This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Earth and Planetary Science Letters 288 (2009) 455–462

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Earth and Planetary Science Letters

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e p s l

Effects of wall-rock elasticity on magma flow in dykes during explosive eruptions

A. Costa a,b,⁎, R.S.J. Sparks b, G. Macedonio a, O. Melnik b,c
a
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Naples, Italy
b
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1RJ, UK
c
Institute of Mechanics, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

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

Article history: Magma flow during explosive volcanic eruptions has been described assuming rigid conduits with simple
Received 13 January 2009 cylindrical or planar geometries. Here we study the dynamics of explosive volcanic flows to take account of
Received in revised form 1 October 2009 the role of elastic deformation of the conduit influenced by local magmatic pressure. Three cases are
Accepted 11 October 2009
investigated: a dyke with elliptical cross-section, a cylindrical conduit and a deep dyke connected to a
Available online 1 November 2009
shallow cylinder. The model CPIUC (Macedonio et al., 2005) was used for simulations and generalized to
Editor: R.D. van der Hilst account for elastic deformations of the conduit cross-section area due to magmatic overpressure.
Fragmentation level is typically deeper in a dyke than in a cylinder. For flows in wide dykes pressure at
Keywords: the fragmentation depth can be lower than the surrounding lithostatic pressure by several tens of MPa,
conduit geometry indicating that the wall-rocks of the dyke will be unstable, constraining the dyke width and eventually
explosive eruption blocking the eruption. On the other hand, when the fragmentation level is shallow the corresponding
elastic effect lithostatic pressure is not large enough to close the dyke and eruptions from wide dykes are possible. The
dyke deformation behaviour changes drastically when we assume the conduit is a dyke at depth that evolves to a cylinder near
the surface. In this case even very wide dykes can be stable because the fragmentation level moves into the
cylindrical region where deformation is negligible.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the conduit. We show that in explosive eruptions, as a consequence of

Models of explosive volcanic eruptions have commonly assumed
flows in undeformable cylindrical conduits (e.g., Wilson et al., 1980;
Dobran, 1992; Melnik, 2000; Mastin, 2002). Such models utilize
advanced multiphase flow dynamics for understanding of the
principal controls of the eruption regimes and intensity. However,
the magma transport in the brittle upper crust occurs dominantly in
dykes (e.g., Lister and Kerr, 1991; Rubin, 1995). Cylindrical conduits
can develop at shallow levels by near-surface explosive disruption but
the deeper feeding system still likely consists of a dyke or of system of
dykes. Although there have been some models of explosive eruptions
along linear fissures (e.g., Walker et al., 1984; Gilberti and Wilson,
1990; Folch and Martí, 2009) these models have not incorporated the
pressure-dependent deformation of the dyke. In the case of extrusive
eruptions recent models indicate that marked fluctuations on
extrusion rate result from a strong feedback between magma
pressure, dyke width and flow rate (Costa et al., 2007a,b). Evidence
for the stress field changes in the wall-rock of dykes due to variations
in magma pressure have also been found from studies of fault plane
solutions (Roman et al., 2006). In this paper we develop a model for
explosive eruptions, which takes account of elastic deformations of
⁎ Corresponding author. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Naples, Italy.
Tel.: +39 081 6108 446; fax: +39 081 6108 351.
E-mail address: costa@ov.ingv.it (A. Costa).
variations in magmatic pressure, induced changes in discharge rate
and dyke cross-section can be very large.
In order to isolate the effects of wall-rock elasticity and conduit
shape we will keep the model of conduit flow as simple as possible.
Also for this reason we will only use two sets of governing parameters
representative of a silicic and basaltic magma, as reported in Table 1.
2. Conduit model
In this section we present a model for magma flows in a conduit of
elliptical cross-section with major and minor semi-axes changing
with depth. Quasi-static elastic deformation of the dyke is accounted
by an analytical solution that couples cross-section area with the
magma pressure. Moreover we assume that vertical variations in
cross-sectional area of the dyke occur at length-scales that are much
larger than the dyke width; therefore cross-section averaged variables
can be used to describe magma flow in the conduit and vertical
deformations are much smaller than horizontal ones. The set of cross-
section averaged equations is derived from a generalization of the
equations used in Macedonio et al. (2005). Moreover with respect to
Macedonio et al. (2005) we have introduced melt and crystal
compressibility, i.e. the magma behaves as a compressible liquid
even when the pressure is greater than the bubble nucleation
pressure. If the pressure is lower than the nucleation pressure, the
gas exsolves and a liquid–gas mixture becomes much more

0012-821X/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.10.006
 Author's personal copy

