Debris Avalanches and Debris Flows Transformed from Collapses in The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 113 (2002) 81^110 www.elsevier.com/locate/jvolgeores Debris avalanches and debris £ows transformed from collapses in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, Mexico ^ behavior, and implications for hazard assessment L. Capra a;Ã, J.L. Mac|¤as b, K.M. Scott c, M. Abrams d, V.H. Gardun‹o-Monroy e a Instituto de Geograf|¤a, UNAM, Coyoaca¤n 04510, Mexico D.F., Mexico b Instituto de Geof|¤sica, UNAM, Mexico D.F., Mexico c Cascades Volcano Observatory, Vancouver, WA, USA d Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA e Universidad Michoacana de San Nicola¤s de Hidalgo, Morelia, Mexico Received 19 March 2001; received in revised form 14 June 2001; accepted 14 June 2001 Abstract Volcanoes of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt (TMVB) have yielded numerous sector and flank collapses during Pleistocene and Holocene times. Sector collapses associated with magmatic activity have yielded debris avalanches with generally limited runout extent (e.g. Popocate¤petl, Jocotitla¤n, and Colima volcanoes). In contrast, flank collapses (smaller failures not involving the volcano summit), both associated and unassociated with magmatic activity and correlating with intense hydrothermal alteration in ice-capped volcanoes, commonly have yielded highly mobile cohesive debris flows (e.g. Pico de Orizaba and Nevado de Toluca volcanoes). Collapse orientation in the TMVB is preferentially to the south and northeast, probably reflecting the tectonic regime of active E^W and NNW faults. The differing mobilities of the flows transformed from collapses have important implications for hazard assessment. Both sector and flank collapse can yield highly mobile debris flows, but this transformation is more common in the cases of the smaller failures. High mobility is related to factors such as water content and clay content of the failed material, the paleotopography, and the extent of entrainment of sediment during flow (bulking). The ratio of fall height to runout distance commonly used for hazard zonation of debris avalanches is not valid for debris flows, which are more effectively modeled with the relation inundated area to failure or flow volume coupled with the topography of the inundated area. ß 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt; debris avalanche; cohesive debris £ow; hazard assessment 1. Introduction The occurrence of the 1980 sector collapse and * Corresponding author. Tel.: +52-5-6224124; debris avalanche at Mount St. Helens triggered fax: +52-5-5502486. the recognition of uniquely hummocky deposits E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Capra). of many analogous debris avalanches at volcanoes 0377-0273 / 02 / $ ^ see front matter ß 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S0377-0273(01)00252-9 VOLGEO 2362 14-5-02 82 L. Capra et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 113 (2002) 81^110 Fig. 1. Sketch map of the TMVB showing the location of the volcanoes with known sector collapse: Colima Volcanic Complex (CVC), Milpilla (Mi), Patamban (Pa), Estribo (Es), Tanc|¤taro (Ta); Zirahuato (Zi), Jocotitla¤n (Jo), Nevado de Toluca (NT), Zempoala (Ze), Ajusco (Aj), Iztacc|¤huatl (Iz), Popocate¤petl (Po), Cerro Las Navajas (CN), Las Derrumbadas (De), Pico de Ori- zaba (PdO), Las Cumbres (LC), and Cofre de Perote (CdP). Santa Martha (StM), San Martin Pajapan (SMP) and Los Tuxtlas Volcanic Field (TVF) not in the TMVB are also shown. worldwide (Siebert, 1984; Ui et al., 1986; Siebert its and other kind of £ows transformed from vol- et al., 1987; Vallance et al., 1995; Francis and cano collapses in Mexico and to analyze the Wells, 1988). Subsequent studies revealed the oc- hazard implications of these occurrences. We de- currence of edi¢ce collapses and the £ows trans- scribed each case history based on the available formed from them at several of the better-known bibliography, by stratigraphy, textural character- volcanoes of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt istics, the dimensions of the deposits (runout dis- (TMVB) (Fig. 1): Nevado de Colima and Volca¤n tance, area, and volume), and on what is known de Fuego volcanoes (Robin et al., 1987, 1990; about the source area. Luhr and Prestegaard, 1988; Stoopes and Sheri- In addition, Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM dan, 1992; Komorowski et al., 1994, 1997), bands 3, 4 and 7) images have been elaborated Jocotitla¤n v. (Siebe et al., 1992, 1995a), Nevado to provide further information about the distribu- de Toluca v. (Mac|¤as et al., 1997; Capra and tion and the morphological characteristics of the Mac|¤as, 2000), Popocate¤petl v. (Robin and Bou- debris avalanche deposits described in the text. dal, 1987; Siebe