USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Limitations of the advection-diffusion equation for modeling tephra fallout

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Limitations of the advection-diffusion equation for modeling tephra fallout 1992 eruption of Cerro Negro Volcano, Nicaragua.
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Martin, Kristin Terese
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
volcanology
volcanic ash
hazard models
Marrabios Range
isomass
Dissertations, Academic -- Geology -- Masters -- USF
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: Detailed mapping and granulometric analyses of the 1992 Cerro Negro tephra blanket reveal remarkable departures from the expected distribution of tephra. Isomass maps show that the major axis of dispersion for the eruption was to the SW of the cone and that the coarser-grained particles, ranging from -4.0 -- 1.0 f, were deposited primarily along the major axis of dispersion with deposits thinning off of the axis. Comparable isomass maps for finer-grained particles, 1.5 - 3.5 f, show that these particles were primarily deposited along the edges of the deposit, off of the major axis of dispersion. Advection-diffusion models for tephra fallout currently widely used in volcanology do not account for this deposition pattern. Rather, it appears that interaction between the wind field, which developed a strong cross flow during the eruption, and the ascending tephra plume resulted in the formation of turbulent structure in the plume.Particles with a settling velocity greater than ~1-2m/s (diameter > 0.5 mm) were able to overcome the turbulent structure and settled in a manner predicted by the advection-diffusion equation. Those with lower settling velocities were caught up in turbulent structure and deposited off of the major axis of dispersion, near the edges of the overall tephra blanket. Thus, this data set provides the first estimate of the strength of such turbulent structures in advecting plumes, and illustrates the limitations of the typical advection-diffusion models in describing some transport processes.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kristin Terese Martin.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 86 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001505492
oclc - 60410861
notis - AJV6090
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0000581
usfldc handle - e14.581
System ID:
SFS0025272:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001505492
003 fts
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 050201s2004 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000581
035
(OCoLC)60410861
9
AJV6090
b SE
SFE0000581
040
FHM
c FHM
090
QE26.2 (ONLINE)
1 100
Martin, Kristin Terese.
0 245
Limitations of the advection-diffusion equation for modeling tephra fallout
h [electronic resource] :
1992 eruption of Cerro Negro Volcano, Nicaragua. /
by Kristin Terese Martin.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2004.
502
Thesis (M.S.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 86 pages.
520
ABSTRACT: Detailed mapping and granulometric analyses of the 1992 Cerro Negro tephra blanket reveal remarkable departures from the expected distribution of tephra. Isomass maps show that the major axis of dispersion for the eruption was to the SW of the cone and that the coarser-grained particles, ranging from -4.0 -- 1.0 f, were deposited primarily along the major axis of dispersion with deposits thinning off of the axis. Comparable isomass maps for finer-grained particles, 1.5 3.5 f, show that these particles were primarily deposited along the edges of the deposit, off of the major axis of dispersion. Advection-diffusion models for tephra fallout currently widely used in volcanology do not account for this deposition pattern. Rather, it appears that interaction between the wind field, which developed a strong cross flow during the eruption, and the ascending tephra plume resulted in the formation of turbulent structure in the plume.Particles with a settling velocity greater than ~1-2m/s (diameter > 0.5 mm) were able to overcome the turbulent structure and settled in a manner predicted by the advection-diffusion equation. Those with lower settling velocities were caught up in turbulent structure and deposited off of the major axis of dispersion, near the edges of the overall tephra blanket. Thus, this data set provides the first estimate of the strength of such turbulent structures in advecting plumes, and illustrates the limitations of the typical advection-diffusion models in describing some transport processes.
590
Adviser: Connor, Charles.
653
volcanology.
volcanic ash.
hazard models.
Marrabios Range.
isomass.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Geology
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.581



PAGE 1

1 Limitations of the Advection Diffusion Equation for Modeling Tephra Fallout: 1992 Eruption of Cerro Negro Volcano, Nicaragua. b y Kristin Terese Martin A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science Department of Geology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Charles Connor, Ph.D. Sarah Kruse, Ph.D. Costanza Bonadonna, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 3 2004 Keywords: volcanology volcanic ash, haz ard models, Marrabios R ange, isomass Copyright 2004, Kristin Terese Martin

PAGE 2

2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Chuck Connor for all his guidance and support over the last few years. Also, this work could not have been accomplished without the help of my other committee members: Dr. Sarah Kruse and Dr. Costanza Bonadonna, as well as, Laura Connor and Ivan Savov. The support of all my family and friends is also greatly appreciated. This research project w as funded by the National Science Foundation EAR 0130602 and the University of South Floridas Latin American and Caribbean Studies Research Award.

PAGE 3

3 Table of Contents List of Figures ........................................... .......................................... ............................... i i Abstract .................................................................................................. .............................iii 1. Introduction ....................... ...............................................................................................1 2. Cerro Negro .....................................................................................................................3 3. Analytical Technique s ..................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Granulometry ..................................................................................................... 6 4. Discussion ................. .......................................................................................................8 References ..........................................................................................................................11 Appendices .......................................................................................... ..............................1 4 Appendix A: Isopach Map of the 1992 Cerro Negro Tephra Deposit ...................... .........1 5 Appendix B: Map of Site Locat ions and T hicknesses at Each S ite. ......................... ......... 1 6 Appendix C: Histogr ams of Granulometry Results at E ach Site ... ...... ..............................1 7 Appendix D: Density Histogram Plotted for All Sites ........................... ... ......................... 50 Appendix E: Isomass Maps for Each Grain Size............................................................... 5 1 Appendix F: Table of Thickness, Density, and Isomass for Each Site .............................. 5 9 Appendix G: Table of Granulometry Results for Each Site ............... .. .............................6 2 Appendix H: Spreadsheet of Calculated Settling Velocities ............. ............................... 80 i

PAGE 4

4 List of Figures Figure 1. Location map for the Central A merican Volcanic Arc showing the location of Cerro Negro Volcano, Nicaragua ......................... 3 Figure 2. Isomass map of the entire 1992 tephra deposit .... 5 Figure 3 a Isomass map for the coarse grained portion of the 1992 tephra deposit 7 Figure 3b Isomass map for the fine grained portion of the 1992 tephra deposit ........ 7 Figure 4. Graph of calculated settling velocities of particles with varying grain size and density using the method of Suzuki [1983] .. ........ .......... ...............9 ii

PAGE 5

5 Limitations of the Advection Diffusion Equation for Modeling Tephra Fallout: 1992 Eruption of Cerro Negro Volcano, Nicaragua. Kristin Martin ABSTRACT: Detailed mapping and granulometric analyses of the 1992 Cerro Negr o tephra blanket reveal remarkable departures from the expected distribution of tephra. Isomass maps show that the major axis of dispersion for the eruption was to the SW of the cone and that the coarser grained particles, ranging from 4.0 1.0 f, were deposited primarily along the major axis of dispersion with deposits thinning off of the axis. Comparable isomass maps for finer grained particles, 1.5 3.5f, show that these particles were primarily deposited along the edges of the deposit, off of the m ajor axis of dispersion. A dvection diffusion model s for tephra fallout currently widely used in volcanology do not accoun t for this deposition pattern. Rather it appears that interaction between the wind field, which developed a strong cross flow durin g the eruption, and the ascending tephra plume resulted in the formation of turbulent structure in the plume. Particles with a settling velocity greater than ~ 1 2 m/s (diameter >0.5 mm) were able to overcome the turbulent structure and settled in a manner predicted by the advection diffusion equation. Those with lower settling velocities were caught up in turbulent structure and deposited off of the major axis of dispersion, near the edges of the overall tephra blanket. Thus, ii iii

PAGE 6

6 this data set provides the f irst estimate of the strength of such turbulent structures in advecting plumes, and illustrates the limitations of the typical advection diffusion models in describing some transport processes. iv

PAGE 7

7 1. Introduction The advection diffusio n equation is widely used to forecast tephra dispersal at the worlds active volcanoes [ Armienti et al ., 1988; Barberi et al. 1990; Bonadonna et al. 2002; Carey and Sparks 1986; Connor et al 2001; Hill et al ., 1998; Macedonio et al ., 1988 ] Here we test the advection diffusion equation using medial facies data collected from the sub plinian April 1992 eruption of Cerro Negro in Nicaragua. We find that the models applying analytic al and /or numerical solutions to the advection diffusion equation do no t capture the complexity of the depositional process es during this eruption. These models are particularly poor for describing the distribution of fine grained particles in the 1992 deposit, which we have mapped in detail. Instead, our findings suggest t hat complex turbulent structure in the plume has a strong impact on the distribution of fines. The advection diffusion equation is used to model numerous transport phenomena in the Earth Sciences. Contaminant transport [ Anderson 1979] salt water intru sion [ Herbert and Lloyd 2000 ; Tejeda et al 2003] and population distribution [ Sibert and Fournier 1994 ; Sibert et al ., 1999] rely on the advection diffusion equation to simulate complex transport processes. Because of this wide use, it is critical to understand the limitations of this approach. Our investigation of tephra dispersion offers insights into the limits of applicability of these models for simulating natural phenomena. T he advection diffusion equation is currently in wide use to model te phra fallout from erupting volcanoes Essentially, the advection diffusion equation is solved to obtain 1

PAGE 8

2 the mass of tephra accumulated at some geographic location relative to the volcanic vent. Horizontal diffusion and advection of the ash particles are governed by atmospheric turbulence cloud spreading, and wind movement respectively. Vertical transport is determined by the sett ling velocity of the particles. Most often, the advection diffusion equation is solved by deriving an analytical solution or partitioning of the sample space into a grid, and numerically integrating the discretized version of the advection diffusion equation [ Armienti et al 1988 ; Glaze and Self 1991; Hill et al ., 1998 ]. All models of tephra dispersion and fallout make simp lifying assumptions. For example, in some models the eruption column is treated as a line source, where some change in particle concentration with height is assumed [ Suzuki 1983; Connor et al 2001] Tephra particles are segregated from this column base d on their settling velocity, parameters that govern particle diffusion out of the column and turbulent diffusion. Meteorological dat a are also incorporated in the model as uniform or stratified wind fields [ Lacasse 2001] These assumptions, in part, co ntrol the modeled map pattern of tephra accumulation and hazard forecasts. Models based on the advection diffusion equation predict that at a given distance, most of the mass will be deposited al ong a major axis of dispersion and Gaussian diffusion govern s accumulation off the major axis of dispersion. Along the axis, there will be a change in median grainsize with distance from the vent. Larger grains will be deposited proximal to the vent and fines will settle out of the column at a greater distance. The deposit will thin according to exponential thinning [ Pyle 1989] We test these models by preparing a detailed set of isoma ss maps for the

PAGE 9

3 April 1992 eruption of Cerro Negro volcano. This eruption is particularly useful because of a relatively sim ple windfield and a clear major axis of dispersion. 2. Cerro Negro Cerro Negro is a small volume basaltic cinder cone on the north flank of the El Hoyo volcano complex in the central Mar r a bios R ange of Nicaragua (figure 1). Together with the adj acent Telica, San Cristobal, and Rota volcanoes (to the NW) and Momotombo volcano (to the SE), Cerro Negro is part of the main volcanic front of the Central American Arc. Similarly to Paricutin, Mexico, t his volcano formed very recently (first erupted in 1850 ) and has erupted at least 23 times since its formation [ Hill et al ., 1998; McKnight and Williams 1997 ; LaFemina et al ., 2004 ]. These eruptions produced compositionally similar basalt and basalt andesites [ Roggensack et al. 1997] and lava flows reac hing several km in length. The crystallinity of the majority Figure 1 : Location map for the Central American Volcanic Arc showin g the location of Cerro Negro Volcano, Nicaragua. Black triangles show volcanoes active in the Holocene.

PAGE 10

4 of the Cerro Negro lavas is in the order of 50%, with abundant phenocrysts of olivine, plagioclase, and pyrocene. Since 1968 the volcano has undergone 4 large tephra eruptions; 1968, 1971, 1992 1995. The 1968 eruption of Cerro Negro released 9.7 x 10 6 m 3 of pyroclastic material [ Hill et al ., 1998 ]. The largest tephra eruption occurred in 1971, with 3.0 x 10 7 m 3 of tephra erupted. The 1992 eruption of Cerro Negro consisted of two distinct ph ases. The first eruptive phase lasted for approximately 6 hours and was the most energetic phase of the eruption with a maximum column height of ~ 7 km above sea level The second phase of the eruption lasted for 17 hours and was less energetic than the p revious phase with a column height of 1 4 km above sea level and a bent over plume. The entire eruption produced 2.3 x 10 7 m 3 of tephra. The most recent large tephra eruption took place in 1995. The maximum column height was between 2 2.5 km and the tephra fall volume was estimated as 2.16 x 10 6 m 3 [ Hill et al 1998]. As expected, the volatile contents of tephra samples from 1992 eruption are with elevated H 2 O contents (4.2 6 wt %) in respect to the less explosive eruption of 1995 (1.2 4.2 wt %) [ Roggensack et al. 1997]. The tephra released during all of these eruptions settled along a major axis of dispersion to the west of Cerro Negro. This poses a significant hazard to the second largest city in Nicaragua, Leon, which is located to the we st of the volcano, very near the axes of dispersion for all four eruptions. Past eruptions have caused building collapse, contaminated water supplies, agricultural damage, and other public health concerns in Leon [ Hill et al ., 1998].

PAGE 11

5 3. Analytical Techniques The 1992 tephra blanket is particularly well preserved because it is buried by the 1995 tephra deposit. We sampled the 1992 tephra blanket of Cerro Negro in 80 locations ranging from 1 13 km from the volcano. At each location, a trenc h was dug until the base of the 1992 deposit was reached, readily identified by a sudden change in color, grainsize, and occasionally by the presence of roots. The thickness of the deposit was measured and samples of the deposit were collected for granulo met r ic analysis. There was no evidence of reworking of the tephra as the thickness measurements taken were in agreement with thickness measurements taken at some sites directly after the 1992 eruption. Cumulate d eposit density was measured in the field a t each of the 80 sites which is 1186 133 kg/m 3 These data provide an estimate of total mass per unit area at Figure 2 : Isomass map of the entire 1992 tephra deposit. The contour interval is 100 kg/m 2 Circles represent sa mple locations. Map shown in UTM coordinates, datum NAD27. Solid black line represents location of the major axis of dispersion. Contouring was done using G eneric M apping T ool (GMT)

PAGE 12

6 each site, and these estimates were contoured across the region (figure 2). Near vent mass is considerably thicker than shown, as our sample pits could not reach the base of the deposit where thickness exceeded 2m. Similarly, the contour map is not interpolated to thin distal areas because the deposit in the distal region >13 km from the vent, is eroded or disturbed. 3.1 Granulometry Isomass maps were prepared for individual grain si zes at 0.5f intervals from each of the 80 sites. These isomass maps reveal several important features of the deposit. First, median grainsize decreases with distance from the vent, as e xpected (figures 3a and 3b) At coarse grain sizes, 4.0 thru 1.0f a maximum in accumulation occurs along the major axis of dispersion. The location of this maximum is i ncreasingly distant from the vent along the major axis of dispersion for successivel y finer grain size fractions (figure 3a). A similar result was observed at R ua p eh u volcano, New Zealand and interpreted to be caused by turbulent structure in the weak plume [ Bonadonna et al. submitted ]. The most surp rising result, however, is that the maxima in the fine grained fraction (>1.0 f ), of the deposit are not evenly distributed along the major axis of dispersion. Accumulation of fine grained particles is actually greatest off the major axis of dispersion (Figure 3b) Maximum accumulation tends to occur approximately 2 3 km off of the major axis of dispersion. This result is consistent for each grain size fraction finer than 1.0f.

PAGE 13

7 Figure 3: (a) (top) Isomass map for th e coarse grained portion of the 1992 tephra deposit. The plotted values are the sum of the isomass values of grain sizes 4.0 thru 1.0f (16mm < d < 0.5mm). The deposition of these larger grains was focused along the main axis of dispersion. Contour interval is 1 00 kg/m 2 Map shown in UTM coordinates, datum NAD27. Solid black line represents location of the major axis of dispersion. Contouring was done using G eneric M apping T ool (GMT) (b) (bottom) Isomass map for the fine grained portion of the 1992 tephra deposit. The values plotted are the sum of the isomass values of the grain sizes 1.5 thru 3.5f (0.35mm < d < 0.09 mm). Maxima in deposition of fines occur off the major axis of dispersion. Contour interval is 20 kg/m 2 Map shown in UTM coordinates, d atum NAD27. Solid black line represents location of the major axis of dispersion. Contouring was done using Generic Mapping Tool ( GMT ) a: b:

PAGE 14

8 4. Discussion The reported partitioning of tephra fallout along and about the major axis of dispersion cannot be explained using traditional models of tephra dispersion that rely on advection and diffusion from a simple source. Instead, turbulent structure [ Cunningham et al. in press ] and perhaps subtle bifurcation of the plume [ Ernst et al 1996] are possible str uctures controlling distribution of tephra fallout. For example, incipient vortex counter rolls [ Fric and Roshko 1994] in the advecting plume may cause the pattern we observe in fine grained tephra fallout. If so, we can calculate the upward velocities of these turbulent structures by considering the settling velocities of particle s as a function of grain size. The settling velocity, v o as a function of grain size, particle density, and shape can be approximated by using the methods relationship as des cribed in Suzuki [ 1983]: f air tephra f f tephra o g g v r f r r r h hr f r f + + = 07 1 5 1 81 9 ) ( 3 64 0 2 32 0 2 (1) where ? tephra is the density of tephra particles, g is gravitational acceleration, ? is air viscosity, ? air is air density, and p f is particle shape factor a c b f p p p p 2 + = (2)

PAGE 15

9 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Phi Units Settling Velocity at Sea Level (m/s) 1000 kg/m3 1200 kg/m3 1400 kg/m3 where subscripts a, b, and c refer to the diameter of the particle along the principle axes: and p a > p b > p c [ Suzuki 1983]. The values for ? tephra and p f were varied and the settling velocit ies recalculated to provide a range of settling velocities for each grain size ( Figure 4 ). Coarse tephra grains (>0.5mm) have settling velocities >1 2 m/s (equations 1 and 2). Maxima for these grain sizes fall on the major axis of dispersio n for the 1992 deposit (figure 3a). Fine tephra grains (<0.5 mm) have settling velocities (v o ) of ~ 2 m/s or less and are redistributed in the deposit with maximum thickness 1 3 km off the major axis of dispersion. This suggests that turbulent structures in the plume had maximum upward Figure 4: Calculated settling velocities of particles with varying grain size and density using the method of Suzuki [1983]. Particle shape factor was estimated at 0. 55. The settling velocity calculated for the fine particles which were mainly deposited off of the major axis of dispersion is < 1 2 m/s.

PAGE 16

10 velocities ~ 1 2 m/s, and that these rotating cells were of diameter ~1 3 km, depending on where the particles fell out of the vortices. The occurrences of such structures in volcanic plumes injected into a windfield are p redicted by fluid dynamic simulations [ Fric and Roshko 1994; Cunningham et al. in press] Here we show that such structures actually impact tephra deposition, resulting in complexity in these deposits that are not predicted by the advection diffusion e quation. As the scale of turbulent structures depends on the relative velocities of the plume and windfield [ Fric and Roshko 1994], models of tephra deposition and related hazards may benefit from consideration of scale and velocity of these features of volcanic plumes.

PAGE 17

11 References: Anderson, M.P. Using Models to Simulate the Movement of Contaminants through Groundwater Flow Systems Critical Reviews in Environmental Control 9(2), 97 156 1979 Armienti, P., G. Macedonio, and M.T. Paresch i, A numerical model for simulation of Tephra transport and deposition: applications to May 18 Mount St. Helen Eruption, J Geophys. Res 93, 6463 6376 1988. Barberi, F., G. Macedonio, M.T. Pareschi, and R. Santacr oce, Mapping the tephra fallout risk: an example from Vesuvius, Italy, Nature 344 142 144, 1990. Bonadonna, C., G. Macedonio, and R.S.J. Sparks, Numerical mode ling of tephra fallout associated with dome collapses and Vulcanian explosions: application to hazard assessment on Montserrat, in The eruption of Soufrire Hills Volcano, Montserrat, from 1995 to 1999 edited by T.H. Druitt, and B.P. Kokelaar, 517 537, Geo logical Society, London, Memoir, 2002. Bonadonna, C., J.C Phillips, and B.F. Houghton, Modeling tephra fall from a Ruapehu weak pl ume eruption, in press. Carey, S.N., and R.S.J. Sparks, Quantitative models of the fallout and dispersal of tephra from volcanic eruption columns, Bul Volcanol. 48 109 125, 1986. Connor, C.B., B.E. Hill, B. Winfrey, N.M. Franklin, and P.C. LaFemina, Est imation of volcanic hazards from tephra fallout, Natural Hazards Review 2, 33 42 2001 Cunningham P., S.L. Goodrick, M.Y. Hussaini, and R.R. Linn, Coherent vortical structures in numerical simulations of buoyant plumes from wildland fires, submitted to 5 th Symposium on Fire and Forest Meteorology on January 26, 2004. Ernst, G.G.J., R.S.J. Sparks, S.N. Carey, and M.I. Bursik, Sedimentation from turbulent jets and plumes, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 101 (B3), 5575 5589 1996. Fric, T.F., and A. Roshko Vortical structure in the wake of a transverse jet, J. Fluid Mechanics 279, 1 47, 1994.

PAGE 18

12 Glaze, L., and S. Self, Ashfall dispersal of the 16 September 1986, eruption of Lascar, Chile, calculated using a turbulent diffusion model, Geophys. Res. Let t. 18, 1237 1240, 1991. Herbert A.W., and J.W. Lloyd, Approaches to modeling saline intrusion for assessment of small island water resources, Quarterly J. Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 33(1), 77 86, 2000. Hill, B.E., C.B. Connor, M.S. Jarzemba, and P.C. LaFemina, 1995 eruptions of Cerro Negro, Nicaragua and risk assessment for future eruptions, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull 110, 1231 1241, 1998. Lacasse, C., Influence of climate variability on the atmospheric transport of Icelandic tephra in the subpolar North Atlantic, Global and Planetary Change 29, 31 55, 2001. LaFemina, P., Connor, C.B., Hill, B.E., Strauch, W., and Saballos, J.A, Magma tectonic interactions in Nicaragua: the 1999 seismic swarm and eruption of Cerro Negro volcano, J. Volcanology and Geothermal Research 137(1 3), 187 199, 2004. Macedonio, G., Pareschi, M.T., Santacroce, R.A., Numerical simulation of the Plinian fall phase of 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius, J Geophys. Res 93(B12), 14817 14827, 1988. McKnight, S. B. and S.N. Williams, O ld cinder cone or young composite volcano? The nature of Cerro Negro, Nicaragua: Geology 25(4), 339 342, 1997. Pyle, D. M., The thickness, volume and gr ainsize of tephra fall deposits, Bul. Volcanol 51, 1 15 1989 Roggensack, K., R.L. Hervig, S.B. McKn ight, and S.N. Williams, Explosive basaltic volcanism from Cerro Negro Volcano, Nicaragua: the influence of volatiles on eruption style, Science 277, 1639 1642, 1997 Sibert, J. R., J. Hampton, D. A. Fournier, and P. J. Bills. 1999. An advection diffusion reaction model for the estimation of fish movement parameters from tagging data, with application to skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis ). Can adian Journal of F ish eries and A quatic Science s 56, pp. 925 938. Sibert, J.R. and D.A. Fournier, Evaluation of adv ection diffusion equations for estimation of movement patt erns from tag recapture data, Proceedings of the First FAO Expert Consultation on Interactions of Pacific Ocean Tuna Fisheries 1 --Summary report and papers on interaction 108 121 R. S. Shomura J. Majkowski and S. Langi ( eds .) FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 336/1, 326, 1994.

PAGE 19

13 Suzuki, T., A theoretical model for dispersion of tephra, A rc Volcanism: Physics and Tectonics D. Shimozuru and I. Yokoyama, Eds., Terra Publishing Co., 95 113 1983. Teje da I., R. Cienfuegos J.F. Muoz and M. Durn Numerical modeling of saline intrusion in the Salar de Atacama J. Hydro. Engineering 8( 1 ), 25 34, 2003.

