weight windows in drilling operations. J. Rock
Mech. Geotech. Eng. 6 (1), 13–25.
Gurioli, L., Houghton, B.F., Cashman, K.V., Cioni, R., 2005. Complex changes in eruption dy-
namics during the 79 AD eruption of Vesuvius. Bull. Volcanol. 67 (2), 144–159.
Hess, K., Dingwell, D., 1996. Viscosities of hydrous leucogranitic melts: a non-Arrhenian
model. Am. Mineral. 81 (9–10), 1297–1300.
Hoek, E., Brown, E., 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. 34 (8), 1165–1186.
Houghton, B., Wilson, C., Del Carlo, P., Coltelli, M., Sable, J., Carey, R., 2004. The influence of
conduit processes on changes in style of basaltic Plinian eruptions: Tarawera 1886
and Etna 122 BC. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 137 (1), 1–14.
Jurado-Chichay, Z., Walker, G., 2001. The intensity and magnitude of the Mangaone sub-
group Plinian eruptions from Okataina Volcanic Centre, New Zealand. J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res. 111 (1), 219–237.
Kennedy, B., Spieler, O., Scheu, B., Kueppers, U., Taddeucci, J., Dingwell, D.B., 2005. Conduit
implosion during Vulcanian eruptions. Geology 33 (7), 581–584.
Koyaguchi, T., Suzuki, Y.J., Kozono, T., 2010. Effects of the crater on eruption column dy-
namics. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 115 (B7).
La Spina, G., de' Michieli Vitturi, M., 2012. High-resolution finite volume central schemes
for a compressible two-phase model. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 34 (6), B861–B880.
La Spina, G., Burton, M., Vitturi, M.D.M., 2015. Temperature evolution during magma as-
cent in basaltic effusive eruptions: a numerical application to Stromboli volcano.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 426, 89–100.
Le Métayer, O., Massoni, J., Saurel, R., 2005. Modelling evaporation fronts with reactive
Riemann solvers. J. Comput. Phys. 205 (2), 567–610.
Llewellin, E., Manga, M., 2005. Bubble suspension rheology and implications for conduit
flow. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 143 (1), 205–217.
Macedonio, G., Dobran, F., Neri, A., 1994. Erosion processes in volcanic conduits and appli-
cation to the AD 79 eruption of Vesuvius. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 121 (1), 137–152.
Macedonio, G., Neri, A., Martì, J., Folch, A., 2005. Temporal evolution of flow conditions in
sustained magmatic explosive eruptions. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 143 (1), 153–172.
Mader, H., Llewellin, E., Mueller, S., 2013. The rheology of two-phase magmas: a review
and analysis. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 257, 135–158.
Maeno, F., Taniguchi, H., 2009. Sedimentation and welding processes of dilute pyroclastic
density currents and fallout during a large-scale silicic eruption, Kikai caldera, Japan.
Sediment. Geol. 220 (3), 227–242.
Manga, M., Loewenberg, M., 2001. Viscosity of magmas containing highly deformable
bubbles. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 105 (1), 19–24.
de' Michieli Vitturi, M., Clarke, A., Neri, A., Voight, B., 2008. Effects of conduit geometry on
magma ascent dynamics in dome-forming eruptions. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 272 (3),
567–578.
de' Michieli Vitturi, M., Clarke, A., Neri, A., Voight, B., 2010. Transient effects of magma as-
cent dynamics along a geometrically variable dome-feeding conduit. Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett. 295 (3), 541–553.
de' Michieli Vitturi, M., Clarke, A., Neri, A., Voight, B., 2011. Assessing the Influence of Dis-
equilibrium Crystallization and Degassing During Magma Ascent in Effusive and Ex-
plosive Eruptions, Paper Presented at AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts.
Pioli, L., Azzopardi, B., Cashman, K., 2009. Controls on the explosivity of scoria cone erup-
tions: magma segregation at conduit junctions. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 186 (3),
407–415.
62 Á. Aravena et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 339 (2017) 52–62
Piombo, A., Tallarico, A., Dragoni, M., 2016. Role of mechanical erosion in controlling the
effusion rate of basaltic eruptions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43 (17), 8970–8977.
Rahman, M., Naseby, D., Rahman, S., 2000. Borehole collapse analysis incorporating time-
dependent pore pressure due to mud penetration in shales. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 28 (1),
13–31.
Romenski, E., Drikakis, D., Toro, E., 2010. Conservative models and numerical methods for
compressible two-phase flow. J. Sci. Comput. 42 (1), 68–95.
Rust, A., Cashman, K.V., 2004. Permeability of vesicular silicic magma: inertial and hyster-
esis effects. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 228 (1), 93–107.
Scandone, R., Malone, S.D., 1985. Magma supply, magma discharge and readjustment of
the feeding system of Mount St. Helens during 1980. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 23
(3–4), 239–262.
Single, B., Goel, R., Mehrotra, V., Garg, S., Allu, M., 1998. Effect of intermediate principal
stress on strength of anisotropic rock mass. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 13 (1),
71–79.
Sobol, I.M., 2001. Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their
Monte Carlo estimates. Math. Comput. Simul. 55 (1), 271–280.
Sparks, R.S.J., 1978. The dynamics of bubble formation and growth in magmas: a review
and analysis. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 3 (1–2), 1–37.
Starostin, A., Barmin, A., Melnik, O., 2005. A transient model for explosive and
phreatomagmatic eruptions. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 143 (1), 133–151.
Truby, J., Mueller, S., Llewellin, E., Mader, H., 2015. The Rheology of Three-Phase Suspen-
sions at Low Bubble Capillary Number, Paper Presented at Proc. R. Soc. A. The Royal
Society.
Varekamp, J.C., 1993. Some remarks on volcanic vent evolution during Plinian eruptions.
J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 54 (3–4), 309–318.
Vernik, L., Zoback, M.D., 1992. Estimation of maximum horizontal principal stress magni-
tude from stress-induced well bore breakouts in the Cajon pass scientific research
borehole. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 97 (B4), 5109–5119.
Zhang, Y., 1999. H2O in rhyolitic glasses and melts: measurement, speciation, solubility,
and diffusion. Rev. Geophys. 37 (4), 493–516.