456 A. Costa et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 288 (2009) 455–462

Table 1 where A = π a b is the cross-section area, V is the vertical mixture

Parameters used in the simulations. velocity, g is the gravity acceleration and fft is the friction term
expressed as fft = 4 μρ a
2 2
Notation Description Value + b
V (e.g., Costa et al., 2007a,b) below
a2 b 2
Basaltic Silicic the fragmentation level and fft = 0 above the fragmentation level
xtot Concentration of dissolved gas (wt.%) 2 5 (μ denotes the magma viscosity, here assumed constant). Assuming a
xc Crystal fraction (wt.%) 5 5 homogeneous mixture, magma density is (e.g., Macedonio et al.,
L Conduit length (m) 6000 6000 2005):
LT Cylinder-dyke transition depth (m) 2000 2000
wT Cylinder-dyke transition width (m) 200 200
1 x 1−xe −xc x
ρl0 Density of the melt phase (kg m− 3) 2500 2500 = e + + c ð3Þ
ρc0 Density of the crystal (kg m− 3) 3000 3000 ρ ρg ρl ρc
ρr Host rock density (kg m− 3) 2600 2600
T Magma temperature (K) 1273 1023 where ρg is the gas density, xe is the exsolved gas mass fraction, and xc
μ Effective Magma viscosity (Pa s) 5 · 103 5 · 105 is the crystal mass fraction. The exsolved and the dissolved gas mass
Pch Magma chamber pressure (MPa) 123–183 123–183
fraction can be expressed as:
s Solubility coefficient (Pa− 1/2) 6.8 · 10− 8 4.1 · 10− 6
n Solubility exponent 0.7 0.5
xtot −xd n
G Static host rock rigidity (GPa) 6.0 6.0 xe = ð1−xc Þ; xd = s P ð4Þ
ν Poisson ratio 0.3 0.3 1−xd
β Bulk modulus of melt/crystal (GPa) 10 10
where xtot is the initial total gas mass fraction, xd is the dissolved gas
mass fraction; the exponent n and the constant s in the solubility law
compressible. Here we assume that no supersaturation is required for are assumed to be independent of pressure, but dependent on the
bubble nucleation. magma composition only (see Table 1).
In order to keep the assumptions simple, we assume a fixed Here we assume that the gas phase behaves as a perfect gas and
pressure as the boundary condition at the base of the conduit. This the condensed phases are compressible:
assumption is applicable when a dyke starts from a large magma
ρg = P = ðRg TÞ; ρl = ρl0 ð1 + P = βÞ ð5Þ
source for which the time of pressure change is much longer than
magma ascent time through the conduit. We explore different values
where Rg is the gas constant and T is the temperature; β denotes the
of the magma pressure. Thus we can also implicitly explore temporal
bulk modulus of melt (and/or crystals) and it is assumed to be equal to
variations on the premise that magma chamber pressure slowly
10 GPa, i.e. similar to typical bulk modulus characterizing host rocks
declines with time in explosive eruptions. At the top of the conduit
(e.g., Huppert and Woods, 2002).
choked flow conditions are assumed.
In order to integrate the above equations avoiding the singularity
at the outlet (exit condition) in Eqs. (1) and (2), we introduce the two
2.1. Governing equations
characteristic velocities, namely the “isothermal” sound velocity in
the erupting magma, a, (Macedonio et al., 2005): and the wave
The flow in the conduit is governed by the cross-section averaged
velocity in a deformable tube, c, (e.g., Young, 1808; Shapiro, 1977;
mass and momentum balance equations under quasi-steady state
Paıdoussis, 2006):
conditions. The conduit cross-section is assumed to be an ellipse with
axes a and b variable with depth z. The magma can enter the conduit in    
1 dρ 1 ρ dA
either the homogeneous or the bubbly flow regime, and exits in the ≡ and ≡ ð6Þ
a2 dP T c2 A dP T
particulate flow regime, after fragmentation. For simplicity we assume
that fragmentation occurs when the gas volumetric fraction α reaches and rewrite Eqs. (1) and (2) using the Mach number M = V/a as
a critical value αc corresponding to the bubble maximum packing independent variable. After analytical manipulations we obtain:
(typically αc ≈ 0.75, e.g., Sparks, 1978). However, the choice of a
different fragmentation criterion, such as critical strain rate threshold dP ρa2 ½g + fft −M2 fA 
(e.g., Papale, 1999) or bubble overpressure (e.g., Melnik, 1999) will not =− 
 ð7Þ
dM M 1 + ρa dP + γ2 ðg + fft Þ−ð1 + ρa dP
da da
M2 ÞfA
produce qualitatively different results. We fix the pressure at the
conduit bottom, defined as Pch (magma chamber top), and assume
choked flow condition at the conduit exit. Since the time-scale of the dz a2 ½1−M 2 ð1 + γ2 Þ
= 
 ð8Þ
pressure variations at the conduit base (hours) is much longer than the dM M 1 + ρa dP + γ2 ðg + fft Þ−ð1 + ρa dP
da da
M 2 ÞfA
travel time of the magma in the conduit (a few minutes), we can
approximate the flow in the conduit as steady state. Both the gas and 2 2 2

