Next Article in Journal
Deep Hash Remote Sensing Image Retrieval with Hard Probability Sampling
Next Article in Special Issue
A Novel Approach to Estimating Time-Averaged Volcanic SO2 Fluxes from Infrared Satellite Measurements
Previous Article in Journal
Estimation of Snow Depth in the Hindu Kush Himalayas of Afghanistan during Peak Winter and Early Melt Season
Previous Article in Special Issue
Recognizing Eruptions of Mount Etna through Machine Learning Using Multiperspective Infrared Images
 
 
Article

Pyroclastic Density Current Hazard Assessment and Modeling Uncertainties for Fuego Volcano, Guatemala

Department of Geology and Environmental Science, University of Pittsburgh, 4107 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15260-3332, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(17), 2790; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12172790
Received: 9 July 2020 / Revised: 20 August 2020 / Accepted: 24 August 2020 / Published: 27 August 2020
On 3 June 2018, Fuego volcano experienced a VEI = 3 eruption, which produced a pyroclastic density current (PDC) that devastated the La Réunion resort and the community of Los Lotes, resulting in over 100 deaths. To evaluate the potential hazard to the population centers surrounding Fuego associated with future PDC emplacement, we used an integrated remote sensing and flow modeling-based approach. The predominate PDC travel direction over the past 15 years was investigated using thermal infrared (TIR) data from the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) instrument validated with ground reports from the National Institute of Seismology, Volcanology, Meteorology, and Hydrology (INSIVUMEH), the government agency responsible for monitoring. Two different ASTER-derived digital elevation model (DEM) products with varying levels of noise were also used to assess the uncertainty in the VolcFlow model results. Our findings indicate that the recent historical PDC travel direction is dominantly toward the south and southwest. Population centers in this region of Fuego that are within ~2 km of one of the volcano’s radial barrancas are at the highest risk during future large eruptions that produce PDCs. The ASTER global DEM (GDEM) product has the least random noise and where used with the VolcFlow model, had a significant improvement on its accuracy. Results produced longer flow runout distances and therefore better conveys a more accurate perception of risk. Different PDC volumes were then modeled using the GDEM and VolcFlow to determine potential inundation areas in relation to local communities. View Full-Text
Keywords: ASTER; thermal infrared; volcanic hazards; pyroclastic flows; Fuego volcano ASTER; thermal infrared; volcanic hazards; pyroclastic flows; Fuego volcano
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Flynn, I.T.W.; Ramsey, M.S. Pyroclastic Density Current Hazard Assessment and Modeling Uncertainties for Fuego Volcano, Guatemala. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2790. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12172790

AMA Style

Flynn ITW, Ramsey MS. Pyroclastic Density Current Hazard Assessment and Modeling Uncertainties for Fuego Volcano, Guatemala. Remote Sensing. 2020; 12(17):2790. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12172790

Chicago/Turabian Style

Flynn, Ian T. W., and Michael S. Ramsey. 2020. "Pyroclastic Density Current Hazard Assessment and Modeling Uncertainties for Fuego Volcano, Guatemala" Remote Sensing 12, no. 17: 2790. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12172790

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop