THE CHARACTERS OF THE LAHAR ON MERAPI VOLCANO

AS THE RESPONDS OF ITS DIFFERENT ERUPTION TYPES

DURING HOLOCEN ERA

Eko Teguh Paripurno

DISSERTATION SUMMARY

1. BACKGROUND
1.1. Background of the research
Volcanic arc in Indonesia are located along the islands such as Sumatera, Jawa, Bali,
Nusa Tenggara, Sulawesi and Maluku which through 7.000 kilometers. This kind of
arc is the consequence of tectonical dynamic in Indonesia which is shown on Hindia-
Australia subduction to the north, stabile Eurasian subduction, and Pacific subduction
to the west. Merapi Volcano is one of the worlds most actives volcanoes. According
to the concept of Jawa Islands morphology, with based on the tectonical subduction,
linearity of this volcano can be considered as the central part of Volcanic arc of Jawa
Island (Adjat Sudradjat, 2006).

In Merapi Volcano, lahar danger will possess more threat for the people than volcano
pyroclastic flow danger. Not only caused loss of life, but also loss of saving and
subsistence assets. Limited knowledge about the process of lahar affected to the
inconsistency of disaster risk reduction. The research that has been done so far were
still qualitative based on the recent threat condition. This resulted on the difficulties in
predicting the threat in the future when changes on Merapi Volcano occur. To reduce
it, clarity on the character of lahar and pyroclastic are specifically needed.

1/35
The reasons why this research is implemented are: (1) Interesting geological
condition of Merapi Volcano, in terms of the frequency of its eruption, and the variety
of its stones. (2) Quantitative research on the relation between type of eruption on the
character of pyroclastic and lava, which can be used for the same case. (3) Existence
of secondary data and research facility such as satellite image, laboratory, and
software to support it.

1.2. Problems
Eruption of Merapi Volcano produced lahar and pyroclastic sediment. lahar process is
the process of resediment of pyroclastic into lahar sediment. In that process, the
character, result, morphology of eruption can be seen as the cause, control, and
evidence of the lahar itself. This research emphasized on the characters of the lahar
on Merapi Volcano as the responds its different eruption during holocen era, which is
about 10,000 years ago.

1.3. Purposes and Objectives of the research

The purpose of this research is to find out the character of lahar on Merapi Volcano as
the result of its different eruption responds during holocen era, which is about 10,000
years ago. This research has objectives to (1) find out the typical change of Merapi
Volcano eruption during holocen up to recen, (2) to find out the lahar character and
pyroclastic sediment of Merapi Volcano during holocen as the responds of its
different eruption character.

1.4. Benefit of the research

Theoretically, this research aims to give contribution on volcanology development,
especially about lava, in changing the approach from qualitative into quantitative

2/35
verification on resulting stipulation. The methods in this research are expected to give
contribution on the clarity of relationship between eruption and lahar to implement it
in the other place. Practically, this research is used to predict lahar risk reduction
accurately in every change, such as pyroclastic, type of its characters, and index of
eruption.

1.5. Location of the research

The research was conducted in several regions of Merapi Volcano; Magelang regency
(western part), Boyolali regency (northern part), and Klaten regency (eastern part).
All of them located in Central Java province. Another one was in Sleman regency
(southern part) of Yogyakarta.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK, AND

HYPOTHESIS

2.1. Review of Literature

Merapi Volcano will always be an interesting object to be researched. There are some
progresses regarding its research: (1) Geological structure of Jawa on the line of
volcanoes. According to the concept of Jawa Islands morphology, with based on the
tectonical subduction, linearity of this volcano can be considered as the central part of
Volcanic arc of Jawa Island (Adjat Sudradjat, 2006). This linearity is regional
fractures which connected to tertier and recen pattern from east to the west and moves
to the north. (2) Volcanic rock of Merapi Volcano is basal-andesitic and andesitic.
That magma was the evolution of high basal alumina as its former magma. Besides
the differences of crystallization, the magma is influenced by contamination of earths
crust (Del Marmol, 1989). There were constant composition changes from alkali to

3/35
acid. This affected Merapi Volcanos demeanor. The change mode of eruption from
implode/burst into drip nowadays is an important change, because it will affect the
risk of it (Andreastuti, 1999). (3) Grouping of stratigraphic and history of Merapi
Volcano eruption has been done by some researchers through series of approaches.
Based on volcanic morphology, history of eruption stratigraphic of Merapi Volcano is
divided into 2 steps, Old Merapi and Young Merapi (Bemmelen, 1949). From lava
existence, stratigraphic of Merapi Volcano is divided into 3 steps: ancient Merapi, Old
Merapi, and New Merapi (Del Marmol, 1989). (4) Based on its type and its eruption
age result, stratigraphic of Merapi Volcano is divided into 2 steps, Old Merapi and
Young Merapi (Wirakusumah, 1984). Based on the age of forming, Merapi Volcano
eruption is divided into 5 periods: Pre-Merapi (> 400,000 years ago), Old Merapi
(400.000 6.700 years ago), intermediate Merapi (6.700 2.200 years ago), young
Merapi (2000 600 years ago) and Merapi Now (since 600 years ago up to now)
(Camus, et.al, 2000)

During Holocen, or about 10,000 years ago, there were so many important events
related to eruption differences in great scales. The oldest eruption of Merapi Volcano
was on 6.630 60 BC. The results of massive avalanche on 1,400 BC collapsed
Progo River and composed Ancient lake of Borobudur. Next was in year 100, which
formed the foundation of Merapi Volcanos cone. Next eruption was between years
732-928. Last avalanche was occurred on 1130. Then, 20 th century is dominated by
the forming of lava dome and pyroclastic flow from dome avalanches (Newhall et.
al., 2000). Sediment from 15th century up to now in 13 rivers of Merapi Volcano
closed 286 km2 area. That extent was from 23 lahar process of 61 eruptions. By
comparing the thickness and the height of lahar flow (based of the witnesses); lahar
has 40-60% thickness of its volume. This lahar is relatively slimy, compared with

4/35
volcanic debris-flow from foreign volcano which only contains 10-25% of water
(Paripurno, 1997).

As the result, previous researchs showed that the research on the responds of the
eruption has not been implemented before. Therefore, this dissertation with this
theme is implemented in order to reveal the clarity of phenomenas through hypothesis
verification.

Some inputs were achieved through previous studies on Merapi Volcano: (1) Previous
study on structure, form, magmatism, characteristics of eruption, stratigraphic, and
history of eruption of Merapi Volcano gives conclusion that Merapi Volcano has
several systems which formed through unit of lava, pyroclastic flow, pyroclastic
avalanche, and volcanic mudflow. (2) This research has done some verification on the
character, types, and results of eruption, which was not implemented by preivous
researchers.

