GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 40, 1–5, doi:10.1002/grl.
50942, 2013
Density-driven transport in the umbrella region of volcanic clouds:
Implications for tephra dispersion models
Antonio Costa,1 Arnau Folch,2 and Giovanni Macedonio3
Received 17 July 2013; revised 5 September 2013; accepted 6 September 2013.
[1] Large explosive volcanic eruptions can generate ash
clouds from rising plumes that spread in the atmosphere
around a Neutral Buoyancy Level (NBL). These ash clouds
spread as inertial intrusions and are advected by atmospheric
winds. For low mass flow rates, tephra transport is mainly
dictated by wind advection, because ash cloud spreading due
to gravity current effects is negligible (passive transport).
For large mass flow rates, gravity-driven transport at the
NBL can be the dominant transport mechanism. Conditions
under which the passive transport assumption is valid have
not yet been critically studied. We analyze the conditions
when gravity-driven transport is dominant in terms of
the cloud Richardson number. Moreover, we couple an
analytical model that describes cloud spreading as a gravity
current with an advection-diffusion model. This coupled
model is used to simulate the evolution of the volcanic
cloud during the climatic phase of the 1991 Pinatubo
eruption. Citation: Costa, A., A. Folch, and G. Macedonio (2013),
Density-driven transport in the umbrella region of volcanic clouds:
Implications for tephra dispersion models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40,
doi:10.1002/grl.50942.
1. Introduction
[2] Atmospheric transport of tephra released during
explosive volcanic eruptions is significantly affected by the
interaction of the volcanic plume and the atmospheric wind
field. Weak volcanic plumes develop in the troposphere and
follow bent-over trajectories as a result of the wind advec-
tion [e.g., Carey and Sparks, 1986; Bonadonna and Phillips,
2003]. Strong plumes typically rise above the tropopause,
developing a vertical eruption column that, on reaching the
Neutral Buoyancy Level (NBL), spreads laterally as a tur-
bulent gravity current. Under these conditions, the vertical
plume rises above the NBL due to its excess momentum and,
once its vertical velocity approaches zero, subsides feeding
the current that spreads as a lateral intrusion [e.g., Woods
and Kienle, 1994; Sparks et al., 1997]. The larger and higher
the intensity of the eruption, the more this transport mech-
anism dominates over passive wind advection at distances
from tens to several hundreds of kilometers from the source
[Baines and Sparks, 2005].
1
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione di Bologna,
Bologna, Italy.
2
Barcelona Supercomputing Center, Barcelona, Spain.
3
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Osservatorio
Vesuviano, Napoli, Italy.
Corresponding author: A. Costa, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e
Vulcanologia, Sezione di Bologna, Via Donato Creti 12, I-40128 Bologna,
Italy. (antonio.costa@bo.ingv.it)
©2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
0094-8276/13/10.1002/grl.50942
1
[3] Most Tephra Transport and Dispersal Models
(TTDM) [Folch, 2012] build on the assumption of passive
transport, i.e., they assume that the dispersion and sedimen-
tation of tephra particles in the atmosphere are governed
by wind advection, atmospheric turbulent diffusion, and
settling of particles by gravity (e.g., Advection-Diffusion-
Sedimentation (ADS) models) [e.g., Armienti et al., 1988;
Folch et al., 2009]. Conditions under which this passive
transport assumption is valid have not been critically exam-
ined previously, although it has been shown that ADS
models capture the features of past deposits and reproduce
the correct order of magnitude of observations, such as
accumulated tephra thickness, grain size distribution, and
concentration in the atmosphere. Good performance of pas-
sive TTDMs (see Folch [2012] for details) is in apparent
contradiction to gravity current models for volcanic plumes,
especially for high-intensity eruptions and for proximal
transport and proximal depositional facies. One of the rea-
sons even simple analytical ADS models can model many
tephra deposits is that these models use an effective diffu-
sion coefficient (commonly calibrated from past deposits)
that is larger than the actual atmospheric turbulent diffusion,
although the actual spreading due to gravity-driven transport
follows a different time evolution and should be localized
around the source. In this way, even simpler ADS models
are able to mimic the effective increase of the cloud area at
the NBL observed in large-magnitude eruptions.
[4] Here we describe the conditions when gravity-driven
transport is dominant and when it is negligible in terms
of the cloud Richardson number, using an analytical model
describing the radial growth of the cloud. Then we cou-
ple this analytical gravity-driven model with the FALL3D
[Costa et al., 2006; Folch et al., 2009] ADS model in order
to evaluate the relative importance of gravity current effects.