the condensed phase (liquid and crystals) are assumed to have the where γ = ac2 and fA = aA ddAz . Eqs. (7) and (8) are integrated between
same velocity. As a first order approach, the isothermal assumption is the initial Mach number at the conduit inlet, Mi, and the Mach number
justified by the large heat capacity of the magmatic mixture and the at the conduit exit, Mo, which is set equal to Mo = 1/(1 + γ2)1/2,
very effective heat transfer between the condensed phase and rapidly defining the choked flow condition. Since, for convenience, we fix the
expanding gas (Wilson et al., 1980; Buresti and Casarosa, 1989). conduit length, L, instead of the Mach number at the conduit entrance,
Under these assumptions the governing mass and momentum the value of Mi is searched, using standard shooting methods, until the
equations are: integration of Eq. (8) gives z = L at the conduit exit, where M = Mo.
Lengths of the dyke semi-axes a and b depend on the magmatic
∂ overpressure ΔP as follows (Mériaux and Jaupart, 1995; Costa et al.,
ðρAVÞ = 0 ð1Þ 2007a,b):
∂z
ΔP
and aðzÞ = a0 ðzÞ + ½2ð1−νÞb0 ðzÞ−ð1−2νÞa0 ðzÞ ð9aÞ
2G
∂V 1 dP ΔP
V =− −g−fft ð2Þ bðzÞ = b0 ðzÞ + ½2ð1−νÞa0 ðzÞ−ð1−2νÞb0 ðzÞ: ð9bÞ
∂z ρ dz 2G
 Author's personal copy

A. Costa et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 288 (2009) 455–462 457

Here ΔP = P − ρrgz is the difference between the local magmatic For estimating the value of rigidity we use the empirical
pressure, and the lithostatic pressure is defined as the overpressure relationship between static and dynamic values for typical ranges of
for positive values and underpressure for negative values, G is the the Young modulus E of rocks (Wang, 2000):
rigidity of wall-rock, ν is Poisson's ratio, a0 and b0 are the initial
unpressurized values of the semi-axes. If we assume a transition
from a dyke at depth to a cylindrical Estatic ðGPaÞ = 0:415 Edynamic ðGPaÞ−1:056: ð10Þ
 conduit the value of a0 is para-
z−LT
meterized as: a0 ðzÞ = A1 arctan + A2 , where LT and wT are the
wT
position and the vertical extent of the transition zone and constants
A1 and A2 are calculated to satisfy conditions a0(L) = R, where R is the Assuming Edynamic ≈ 40 GPa and a Poisson ratio ν = 0.3 we obtain
E
þνÞ ≈6 GPa:
a rigidity Gstatic = 2ð1static
constant radius of the conduit in the cylindrical region, and a0(0) = a0
dyke width at the bottom (see sketch in Fig. 1). The value of b0 can be
either calculated assuming conservation of the cross-section area of
the unpressurized dyke, or can be specified independently. In this way 2.2. Limitations
we can prescribe a transition from a dyke to a cylinder at LT,
approximate the behaviour of dyke in the limit a ≫ b and recover the With the model presented above we will study in a simple way the
case of a cylinder when a = b = R. influence of conduit walls deformation on the eruption dynamics. The