PAGE 20

14 Appendices

PAGE 21

15 Appendix A: Map of Sit e Locations and Thicknesses at Each Site

PAGE 22

16 Appendix B : Isopach Map of the 1992 Cerro Negro Tephra Deposit

PAGE 23

17 Appendix C: Histograms of Granulometry Results at each Site

PAGE 24

18 Appendix C (C ontinue d)

PAGE 25

19 Appendix C (C ontinued)

PAGE 26

20 Appendix C (C ontinued)

PAGE 27

21 App endix C (C ontinued)

PAGE 28

22 Appendix C (C ontinued)

PAGE 29

23 Appendix C (C ontinu ed)

PAGE 30

24 Appendix C (C ontinued)

PAGE 31

25 Appendix C (C ontinued)

PAGE 32

26 Appendix C (C ontinued)

PAGE 33

27 Appendix C (C ontinued)

PAGE 34

28 Appendix C (C ontinued)

PAGE 35

29 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 36

30 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 37

31 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 38

32 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 39

33 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 40

34 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 41

35 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 42

36 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 43

37 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 44

38 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 45

39 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 46

40 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 47

41 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 48

42 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 49

43 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 50

44 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 51

45 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 52

46 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 53

47 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 54

48 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 55

49 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 56

50 Appendix D: Density Histogram Plotted for All Si tes

PAGE 57

51 Appendix E: Isomass Maps for Each Grain Size

PAGE 58

52 Appendix E (C ontinued)

PAGE 59

53 Appendix E (C ontinued)

PAGE 60

54 Appendix E ( C ontinued)

PAGE 61

55 Appendix E (C ontinued)

PAGE 62

56 Appendix E (C ontinued)

PAGE 63

57 Appendix E ( C ontinued)

PAGE 64

58 Appendix E (C ontinued)

PAGE 65

59 Appendix F: Table of Thickness, Density, and Isomass for Each Site Site Easting Northing Layer Mass Thickness Density Isomass (m) (m) (g) (cm) (m) (kg/m 3 ) (kg/m 2 ) 1 526774 1381087 A 1235 33 0.33 982.50 324.22 B 1550 15 0.15 1233.09 184.96 2 526028 1380972 A 1135 23 0.23 902.94 207.68 B 1528 4 0.04 1215.59 48.62 3 525477 1380291 A 1187 33 0.33 944.31 311.62 B 1478 14 0.14 1175.82 164.61 4 524516 1379866 A 1323 10 0.1 1052.51 105.25 B 1514 12 0.12 1204.4 6 144.53 5 523595 1379462 A 1466 15 0.15 1166.27 174.94 B 1474 6 0.06 1172.63 70.36 6 522674 1379481 A 1403 17 0.17 1116.15 189.75 B 1551 3 0.03 1233.89 37.02 7 521642 1379304 Mixed 1438 15 0.15 1143.99 171.60 8 520715 1378964 Mixed 1374 11 0.11 1093.08 120.24 9 519877 1378201 Mixed 1580 5 0.05 1256.96 62.85 10 520742 1379432 Mixed 1555 13 0.13 1237.07 160.82 11 520990 1380130 Mixed 1508 13 0.13 1199.68 155.96 12 520892 1381127 Mixed 1401 15 0.15 1114.56 167.18 13 521902 1382109 Mixed 1493 6 0.06 1187.75 71.26 14 522118 1379921 Mixed 1316 15 0.15 1046.94 157.04 15 523973 1380489 A 1376 8 0.08 1094.67 87.57 B 1179 18 0.18 937.95 168.83 16 525162 1380976 B 1286 25 0.25 1023.07 255.77 17 525544 1381476 A 1174 13 0.13 933.97 121 .42 B 1472 11 0.11 1171.04 128.81 18 525760 1382320 Mixed 1479 13 0.13 1176.61 152.96 19 524400 1382378 Mixed 1508 23 0.23 1199.68 275.93 20 523387 1382182 Mixed 1733 14 0.14 1378.68 193.02 21 522453 1381550 Mixed 1688 11 0.11 1342.88 147.72 22 521894 1380712 Mixed 1651 13 0.13 1313.44 170.75 23 529889 1379931 B 1478 21 0.21 1175.82 246.92 24 529139 1380417 Mixed 1291 81 0.81 1027.05 831.91 25 528622 1380874 Mixed 1501 120 1.2 1194.11 1432.94 26 527524 1380945 Mixed 1306 71 0.71 1038.98 737. 68 27 526823 1381601 A 1172 16 0.16 932.38 149.18 B 1533 20 0.2 1219.57 243.91 28 526524 1381709 A 1281 11 0.11 1019.09 112.10 B 1576 18 0.18 1253.78 225.68

PAGE 66

60 Appendix F (Continued) 29 524433 1381454 A 1123 9 0.09 893.40 80.41 B 149 6 14 0.14 1190.14 166.62 30 523722 1381349 Mixed 1446 24 0.24 1150.36 276.09 31 528142 1381657 A 1127 31 0.31 896.58 277.94 B 1512 35 0.35 1202.86 421.00 32 529178 1382180 Mixed 1478 62 0.62 1175.82 729.01 33 529811 1382324 A 1440 72 0.72 1145.5 8 824.82 34 530232 1382772 A 1472 23 0.23 1171.04 269.34 B 1557 8 0.08 1238.66 99.09 35 530418 1383102 Mixed 1503 63 0.63 1195.70 753.29 36 531371 1382795 A 1720 48 0.48 1368.34 656.80 B 1251 24 0.24 995.23 238.85 37 529666 1383245 A 1522 25 0.25 1210.82 302.70 B 1668 8 0.08 1326.97 106.16 38 528975 1383175 Mixed 1854 26 0.26 1474.94 383.48 39 522302 1377932 Mixed 1794 10 0.1 1427.21 142.72 40 528159 1380191 Mixed 1329 87 0.87 1057.28 919.83 41 527137 1380167 Mixed 1186 72 0.72 943.52 679.33 42 526109 1380543 A 1342 34 0.34 1067.62 362.99 B 1219 20 0.2 969.77 193.95 43 525983 1379744 A 1355 42 0.42 1077.96 452.74 B 1526 8 0.08 1214.00 97.12 44 524920 1379122 A 1594 22 0.22 1268.10 278.98 45 523983 1378749 Mixed 1406 22 0.22 1118.54 246.08 46 523174 1379228 Mixed 1368 23 0.23 1088.31 250.31 47 522536 1378550 Mixed 1538 30 0.3 1223.55 367.06 48 521505 1378499 Mixed 1568 22 0.22 1247.41 274.43 49 521747 1377510 Mixed 1499 21 0.21 1192.52 250.43 50 522806 137776 1 Mixed 1539 12 0.12 1224.34 146.92 51 523894 1377922 Mixed 1575 19 0.19 1252.98 238.07 52 524826 1378577 Mixed 1555 23 0.23 1237.07 284.53 53 525759 1378887 Mixed 1490 19 0.19 1185.36 225.22 54 526664 1378620 Mixed 1590 26 0.26 1264.92 328.88 55 5279 27 1379208 Mixed 1300 42 0.42 1034.21 434.37 56 528574 1379238 Mixed 1595 17 0.17 1268.89 215.71 57 530429 1379430 Mixed 1597 27 0.27 1270.49 343.03 59 531058 1380228 Mixed 1537 8 0.08 1222.75 97.82 60 530597 1380732 A top 1372 13 0.13 1091.49 141.89 B 1452 22 0.22 1155.13 254.13 A Bottom 1212 20 0.2 964.20 192.84 61 531878 1381004 Mixed 1420 25 0.25 1129.67 282.42

PAGE 67

61 Appendix F (Continued) 62 531201 1381246 A 1377 15 0.15 1095.47 164.32 B 1287 14 0.14 1023.87 143.34 63 530293 1381534 Mixed 1471 160 1.6 1170.25 1872.39 64 529451 1381172 Mixed 1256 150 1.5 999.20 1498.81 65 530518 1380992 Mixed 1471 53 0.53 1170.25 620.23 66 521537 1376665 Mixed 1873 6 0.06 1490.06 89.40 67 522559 1376999 Mixed 1565 1 0.01 1245.03 12.45 68 523856 1 377173 Mixed 1599 3 0.03 1272.08 38.16 69 524591 1377489 Mixed 1929 7 0.07 1534.61 107.42 70 525564 1377877 Mixed 1794 23 0.23 1427.21 328.26 71 526899 1379123 Mixed 1442 28 0.28 1147.18 321.21 72 524505 1380950 A 1201 18 0.18 955.45 171.98 B 16 82 8 0.08 1338.11 107.05 73 522646 1380659 Mixed 1577 23 0.23 1254.57 288.55 74 526416 1382894 A 1479 10 0.1 1176.61 117.66 B 1695 25 0.25 1348.45 337.11 75 527536 1383362 Mixed 1812 39 0.39 1441.53 562.20 76 527796 1382127 Mixed 1439 73 0.73 11 44.79 835.70 77 527021 1381806 Mixed 1417 48 0.48 1127.29 541.10 78 528675 1382740 Mixed 1550 34 0.34 1233.09 419.25 79 528763 1384430 Mixed 1629 9 0.09 1295.94 116.63 80 526617 1379772 Mixed 1494 54 0.54 1188.54 641.81