Finally, the coupled model is used to simulate the evolu-
tion of the volcanic cloud during the climatic phase of the
1991 Pinatubo eruption, for which satellite observations are
available and previous studies can help to constrain the key
eruption source parameters [e.g., Koyaguchi, 1996; Holasek
et al., 1996a; Suzuki and Koyaguchi, 2009].
2. Density-Driven Cloud Model
[5] In the initial phase of a Plinian eruption, volcanic
clouds spread as a gravity current around the NBL [e.g.,
Woods and Kienle, 1994; Sparks et al., 1997]. The radius of
the umbrella cloud, R, can be written as a function of time as
[e.g., Woods and Kienle, 1994; Sparks et al., 1997]
 1/3
3Nq
R= t2/3 (1)
2
 COSTA ET AL.: DENSITY-DRIVEN TRANSPORT OF TEPHRA
where t is time,  is an empirical constant, N is the fre-
quency of Brunt-Väisälä due to the ambient stratification of
the atmosphere, and q is the volumetric flow rate into the
umbrella region. The value of  was first estimated to be
in the range  = 0.1 – 0.6 from laboratory experiments and
satellite observations [e.g., Holasek et al., 1996a; Holasek
et al., 1996b] and then constrained to   0.2 from Direct
Numerical Simulations (DNS) [e.g., Suzuki and Koyaguchi,
2009]. The volumetric flow rate into the umbrella region can
be estimated as a function of the efficiency of air entrain-
ment, k, and the mass eruption rate MP as [Morton et al., 1956;
Suzuki and Koyaguchi, 2009]
p MP 3/4
q = C k 5/8
N
where, from the results of Suzuki and Koyaguchi [2009]
 even for timescales t < tp because they use an effective diffu-
0.5  104 m3 kg–3/4 s–7/8 for tropical eruptions
C
1.0  104 m3 kg–3/4 s–7/8 for midlatitude and polar eruptions
(3)
The relationship (1) derives from the conservation equation
d relationship between the front velocity and the radius of the
(R2 h) = q
dt
with the assumption that the velocity of the leading edge
of the spreading current, ub , scales with the average cloud
thickness, h, as
dR
ub = = Nh
dt
Combining (1) and (5), one obtains the radial velocity of the
umbrella spreading as a function of time:
 1/3
2 3Nq
ub = t–1/3
3 2
As the cloud entrains air, it becomes more dilute and, at a
certain distance, atmospheric turbulence and wind advection
transport mechanisms dominate cloud transport. In order
to estimate the radial distance at which this critical transi-
tion between density-driven and passive transport occurs, we
compare the umbrella front velocity ub with the mean wind
velocity uw at the NBL estimating the Richardson number:
 2/3
u2b 4 3Nq
Ri = = t–2/3
u2w 9u2w 2
Atmospheric studies [Zilitinkevich et al., 2008] have shown
that the interval 0.25 < Ri < 1 separates two different tur-
bulent regimes (associated with strong and weak mixing,
respectively) rather than the turbulent and laminar regimes
usually assumed for low and high Ri numbers. That does not
support the existence of a critical Richardson number above
which turbulent mixing is inhibited. Actually, experimental
and observational data indicate that turbulence survives for
Ri  1 [Galperin et al., 2007]. For example, in the free
atmosphere, where Ri typically varies from 1 to 100, signif-
icant turbulence has been observed at all levels [Lawrence
et al., 2004]. Similar observations are valid for the deep
ocean [Galperin et al., 2007] and for dispersion of dense
CO2 clouds, where Cortis and Oldenburg [2009] found
that the threshold between passive and density-dominated
regimes appears around values of Ri ' 0.25 (note that their
Richardson number corresponds to the square root of the one
used here), much larger than the value suggested by Britter
and McQuaid [1988]. Based on these observations, we con-
sider that when Ri > 1, the transport is mainly density driven,
whereas for Ri < 0.25, transport is substantially passive.
[6] From (7), we can estimate the critical time scales
characterizing density-driven (tb ) and passive (tp ) transport
processes:
4Nq
tb = (8)
9u3w
32Nq
tp = (9)
9u3w
Note that the classic passive transport assumption of ADS
models for describing tephra dispersal should not be consid-
(2) ered valid for timescales t < tb , whereas for tb < t < tp ,
both transport mechanisms are relevant. However, as dis-
cussed previously, some ADS models appear to work well
sion coefficient calibrated from observations rather than the
actual atmospheric turbulent diffusion.
