Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 417 (2021) 107295 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvolgeores Invited Research Article The Independent Volcanic Eruption Source Parameter Archive (IVESPA, version 1.0): A new observational database to support explosive eruptive column model validation and development Thomas J. Aubry a,b,⁎,SamanthaEngwellc, Costanza Bonadonna d, Guillaume Carazzo e,SimonaScollof, Alexa R. Van Eaton g,IsabelleA.Taylorh,DavidJessope,i,j, Julia Eychenne j,MathieuGouhierj, Larry G. Mastin g, Kristi L. Wallace k, Sébastien Biass l, Marcus Bursik m, Roy G. Grainger h,A.MarkJellinekn, Anja Schmidt a,o a Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK b Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, UK c British Geological Survey, The Lyell Centre, Edinburgh, UK d Department of Earth Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland e Université de Paris, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, CNRS, F-75005 Paris, France f Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Osservatorio Etneo, Catania, Italy g U.S. Geological Survey, Cascades Volcano Observatory, Vancouver, Washington, USA h COMET, Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK i Observatoire Volcanologique et Sismologique de Guadeloupe, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, F- 97113 Gourbeyre, France j Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, IRD, OPGC Laboratoire Magmas et Volcans, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France k U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Volcano Observatory, 4230 University Dr., Anchorage, AK 99508, United States of America l Earth Observatory of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, 639798, Singapore m Department of Geology, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York 14260, USA n Earth Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada o Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK article info abstract Article history: Eruptive column models are powerful tools for investigating the transport of volcanic gas and ash, reconstructing Received 30 October 2020 past explosive eruptions, and simulating future hazards. However, the evaluation of these models is challenging Received in revised form 14 May 2021 as it requires independent estimates of the main model inputs (e.g. mass eruption rate) and outputs (e.g. column Accepted 19 May 2021 height). There exists no database of independently estimated eruption source parameters (ESPs) that is exten- Available online 25 May 2021 sive, standardized, maintained, and consensus-based. This paper introduces the Independent Volcanic Eruption Source Parameter Archive (IVESPA, ivespa.co.uk), a community effort endorsed by the International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth’s Interior (IAVCEI) Commission on Tephra Hazard Modelling. We com- piled data for 134 explosive eruptive events, spanning the 1902-2016 period, with independent estimates of: i) total erupted mass of fall deposits; ii) duration; iii) eruption column height; and iv) atmospheric conditions. Crucially, we distinguish plume top versus umbrella spreading height, and the height of ash versus sulphur diox- ide injection. All parameter values provided have been vetted independently by at least two experts. Uncer- tainties are quantified systematically, including flags to describe the degree of interpretation of the literature required for each estimate. IVESPA also includes a range of additional parameters such as total grain size distri- bution, eruption style, morphology of the plume (weak versus strong), and mass contribution from pyroclastic density currents, where available. We discuss the future developments and potential applications of IVESPA and make recommendations for reporting ESPs to maximize their usability across different applications. IVESPA covers an unprecedented range of ESPs and can therefore be used to evaluate and develop eruptive col- umn models across a wide range of conditions using a standardized dataset. © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). ⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. E-mail address: [email protected] (T.J. Aubry). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2021.107295 0377-0273/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). T.J. Aubry, S. Engwell, C. Bonadonna et al. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 417 (2021) 107295 1. Introduction large data scatter (e.g. Mastin et al., 2009; Mastin, 2014). They remain limited compared to 1D and 3D ECMs, which can account for the impact 1.1. Eruptive column models: key tools for linking eruption source parame- of vertically-resolved atmospheric conditions on plume dynamics as ters and characterizing explosive volcanic plume dynamics well as other parameters such as TGSD. As well as being able to link MER to column height, these ECMs can also make additional predictions Numerical models of volcanic columns or plumes, referred to as (depending on their complexity), such as the conditions under which a eruptive column models (ECMs) hereafter, are fundamental to the volcanic column will collapse, the evolution of plume properties with understanding of explosive eruption dynamics, characterizing the rela- height, and the distribution of ash versus gas in the volcanic column. tionship between a variety of eruption source parameters (ESPs) and, in turn, our ability to assess and manage hazards from explosive volcanic 1.2. Overview of datasets available for the evaluation and development of eruptions. ECMs have a range of complexity, from three-dimensional eruptive column models (3D) ECMs that can resolve the large-scale turbulent structure of a vol- canic column but are computationally expensive, to one-dimensional A requirement of datasets produced for validation of ECMs is that the (1D) integral ECMs that parameterize the turbulent entrainment of am- ESPs serving as inputs and outputs to ECMs are constrained indepen- bient air into the column and are inexpensive to run (Costa et al., dently, and without reliance on any eruptive column modelling. Inde- 2016a). The simplest form of model consists of theoretical (e.g. pendent observations of the MER and column height are essential Morton et al., 1956; Sparks, 1986; Wilson and Walker, 1987) or empir- minimal requirements to constrain scaling relationships (0D) between ical (e.g. Settle, 1978; Wilson et al., 1978; Sparks et al., 1997a; Mastin these two parameters, which are also required to evaluate more sophis- et al., 2009) relationships linking the mass eruption rate (MER), and ticated (1D, 3D) ECMs. However, gathering independent constraints on the column height. These scaling relationships, sometimes referred to MER and height is challenging. Estimates of column height before the as 0th order relationships or 0D ECMs, have become popular tools due beginning of the satellite era (late 1970’s/early 1980’s) are, for example, to their simplicity. sparse. MER can be estimated from field studies of deposits by dividing The value of ECMs has become apparent during the 21st century due the erupted mass (derived from the measured volume using an appro- to an increased use of volcanic ash transport and dispersion models priate bulk deposit density) by the eruption duration. However, volume (VATDMs) to forecast the dispersion of ash clouds in the atmosphere estimates exist for only a relatively small fraction of eruptions in the and ash deposition on the ground. VATDMs have proved crucial for geological record and timing information can be difficult to constrain. mitigating hazards to civil aviation (e.g. Heffter and Stunder, 1993; Table 1 lists some of those datasets with independent MER and plume D’Amours, 1994; Versteegeri et al., 1995; Stohl et al., 1998; Draxler height estimates available, as well as their main features. The number and Hess, 1998; Searcy et al., 1998) and hazard-sensitive land use plan- of events (i.e. eruption or eruption phases for which ESP are ning (e.g. Barberi et al., 1990a). VATDMs require an estimate of plume constrained) in these datasets has generally increased as new data be- height, generally constrained using satellite or ground-based observa- came available (e.g. Sparks et al., 1997b; Mastin et al., 2009), aided by tions, and an estimate of either total airborne mass of ash or the rate improvements in observations with time. For example, for column at which ash is injected into the atmosphere, commonly assumed to height, the use of satellite observations has become much more system- be a fraction of the MER (Gouhier et al., 2019). MER is generally esti- atic, and community efforts such as the International Association of Vol- mated from the eruption column height using the 0D ECM between canology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior (IAVCEI) Remote Sensing MER and column height. Increasingly, 1D ECMs are being coupled Commission (https://sites.google.com/site/iavceirscweb/Home) have with VATDMs used in operational response to forecast ash dispersion greatly improved the availability and communication of satellite obser- (e.g. Bursik et al., 2012). vations of volcanic columns. The last two decades have also seen an increased recognition that In the wake of eruptions such as that of Eyjafjallajökull (2010, the