2.2. Theoretical Framework

Main theme of this research was about the character of Merapi Volcano as the
responds of eruption change type during Holocen era. The approaches that are used in
this research were inductive, generalization, and enumeration approach. The research
started from determining the important variables which controlled the phenomenas.
Generalization is needed to obtain accurate data, which numerically formed the
regression equation and its math model.

2.3. Hypothesis
Hypothesis is the statement or tentative conclusion which is needed to be proved.
Assumption is the statement that determined through series of verification on

5/35
empirical phenomenon, therefore the undenied statement can be obtained. These
assumptions can be sharpened into premises that support hypothesis formulation
(Hirnawan, 2007).

Premises that used as the basic of the hypothesis in this research are: (1) Merapi
Volcano is strato-type Mountain which has differences type of eruption. First one is
the explosive eruption which produced pyroclastic sediment, and the second one is
effusive eruption which produced lava. (2) Shape of Merapi Volcano showed
differences of eruption in a great scale, hence it made different systems too, which are
Old and Young Merapi system. (3) Each of eruption system that produced pyroclastic
and lahar sediment has their own characters. (4) lahar process happened on every
system; therefore Old and Young Merapi lahar unit can be formed. (5) Hypothesis
stated that lahar character in Merapi Volcano was the respond of different eruption
and has qualitative and quantitative relation. Therefore, its character can be
determined if we understand the type of eruption.

Hypothesis and sub-hypothesis of this research were explicitly explained below:

Hypothesis 1: During Holocen up to Recen, Merapi Volcano undergone different
types of eruption
Sub Hypothesis 1.1: There were different chemical compositions on every
unit of eruption results
Sub Hypothesis 1.2: There was different level of erodibility on every unit of
eruption results, which showed by differences of river density
Sub Hypothesis 1.3: There was different average structure extent of rims
horblenda of effusive and explosive eruption results

6/35
Hypothesis 2: During Holocen up to Recen, pyroclastic sediment has undergone
character change as the result of eruption
Sub Hypothesis 2.1. There was different average component size of
pyroclastic sediment
Sub Hypothesis 2.2. There was different average component shape of
pyroclastic sediment
Sub Hypothesis 2.3. There was different average component size of pumice in
pyroclastic sediment
Sub Hypothesis 2.4. There was different average component shape of pumice
in pyroclastic sediment
Hypothesis 3: During Holocen up to Recen, lahar sediment has undergone character
change as the result of eruption
Sub Hypothesis 3.1: There was different size of component in every unit of
lahar sediment
Sub Hypothesis 3.2: There was different shape of component in every unit of
lahar sediment
Hypothesis 4: Average size and shape of the pyroclastic sediment component did not
have correlation with distance of sedimentation
Sub Hypothesis 4.1: Average size of the pyroclastic sediment component did
not have correlation with distance of sedimentation
Sub Hypothesis 4.2: Average shape of the pyroclastic sediment component did
not have correlation with distance of sedimentation
Hypothesis 5: Average size and shape of the lahar sediment component did not have
correlation with distance of sedimentation
Sub Hypothesis 5.1: Average size of the lahar sediment component did not
have correlation with distance of sedimentation

7/35
 Sub Hypothesis 5.2: Average shape of the lahar sediment component did not
have correlation with distance of sedimentation
Hypothesis 6: Component of lahar sediment has same character with its primary
pyroclastic sediment
Sub Hypothesis 6.2: Component of lahar sediment has same particle size with
its primary pyroclastic sediment
Sub Hypothesis 6.2: Component of lahar sediment has same character with its
primary pyroclastic sediment

3. SUBJECT AND METHOD OF THE RESEARCH

3.1. Subject of the Research
The subject of this research was Merapi Volcano. This research used tools and
instruments such as geological map of Merapi Volcano (scale 1:50,000)
(Wirakusumah dkk., 1989), environmental map of Yogyakarta (scale 1: 100,000)
(Gustiar and A. Suhirman, 1993), geological map of Yogyakarta (scale 1:100,000)
(Wartono, dkk, 1994), Contour map of Merapi Volcano and surroundings (scale
1:50,000 sheets: Muntilan, Kaliwang, Boyolali, Sleman, Klaten, Pakem, Klaten,
Yogyakarta, Timoho, Jabung), disaster prone area map of Merapi Volcano (scale
1:50,000) (Hadisantono, dkk, 2002), landsat image in 2001, 2004 and 2006
(UNOSAT). Field tools which were used in this research: Geologists hammer,
Geologists compass, digital camera, GPS, measuring ribbon, comparison ruler,
magnifying glass, big particle comparator, notebook, and stationery. Studio tools
which were used in this research: Centrino Duo laptop, 1 memory 1 GB, with its
software (OpenOffice, SPSS for Linux, Geolinux), and polarization microscope of
petrological laboratory tool.

8/35
3.2. Design
This research used deduct-hipotetico-verificative design. This design used
probabilistic approach, with population of the object, which will be measured with
statistic tools. Measurement was done to various variables which related to eruption
phenomenas, character of pyroclastic sediment and lahar sediment of Merapi
Volcano. Deduction method made the common phenomena in the research of Merapi
Volcano as the basic material to interpret specific things. This research is explained
quantitatively and qualitatively.

3.2.1. Provision on Primary Data and Secondary Data

Before doing the research, provision on primary and secondary data were needed.
Primary data consisted of geological map and volcanostratigraphic column of Merapi
Volcano. This data was needed to know detailed population, before the sampes were
taken.

3.2.2. Variables of the Research and Its Measurement

The research was implemented on character of the eruption, pyroclastic, and lava.
Research on character of eruption was implemented through data collection with
respond variables such as (1) unit of pyroclastic sediment, (2) unit of volcanic
mudflow distribution, (3) river ratio on unit of lahar and pyroclastic sediment, (4)
density of the river on unit of lahar and pyroclastic sediment, (5) chemical
composition of the lahar and pyroclastic component. The research on pyroclastic
sediment was implemented through data collection with respond variables such as (1)
the size and shape of pyroclastic sediment component, (2) the size and shape of
pumice in pyroclsatic sediment, (3) zoning structure existence in horblenda of
pyroclastic sediment component. The research on character of the lahar was

9/35
implemented through data collection with respond variables such as (1) The size and
shape of lahar sediment component, (2) The size and shape of fumice.