[7] Considering equations (4) and (5) and solving the
ordinary differential equation for ub (R) yields the following
(4)
cloud:
 1/2
2Nq 1
ub (R) = p (10)
3 R
For practical purposes, this radial velocity field is considered
(5) only at distances less than Rp = R(tp ) and for heights between
H – h/2 and H + h/2, where H is the NBL height and h the
umbrella thickness. Within this region, the variation of the
velocity field with distance r is given by
 
3 R 1 r2
(6) ub (r) = ub (R) 1+ (0 < r  R) (11)
4 r 3 R2
consistent with the equations above. Our strategy, therefore,
consists of using equations (10) and (11) to compute a time-
dependent radial velocity field centered above the vent in the
umbrella region. This radial velocity is added to the wind
field furnished by the Numerical Weather Prediction Model
to estimate the combined windfield for the ADS model
(FALL3D in our case). By doing this, ADS models can
run with an “effective” velocity field accounting for contri-
(7) butions from both passive and density-driven mechanisms.
Note that, depending on the balance between wind inten-
sity and volumetric flow rate at the NBL, the added radial
velocity field can change the wind advection significantly.
The box model given by equations (10) and (11) provides
a reasonable approximation about the position of the flow
front. Because it is based on the assumption of uniform cloud
thickness, the velocity field inside the cloud predicted by
equation (11), although consistent with equations (4) and
(5), should be viewed as a crude approximation of the real
velocity field. Moreover, because the radial velocity (11)
diverges as r ! 0, numerical calculationsp are truncated
assuming a minimum radius rmin = x2 + y2 , being
x and y the horizontal computational grid sizes. The
method of superposition of the radial flow of density cur-
rent and the ambient wind field is suitable for large steady
eruption columns for which the wind velocity near the vent
is typically much smaller than the radial density current
velocity and the movement of the source position can be
assumed negligible.
2
 COSTA ET AL.: DENSITY-DRIVEN TRANSPORT OF TEPHRA

Table 1. Parameters Used for the Simulation of the Volcanic Plume Evolution of the Climatic Phase of 15 June 1991
Pinatubo Eruption
FALL3D Parameters Values Notes
ı
Computational domain ( ) 18 (lat)30 (lon) -
Horizontal resolution (ı ) 0.15 -
Vertical resolution (m) 1000 -
Bottom-left corner coord. (lat; lon) (3.0; 98.0) -
Vent coord. (lat; lon) (15.133; 120.350) -
Vent elevation (m) 1500 -
TGSD  = 1.5/6.5;  = 1.55/1.55 Assumed(a)
Duration (h) 2.5 (C1)–4.5 (C2)–3 (C3) From Holasek et al. [1996a]
Average column height a.v.l. (km) 37 (C1)–31.5 (C2)–26 (C3) Observed(b)
Mass flow rate (109 kg/s) 1.5 (C1)–1 (C2)–0.3 (C3) Estimated(b)
Mixture exit velocity (m/s) 275 (C1)–225 (C2)–100 (C3) Estimated(b)
Mixture exit temperature (K) 1053 From Suzuki and Koyaguchi [2009]
Mixture exit water fraction (%) 6 From Suzuki and Koyaguchi [2009]
Total mass (1013 kg) 1.3 (C1)–1.6 (C2)–0.3 (C3) Computed
Empirical constant  (-) 0.2 From Suzuki and Koyaguchi [2009]
Brunt-Väisälä frequency N (s–1 ) 0.02 From Suzuki and Koyaguchi [2009]
Empirical constant C (m3 kg3/4 s7/8 ) 0.5  104 From Suzuki and Koyaguchi [2009]
NBL volumetric flow rate (1010 m3 /s) 12.9 (C1)–9.5 (C2)–3.7 (C3) Computed (c)
Meteorological set ECMWF ERA-Interim Rotated and rescaled(d)
a
Assumed as Bi-Gaussian Distribution similar to TGSD of other Plinian eruptions [Folch et al., 2009; Costa et al., 2012]; reported
values refer to the two means and variances of the distribution.
b
MFR and mixture exit parameters at the vent were fixed in order to reproduce the average column heights estimated from Figure 1
of Holasek et al. [1996a] using the BPT model coupled with the wind field [Bursik, 2001; Folch et al., 2012].
c
Computed in accord to equation (3). For comparison, Suzuki and Koyaguchi [2009] estimated q in the range 0.5–1.51011 m3 /s.
d
Original ERA-Interim wind fields were rotated 30ı anticlockwise around the vent and their intensities halved.

