the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Estimating the mass of tephra accumulated on roads to best manage the impact of volcanic eruptions: the example of Mt. Etna, Italy
Abstract. During explosive eruptions a large amount of tephra is dispersed and deposited on the ground with the potential to cause a variety of damage and disruption on public infrastructure, such as road networks, which can require a rapid clean-up. The quantification of the tephra load is, therefore, of significant interest to reduce environmental and socio-economic impact, and for managing crises. Tephra dispersal and deposition is a function of multiple factors, including mass eruption rate, tephra characteristics (size, shape, density), top plume height, grain size distribution and local wind field. In this work we quantified the tephra mass deposited on the main road network on the east-southeast flanks of Mt. Etna (Italy), during lava fountains occurring in 2021. We focused this analysis on road connections of municipalities mostly affected by these events such as Milo, Santa Venerina and Zafferana Etnea. First, we analysed a sequence of 39 short-lasting and intense Etna’s lava fountains detected by the X-band weather radar, applying the volcanic ash radar retrieval approach able to retrieve main eruption source parameters, such as mass eruption rate, top plume height, grain-size distribution of those events. When the radar measurements were unavailable for a specific event, we analysed images acquired both by the SEVIRI radiometer and by the visible and/or thermal infrared camera of the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Osservatorio Etneo (Catania) to derive some ESPs. Second, we used those eruption source parameters as inputs to run two different numerical models, Tephra2 and Fall3D, and reproduce tephra dispersal and accumulation on the road network. Finally, we produce, for the first time, georeferenced estimates of tephra mass deposited on the whole road network of three municipalities, allowing to identify the main roads which have been mostly impacted by significant tephra accumulation, as well as to estimate the total mass of primary tephra that has been removed from roads and disposed. Such information represents a valuable input for quick planning and management of the short-term tephra load hazard for possible future Etna explosive events.
- Preprint
(2045 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2028', Alvaro Aravena, 02 Oct 2024
Dear editor,
in this contribution, Mereu et al. address the problem of estimating the load of tephra accumulated on roads as a consequence of explosive activity at Mt. Etna, Italy. The authors analyze data from 39 explosive events during 2021 in order to obtain a set of inputs to run numerical simulations with the widely used programs Tephra2 and Fall3D. Numerical results are post-processed taking into account the road network in order to quantify the mass of tephra accumulated on critical points around Mt. Etna (from a crisis management perspective). In general, the text is well-written, but some parts are a little bit redundant. On the other hand, a lot of data related to figures (e.g. color scales) are indicated in the main text, and I think they should be restricted to the caption. In addition, some redundant methodological explanations are included in the results section and is not always easy to follow the structure of the text. The state of the art and the addressed problem are introduced in the first section in a clear manner, and this problem is correctly addressed in the manuscript (although a few references are suggested below). The methodology is clear and responses to the introduced problem. Discussion and conclusions are effectively based on results, and presentation of results is accompanied by descriptive figures that effectively display the main results highlighted in the manuscript.
However, I would like to raise the following issues that I think must be addressed before publication:
1. I wonder how efficient is the clean-up of roads due to natural reasons (meteorological phenomena) and effects related to routine human activities (different from cleaning-up activities). The authors describe this point in L348-352 as a limitation of the adopted methodology. This is ok, but it is still critical, in order to understand the validity and significance of results, to have an idea of the order of magnitude of the “natural” clean-up velocity of roads, and thus a larger discussion about this point is needed. For instance, when we analyze the curves presented in Figs. 4 and 5, how are these slopes compared to the expected natural clean-up of roads? Are there differences in the natural clean-up velocity as a function of elevation or vehicles circulation?
2. How comparable are estimates of H_TP derived from XWR, ECV frames and SEVIRI data with respect to those computed from ENT images? Are there examples for which all the methodologies have been applied simultaneously?