3.2.3. Sampling method

Characteristic description of pyroclastic and lahar sediment was taken from all
existing primary (field exploration) and secondary data (the result of document
exploration). All datas were taken based on volcanostratigrapic column, which
correlated between one and the others. Population was determined through genetic
approach of its volcanostratigrapic.

3.2.4. Data collecting procedure

Pyroclastic and lahar sediment distribution, and thickness of every unit as well, can
be determined from volcanostratigraphic column. Measurement of lahar and
pyroclastic sediment component were using point counting of the outcrop.
Measurement was mainly done in sight of pebbles and boulders (giant fragments).
Data was completed with the field sketches.

3.2.5. Method of Analysis

The usage of this method was aimed to obtain targeted result. To compare the
averages of population or sampling, statistic trials can be used, depends on the cases.
Each of statistic instruments was the development from one instrument and another
instrument (Johnson & Wichern, 1982). In this research, there were univariate and
multivariate cases. T-Test was used in univariate case (both independent and pairs
samples). Meanwhile, T2-Hottelling was used in multivariate case. ANOVA (Analysis
of Variance) would be used if there are more than two samples or populations that
would be compared in univariat case. Meanwhile, MANOVA (Multivariat Analysis of
Variance) would be used in multivariate cases. Based on that fact, the analysis that

10/35
commonly used to solve the problem in this dissertasion is related with multivariate
analysis.

3.2.6. Reporting
Reporting was the last step in this research. All of the datas, calculation, analysis, and
hypothesis verifications were explained in form of writings, tabels, columns,
diagrams, and pictures.

The writer used the guideline book which entitledPedoman Penulisan

Tesis/Disertasi dan Penulisan Artikel Ilmiah Program Pascasarjana Universitas
Padjadjaran, published on 2006/2007 academic year. As the support of guideline
book,Riset, Bergulirlah Proses Ilmiah (Hirnawan, 2007) book was used.
Systematics of this book strengthened concrete steps of the research; especially in
facilitate the probabilistic and deterministic approach paradigm-based methodology.

4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1. Results
In the first part, this research discusses geology of Merapi Volcano as the main object
of this research. Analysis will begin with the analysis on (1) geomorphology, (2)
volcanostratigraphy

4.1.1. Geomorphology
Morphology of Merapi Volcano has four slopes which bordered by its buckling.
Those slopes consist of (1) peak, (2) central slope, (3) bottom slope, (4) bottom plain.
Each of slopes represents dominant unit of the rocks, morphological function to
volcanic sediment, and its processes.

11/35
Watershed (DAS Daerah Aliran Sungai) of Merapi Volcano composed of 3 main
rivers: Progo river, Opak river Solo river, and consists of 13 sub-watershed. Overall,
their width are 1,322,84 km2 with total distances 2,418,02 km, which all of these has
radial sentrifugal pattern. DAS progo has 4 sub-DAS: Pabelan, Lamat, Batang, and
Krasak river. Their width are 381,92 km2, with total distances 711,22 km, therefore
they have density point 1,875, with DAS Batang at highest (1,967) and DAS Krasak
at lowest (1,775). DAS Opak has 584,58 km2 width, with total distances 689,35 km,
with density point 1,81, with DAS Gendol at highest (2,196) and DAS Denggung at
lowest (1,794). DAS Solo has 584,58 km2 width, with total distances 1020,54 km,
and it has density point 1,760 with di DAS Gandul at highest (1,951) dan DAS
Gondang Timur at lowest (1.607). DAS Solo located in the Old Merapi.

4.1.2. Volcano Stratigraphy

The assessment is done based on previous primary and secondary data as the results
of monitoring and mapping in the field. Lithology and stratigraphy monitoring is
done on 350 locations, which are consists of lava flow, lava dome, pyroclastic, and
lahar. Merapi Volcano stratigraphy based on lahar response on different types of
eruption, can be categorized into 5 levels: New Merapi, Young Merapi, Mature
Merapi, Old Merapi, and Pre Merapi. The relations between them can be seen in tabel
2.

4.1.2.1. New Merapi

Merapi baru was formed by Merapi Lava Unit 5 (Mlv5) Watugaruda, Merapi
pyroclastic flow unit 4 (Map4) Brubuhan, Merapi pyroclastic fall unit 4 (Mjp4)
Pasarbubar, Merapi lahar unit5 (Mlh5) Kalikrasak, and Merapi lahar unit4 (Mlh4)
Kaliworo.

12/35
Merapi Lava Unit 5 (Mlv5) Watugaruda
This is the group of lava domes which formed after eruption in 1888 which
overlapped around Merapi Volcano. It is 1,248 km2 which consists of lava domes and
lava spins which formed since 1786. Merapi Lava Unit 5 (Mlv5) is andesite pyrocsen
which formed by crystal mass and glass-sized faneric-afanytic, crystal-form euhedral
up to subhedral, inequigranular crystal relation in the bottom of the glass and afanytic
crystal

This lava has silica elements around 52,97%55,52%. The appearance of SiO2 was
followed by the decreasing of TiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, CaO, Na2O and P2O5, and the
increasing appearance of MnO and K2O. The increasing of SiO2 has strong
correlation with MgO and CaO decreasing. It was peculiar when compared with the
common phenomena of the main composition in the stones (Kienie, Swanson &
Pulpen, 1983 in Sudradjat 2006). Decreasing of Na2O here was the peculiar things.
These whole unit is limestone alkali (Kuno, 1930) and alkali (Irvin & Baragar, 1971)

Merapi pyroclastic fall unit 4 (Mjp4) Pasarbubar

This is the avalanches of Young Merapi Volcano eruption. It was in the western and
southwestern sector, in Pabelan and Blongkeng watersheds, including in Patuk Alap-
alap, Selokopo, Gemer and Keningar with 3,51 km2 wide. The andesite pyrocsen of
the unit was composed by crystal mass and glass-sized faneric-afanytic, crystal-form
euhedral up to subhedral, inequigranular crystal relation in the bottom of the glass
and afanytic crystal, and formed scoria structure (20%). The silica was around
50,42%55,90%.. The increasing of SiO2 was followed by the decreasing of TiO2,
Al2O3, Fe2O3, MgO, and CaO, and the increasing of MnO, Na2O, K2O and P2O5

13/35
that followed the increasing of SiO2. These whole units were toleitic (Kuno, 1930)
and alkali (Irvin & Baragar, 1971).