3. Application to 1991 Pinatubo Eruption
[8] Mount Pinatubo erupted early in the afternoon of 15
June 1991, generating a Plinian column of 37–39 km high
[Holasek et al., 1996a]. Satellite images revealed a giant
disk-shaped umbrella cloud that expanded radially for about
5 h. The cloud extended up to about 140 km in radius cover-
ing an area of about 60,000 km2 by 14:40 Philippine Local
Time (PLT = UTC + 8). One hour later, at 15:40 PLT,
the cloud radius further expanded up to 200 km, cov-
ering an area larger than 120,000 km2 [Koyaguchi, 1996;
Holasek et al., 1996a]. At 19:40 PLT, the cloud reached a
stagnation point upwind but continued to grow downwind
[Koyaguchi, 1996; Holasek et al., 1996a]. Here we simulate
the climatic phase of the eruption from 13:40 to 23:40 PLT
[Holasek et al., 1996a] using version 7.0 of the FALL3D
code (http://bsccase02.bsc.es/projects/fall3d/). For compu-
tational reasons, we divided the climatic phase in three
intervals named C1, C2, and C3, as follows: C1 from 13:40
to 16:10 PLT with an average column height of about 37
km above the vent level (a.v.l), C2 from 16:10 to 20:40 PLT
with an average column height of about 31.5 km a.v.l, and
C3 from 20:40 to 23:40 PLT with an average column height
of about 26 km a.v.l. [Holasek et al., 1996a].
[9] All the needed model parameters, given by Holasek
et al. [1996a] and Suzuki and Koyaguchi [2009], are sum-
marized in Table 1. For volcanological input parameters,
FALL3D requires specification of the source term, i.e., the
vertical distribution of Mass Flow Rate (MFR) for each
particle class, the column height, and the total grain size dis-
tribution (TGSD). The source term was estimated by means
of the eruption column model implemented in FALL3D
[Costa et al., 2006; Folch et al., 2009], based on the Buoy-
ant Plume Theory (BPT). The BPT plume model embedded
in FALL3D 7.0 is similar to that of Bursik [2001], but
the radial entrainment coefficient is calculated similar to
3
Carazzo et al. [2006] and the crosswind entrainment coef-
ficient is estimated on the basis of the local Richardson
number [Folch et al., 2012]. This model allowed us to com-
pute the MFR and the vertical distribution of mass along the
column as function of the column height and mixture proper-
ties at the vent (exit temperature, velocity, water content, and
TGSD). In order to account for ash aggregation processes
[Costa et al., 2010; Folch et al., 2010], a simple aggre-
gation model similar to that of Cornell et al. [1983] was
used [Costa et al., 2012]. Concerning meteorological data,
we used the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather
Forecasts (ECMWF) ERA-Interim reanalysis at 0.25ı reso-
lution and 37 pressure levels (top at 1 hPa). Unfortunately,
reanalysis data were inconsistent with the stratospheric wind
intensity and direction suggested by cloud satellite images,
giving a greater westward advection than observed in the
satellite imagery [Holasek et al., 1996a; Koyaguchi, 1996].
This discrepancy, already pointed out by Fero et al. [2009]
also for the National Centers for Environmental Prediction
reanalysis data set, can be attributed to the lack of regional
meteorological observations during the pass of a typhoon
[Guo et al., 2004] and to the fact that no real-time atmo-
spheric soundings were possible around Mount Pinatubo
during the eruption [Fero et al., 2009]. In order to match
satellite observations, we rotated the original ERA-Interim
reanalysis wind field 30ı anticlockwise around the vent and
halved the wind intensity.
[10] Figure 1 compares observations of the time evolu-
tion of the plume derived from Geostationary Meteorolog-
ical Satellite (GMS) thermal infrared (IR) satellite images
[Holasek et al., 1996a] with the simulation results, with
and without considering the gravity current model. Clearly,
the simulation considering the gravity current model at the
NBL reproduces eruption cloud features much better than
that using atmospheric turbulent diffusion only, showing a
dominant effect of gravity current spreading both in cross
 COSTA ET AL.: DENSITY-DRIVEN TRANSPORT OF TEPHRA
Figure 1. Growth and movement of the plume on 15 June
1991 at the times reported (Philippine Local Time (PLT)).