Fig. 1. Sketch of the conduit geometry investigated: i) a conduit having a purely cylindrical cross-section is obtained assuming a0 = b0 = R; ii) a dyke having a purely elliptical cross-
section is obtained assuming a0 ≫ b0 and LT/L = 0; iii) a dyke-to-cylinder conduit is obtained when a0 ≫ b0 and LT/L ≠ 0. Modified after Costa et al. (2007b).
 Author's personal copy
458 A. Costa et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 288 (2009) 455–462
model has several important assumptions that must be overcome in
future research.
• Conduit flow is assumed to be i) steady state, ii) isothermal, and
iii) and quasi-1D. The fragmentation criterion is based on the critical
volume concentration of bubbles and there is no gas escape either
through the magma or to surrounding wall-rocks. Discussion about
the validity of some of these assumptions can be found in Melnik
(2000) and Woods and Koyaguchi (1994).
• Eqs. (9a) and (9b) are based on the assumption that elastic
deformation can be locally described in the plain strain approxi-
mation (Muskhelishvili, 1963; Mériaux and Jaupart, 1995). This
implies that relationships (9a) and (9b) can be applied only if the
local length-scales characterizing vertical changes in the conduit
geometry and in the fluid pressure are much larger than the
transversal dimensions of the conduit, i.e. the diameter conduit
D = 2R or the dyke thickness HD = 2b. Moreover, local relationships
(Eqs. (9a) and (9b)) are not valid near the free surface where both
boundary and topographic effects can be important. Purely elastic
rock properties are assumed and no rock failure is allowed. This
latter assumption can be assessed a posteriori if solutions are found
that are likely to exceed the wall-rock strength.
• The shape of the cross-section area of the conduit is assumed to be
elliptic. In reality, the dyke cross-section is not necessarily elliptical
and can instead have cuspate ends (e.g., Rubin, 1995). A dyke with
cuspate ends can only remain open for positive fluid pressures.
However, solidification of magma in the region near the tips can
make dyke geometry more similar to the elliptic cross-section that
we assumed in this study. Moreover, for the case a ≫ b, the flow can
localise in several vents along the dyke and both the cross-section
averaged approximation and Eqs. (9a) and (9b) can become
violated. In these cases, for example, magma fragmentation can
occur at different depths along the dyke. In order to overcome these
limitations a fully 3D approach should be adopted, although
modelling is likely to be very complicated and possibly outside of
the current computational capabilities.
• Many near-surface volcanic conduits are approximately cylindrical but
narrow with depth. Our models keep the conduit diameter constant
and assume choked flow at the surface. Strictly for a diverging conduit
that gets wider with decreasing depth the choke point may be at a
constriction in the conduit rather than at the vent with supersonic flow
in the diverging part. For the dyke the width increases above the
pressure minimum and the divergence gives the possibility of
supersonic flows. Thus more complex multiphase models will be
needed to address the effects of flared shapes on flow dynamics.
• For sake of simplicity, since we consider cross-section averaged
variables only, magma properties are treated in an approximate
way. This includes equilibrium water exsolution, absence of gas
overpressure with respect to magma pressure and constant
viscosity assumption. A more realistic description of the effective
viscosity should account for the coupling with dissolved water,
energy loss, viscous dissipation and two-dimensional effects (e.g.,
Costa et al. 2007c; Vedeneeva et al. 2005).
3. Results
In case of explosive conduit flows there is a transition from a
laminar flow of bubble-rich melt, in the lower part of the conduit, to a
turbulent flow of particle-rich hot gas, in the upper part of the conduit.
As magma rises from a depth of a few kilometres, its pressure
decreases and gas bubbles nucleate. With further decompression the
mixture accelerates and expands breaking the magma into fragments.
The mixture leaves the vent as a gas-particle jet with a velocity equal
to the local sonic velocity of the mixture (e.g., Melnik, 2000; Mastin,
2002). The two zones, above and below the fragmentation level, have
different properties such as pressure drop rate, velocity, gas fraction,
and effective viscosity. As will be demonstrated, the depth of the
fragmentation level plays an important role in determining the
dynamics of magma rise in an elastic dyke.
In the following two sub-sections we compare three different
conduit geometries of a conduit having: i) a purely cylindrical cross-
section, ii) an elongated elliptical cross-section, and iii) an elongated
elliptical cross-section at depth with a transition to a cylindrical cross-
section at shallower depth (see Fig. 1).
3.1. Pure elliptical dyke versus pure cylinder
In this section we compare the main differences between a
cylindrical conduit and an elliptical dyke.
Fig. 2 compares typical profiles of three conduits: i) a cylinder with
a radius R = 20 m; ii) a dyke with a0 = 1000 m and b0 = 20 m; and
iii) a dyke with a0 = 1000 m and b0 = 20 m at depth that evolves to a
cylinder with a radius R = 20 m at depth LT = 2000 m. The conduit
length, L, is assumed to be 6000 m long in all three cases. Three
magma chamber pressures of 123 MPa, 153 MPa and 183 MPa are
reported (153 MPa corresponds to the lithostatic pressure at the
magma chamber depth L = 6000 m). As expected, deformation is
negligible in the case of the pure cylinder, while deformation in the
dyke, as reflected in variations of cross-sectional area, is pronounced
(Fig. 2b). Pressure variations with depth are similar in both cases with
a pronounced tendency to large underpressures reaching maximum
values at the fragmentation depth (Fig. 2a). In the case of a dyke, the
minor semi-axis b (i.e., the cross-section) reaches the minimum at the
fragmentation depth forming a constriction, where the underpressure is
at a maximum. The underpressure minimum is much more pronounced
in the dyke. There is no sonic transition at this constriction because, due
to large magma viscosities below the fragmentation level, the velocity is
typically much lower than sonic. The depth of this constriction and
maximum in underpressure, moves deeper with decreasing pressure in
the magma chamber (Fig. 2c and d). The variations of gas volumetric
fraction and velocity are similar and are shown in Fig. 2c and d. The
region of maximum underpressure at the fragmentation level is where
conduits wall failure is most likely if the underpressure exceeds some
strength threshold (Macedonio et al., 1994; Barnett, 2008). The
calculated underpressures are very large and exceed the typical tensile
strength of rocks of 10 to 20 MPa. The implications of these very large
underpressures are discussed further below.
These features are qualitatively similar in all the other cases
analyzed below although there are some quantitative differences
depending on width, aspect ratio (a0/b0) and shape of the dyke. For
the sake of comparison, we consider the case when the unperturbed
cross-section area is conserved, so that the minor semi-axis b0
decreases as a0 increases. As expected, deformation is stronger with
increasing a0 (Fig. 3a). Since increasing a0 increases the perimeter,
the fragmentation level becomes deeper, because magma fragmen-
tation occurs at a fixed pressure in the current model, and the
pressure decreases more rapidly due to the larger friction. After
fragmentation the pressure decreases much more slowly mainly due
to the low density of the particulate dispersion.
Fig. 3b shows the case of a set of conduits having a fixed aspect
ratio a0/b0 = 50. In this case, since magma pressure decreases as a0
and b0 decrease, the fragmentation level is deeper for smaller dykes in
comparison with larger dykes (see normalized cross-section profile in
Fig. 3b). Moreover, dykes having the same aspect ratio show a similar
variation of the minor-axis deformation with depth.
Fig. 3c shows the effect of increasing the values of a0 for a fixed b0
(i.e. b0 = 20 m), from a pure cylinder, a0 = b0, to an elongated ellipse,
a0 ≫ b0. As shown in Fig. 3c, for larger a0 there is a stronger variation
of the cross-section b0.
Finally Fig. 3d shows the cross-section variation of two identical
unperturbed dykes in the case of two different magmas, i.e. silicic and
basaltic (see Table 1). In this case the fragmentation depth becomes
 Author's personal copy