Merapi pyroclastic flow unit 4 (Map4) Brubuhan

This unit was the sediments of pyroclastic flow of New Merapi eruption result which
erupted in 1888 until now. It has 28,82 km2 wide, especially in western and
southwestern areas, including , Ngargomulyo, Geneng, Batur duwur, Batur ngisor and
Mt. Maron as the part of Krasak and Batang river watershed. This unit was also in
northwestern and southern area, filling the valleys of S. Krasak, S. Bedog, S. Batang,
and S. Woro; and a bit in S. Boyong, S. Kuning, S. Gendol. The unit in S. Krasak was
the pyroclastic sediment in 1994, as the result of Mt. Turgo. Andesite pyrocsen
component are stones up to boulder-sized unit, angled up to medium, which half of
them pointed the cracked structure. Below of them were the continuous pyroclastic
sediment flows and heterolitic lahar with brown-matrix, with straight laminate
structure and cross-structure.
This andesit pyrocsen component has vasicular structure (10%), formed by crystal
and glass mass, faneric-afanytic, with crystal-form euhedral up to subhedral,
inequigranular crystal relation in the bottom of the glass and afanytic crystal

Merapi lahar unit4 (Mlh4) Kaliworo

This unit has 17,70 km2 wide, located in S. Woro, as the process of the
sedimentations of Merapi pyroclastic flow unit 4 (Map4) Brubuhan and Merapi
pyroclastic fall unit 4 (Mjp4) Pasarbubar which supported by Merapi lava unit (Mlv3)
Batulawang and Merapi Merapi unit (mlv5) Watugaruda which directed to the south.
The eruption results of them were discovered in 870, 1811 and 1930.

14/35
This unit consisted of debris flow and mud flow. Debris flow lahar with dominant
matrix was around 20-40% component. The size of the component were around 0,6
meter up to 1,7 meter as the floating component with fair distribution. The
components were compact up to bladed sized with angled up to medium rounded
sized. The formation of the component was bad-very vad. The formed sediment was
mainly stated formed.

Mainly, mud flow sediment showed massive appearance. Layers structure, straight
lamination, wavy lamination, and normal graded which located in the sediment
between debris flow lahar and mud flow lahar. Therefore, it can be differentiated
easily. Wood component was commonly seen in the bottom of the mud low in the S.
Woro.

Merapi lahar unit 5 (Mlh 5) Kalikrasak

It has 55,55 km2 wide which located in S. Krasak and S. Batang; as the process of the
sedimentation of Merapi pyroclastic flow unit 4 (Map4) Brubuhan and Merapi
pyroclastic fall unit 4 (Mjp4) Pasarbubar which supported by Merapi lava unit (Mlv3)
Batulawang and Merapi Merapi unit (mlv5) Watugaruda that directed to southwestern
sector. The source of this lahar was the eruption result since 1930 that can be seen in
S. Krasak, S. Batang, and S. Blongkeng.

This unit consisted of debris flow and mud flow. Debris flow lahar was with
dominant matrix, and 25-55% component. The size of the component were around
0,6 meter up to 2 meter as the floating component with fair distribution. The
components were compact up to bladed sized with angled up to medium rounded
sized. The formation of the component was bad-very bad. The sediment structure was

15/35
mainly stated, including straight component, reversed graded to normal up to reversed
graded. The component was appeared in the thich lahar sediment.

Merapi pyroclastic flow unit (Map5) Kaliadem

The youngest result of this unit is Merapi pyroclastic flow unit (Map5) Kaliadem as
the result of eruption in Jne 15, 2006 with total of 9 million m3. The tip of the
pyroclastic flow was in S. Gendol in 7km from Merapi Volcano peak. This unit has
28,82 km2 wide, especially in southern and southwestern area, including Kaliadem,
Kinahreja, which was the part of S. Krasak, S. Bedog, dan S. Gendol watersheds.

The sediment was dominated by andesite pyrocsen. It has brown-whited, and has
scoria structure (12%), and formed the special texture glomerophyric from the
crystal and glass mass. The crystal were faneric-afanytic, with crystal-form euhedral
up to subhedral, with inequigranular crystal relation in the bottom of the glass and
afanytic crystal.

4.1.2.2. Young merapi

Young merapi was formed by Merapi lava unit (Mlv 4) Alap-alap, Merapi pyroclastic
flow (Map3) Kaliurang, Merapi pyroclastic fall 3 (Mjp 3) Sumber, and Merapi lahar
unit (Mlh 3) Kalikuning.

Merapi lava unit (Mlv 4) Alap-alap

This unit was the lava flow that formed the structure of the peak slope which erupted
before 1888. This unit was radial pattern that centered on the peak of Merapi Volcano
now. This unit has 4,47 km2 wide and located in 11 places around

16/35
northwestern,southwetsren, and southern sector on the peak. This unit was seen in
Selokopo, Patuk Alap-alap, Dengkeng Hill and S. Kuning.

This unit was formed by andesite pyrocsen that has massive structure and formed
gloumerophyric texture with crystal and hypocrystaline mass. The crystal was
faneric-afanytic, with crystal-form subhedral up to anhedral, with inequigranular
crystal relation in the bottom of the glass and afanytic crystal.

The silica element in his unit was around 48,69%55,71%. The increasing of SiO2
was followed by the decreasing of TiO2, Fe2O3, CaO and MgO, and the increasing
of Na2O, Al2O3, MnO, P205, and K2O. The increasing of SiO2 has strong
correlation with the decreasing of FeO and MgO. The increasing of Al2O3, in small
correlation, is a peculiar thing in this unit. These whole unit is limestone alkali (Kuno,
1930), and most of them are alkali (Irvin & Baragar, 1971).

Merapi pyroclastic fall 3 (Mjp 3) Sumber

This was the eruption result of Young Merapi. This was disseminated around
northwestern, southern, and southeastern sector with 49,74 km2 wide. Located in
Sengi, Krinjing, Babadan, Gowok, Kinahreja, Pelem, Petung, Kaliadem, Jambu,
Srunen, Deles, Balerante, Dadapan, Gongang, Ngaliyan, Pandeyan, Lemahombo, and
Sangup which were in S. Pabelan, S. Blongkeng, S. Krasak, S. Koteng, S. Bedog, S.
Kuning, S. Tepus, S. Gendol, S. Woro, S. Krasak and S. Banyuan watersheds.

This unit was andesite pyrocsen with scoria structure (20% gas), formed by formed
crystal and glass mass. The crystal was faneric-afanytic, with crystal-form euhedral
up to subhedral, with inequigranular crystal relation in the bottom of the glass and
afanytic crystal. This unit has silica element around 49.52%54.80%.The increasing

17/35
of SiO2 was followed by the decreasing of TiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, MnO, MgO, CaO
and K2O and followed the increasing of Na2O, K2O, and P2O5. The decreasing of
P2O, Mgo and CaO has strong correlation with the increasing of SiO2. This lava has
weak correlation with the appearance of MnO2 and K2O. All of the components were
toleitic stones (Kuno, 1930), and high alkali (Irvin & Baragar, 1971).