et al., 1995b; Lozano-Velazquez and Carrasco-Nu¤n‹ez, 1997), Las Derrumbadas (Siebe et al., 1995a) and Pico de Orizaba (Car- 2. Terminology rasco-Nu¤n‹ez and Gomez-Tuena, 1997; Carrasco- Nu¤n‹ez et al., 1993; Hoskuldsson and Robin, A debris avalanche is a rapidly moving incoher- 1993). Debris avalanche and debris £ow deposits ent and unsorted mass of rock and soil mobilized of probable similar origin are known from the by gravity (Schuster and Crandell, 1984). The ter- stratigraphic record at many other Mexican vol- minology proposed by Glicken (1991) is used here canoes but remain to be described in detail. The to describe the deposits deriving from it. Two magnitude and frequency that can be inferred end-member facies de¢ne deposit texture: block from the known deposits (Table 1) clearly indicate facies and mixed (matrix) facies. The block facies that £ows of this origin are a signi¢cant volcanic is composed mainly of debris avalanche blocks hazard in the TMVB. (an unconsolidated piece of the old mountain The aim of this paper is to present a bibliogra- transported to its place of deposition) with practi- phy of the occurrences of debris avalanche depos- cally no matrix. The mixed facies is a mixture of VOLGEO 2362 14-5-02 Table 1 Location and characteristics of the known cases of debris avalanche deposits in Mexico Name (acronym) Latitude, Elevation Type of collapse- Type of deposit DAL V H/L Age Ref. longitude (m asl) related activity (km2) (km) (km3) Nevado de Colima 19‡33P48QN, 4240 Bezymianny-type Block and matrix facies DAD, E 2200 120 22^33 0.04 18 520 þ 260 yr BP 1, 2 (NC) 103‡36P30QW average thickness of 15 m, monolithologic with andesitic L. Capra et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 113 (2002) 81^110 lava fragments. Volcan de Colima 19‡30P40QN, 3820 Bezymianny-type Block and matrix facies DAD, SW 1200 43 6^12 0.09 9 370 þ 400 yr BP 2 (VC) 103‡37PW mean thickness of 10 m, 4 280 þ 110 yr BP 3 monolithologic with andesite lava fragments. Nevado de Toluca 19‡09PN, 4565 Non-volcanic Pilcaya deposit. Matrix- S 100 55 2 0.054 Pleistocene 4, 5 (NT) 99‡45PW (water-saturated, supported cohesive DFD, hydrothermally average thickness of 20 m, altered volcano) heterolithologic with clasts of VOLGEO 2362 14-5-02 basalt, dacite and secondary fragments from bedrock. Nevado de Toluca 19‡09PN, 4565 Non-volcanic Mogote deposit. Matrix- S 120 75 0.8 nd Pleistocene 4, 5 (NT) 99‡45PW (water-saturated, supported cohesive DFD, hydrothermally average thickness of 10 m, altered volcano) heterolithologic with clasts of basalt, dacite and secondary fragments from bedrock. Jocotitla¤n (Jo) 19‡43P25QN, 3950 Bezymianny-type Block facies DAD, with NE 80 12 2.8 0.11 9 690 þ 89 yr BP 6 99‡45P25QW hummocks up to 185 m high, monolithologic with dacitic lava fragments. Zempoala (Ze) 19‡03PN, 3800 Non-volcanic Matrix-supported DFD, S 400 80 4 0.04 Pliocene 5 99‡20PW (water-saturated, average thickness of 10 m, hydrothermally heterolithologic with clasts of altered volcano) basalt, dacite and secondary fragments from bedrock. Popocate¤petl (Po) 19‡03PN, 5452 Bezymianny-type Block and matrix facies DAD, S 600 70 9 0.064 22 875+915/ 7, 8 98‡35PW average thickness of 15 m, 3820 yr BP heterolithologic with clasts of andesite and dacite and fragments of older pyroclastic deposits. 83 84 Table 1. (continued) Name (acronym) Latitude, Elevation Type of collapse- Type of deposit DAL V H/L Age Ref. longitude (m asl) related activity (km2) (km) (km3) Iztacc|¤huatl (Iz) 19‡10PN, 5285 nd nd SW 50 nd 0.5 nd nd 7 98‡38PW Pico de Orizaba 19‡02PN, 5675 nd Jamapa deposit. Block and ENE 350 95 20 nd Pleistocene 9, 10 (PdO) 97‡17PW mixed facies DAD, average L. Capra et al. / Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 113 (2002) 81^110 thickness of 50 m, heterolithologic in composition. Pico de Orizaba 19‡02PN, 5675 Non-volcanic Tetelzingo deposit. Matrix- ENE 143 85 1.8 0.055 27 000^13 000 yr 9, 10 (PdO) 97‡17PW (water-saturated, supported cohesive DFD, with BP hydrothermally mean thickness of 12 m, altered volcano) heterolithologic in composition with clasts of andesite and dacite. Las Derrumbadas 19‡18PN, 4240 Dome growth First generation deposit. Block nd nd 9 nd 0.1 nd 11 VOLGEO 2362 14-5-02 (De) 97‡28PW and mixed facies DAD, heterolithologic composed of obsidian, fragments of pyro- clastic deposits, and rocks from the bedrock. Las Derrumbadas 19‡18PN, 4240 Dome instability Second generation deposits. nd nd 4.5 nd 0.2 nd 11 (De) 97‡28PW (hydrothermally Mixed facies DAD, mono- altered portions lithologic in composition with of domes) rhyolitic clasts. Cofre de Perote 19‡30PN, 4282 nd nd ESE nd nd nd nd 6 0.24 þ 0.05 Ma 12 (CdP) 97‡10PW Las Cumbres (LC) 19‡10PN, 3940 nd Mixed facies DAD, mono- E nd nd nd nd 40 000 yr BP 13 97‡15PW lithologic in composition with rhyolitic clasts.