PAGE 68

62 Appendix G: Table of Granulometry Results for Each Site Sample Name: 1 27 01A 1 27 01B 1 27 02A 1 27 02B 1 27 03A Total Measured Weight (g): 1924.0 2288.0 505.0 375.0 389.0 Weight of each Phi Size (g): 4.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 20.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 1.0 3.0 73.5 10.1 14.5 1.9 1.6 2.5 283.9 62.7 26.0 9.1 9.1 2.0 229.1 136.0 53.9 20.3 17.3 1.5 436.0 240.0 97.3 52.3 34.7 1.0 373.7 404.0 104.0 106.0 56.5 0.5 229.2 534.0 95.0 74.0 83.7 0.0 136.9 376.0 47.0 49.4 80.4 0.5 76.7 265. 0 11.8 26.1 69.8 1.0 9.4 125.0 3.7 12.7 25.8 1.5 1.8 45.0 1.0 11.6 5.6 2.0 0.4 8.9 0.6 6.5 0.5 2.5 0.1 1.2 0.1 2.0 0.1 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 >3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 Calculated Weight (g): 1877.7 2208.1 458.2 374.0 386.1

PAGE 69

63 Appendix G (C ontinued) 1 27 03B 1 27 04A 1 27 04B 1 27 05A 1 27 05B 1 27 06A 1 27 06B 336.0 335.0 334.0 358.0 360.0 369.0 366.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.7 1.4 4.3 0.0 3.0 0.2 4.1 7.8 5.2 7.8 0.7 5.2 1.7 14.6 19.4 14.2 17.8 4.1 12.2 5.0 32.5 36.1 34.3 36.3 17.9 29.7 20.8 63.9 74.9 64.8 62.3 54.3 63.9 55.3 72.0 68.5 81.0 81.2 82.4 77.1 101.7 67.7 67.4 77.8 74.5 102.4 88.1 85.2 2 8.9 33.0 38.1 42.2 59.3 52.9 59.6 6.1 13.8 12.6 16.3 22.5 22.8 24.4 3.1 3.4 1.7 4.1 7.8 8.6 11.7 0.9 0.3 0.4 2.1 2.2 1.7 2.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 1.2 1.2 0.6 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.9 2.1 0.7 1.3 297.5 331.3 332.4 352.6 356.9 366.5 370 .3

PAGE 70

64 Appendix G (C ontinued) 1 27 07 M 1 27 08 M 1 27 09 M 1 27 10 M 1 27 11 M 1 27 12 M 1 27 13 M 362.0 368.0 367.0 369.0 370.0 348.7 368.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.6 1.8 1.3 0.1 0.8 2.7 3.7 4.0 8.8 6.9 1.0 4.8 9.5 12.7 14.0 42.1 21.3 4.6 17.7 37.6 45.3 41.7 109.5 51.0 17.9 49.4 67.7 70.4 79.5 66.6 90.4 52.2 90.0 95.1 108.0 111.9 7 8.8 85.3 73.7 79.3 73.2 58.2 65.8 33.8 48.3 60.0 43.4 35.3 24.4 23.3 8.7 21.4 53.9 24.0 23.6 10.1 10.2 3.1 12.1 32.9 15.8 11.0 4.1 3.9 1.5 7.8 17.7 9.7 3.3 2.2 2.1 5.8 19.6 51.1 31.5 5.6 7.6 8.2 360.8 365.4 365.1 366.5 3 65.9 347.2 365.5

PAGE 71

65 Appendix G (C ontinued) 1 27 14 M 1 27 15A 1 27 15B 1 27 16B 1 27 17A 1 27 17B 1 27 18 M 357.6 370.0 377.6 367.0 333.6 367.4 375.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.4 5.3 7.2 1.2 0.6 0.3 7.0 4.5 12.6 19.7 7.1 3.0 3.0 13.2 11.8 26.1 41.8 13.5 8.0 9.7 36.2 32.8 50.1 72.6 34.3 21.1 26.9 85.0 69.3 75.5 69.1 57.8 40.5 65.4 107.5 109.7 86.2 50.6 86.4 71.6 101.8 70.5 89.6 63.1 29.1 70.0 79.4 98.9 31.7 46.5 31.4 19.7 56.0 73.2 35.5 8.8 7.8 8.5 10.4 24.2 41.6 8.0 4.1 0.7 2.8 5.7 8.1 19.4 3.0 2.1 0.1 1.4 2.3 2.3 5.9 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.8 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.5 2.7 6.1 355.3 368.6 374.3 36 4.4 331.3 365.1 373.5

PAGE 72

66 Appendix G (C ontinued) 1 27 19 M 1 27 20 M 1 27 21 M 1 27 22 M 368.0 371.0 384.3 350.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.8 2.0 0.0 0.6 8.6 4.0 1.2 2.0 17.7 13.1 3.4 7.9 36. 1 20.8 11.9 19.0 69.6 39.6 29.3 4.5 81.8 50.5 46.3 60.3 70.6 66.3 61.1 68.7 37.2 50.4 54.6 45.0 17.1 42.9 45.2 30.4 8.4 26.4 33.6 22.5 5.7 10.8 22.2 13.3 2.6 12.4 15.4 8.8 5.2 29.4 58.7 29.7 365.2 369.5 382.9 312.7

PAGE 73

67 Appendix G (C ontinued) Sample Name: 1 28 23B 1 28 23C 1 28 24 M 1 28 25 M 1 28 26 M Total Measured Weight (g): 365.6 367.5 366.8 375.0 378.4 Weight of each Phi Size (g): 4.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 3.0 4.8 3.5 0.0 0.0 2.4 4.0 4.3 3.0 0.0 4.5 13.7 7.4 15.5 2.5 0.0 3.9 24.2 14.0 21.6 2.0 0.4 6.1 34.8 29.1 26.1 1.5 2.2 12.3 55.9 54.0 54.8 1.0 7.6 24.6 62.0 68.0 71.3 0.5 19.2 56.2 72.3 78.5 80.7 0.0 52.2 81.1 55.4 59.9 52.8 0.5 94.1 73.5 32.2 35.5 30.0 1.0 9 4.5 41.4 9.6 13.3 8.8 1.5 53.6 16.3 1.9 2.9 2.5 2.0 24.1 6.8 0.5 0.8 0.8 2.5 8.9 3.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.0 2.6 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 >3.0 4.1 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Calculated Weight (g): 363.5 365.4 365.0 370.5 374.1

PAGE 74

68 A ppendix G (C o ntinued) 1 28 27A 1 28 27B 1 28 28A 1 28 28B 1 28 29A 1 28 29B 1 28 30 M 336.2 352.7 368.0 351.0 366.0 347.0 342.7 15.1 0.0 13.7 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 5.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 24.3 0.5 17.9 0.4 8.0 0.0 2.8 42 .8 2.3 33.2 1.8 22.9 1.0 4.1 51.4 7.7 45.5 2.6 53.6 2.4 14.7 60.1 14.1 79.0 7.7 82.1 9.9 33.1 52.0 27.5 78.5 16.8 85.3 24.2 55.0 42.3 52.1 53.8 43.0 68.2 52.7 72.0 21.4 78.1 23.6 68.2 27.2 82.9 53.7 10.1 74.7 6.6 93.6 8.0 99.4 39.2 4.1 59.5 2.7 45.7 2.3 52.3 23.0 1.7 21.3 3.1 19.1 1.5 16.1 16.6 0.9 6.2 1.7 7.3 1.1 3.5 8.5 0.3 2.0 0.6 5.8 0.6 0.5 3.9 0.0 1.4 0.1 4.0 0.2 0.1 2.6 0.0 2.4 0.0 30.9 0.1 0.0 11.8 334.2 349.8 365.7 346.9 365.3 345.0 341.0