(a) Composite of GMS thermal IR satellite images (modi-
fied from Holasek et al. [1996a]), (b) simulated cloud PM10
column mass (vertical integration of concentration) coupling
FALL3D with the gravity current model. Contours are iso-
lines of 1 ton/km2 (i.e., 1 g/m2 ); (c) same simulation but
without considering the gravity current model.
4
Figure 2. Dominant transport mechanism as function of
MFR and distance from the source. The colored area shows
the transition zone, delimited by Ri > 1 (density driven) and
Ri < 0.25 (passive), obtained using equations (1), (8), and
(9) assuming uw =15 m/s,  = 0.2, and N = 0.02. As ref-
erence, the upper x axis shows the corresponding column
height according to Mastin et al. [2009].
and downwind directions. Assuming that an integral column
load of 1 g/m2 represents the satellite detection threshold, the
coupled model is able to reproduce the volcanic cloud areas
with an average error of 15%, the crosswind axes with an
error of 5%, the downwind axes (that are more affected
by the wind field) with an error of 20%, and the cloud-
spreading velocity with an error of 5%. Using the values
estimated by Suzuki and Koyaguchi [2009] for the 1991
Pinatubo eruption (see Table 1) and considering an average
wind velocity of uw  15 m/s, from equations (8) and (9),
we obtain tb  5 h (corresponding to a radius of 450 km),
which is in good agreement with the observed time that the
cloud traveled upwind [Holasek et al., 1996a; Koyaguchi,
1996]. The passive dispersion approximation can be reason-
ably applied for times larger than tb , but it is fully valid only
for times larger than tp  40 h (corresponding to a radius
of 1800 km). This implies that for long-lasting eruptions
having an intensity similar to or larger than that of Pinatubo
1991, density-driven transport dominates for most of the
duration of the transport, whereas for smaller eruptions, the
mechanism is relevant only in the very initial phase of the
eruption (see Figure 2).
4. Conclusions
[11] We analyzed the conditions under which the clas-
sical passive transport assumption is valid for describing
tephra dispersal. An analytical model describing the spread-
ing of the cloud as a gravity current was coupled with an
advection-diffusion-sedimentation model. Conditions when
 COSTA ET AL.: DENSITY-DRIVEN TRANSPORT OF TEPHRA
cloud spreading due to gravity current effects are dominant,
or conversely are negligible, were identified on the basis of
the cloud Richardson number. The coupled model satisfacto-
rily reproduced the observed evolution of the volcanic cloud
during the climatic phase of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption.
[12] Acknowledgments. This work has benefited from funding pro-
vided by the Italian Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri - Dipartimento
della Protezione Civile (DPC), agreement INGV-DPC 2012-2013. This
paper does not necessarily represent DPC official opinion and policies.
A.F. acknowledges funding by the Spanish project ATMOST (CGL2009-
10244). ERA-Interim reanalysis data were provided by European Centre for
Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). We are grateful to review-
ers of the paper, T. Koyaguchi and J. Telling, for useful comments that
improved the paper. We also thank S. Self, C. Connor, and C. Bonadonna
for helpful suggestions on an early version of the paper.
[13] The Editor thanks Takehiro Koyaguchi and an anonymous
reviewer for assistance in evaluating this manuscript.
References
Armienti, P., G. Macedonio, and M. Pareschi (1988), A numerical model
for the simulation of tephra transport and deposition: Applications to
May 18, 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption, J. Geophys. Res., 93 (B6),
6463–6476.
Baines, P., and R. Sparks (2005), Dynamics of giant volcanic ash
clouds from supervolcanic eruptions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L24808,
doi:10.1029/2005GL024597.
Bonadonna, C., and J. Phillips (2003), Sedimentation from strong volcanic
plumes, J. Geophys. Res., 108(B7), 2340, doi:10.1029/2002JB002034.
Britter, R., and J. McQuaid, (1988), Workbook on the dispersion of dense
gases, Tech. rep., HSE Contract Research Report No. 17/1988, Trinity
Road Bootle, Merseyside L20 3QY, U. K.
Bursik, M. (2001), Effect of wind on the rise height of volcanic plumes,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 18(28), 3621–3624.
Carazzo, G., E. Kaminski, and S. Tait (2006), The route to self-similarity in
turbulent jets and plumes, J. Fluid Mech., 547, 137–148.
Carey, S., and R. Sparks (1986), Quantitative models of the fallout and
dispersal of tephra from volcanic eruption columns, Bull. Volcanol., 48,
109–125.