Merapi pyroclastic flow (Map3) kaliurang

This unit is the the sediments of the pyroclastic flow result of Young merapi eruption
between 1888 M up to 9th century. This unit has 16,02 km2 wides especially in the
west and southwestern sector, including the areas such as Kaliurang, Tritis, Pusung
Bendo, Gemer Lor, and Keningar in S. Lamat, S. Pabelan, S. Denggung, S. Boyong,
S. Kuning watersheds. This area is the plain area because of the great debris
avalanche in 9th century (Voight, 2000).

This unit, in S. Boyong was dominated by pyroclastic flow because the lava domes
has andesite hornblende and polymic brecchia with 1 m diameter. This pyroclastic
flow was overturned by uncontinuous lahar sediment of wood charcoal composition
with around 339090 tahun (Paripurno, 2006). The oldest unit here was the lava that
has similar age with Telagamuncar lava.

In Kalikuning, it was not fair in the top part because of the pyroclastic flow with huge
component > 1m, rich of the wood charcoal component 360100 years old (Newhall,
et al. 2000). Some of them showed fumarol pipes. Below of them were the
pyroclastic flows with dominant matrix with lapili-sized, with overcross-structure and
it has 1700120 years old wood charcoal component accumulation and 1640120
years old accumulation (Paripurno, 2006). The deepest part was the andesite
pyroclastic that supported by andesite hornblende & pyrocsen with 1840150 years

18/35
old wood charcoal component (Newhall, et al. 2000). In S. Jueh, this unit was formed
by light grey breccias pyroclastic with angled up to rounded sized component in end
opened matix. it has 88060 years old wood charcoal component (Paripurno, 2006).

Andesite pyrocsen of this unit is brownish white, and has vacicular structure (6%),,
that formed by crystal and glass mass. The crystal was faneric-afanytic, with crystal-
form euhedral up to subhedral, with inequigranular crystal relation in the bottom of
the glass and afanytic crystal

Andesite basaltic of this unit is brownish white, has vacicular structure (6%),
formed gloumeropheric texture, Andesite pyrocsen of this unit is brownish white, and
has vacicular structure (6%),, that formed by crystal and glass mass. The crystal was
faneric-afanytic, with crystal-form euhedral up to anhedral, with inequigranular
crystal relation in the bottom of the glass and afanytic crystal

Andesite pyrocsen of this unit is brownish white, and has vacicular structure (6%),,
that formed by crystal and glass mass. The crystal was faneric-afanytic, with crystal-
form euhedral up to subhedral, with inequigranular crystal relation in the bottom of
the glass and afanytic crystal

Merapi lahar unit (Mlh3) Kalikuning

This unit has 81,59 km2 wide, spreaded in the western sector, including in S. Lamat,
S. Pabelan, S. Boyong, S. Denggung, and S. Kuning watersheds. This is the result of
Merapi pyroclastic flow unit (Map3) Kaliurang and Merapi pyroclastic fall unit 3
(Mjp3) Sumber and also supported by Merapi lava unit (Mlv4) Alap-alap.

19/35
This unit consisted of debris flow and mud flow. Debris flow lahar was with
dominant matrix, and 15-45% component. The size of the component were around
0,8 meter, with giant component, up to 2 meter as the floating component with fair
distribution. The components were compact up to bladed sized with angled up to
medium rounded sized. The formation of the component was bad-very bad. The
sediment structure was mainly stated, including straight component, reversed graded
to normal up to reversed graded. Wood charcoal as the component is often seen in S.
Kuning and S. Boyong

4.1.2.3. Mature Merapi

It was formed by Merapi lahar unit (Ml2) Gendol, as the result of sedimentation of
Merapi pyroclastic flow unit 2 (Mlh2) Deles and Merapi pyroclastic fall unit 2
(Mjp2) Kinahrejo, and the dikes of Merapi lava unit (Mlv 3) Batulawang.

Merapi lava unit (Mlv 3) Batulawang

This unit is a lava flow that formed radier pattern which centered at Merapi Volcano.
This unit has 18,60 km2 wide that located in 10 locations; northern, northeastern,
southeastern, and southern southern parts. This unit consists of Andesite pyrocsen that
formed by crystal and glass (hypocrystalin) mass. The crystal was faneric-afanytic,
with crystal-form euhedral up to subhedral, with inequigranular crystal relation in the
bottom of the glass and afanytic crystal (porfirioafranitic).

It has silica element around 52,6655,65%. The increasing of SiO2 was followed by
the decreasing of TiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, MgO, CaO, P2O5, Na2O and MnO, and the
increasing of K20. NA20 was decreased. All of the whole units are limestone alkali
(Kuno, 1930), which most of them high alkali (Irvin & Baragar, 1971).

20/35
Merapi pyroclastic fall unit 2 (Mjp2) Kinahrejo
Merapi pyroclastic fall unit 2 (Mjp2) Kinahrejo is the pyroclastic sediment of old
Merapi Volcano. This unit spreaded up to 9,53 km2. It was in Kadisepi, Bakalan,
Kedung, Ngablak, Selo and Suroteleng, as the part of S. Pabelan dan S. Blongkeng.

This sediment in S. Kuning and S. Gendol is only small tepra and volcanic as with 5-
15 cm thickness. Between them were yellowish pumis with grey white andesite
pyrocsen, with lithic component up to 5 cm. It has the repetition of normal up to
reversed graded, from andesit hornblende up to dark grey clay, and again into pebbles
with tuf lapili on the part above. is was not constant across the layer consists of a
layer of volcanic ash soil, sand-sized, yellow and fade to gray at the top. It indicated
the discontinuous bioturbation and residual wood charcoal.

This unit has silica element around 50,98%55,85%. The increasing of SiO2
followed by TiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, MgO, CaO, and P2O5, and also the increasing of
MnO, K2O and P2O5. The increasing silica on TiO2, Cao, and Mgo, and the
decreasing of Na2O, K2O and P2O5 showed strong correlation. This lava has P205
increasing.