PAGE 75

69 Appendi x G (C ontinued) 1 28 31A 1 28 31B 1 28 32A 1 28 32B 1 28 33A 1 28 33B 1 28 34A 354.5 356.0 357.2 362.0 375.0 373.0 383.2 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 10.7 6.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 7.1 3.1 15.1 24.2 2.3 3.3 3.2 16.7 9.6 28.5 50.7 1.0 11.7 10.0 28.2 15.8 48.0 64.5 5.0 21.0 20.6 45.2 26.0 56.6 76.3 17.1 44.3 41.0 73.8 49.6 71.8 58.0 40.4 66.8 62.6 71.3 66.3 61.7 39.0 72.5 81.4 79.6 62.6 71.6 46.0 16.2 81.6 67.0 62.2 32.9 56.1 25.1 6.9 70.3 41.6 44.8 16.5 42.4 12.8 2 .6 29.7 13.8 19.4 5.8 7.9 3.7 1.4 9.6 3.7 8.4 1.8 1.9 1.2 0.6 2.6 0.7 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 351.8 354.5 355.4 359.9 374.6 351.5 381.8

PAGE 76

70 Appendix G ( C ontinued) 1 28 34B 1 28 35 M 1 28 35 ( Fine ) 1 28 36A 1 28 36B 1 28 37A 1 28 37B 1 28 38 M 389.0 360.7 367.5 463.4 341.0 372.0 368.0 373.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 125.7 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 4.3 7.5 40.1 5.0 2.5 0.0 0.8 5.6 11.9 11.5 44.1 7.3 5.4 2.7 0.5 18.2 22.3 24.1 51.9 23.8 13.4 5.5 2.5 23.8 38.0 36.3 45.3 34.5 22.2 14.1 4.8 30.7 55.8 51.4 45.2 50.6 40.4 27.3 10.3 42.6 69.4 60.9 37.6 50.4 57.1 43.5 22.1 62.4 71.2 70.1 29.8 50.9 65.4 66.1 46 .7 64.6 51.6 55.5 18.5 42.1 71.2 67.7 63.2 60.8 25.8 36.2 12.7 36.0 55.6 51.5 65.8 38.5 6.8 10.3 6.2 17.4 24.2 24.2 34.7 18.6 1.5 1.8 2.7 6.1 7.8 11.2 18.4 6.7 0.3 0.4 1.2 1.6 1.9 6.3 14.1 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.6 5.6 11.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.4 6.4 10.3 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.5 33.5 65.5 388.2 359 366.0 461.7 340.3 368.6 365.6 370.8

PAGE 77

71 Appendix G ( C ontinued) Sample Name: 1 30 39 M 1 30 40 M 1 30 41 M 1 30 42A 1 30 42B Total Measured Weight (g) : 358.6 357.8 328.9 333.2 345.0 Weight of each Phi Size (g): 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 2.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.3 2.7 3.8 2.7 2.5 0.0 10.5 4.4 6.8 9.1 2.0 0.0 17.7 8.3 21.7 16.4 1.5 0.7 39.9 27.3 44.5 35.9 1.0 2 .1 60.1 57.5 71.6 55.2 0.5 6.5 81.6 85.1 90.9 85.1 0.0 13.9 68.8 73.0 56.3 71.7 0.5 31.0 47.5 47.1 24.6 48.7 1.0 54.5 17.1 14.2 5.7 13.7 1.5 77.9 4.5 3.3 3.0 3.6 2.0 68.7 0.8 0.8 1.6 0.7 2.5 48.5 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.1 3.0 24.6 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 >3.0 28.8 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 Calculated Weight (g): 357.2 355.4 327.2 332.1 342.9

PAGE 78

72 Appendix G (C ontinued) 1 30 43A 1 30 43B 1 30 44A 1 30 44B 1 30 45 M 1 30 46 M 1 30 47 M 344.4 388.4 356.3 338.1 346.9 349.5 339.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 4.9 1.6 2.0 1.7 0.5 1.1 0.4 12.8 3.8 7.1 4.6 3.3 4.8 1.3 25.9 12.0 22.5 11.5 14.3 14.4 2.9 55.5 27.5 51.1 2 6.7 41.4 43.9 6.8 78.8 50.4 71.7 57.2 71.5 75.8 17.2 88.6 78.9 91.0 104.5 84.0 106.8 48.0 46.3 81.4 62.8 82.2 73.3 59.3 63.9 17.3 54.9 27.7 35.3 35.5 26.4 51.6 5.0 27.6 7.8 8.7 11.0 9.2 46.3 1.3 11.1 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.7 39.8 0.7 7.4 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.4 28.7 4.0 29.9 7.8 1.9 5.5 2.0 31.1 343.1 386.5 354.9 337.1 343.5 347.9 338.0

PAGE 79

73 Appendix G ( C ontinued) 1 30 48 M 1 30 49 M 1 30 50 M 1 30 51 M 1 30 52 M 1 30 53 M 381.4 319.1 350 374.5 338.7 346.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.4 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.3 2.4 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.9 1.2 7.7 5.3 3.0 5.3 4.8 4.2 18.3 15.7 9.4 12.7 11.1 10.9 41.7 37.6 28.1 29.7 27.9 27.3 66.4 6 9.1 81.0 64.5 60.1 57.5 94.2 79.9 92.8 74.4 80.0 64.7 62.0 67.0 58.2 70.3 78.1 54.7 29.1 44.3 29.3 42.1 43.9 40.3 9.4 21.8 10.2 16.8 17.3 23.4 2.6 11.0 2.3 8.4 9.4 21.6 1.6 25.4 2.4 21.8 32.3 29.6 7.6 380.0 317.7 348.1 373. 5 336.1 345.7

PAGE 80

74 Appendix G ( C ontinued) 1 30 54 M 1 30 55 M 1 30 56 M 339.4 342.1 373.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.5 1.7 5.6 0.9 4.4 7.4 3.1 17.6 14.5 10.0 39.3 19.5 27.8 67.4 26.4 53.0 71.4 30.8 70.7 69.5 43.7 44.1 36.4 44.4 29.0 15.5 48.8 17.8 5.1 37.7 13.7 2.1 21.4 12.3 1.7 15.9 55.3 8.7 55.3 338.2 340.8 372.5