A. Costa et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 288 (2009) 455–462 459

Fig. 2. Variation along the conduit of pressure difference ΔP (a), normalized cross-section (b), gas volumetric fraction (c), magma velocity (d), for three different magma chamber
pressures (Pch = 123, 153, and 183 MPa respectively; see labelled values) in the case of the three conduit geometries investigated: cylinder (dashed line), dyke (grey line) and dyke-
to-cylinder (black line). Panel a: profile of overpressure (i.e. pressure inside the conduit minus the lithostatic pressure) for the value of a0 and b0 reported in the inset, dashed line
indicates the rock failure threshold. Panel b: profile of normalized cross-section (i.e., ratio between the pressurized cross-section, πab, and the unperturbed cross-section, πa0b0).
Panel c: Profile of magma gas volumetric fraction. Panel d: Profile of magma velocity inside the conduit. Corresponding discharge rates range from 1 × 106 kg/s to 6 × 106 kg/s
depending on geometry and pressures (see Fig. 4).

shallower in the basaltic case because of the smaller friction and the whereas for the case of the dyke evolving to a cylinder the mass flux is
smaller water content (see Table 1). This implies that in the latter case 4 to 6 times larger.
the dyke can remain open more easily because the lithostatic pressure
at the fragmentation level is smaller. 4. Discussion and implications