3. In general, model limitations should be described better.
4. I identified the following citations issues:
a) In L80, is it Bonadonna et al. 2021a or 2021b?
b) Bonadonna et al. 2023 is not present in the reference list.
c) Guobadia et al. 2021 is not present in the main text.
d) Macedonio and Costa 2012 is not present in the main text.
e) Pardini et al. 2023 is not present in the main text.All in all, I recommend publication of this manuscript in EGUSphere after minor but essential revisions. In the following lines, I include a set of detailed and editorial comments and suggestions. Please note that my mother-tongue is not English.
Alvaro Aravena
Detailed and editorial comments:
L13: I suggest to delete “, which can require a rapid clean-up”.
L14: “reduce” > “evaluate and reduce”.
L16: I suggest to delete “top”.
L18: I suggest to delete “this analysis”.
L18: “mostly” > “significantly”.
L20: “the volcanic ash radar retrieval approach able to retrieve” > “a volcanic ash radar retrieval approach that permits us to compute the”.
L21: I suggest to delete “top”.
L21: “, grain size distribution of those events” > “and grain size distribution”.
L21: “When the” > “When”.
L24: “those” > “the computed”.
L26: “allowing” > “allowing us”.
L27: I suggest to delete “significant”.
L28: I suggest to delete “and disposed”.
L29: “quick planning and management” > “planning and quick management”.
L29: I suggest to delete “possible”.
L31-32: Please rephrase. “Quantification of data” is not a piece of information by itself. I think the phrase “of a specific intensity” is not necessary.
L35: “poor visibility conditions” is not a problem by itself. I suggest to delete it and include the reference in the part related to “dangerous road conditions”.
L48: “, to allow” > “and to allow”
L52: I suggest to delete “try to”.
L53: “Etna that were more affected” > “Etna, which were affected”
L54-55: “hours and sometimes … times a day” > “hours, separated by periods that can last from few hours to few days”
L56: Please delete “generally”. The word “most” is already present.
L58: “accumulation” > “tephra accumulation”.
L61: “only to 39 events which” > “on 39 events that”.
L63: “in” > “to”.
L70: “those” > “these”.
L71-72: Please define MER and HTP in the first mention.
L73: I suggest to move some of the citations to the previous sentence (“… advection dispersion-models”), where you could include references of other diffusion-advection models that consider the same inputs. For instance:
- Tadini, A., Gouhier, M., Donnadieu, F., de’Michieli Vitturi, M., & Pardini, F. (2022). Particle sedimentation in numerical modelling: a case study from the Puyehue-Cordón Caulle 2011 eruption with the PLUME-MoM/HYSPLIT models. Atmosphere, 13(5), 784.
- Takishita, K., Poulidis, A. P., & Iguchi, M. (2021). Tephra4D: a python-based model for high-resolution tephra transport and deposition simulations—applications at Sakurajima volcano, Japan. Atmosphere, 12(3), 331.
And I suggest to keep the specific references associated with the presentation of the codes Tephra2 and Fall3D in the next sentence (“… such as Tephra2 and Fall3D”).
L77: “and to assess uncertainties” > “and assess the associated uncertainties”.
L80: 2021a or 2021b?
L82: I suggest to delete “theoretically”.
L81-90: I think parts of this paragraph are a little bit redundant. L94: “finally,” > “, finally,”.
L94: “are in” > “are included in”.
L101: “, Fig. 1” > “ (Fig. 1)”.
L106: “that is” > “calculated as”.
L108-109: I suggest to delete “integrating the … we retrieve”. Otherwise, the enumeration becomes strange.
L110-112: I suggest to include the following reference (I am sorry for the self-reference):
Aravena, A., Carparelli, G., Cioni, R., Prestifilippo, M., & Scollo, S. (2023). Toward a real-time analysis of column height by visible cameras: an example from mt. Etna, in Italy. Remote Sensing, 15(10), 2595.
L116: “altitude derived” > “altitude, which is derived”.