This unit has andesite pyrocsen with scoria structure (20%),that formed by crystal and
glass mass. The crystal was faneric-afanytic, with crystal-form euhedral up to
subhedral, with inequigranular crystal relation in the bottom of the glass and afanytic
crystal. All of this unit is toiletic (Kuno, 1930), and alkali (Irvin & Baragar, 1971).
Merapi pyroclastic flow unit 2 (Mlh2) Deles
This unit is pyroclstic flow of eruption result of old Merapi at 9 BC. This unit
spreaded 31,33 km2 in northwestern sector, southern, and southeastern sector,
including Paten, Gondang, Gowok, Gowoksabrang, Takeran, Pencar, Stabelan,

21/35
Kaliadem, Deles, Ngaglik, Kaliwuluh, and Kedungsriti. Those were part of S.
Gondang, dan S. Gendol areas.

The unit in S. Gondang mainly formed by normal graded pyroclastic flow. Lithick
andesite horblende component formed the bottom part, which gradated with lapili
pumisan in the centre up to the sand and wood charcoal component.

The sediment in S. Gendol mainly formed by sand up to boulder component. Most of

them has diameter more than 1 meter, as the result of first-time throw up to lava dome
avalanche. The wood charcoal showed that it was 219050 and 224050 years old
(Newhall, et al. 2000).

In S.Gondang, pyroclastic flow was rich with bomb element and crackers and wood
charcoal structure with 224050 years old in Blorong, Desa Sidorejo, Kecamatan
Kemalang (Paripurno, 2006). The farthest wood charcoal layer was in Dusun
Bulaksalak, Desa Wukirsari, Kecamatan Cangkringan, as the branch of S. Gendol, at
S. Tepus (STA 240). The wood charcoal was in the proclastic sediment with small
components.

This unit has andesite pyrocsen with scoria structure (16%),that formed by crystal and
glass mass. The crystal was faneric-afanytic, with crystal-form euhedral up to
subhedral, with inequigranular crystal relation in the bottom of the glass and afanytic
crystal.
This unit also has andesite hornblende component, which is brownish white, has
massive structure, and formed porfiritic texture, which formed by crystal and glass
mass, faneric-afanytic, with crystal-form euhedral up to subhedral, with
inequigranular crystal relation in the bottom of the glass and afanytic crystal.

22/35
Merapi lahar unit 2 (Mlh2) Kaligendol
This unit has 93,26 km2 wide, that spreaded in southern sector, especially in S.
Gendol and S. Gondang with its branches, S. Opak and S. Terasi. This was the lahar
process of Merapi pyroclastic flow unit 2 (Map2) Deles, and Merapi pyroclastic fall
unit 2 (Mjp 2) Kinahrejo and supported by component of Merapi lava unit 3 (Mlv3)
Batulawang. The evidence of the eruptions can be seen ins everal locations: Sidorejo
120, S. Gendol 20, S. Jueh 190 SM, Deles 200 SM (Newhall, 2000, Paripurno 2006)
This unit consisted of debris flow and mud flow. Debris flow lahar was with
dominant matrix, and 20-40% component. The size of the component were around
0,8 meter, with giant component, up to 2 meter as the floating component with fair
distribution. The components were compact up to bladed sized with angled up to
medium rounded sized. The formation of the component was bad-very bad. The
sediment structure was mainly stated, including straight component, reversed graded
to normal up to reversed graded.

Mud-flow lahar sedimentation mainly showed massive appearance. Straight

lamination structure, wavy lamination and normal graded between debris- flow and
mud-flow lahar. In the bottom part of sand layer, can be seen the pebbles
accumulation. Based on that, this layer can be easily differed with the other part of
the sediment.

4.1.2.4. Old Merapi

Old merapi was formed by sedimentation of Merapi lahar unit 1 (Mlh1) Luwuk, as
the resedimentation of Merapi pyroclastic flow unit 1 (Map1) Rogobelah and Merapi
pyroclsatic fall unit 1 (Mjp1) Selo, and the dikes of Merapi pyroclastic fall unit 3
(Mjp3) Batulawang.

23/35
Merapi pyroclastic fall unit 1 (Mjp1) Selo
The sedimentation in S. Luwuk and S. Gondang, and around them, were the aprt of
Mjp1. Most of them were in b ad condition, as the repetition of the layer process of
lapili and volcanic ash with 5-25 cm thickness. It was dominated by lithic lapili and
few of pumis in prone condition, with each of the diameter were around 5 ad 4 cm.
The layer showed reversed graded inseveral parts. Some of the place has soil
thickness around 10 cm.

This unit was spreaded in the eastern sector around 40,28 km2. This unit can be seen
in Sumberpedut, Gatakan, Prawan, Karangnongko, Gedangan, Sumbung, Trosobo,
Montong, Semongko, Sruni, Manggung, Brongkol, and Bendosari, which is the part
of S. Luwuk, S. Gandul. S. Kiu dan S. Banyuan watersheds.

This unit has andesite pyrocsen with scoria structure (18%),that formed by crystal and
glass mass. The crystal was faneric-afanytic, with crystal-form euhedral up to
subhedral, with inequigranular crystal relation in the bottom of the glass and afanytic
crystal
This unit has silica element around 55,11%62.19%.The increasing of SiO2 followed
by TiO2, Al2O3, P2O5, and MnO and also the increasing of Fe2O3, CaO, and K2O.
The increasing silica on Fe2O3, MgO, CaO, and P2O5, and the decreasing of K20.
These whole unit is toiletic (Kuno, 1930) and most of them is alkali (Irvin & Baragar,
1971).

Merapi pyroclastic flow unit 1 (Map1) Rogobelah

24/35
This unit has 9,01 km2 wide in eastern and northeastern sector, including in
Rogobelah, Wonojoyo, Sidopekso, and Purwosari. This unit was in S. Luwuk, S.
Gandul. and S. Kiu watersheds.

This unit has andesite pyrocsen that formed by crystal and glass mass. The crystal
was faneric-afanytic, with crystal-form euhedral up to subhedral, with inequigranular
crystal relation in the bottom of the glass and afanytic crystal. It has vacicular
structure (4%) and has pylotacsitic texture.

Merapi lahar unit 1 (Mlh1) Luwuk

This unit has 103,04 km2 wide,in eastern sector, especially in S. Banyuan, S. Gandul
and S. Luwuk, and its branch in S. Kapuk and S. Kiu. Merapi pyroclastic flow unit 1
(Map1) Rogobelah and Merapi pyroclsatic fall unit 1 (Mjp1) Selo, and supported by
Merapi pydoclactic fall unit 3 (Mjp3) Batulawang.

Lahar in S. Luwuk was very thin. The component of this unit is <45%. This is the
resedimentation of pyroclastic sediment that its eruption evidence can be seen in
Montong 1010 SM, Kemirikebo 1300 SM, Boyolali 3620 SM, Mriyan, 5040 SM,
Cepogo 8787 SM, 600 SM. This unit consisted of debris flow and mud flow. Debris
flow lahar was with dominant matrix, and 20-50% component. The size of the
component were around 0,6 meter, with giant component, up to 1,5 meter as the
floating component with fair distribution. The components were compact up to
bladed sized with angled up to medium rounded sized. The formation of the
component was medium-bad. The sediment structure was mainly stated, including
alignment component, reverse to normal graded to normal up to reversed graded.