3.2. The case of conduit composed of a dyke at the bottom that evolves to
a cylinder at shallower depths
The transition from an elongated dyke to a cylinder introduces
significant differences in terms of deformation, fragmentation depth
and flow rate. In the case of a dyke that evolves to a cylinder a
constriction in the dyke does not develop because the fragmentation
level becomes shallower, remaining in the cylindrical region where
the deformation is negligible (Fig. 2). The deformation in the dyke
region becomes smoother and the cross-section profile does not show
a constriction as in the case of the purely elliptical cross-section. There
is of course another kind of constriction at the transition between the
dyke and cylindrical conduit. The pressure variations with depth are
also very different with much higher pressures being maintained, and
the pressure increasing with depth until shallow levels.
Besides moving the fragmentation level to shallower depths, the
transition from a dyke to a cylinder is identified as a very efficient
mechanism that allows larger mass fluxes for the same magma
chamber pressure (Fig. 4). For example, in the case reported in Fig. 4,
the mass fluxes of the pure cylinder and pure dyke are similar,
Within the limitations of the model, our results show that for a
dyke embedded in an elastic medium, magma flow dynamics during
explosive eruptions can differ dramatically from the case of an
undeformable conduit typically assumed in most conduit models in
the literature. This is because the shape of the dyke itself is strongly
influenced by local magma pressure. These effects are more
pronounced for long dykes having a large a0/b0 aspect ratio. For the
same cross-section area, an elliptical cross-section with large a0/b0
aspect ratios has a deeper fragmentation level with respect to a
cylindrical cross-section, because the friction term is smaller in the
latter case. When the fragmentation level is deep (i.e., at large
lithostatic pressures), the cross-section area decreases markedly near
the fragmentation level and forms a constriction where large under-
pressures are calculated. These results indicate that dyke systems in
explosive eruptions are very unstable. Two types of instability are
indicated. First the width of the underpressured constriction can tend
to zero. For the typical values reported in Table 1, a dyke system
having a0 of the order of a km tends to collapse even for aspect ratio
a0/b0 ≲ 100. In order to have longer dykes stable, mechanisms that
produce shallower fragmentation levels need to be considered. Given
 Author's personal copy
460 A. Costa et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 288 (2009) 455–462
Fig. 3. Profile of the normalized cross-section (i.e., ratio between the pressurized cross-section, πab, and the unperturbed cross-section, πa0b0) for a set of dykes having the same
unperturbed cross-section (a), the same aspect ratio (c), the same dyke thickness (b), and the same geometry but different magma composition (d). The values of a0 and b0 are
reported in the insets.
that real geological systems are likely heterogeneous a long dyke may
have a strong tendency to close locally and thus localise the explosive
flow elsewhere. Second the underpressures are very large and our
Fig. 4. Discharge rate vs magma chamber pressure Pch for the three different conduit
geometries investigated: cylinder (dashed line), dyke (grey line) and dyke-to-cylinder
(black line). The values of a0 and b0 are reported in the insets.
calculations commonly exceed the tensile strength of rocks. Thus
wall-rock disintegration seems very likely to develop in explosive
dykes flows. Again taking account of geological heterogeneity
suggests that local implosion of the dyke walls in the region of the
constriction can also block the conduit and localise flow. For an
eruption from a simple dyke, when deformation at the fragmentation
depth is large, wall-rock erosion is expected to be stronger for magma
flows in dykes in comparison to cylinders.
A very efficient mechanism to stabilise explosive flows is to form a
localised cylindrical flow region in the shallow part of the conduit. If
we assume a conduit that is an elliptical dyke at depth evolving to a
cylinder near the surface, the behaviour of the system changes
dramatically. In fact the presence of a cylindrical region reduces the
friction in the upper part moving the fragmentation level to shallower
depths, where the lithostatic pressure is smaller. The cylindrical
geometry is much more stable and pressures in the flowing magma
tend to be larger; the magma is typically overpressured rather than
underpressured.
As implications, we expect that if an eruption starts from a long
dyke, the dyke tends to be blocked quickly from collapse and the
eruption eventually restarts, after a re-pressurization of the system
from one or few focussed vents along the dyke, or along a portion of
the dyke, or only from an active portion of the dyke that may migrate
along the fissure during the eruption. For basaltic magma, since the
fragmentation level can be very shallow, the dyke can remain open
during the eruption, allowing for much more continuous activity.
 Author's personal copy
A. Costa et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 288 (2009) 455–462
These results show that the evolution of volcanic conduit geometry
has a strong impact on the flow dynamics. A number of permutations
of conduit evolution can be envisaged. First, a simple dyke is not a
stable configuration for explosive flows. We calculate that, as the dyke
increases in length, the width of the constriction tends to decrease and
for large aspect ratios the solutions predicted by the model became
unstable as the constriction width tends to zero. The underpressures
around the constriction also increase as chamber pressure decreases
and reach values that can exceed the tensile strength of most rocks.
Thus in some eruptions the initial constriction could become the focus
of wall-rock disruption (brecciation), erosion and the supply of lithics