PAGE 81

75 Appendix G ( C ontinued) Sample Name: 1 31 57 M 1 31 59 M 1 31 60A Top 1 31 60B Total Measure d Weight (g): 335.7 378.0 381.8 351.8 Weight of each Phi Size (g): 4.0 0.0 0.0 36.6 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.2 58.2 0.0 2.5 0.4 1.5 62.5 3.8 2.0 0.8 3.7 61.5 6.2 1.5 3.3 12.3 61.2 16.2 1.0 6.7 27.1 38.7 28.6 0. 5 16.5 56.3 22.4 51.4 0.0 36.0 75.4 11.0 64.7 0.5 70.5 83.8 5.8 82.5 1.0 68.4 48.1 2.5 58.9 1.5 48.4 27.9 1.5 21.4 2.0 33.2 13.4 0.8 12.5 2.5 16.0 6.7 0.3 1.1 3.0 8.9 5.6 0.1 0.9 >3.0 24.5 13.9 0.1 1.3 Calculated Weight (g): 333.6 376.9 380.2 349.5

PAGE 82

76 Appendix G (C ontinued) 1 31 60A Bottom 1 31 61 M 1 31 62A 1 31 62B 1 31 63 M 1 31 64 M 1 31 65 M 330.5 340.9 370.8 372.3 357.1 389.1 383.4 3.0 0.0 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.6 7.3 0.0 41.5 1.1 4.8 15.1 8.1 21.3 0.0 41.4 5.7 13.5 17.2 26.6 35.7 1.0 46.8 13.3 20.1 37.3 45.7 43.5 4.8 38.7 25.1 33.5 47.3 62.1 64.3 10.6 32.5 52.9 58.4 76.3 78.1 66.0 23.5 24.7 72.3 67.3 74.7 68.3 50.0 52.1 17.5 93.6 72.3 65.9 40.8 24.5 79.9 11.4 68 .9 49.0 35.0 17.2 9.2 93.1 6.7 31.7 27.0 14.5 6.8 2.5 45.9 3.5 5.2 6.7 3.0 2.4 1.0 16.7 2.3 0.5 1.9 0.8 1.2 0.4 4.4 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 1.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 4.8 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 328.8 339.7 368.3 371.3 355.0 387.3 381.8

PAGE 83

77 Appendix G (C ontinued) Sample Name: 2 2 66 M 2 2 67 M 2 2 68 M 2 2 69 M 2 2 70 M Total Measured Weight (g): 320.1 363.2 356.3 383.6 370.5 Weight of each Phi Size (g): 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.3 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.0 2.7 2.0 1.2 2.1 0.5 3.1 5.2 4.7 3.2 7.4 0.0 6.6 11.2 10.0 8.8 19.7 0.5 15.3 32.3 27.8 28.6 4 3.9 1.0 27.5 50.5 40.5 54.9 49.5 1.5 50.7 78.1 59.6 71.7 62.7 2.0 62.8 75.5 62.5 70.3 52.0 2.5 46.5 38.3 38.9 48.0 29.5 3.0 33.4 20.1 24.2 31.7 19.6 >3.0 71.2 46.1 82.8 62.4 81.1 Calculated Weight (g): 318.9 361.4 353.9 381.8 368.4

PAGE 84

78 Appendix G ( C ontinued) 2 2 71 M 2 2 72A 2 2 72B 2 2 73 M 2 2 74A 2 2 74B 2 2 75 M 316.1 349.2 343.6 314.2 353.6 358.9 335.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 0. 1 7.5 0.3 0.3 2.6 0.0 3.4 2.6 18.6 0.8 1.3 6.0 1.2 11.1 8.4 48.7 3.6 6.2 17.3 4.0 18.7 21.0 74.4 10.9 18.0 37.4 9.3 29.3 48.9 91.5 26.0 47.1 65.9 22.7 39.9 70.7 59.8 43.5 72.0 69.0 44.7 40.0 87.9 27.3 61.2 68.8 51.2 74.5 44.7 48.9 9.1 56.1 41.1 31.1 67.4 33.3 17.1 4.2 45.5 17.9 16.4 38.9 24.4 4.5 1.9 26.7 12.5 23.1 18.2 16.6 1.1 0.9 13.0 5.9 17.1 14.0 13.6 0.7 0.7 9.4 3.2 2.6 12.8 12.4 1.6 0.5 45.2 19.5 11.6 49.3 46.2 314.0 347.5 342.2 313.8 351.3 357.4 334.8

PAGE 85

79 Appendix G (C ontinued) 2 2 76 M 2 2 77 M 2 2 77 Fine 2 2 78 M 2 2 79 M 2 2 80 M 363.6 360.3 317.2 362.2 371.1 370.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 4.4 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 4.4 16.9 0.2 3.6 2.2 0.0 8.9 20.3 1.5 10.4 5.9 2.3 18.9 28.3 6.2 25 .3 11.1 7.2 40.2 44.8 13.2 52.8 26.2 15.4 52.0 51.3 29.0 71.2 48.3 31.8 77.1 52.9 51.6 75.6 80.1 61.5 73.7 44.0 62.5 52.5 83.7 72.5 50.8 37.8 62.5 32.1 54.7 91.5 22.1 21.6 34.0 12.3 15.9 55.8 5.4 11.4 15.4 9.0 4.8 22.0 1.3 5.9 7.1 4.2 2.7 5.3 0.4 3.4 5.2 4.2 2.6 1.0 0.0 2.7 5.2 1.8 3.0 0.5 0.0 12.9 22.3 2.5 28.5 0.9 361.2 358.6 315.9 359.7 369.7 367.7

PAGE 86

80 Appendix H: Spreadsheet of Calculated Settling Velocities Settling Velocities calculated with Given Densities ? ash= 900 ? ash= 1000 ? ash= 1100 ? ash= 1200 ? ash= 1300 ? ash= 1400 ? ash= 1500 v o ( f) = v o ( f) = v o ( f) = v o ( f) = v o ( f) = v o ( f) = v o ( f) = Phi Size: 4.0 10.29 10.85 11.38 11.89 12.37 12.84 13.29 3.5 8.65 9.12 9.57 9.99 10.4 10.79 11.17 3.0 7.27 7.66 8.04 8.39 8.74 9.07 9.39 2.5 6.10 6.43 6.75 7.05 7.34 7.62 7.88 2.0 5.12 5.39 5.66 5.91 6.16 6.39 6.62 1.5 4.28 4.52 4.74 4.95 5.16 5.35 5.54 1.0 3.57 3.77 3.96 4.14 4.31 4.47 4.63 0.5 2.96 3.13 3.29 3.44 3.58 3.72 3.86 0.0 2.44 2.58 2.71 2.84 2.96 3.07 3.19 0.5 1.97 2.09 2.2 2.31 2.41 2.51 2.6 1.0 1.56 1.66 1.75 1.84 1.92 2.01 2.08 1.5 1.18 1.26 1.34 1.41 1.48 1.55 1.62 2.0 0.84 0.9 0.97 1.02 1.08 1.14 1.19 2.5 0.55 0.59 0.64 0.68 0.73 0.77 0.81 3.0 0.32 0.35 0.38 0.41 0.44 0.47 0.5 3.5 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.28