25/35
Lahar sedimentation mainly showed massive appearance. Layers-straight lamination,
wavy lamination, and normal graded between debris flow and mud flow lahar flow.
Based on that, this layer can be easily differed with the other layers.

4.1.2.5. Pre Merapi

Pre Merapi was formed by the body of Merapi lava unit 1 (Mlv1) Plawangan and
Merapi alva unit 2 (Mlv 2) Bibi. Merapi lava unit 1 (Mlv 1) Plawangan was the
residue of Old Merapi. This unit has 1,52 km2 wide.

Merapi lava unit 1 (Mlv 1) Plawangan

This lava was formed by grey blackish andesite pyrocsen. This lava has massive,
pylotacsitic texture, and formed by by crystal and glass mass. The crystal was faneric-
afanytic, with crystal-form euhedral up to anhedral, with inequigranular crystal
relation in the bottom of the glass and afanytic crystal. The mineral elements of it
were formed by plagioklas, pyrocsen, mineral opaque and glass. Plagioklas (38%),
euhedralsubhedral, has kaldsbad and albit with An-30 andesin-type that spreaded as
phenocryst and microlythe. Olivin (6%), subhedral up to anhedral, as fenokris.
Pyrocsen (16%) subhedral, has baveno, as fenokris, Mineral opaque (6%),
euhedralsubhedral, appeared in several places. Glass (32%), afanytic, appeared
occasionally.

This unit has silica element around 48,47% 54,96%. These whole unit is lime alkali
(Kuno, 1930). The increasing of SiO2 followed by TiO2, Fe2O3, MgO, CaO, Na2O,
K2O and P2O5, and also the increasing Al2O2 and MnO. The decreasing of Na2O
and K2O was a peculiar case.

Merapi lava unit 2 (Mlv 2) Bibi

26/35
This was located 3 km in northeastern of Merapi Volcano. This has 0,73 km2 wide.
This lava has massive, and formed by by crystal and glass mass. The crystal was
faneric-afanytic, with crystal-form euhedral up to anhedral, with inequigranular
crystal relation in the bottom of the glass and afanytic crystal. The mineral elements
of it were formed by plagioklas, pyrocsen, mineral opaque, olivine, hornblende, and
glass.

This unit has silica element around 49,02%55,69%. The increasing of SiO2
followed by TiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, MgO, CaO, K2O and MnO and also the increasing
of Na2O and P2O5. The decreasing of K2O was a peculiar case. These whole unit is
lime alkali (Kuno, 1930) and most of them is alkali (Irvin & Baragar, 1971).

4.2. Hypothesis Verification

Explorative assessment showed that there was explosive and effusive eruption since
holocen. Each of those resulted in different result. Each of the unit was the result of
the different response of Merapi Volcano eruption since Holocen, with the
verification below:

Research Hypothesis Conclusion

1. Merapi Volcano since Holocen up to Recen has done several kinds of eruption.
1.1. There were different chemical compositions in each unit. The average of
multivariate (T2-Hottelling) on the main chemical element of explosive and effusive
result showed that both of them were different, with TiO2, Fe2O3, MgO, CaO, and
K2O as the main chemical elements.
1.2. There was different erodibility in each unit of eruption result, which showed by
the difference of the rivers proximate. The trial of two populations (Kruskal-Wallis)
on it showed that both of them have different level of erodibility.

27/35
1.3. There was different size of rims hornblende in explosive and effusive result. The
trial of two populations (Kruskal-Wallis) on it showed that both of them were
different.
2. Pyroclastic sediment since Holocen up to Recen has undergone character changes
because of the difference of eruption.
2.1. There were different component sizes of each pyroclastic unit. The trial of each
independent sample (t test) and one-direction ANAVA was put to a test that the
component was differed in boulder, gravel, and pebble component; and has similar
massive component size.
2.2. There were different component shapes of each pyroclastic unit. The trial of each
independent sample (t test) and one-direction ANAVA was put to a test that the
component was differed in boulder, gravel, and pebble component; and has similar
massive component shape.
2.3. There were different component sizes of each floating stone unit. The trial of
each independent sample (t test) and one-direction ANAVA was put to a test that the
component was differed in pebble component; and has similar gravel component.
2.4. There were different component shapes of each floating stone unit. The trial of
each independent sample (t test) and one-direction ANAVA was put to a test that the
component was differed pebble component; and has similar gravel component.
3. Lahar sedimentation since Holosen up to Recen has undergone changes because of
the difference of eruption.
3.1. There were different component sizes of each lahar unit. The trial of two
population (Kruskal-Wallis) and one-direction ANAVA was put to a test that the
component was differed in boulder, gravel, and pebble component; and has similar
massive component size.
3.2 There were different component shapes of each lahar unit. The trial of two
population (Kruskal-Wallis) and one-direction ANAVA was put to a test that the

28/35
component was differed in boulder, gravel, and pebble component; and has similar
massive component shape.
4. The size and shape of the average components of pyroclastic flow unit did not have
any correlations with the distance of the sedimentation
4.1. The size of the average components of pyroclastic flow unit did not have any
correlations with the distance of the sedimentation.
Regression-correlation analysis showed that there was no correlation between the size
of the component and the distance of the sedimentation in the pyroclastic flow
sedimentation process.
4.2. The shape of the average components of pyroclastic flow unit did not have any
correlations with the distance of the sedimentation
Regression-correlation analysis showed that there was no correlation between the
shape of the component and the distance of the sedimentation in the pyroclastic flow
sedimentation process.
5. The size and shape of the average components of lahar unit have any correlations
with the distance of the sedimentation
5.1. The size of the average components of pyroclastic flow unit has any correlations
with the distance of the sedimentation.
Regression-correlation analysis showed that there was negative correlation between
the size of the component and the distance of the sedimentation. The sedimentation in
one watershed has showed stronger correlation than the sedimentation of intercross
watershed.
5.2. The shape of the average components of pyroclastic flow unit has any
correlations with the distance of the sedimentation.
Regression-correlation analysis showed that there was negative correlation between
the size of the component and the distance of the sedimentation. The sedimentation in

29/35
one watershed has showed stronger correlation than the sedimentation of intercross
watershed.
6. There were similarities between lahar and pyroclastic components in their sources.
6.1. The size of the component has similarities with the size of its source pyroclastic
component.
The trial of each independent sample (t test) on the size of lahar and pyroclastic
component showed that massive and pebble-sized component in all of lahar unit was
not different with the pyroclastic source. In the other hand, gravel and boulder-sized
component was different in the terms of the size.
6.2. The size of the component has similarities with the size of its source pyroclastic
component.
The trial of each independent sample (t test) on the size of lahar and pyroclastic
component showed that massive and pebble-sized component in all of lahar unit was
not different with the pyroclastic source. In the other hand, gravel, pebble and
boulder-sized component has various conditions between no different and with
difference. The dominant one was not in Mlh2.