L124: “specific” > “the following”
L132: “of which three of these under examination and” > “of which three are under examination, and”.
L134: “symbol” > “symbols”.
L138-139: “is derived … previously described” > “is displayed in Table 1”.
L139: I suggest to delete “Usually” if you use the expression “not always” in the same sentence.
L140: “the plume” > “of plume”.
L141: “derive” > “collect”.
L141-143: I suggest to rephrase this part.
L151: “straight” > “straightly”.
L151: “Qm estimates XWR-based” > “XWR-based Qm estimates”.
L152: “time” > “and iii) time”.
L153: I suggest to delete “iii)” and “iv)”.
L156: So are the authors considering a constant wind field at different heights?
L160: I suggest to delete “, as available in literature”.
L162: “in the Table” > “in Table”.
L168: I think the method used in each case to compute H_TP should be indicated.
L176: “2005; Bonadonna et al., 2006;” > “2005, 2006;”
L176: “input” > “inputs”.
L177-180: I suggest to enumerate using ‘;’ instead of ‘,’ because you are also including some descriptions (and I would use ‘,’ to separate variables and their descriptions).
L180: “the plume” > “and the plume”.
L185: “from buoyant” > “from the buoyant”.
L186: “cost in computational time” > “computational cost”.
L190: “assuming a” > “assuming”.
L190-191: I suggest to delete “In particular … respectively”. This should be indicated in the caption.
L192-193: I suggest to delete “Isomass … 5 10^3 kg/m2”. This should be indicated in the caption.
L198: “The tephra” > “Tephra”.
L202-203: “the geo-referenced … on the ground” > “the geo-referenced data of tephra load on the ground in UTM coordinates … resolution of 500 m”.
L218-219: I would end the paragraph after “February 2021”. This should be indicated in the caption.
L230: I am not sure that “validation” is the correct word. I suggest “verification”.
L234: “; Table 2 shows also” > “, as well as the”.
L235: “first” > “the first”.
L239: “These” > “These discrepancies”.
L241: “derived on 14 field data” > “on 14 sites”.
L261: “equals” > “=”.
L261: “greatest” > “their larger”.
L271: I think this parenthesis is not necessary.
L272: “specific” > “discrepancies in the”.
L272: “It is worth noting” again is a little bit redundant.
L272-276: I did not understand this part. Please rephrase.
L280: “in the” > “is presented in the”. L284-286: Please rephrase (or delete). I think it is not needed to explain results and included in the introduction.
L286: “the Sicily” > “Sicily”.
L288: “the east … Etna flanks … at south” > “east (31%), southeast (35%) and nordwest (29%), and only 6% towards south”.
L289: It this consistent with wind data in the Etna zone during the last decades?
L289-293: I think this is a methodological explanation.
L295: “Each … symbol” should be in the caption.
L296: “Obviously” > “Obviously,”.
L300: “contrast with” > “contrast to”.
L314: “is constant” > “stabilizes”.
L317: “to the” > “due to”.
L332-333: Please rephrase.
L341: “lava fountains” > “explosive events”.
L345: “greater” > “larger”.
Table 4: I would combine the cells “39 Etna lava … 2021” and “Location”, and call it “Location”.
L358: I suggest to delete “what is shown in”.
L365: “assuming a” > “assuming”.
L374: “2021 and” > “2021, and”.
L382: “eruptions” > “eruption(s)”
L383: I suggest to delete “the year”.
L387: “; at” > “. At”.
L389-390: This is a very interesting point that should be highlighted in the introduction, for instance.
L393: I suggest to delete “, focusing on the … municipalities”.
L401: “intrinsic” > “different sources of”.
L401: “data to” > “data, and due to”.
L403: “mainly due both” > “related”.
L409: 2021a or 2021b?
L409: Bonadonna et al. 2023 is not present in the reference list.
L432: Different reference formats are present. Please unify them.