which are then transported by the explosive flow out of the vent. This
process could also cause an eruption to stop if the disruption blocks the
vent with lithics. If disruption is localised, as seems likely due to
geological heterogeneity, flow should be thereafter focussed through
this disrupted region. A low pressure cavity structure could form
which then acts as region of weakness. One possibility is that overlying
rocks could subside into this cavity and thereby eventually form a
tapered volcanic pipe to the surface.
Evidence for the formation of cavities linked to dykes below and
volcanic pipes above is observed in kimberlite pipes. Here a deep root
zone is observed at the base of kimberlite pipes (Hawthorne, 1975),
which is typically recognised by the cross-sectional area increasing
with depth, marked irregularity in cross-sectional shape, and by
evidence of intense disruption such as breccias and blind re-entrants.
Such root zones typically occur at depths of 1 to 3 km, comparable to
the depths calculated in the models for the low pressure constriction.
The study recognises that the formation of a shallow cylindrical
conduit fed from a deeper dyke will have a marked influence on
eruption dynamics. Phreatic eruptions occur early in many explosive
eruptions forming shallow craters that should connect at depth with
the dyke system. We have also identified a mechanism of starting the
formation for a cylindrical conduit due to severe underpressures in
explosive flows in dyke systems and the intrinsic instability that
should lead to flow focussing. In both cases the changing conduit
geometry coupled with strong coupling of magma flow, pressure and
cross-section in the dyke play a key role in controlling the eruption.
Some qualitative remarks can be made on the time evolution of
eruptions. In eruptions where previous phreatic or magmatic
eruptions have already created a significant and quite deep near-
surface cylindrical conduit, the initial activity will immediately
involve the case of high discharge with overpressured flow. However,
if the dyke reaches the surface at the start of the eruption, the large
underpressures may initiate the formation of a cylindrical conduit by
implosion of the conduit walls at depth, as described here.
The Huayaputina eruption in Peru in about 1600 AD provides an
example of a Plinian eruption with stratigraphic features and vent
morphology consistent with the processes indicated from the model
results. This eruption involved the discharge of about 11 km3 of
magma in a major Plinian eruption (Adams et al., 2001; Lavallée et al.,
2006). The sequence of events inferred from the stratigraphy by
Lavallée et al. (2006) indicates that the eruption occurred along a
fissure from a deep magma chamber, consistent with early dyke flow.
The deposits from the first stage of the eruption show several layers of
lithic clasts interpreted by Lavallée et al. (2006) as episodic conduit
erosion. In terms of our model we suggest that the outbursts of lithics
represent time when the very large underpressures led to wall-rock
implosion and entrainment. The eruption also increased in intensity
during stage 1, as indicated by reverse grading of pumice with time,
consistent with progressive widening and deepening of the a shallow
cylindrical conduit with time. Increase in intensity with time may
reflect several processes, including the effect documented in this
paper of a geometry where a cylindrical conduit is linked to a dyke at
depth. The increasing intensity tendency could also be related to the
effects of the shallow cylindrical conduit increasing in depth and
width with time, which increases fragmentation depth, increases the
461
pressure gradient between surface and the magma chamber and
decreases the friction in the shallow part of the system. All these
effects can contribute to eruption intensification. In stage 2 of the
eruption the pyroclastic fall deposits become finer grained, lithic-rich
and stratified, and some pyroclastic density currents were generated.
This stage is consistent with the increasing instability of the conduit
walls and repeated choking of the vent, as well as a decrease in
pressure gradient from the chamber as the chamber pressure declines.
In stage 3 there was extrusion of a lava dome, some Vulcanian
explosions, and subsidence of the vent fill along ring fractures.
5. Conclusions
We have shown that conduit geometry and the coupling between
magma pressure, flow, and conduit wall deformation have major
controls on the dynamics of explosive eruptions. Comparison of
steady-state, one-dimensional models of explosive flows in a
cylindrical conduit and in dykes of comparable cross-sectional area
shows that much larger underpressures are experienced in the dyke
flow. The dyke models show a pronounced difference between the
lithostatic pressure and the flow pressure at the fragmentation level
where the dyke width is at a minimum. In some models the dyke
tends to zero thickness and when such conditions arise the dyke may
close and the eruption could stop or the flow could become localised.
The underpressures are calculated as typically tens of MPa at depths of
a few kilometres and wall-rock failure is anticipated.
Models of explosive flows through a dyke connected to a
cylindrical near-surface conduit exhibit stabilised explosive flows
and mostly result in overpressures and fragmentation in the
cylindrical conduit above the transition between the deeper dyke
and shallower conduit. Flow rates increase by factors of several-fold
for a system with the same cross-sectional area as a simple dyke or
simple cylinder. Such a configuration could develop early in an
eruption if a significant cylindrical conduit is formed by phreatic or
phreatomagmatic explosions prior to the dyke reaching the surface.
Alternatively this configuration could develop later by wall-rock
implosion due to the large underpressures developed in the initial
dyke system. These ideas provide a new framework for the
interpretation of pyroclastic sequences from major explosive erup-