4.3. Discussion
The research on Merapi Volcano has cleared the phenomena that characteristic
change of lahar was the response of eruption difference. It will be explained below:

4.3.1. Different kinds of eruption

There were different kinds of eruption on Merapi Volcano from holocen to recen, or
during 10,000 years. Physically, it can be seen from the differences of the stones of
eruption result. Effusive eruption resulted in lava flow, spin, or dome. Pyroclastic fall

30/35
and flow was the result of eruption, and lava dome as well, were the evidence that
there were eruption process.

Besides that, explosive and effusive eruption affected the stones. Megascopic and
microscopic petrology description were the evidence that it Merapi Volcano showed
some stones that formed volcano body, such as andesite pyrocsen, andesite horblenda
dan andesite basaltic from toiletic, alkali dan lime alkali.

Physical evidence from the stones can be seen from pylotacistic texture and scoria
strcture in lava flow. It indicates that eruption was happened in form of effusive lava,
spin lava, or lava dome as the component of it. On the other side, the emergence of
pumice stone as the eruption results was the evidence of pyroclastic fall that the
eruption was different.

Statistic assessments were done to analyze those differences through some important
unit. The assessment on chemical element on the lava as effusive eruption, and
pyroclastic fall component as the explosive result, emphasized the phenomena that
there were eruption differences during Holocen. TiO2, Fe2O3, MgO, CaO, and K2O
were the separating element for effusive and explosive result.

4.3.2. Pyroclastic character changes

Its changes were done through its shapes and sizes of the component. It showed in the
gravel, pebble, and boulder component; not the massive component. This condition
emphasized that pyroclastic flow sedimentation was ideal condition from debris flow
and debris avalanche mass and then sedimented through en masse freezing. This
flowing mass was in the cohesive matrix strength condition.

31/35
Gravel, pebble, and boulder component acted as the bringing matrix which always
overlapped each other. Meanwhile, massive component which often seen as floated
component created the mass. Therefore, it cannot be crushed.

Pumice stone which was not appeared in the pyroclastic unit showed same indication.
It was happened in pebbles component, and same shape and size in boulder
component.

4.3.3. Lahar character changes

Its assessment was through the changes of the shape and size of the component. It
was happened in pebbles component, and same shape and size in boulder component.
In lahar, the changes also happened in pebbles component. The question that emerged
from this was the pebbles function as bringing mass in pyroclastic flow of the water
in lahar, is overtaken.

The increasing mass of water changed lahar condition from the beginning, physically;
plastically non-newtonian flowing as debris flow and transformed into
hyperconcentrated flow. It did not change the component, as long as it was on debris-
flow mode. Therefore, lahars ability on bringing the massive component depended
on its concentration.

Its change can be seen in the regression-correlation analysis. From that analysis, it
can be seen the weak correlation up to very strong correlation and the distance of
sedimentation in the watershed, which are in (Mlh1) Kaliluwuk, (Mlh4) Kaliworo,
and (Mlh5) Kalikrasak. Then, correlation were stronger in one watershed, such as in
Mlh1) Kaliluwuk, (Mlh2) Kaligendol, (Mlh4) Kaliworo, and (Mlh5) Kalikrasak.
The correlations that showed the decreasing in terms size of the component on

32/35
sedimentations distance was the process of change from debris-flow to
hyperconcentrated flow.

4.3.4. Lahar character similarities and its sources

The average size of lahar and pyroclastic component showed that there was no
differences between the massive and pebble component of lahar and pyroclastic.
Meanwhile, there were differences in the size of the gravel and boulder components.
Then, the shape of the massive component has no differences with pyroclastic source.
Meanwhile, the pebble, gravel, and boulder, as the components, were various. The
same dominant was appeared in Merapi Lahar Unit 2 (Mlh2) Kaligendol. Massive
component from lahar and pyroclastic were from the same lithology. Most of them
were the cushions of the lava dome or lava flow.

4.3.5. Relations and disseminations between the units

From the discussions, it can be seen that lahar process depends on the previous
process, in form of eruption types and its result. It is the control of the lahar process
and the forming sedimentation. Meanwhile, lahar sedimentation is the response on its
existed eruption types and process. Therefore, the dissemination of lahar
sedimentation is heavily depends on the eruption types of the respective volcano.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1. Conclusions
Based on the research and discussion, there are some conclusions:
1. Merapi Volcano during neogen have undergone several type changes of eruption
with main chemicals TiO2, Fe2O3, MgO, CaO, and K2O, different level of
erodibility and rims structure percentage as its differences.

33/35
2. Pyroclastic character changes determined by the size and the shape of the
component; pebble, gravel, and boulder; not massive component. Its changes were
undeterminable and have not correlation with the distance of sedimentation
3. Lahar character changes determined by the size and the shape of the component;
pebble, gravel, and boulder; not massive component. Its changes were clearly
determinable and have strong correlation between the components with the increasing
distance of sedimentation. The correlations are stronger in a watershed.
4. The similarities of lahar character with its sources showed with massive and gravel
components. Lahar process made them decreased.
5. Similar characteristics between lahar and pyroclastics in the massive components
enforced a high adaptation in lahar threat reduction.
6. Based on the results of the eruption characters and lahar process, Merapi Volcano
formed by 5 lava units, 4 pyroclastics, and 5 lahar units.

5.2. Suggestions
This research answered 6 (six) hypothesis, 15 (fifteen) sub-hypothesis, and more than
100 verification assessment, to understand Merapi Volcanos lahar phenomena,
especially as the response of its eruption differences. For better improvement, needs
to:
1. Do this method for geological mapping on the other volcanoes.
2. Do the research on volcano geological meticulously by carefully analyzing the
lahar characters.
3. Consider the position of lahar as the response of its eruption in Disaster Area
Mapping of Merapi Volcano or Mapping Risk of Merapi Volcano Eruption
4. Evaluate lahar management and its pyroclastic flow by managing the massive
component.

34/35
35/35