L441-442: This reference does not follow alphabetic order.
L498: Guobadia et al. 2021 is not present in the main text.
L542-543: Macedonio and Costa 2012 is not present in the main text.
L544-545: Pardini et al. 2023 is not present in the main text.
L579-580: This reference does not follow alphabetic order.
L581-582: This reference does not follow alphabetic order.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2028-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2028', Anonymous Referee #2, 04 Oct 2024
The manuscript presents the results of a modelling study aiming at quantifying tephra deposition from lava fountain events on the Etna volcano road network. Authors use two models (Tephra2 and FALL3D) to model the transport and deposition of the tephra released from the volcano and find that both models give similar results when taking into account the sensitivity tied to volcanic quantities (here a factor of 5).
I find this to be an interesting study looking at an important problem. However, I feel that despite its novelty, at the current stage the study feels a bit too simple. I do believe though that some additional simulations and analysis can lead to a much more impactful publication. To this end I have written down some recommendation and a number of concerns about the methodology employed:
- As the authors’ note, there is no analysis of the impact of the ESP sensitivity. Considering the relative novelty of the work presented, I would emphatically argue that this is a perfect opportunity to look into the sensitivity of the results to the different combinations of ESP values. I feel that including a robust error analysis (see comment 3) and a quantification of the impact, the study will have a much stronger central point.
- I am not sure if Tephra2 is the right model to use here as the study focuses on relatively proximal dispersal of unsteady plumes over very complex topography. From the Scollo et al 2019 study, I understand that this is probably due to the fact that Tephra2 is part of the forecast system employed. Is this correct? I think that objectively, FALL3D is a more appropriate model to use, so I would frame this as cross-examination of the Tehpra2 results (necessitated due to the computational constraints) against a more sophisticated model.
- Even though the eruption studied here are described in Scollo et al 2019, I feel that a section discussing their main characteristics is warranted.
- Despite the presentation of ground observations along the radar-derived values, there is no proper error-based evaluation. This is particularly important for the comparison of the two model results. There’s a number of error metrics commonly used (RMSE, MAPE, bias etc) along with correlation coefficients such as Pearson or Kendall tau. Considering the nature of concentrations and depositions, the use of the logarithm error might offer a better tool as it penalises both over and underestimation in the same way. A proper error analysis can help put the conflicting model results into better context.
- I'm not sure if I missed information regarding plumes, but how is tephra introduced in the model? Is there a plume model employed, or is it a standard profile or single point release? I know that the representation of tephra concentration along unsteady volcanic plumes is very much an open issue with no proper answer and considering the fact that forecasts do need to be carried out we must accept the use of simplifications, but I think that important information are missing.
- Expanding comment 4, in general there's a lot of important model configuration information that seems to be missing from the manuscript.
- The estimation of the road width also needs more information. I have added a relevant comment in the pdf version, but in short, as the results directly scale with the road width chosen further information would help make a more convincing case.
- This is a nit-pick, but the interpolation method seems computationally inefficient. Is the intermediate step of interpolating everything at 5m really necessary? I feel that directly interpolating over the road network would be more efficient.
- Second nit-pick – the word “resolution” is used throughout the manuscript instead of “grid spacing”. The two are not the same, as resolution refers to the scale of phenomena models are able to explicitly resolve. In the case of transport modelling, resolution is mostly tied to the grid spacing of the meteorological data.
Finally, there are some minor points, language errors, typos etc. I’ve highlighted some in the pdf, but the manuscript merits another careful read-through by the authors.
Overall, I think that this is an interesting and novel study that requires some additional simulations to truly reach its potential. My overall recommendation would be publication after major revisions as discussed above. I hope that the authors will find the comments constructive.
Kind regards and best of luck with the revisions.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
164 | 61 | 91 | 316 | 10 | 10 |
- HTML: 164
- PDF: 61
- XML: 91
- Total: 316
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1