tions, and may also explain some previously enigmatic features in
kimberlites where a wide root zone is commonly observed beneath a
tapering volcanic pipe.
Acknowledgements
AC, OEM and RSJS acknowledge NERC Grants (NE/C509958/1) and
support from the Royal Society International collaboration fund. RSJS
acknowledges a Royal Society-Wolfson Merit Award and a European
Research Council Advanced Grant. OEM acknowledges support from
Russian Foundation for the Basic Research (07-01-12041). We are
grateful to Prof. L. Wilson for useful comments that improved the
clarity of the paper.
References
Adams, N.K., de Silva, S.L., Self, S., Salas, G., Schubring, S., Permenter, J.L., Arbesman, K.,
2001. The physical volcanology of the 1600 eruption of Huaynaputina, southern
Peru. Bull. Volcanol. 62, 493–518.
Barnett, W.P., 2008. The rock mechanics of kimberlite volcanic pipe excavation.
J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 174, 29–39.
Buresti, G., Casarosa, C., 1989. One-dimensional adiabatic flow of equilibrium gas-
particles mixtures in long vertical ducts with friction. J. Fluid Mech. 203, 251–272.
Costa, A., Melnik, O., Sparks, R.S.J., Voight, B., 2007a. The control of magma flow in dykes on
cyclic lava dome extrusion. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L02303. doi:10.1029/2006GL027466.
Costa, A., Melnik, O., Sparks, R.S.J., 2007b. Controls of conduit geometry and wallrock elasticity
on lava dome. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 260 (1–2), 137–151. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2007.05.024.
Costa, A., Melnik, O., Vedeneeva, E., 2007c. Thermal effects during magma ascent in
conduits. J. Geophys. 112 (B12). doi:10.1029/2007JB004985.
 Author's personal copy
462 A. Costa et al. / Earth and Planetary Science Letters 288 (2009) 455–462
Dobran, F., 1992. Nonequilibrium flow in volcanic conduits and application to the
eruptions of Mt. St. Helens on May 18, 1980 and Vesuvius in AD 79. J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res. 49, 285–311.
Folch, A., Martí, J., 2009. Time-dependent chamber and vent conditions during
explosive caldera-forming eruptions. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 280 (1–4), 246–253.
doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.01.035.
Gilberti, G., Wilson, L., 1990. The influence of geometry on the ascent of magma in open
fissures. Bull. Volcanol. 52, 515-512.
Hawthorne, J.B., 1975. Model of a kimberlite pipe. Phys. Chem. Earth 9, 1–15.
Huppert, H.E., Woods, A.W., 2002. The role of volatiles in magma chamber dynamics.
Nature 420, 493–495.
Lavallée, Y., de Silva, S., Salas, G., Byrnes, J.M., 2006. Explosive volcanism (VEI 6) without
caldera formation: insight from Huaynaputina volcano, southern Peru. Bull.
Volcanol. 68, 333–348.
Lister, J.R., Kerr, R.C., 1991. Fluid mechanical models of crack propagation and their
application to magma transport in dykes. J. Geophys. Res. 96, 10049–10077.
Macedonio, G., Dobran, F., Neri, A., 1994. Erosion processes in volcanic conduits and an
application to the AD 79 eruption of Vesuvius, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 121, 137–152.
Macedonio, G., Neri, A., Martí, J., Folch, A., 2005. Temporal evolution of flow conditions
in sustained magmatic explosive eruptions. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 143 (1–3),
153–172. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2004.09.015, 2005.
Mastin, L.G., 2002. Insights into volcanic conduit flow from an open-source numerical
model. Geochem., Geophys., Geosyst. 3 (7). doi:10.1029/2001GC000192.
Melnik, O., 1999. Fragmenting magma. Nature 397, 394–395.
Melnik, O., 2000. Dynamics of two-phase conduit flow of high-viscosity gas-saturated
magma: large variations of sustained explosive eruption intensity. Bull. Volcanol.
62, 153–170.
Mériaux, C., Jaupart, C., 1995. Simple fluid dynamics models of volcanic rift zones. Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett. 136, 223–240.
Muskhelishvili, N., 1963. Some Basic Problems in the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity.
Noordhof, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Paıdoussis, M.P., 2006. Wave propagation in physiological collapsible tubes and a
proposal for a Shapiro number. J. Fluids Struct. 22, 721–725.
Papale, P., 1999. Strain-induced magma fragmentation in explosive eruptions. Nature
397, 425–428.
Roman, D.C., Neuberg, J., Luckett, R.R., 2006. Assessing the likelihood of volcanic
eruption through analysis of volcanotectonic earthquake fault-plane solutions.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 248, 244–252. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2006.05.029.
Rubin, A.M., 1995. Propagation of magma-filled cracks. Annu. Rev. Planet. Sci. 23,
287–336.
Shapiro, A.H., 1977. Steady flow in collapsible tubes. J. Biomech. Eng. 99, 126–147.
Sparks, R.S.J., 1978. The dynamics of bubble formation and growth in magmas: a review
and analysis. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 3, 1–37.
Vedeneeva, E., Melnik, O., Barmin, A., Sparks, R.S.J., 2005. Viscous dissipation in
explosive volcanic flows. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32 (5). doi:10.1029/2004GL020954.
Walker, G.P.L., Self, S., Wilson, L., 1984. Tarawera 1886, New Zealand, a basaltic plinian
fissure eruption. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 21, 61–78.
Wang, Z., 2000. Dynamic versus static elastic properties of reservoir rocks: SEG Books,
vol. 19, pp. 531–539.
Wilson, L., Sparks, R.S.J., Walker, G.P.L., 1980. Explosive volcanic eruptions — IV. The
control of magma properties and conduit geometry on eruption column behaviour.
Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 63, 117–148.
Woods, A.W., Koyaguchi, T., 1994. Transitions between explosive and effusive eruptions
of silicic magma. Nature 370, 641–644.
Young, T., 1808. Hydraulic investigations, subservient to an intended Croonian Lecture
on the motion of the blood. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 98, 164–186.