Cornell, W., S. Carey, and H. Sigurdsson (1983), Computer simulation
of transport and deposition of the Campanian Y-5 ash, J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res., 17, 89–109.
Cortis, A., and C. Oldenburg (2009), Short-range atmospheric dispersion of
carbon dioxide, Boundary Layer Meteorol., 133(1), 17–34, doi:10.1007/
s10546-009-9418-y.
Costa, A., G. Macedonio, and A. Folch (2006), A three-dimensional Eule-
rian model for transport and deposition of volcanic ashes, Earth Planet.
Sci. Lett., 241, 634–647.
Costa, A., A. Folch, and G. Macedonio (2010), A model for wet aggregation
of ash particles in volcanic plumes and clouds: I. Theoretical formulation,
J. Geophys. Res., 115, B09201, doi:10.1029/2009JB007175.
Costa, A., A. Folch, G. Macedonio, B. Giaccio, R. Isaia, and V. Smith
(2012), Quantifying volcanic ash dispersal and impact of the
Campanian Ignimbrite super-eruption, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L10310,
doi:10.1029/2012GL051605.
Fero, J., S. Carey, and J. Merril (2009), Simulating the dispersal of
tephra from the 1991 Pinatubo eruption: Implications for the formation
of widespread ash layers, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 186, 120–131,
doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.03.011.
Folch, A. (2012), A review of tephra transport and dispersal models: Evolu-
tion, current status, and future perspectives, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.,
235-236, 96–115, doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2012.05.020.
Folch, A., A. Costa, and G. Macedonio (2009), FALL3D: A computational
model for transport and deposition of volcanic ash, Comput. Geosci.,
6(1334–1342), 35, doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2008.08.008.
Folch, A., A. Costa, A. Durant, and G. Macedonio (2010), A model for wet
aggregation of ash particles in volcanic plumes and clouds: II. Model
application, J. Geophys. Res., 115, B09202, doi:10.1029/2009JB007176.
Folch, A., A. Costa, and S. Basart (2012), Validation of the FALL3D ash
dispersion model using observations of the 2010 Eyjafjallajokull vol-
canic ash cloud, Atmos. Environ., 165–183, 48, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.
2011.06.072.
Galperin, B., S. Sukoriansky, and P. Anderson (2007), On the critical
Richardson number in stably stratified turbulence, Atmos. Sci. Lett., 8(3),
65–69, doi:10.1002/asl.153.
Guo, S., W. Rose, J. Bluth, and M. Watson (2004), Particles in the
great Pinatubo volcanic cloud of June 1991: The role of ice, Geochem.
Geophys. Geosyst., 5, Q05003, doi:10.1029/2003GC000655.
Holasek, R., S. Self, and A. Woods (1996a), Satellite observations and inter-
pretation of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption plumes, J. Geophys. Res.,
101(B12), 27,635–27,655.
Holasek, R., A. Woods, and S. Self (1996b), Experiments on gas-ash sep-
aration processes in volcanic umbrella plumes, J. Volcanol. Geotherm.
Res., 70(3), 169–181.
Koyaguchi, T. (1996), Volume estimation of tephra-fall deposits from the
June 15, 1991, eruption of Mount Pinatubo by theoretical and geological
methods, in Fire and Mud, Eruptions and Lahars of Mount Pinatubo,
Philippines, edited by C. Newhall, and R. Punongbayan, pp. 583–600,
University of Washington Press.
Lawrence, J., M. Ashley, A. Tokovinin, and T. Travouillon (2004), Excep-
tional astronomical seeing conditions above Dome C in Antarctica,
Nature, 431, 278–281.
Mastin, L. G., et al. (2009), A multidisciplinary effort to assign realis-
tic source parameters to models of volcanic ash-cloud transport and
dispersion during eruptions, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 186, 10–21,
doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.01.008.
Morton, B., G. Taylor, and J. Turner (1956), Turbulent gravitational convec-
tion from maintained and instantaneous sources, Proc. Roy. Soc. London,
Ser. A, 234, 1–23.
Sparks, R., M. Bursik, S. Carey, J. Gilbert, L. Glaze, H. Sigurdsson, and
A. Woods (1997), Volcanic Plumes, pp. 574, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
Chichester, U. K.
Suzuki, Y., and T. Koyaguchi (2009), A three-dimensional numerical sim-
ulation of spreading umbrella clouds, J. Geophys. Res., 114, B03209,
doi:10.1029/2007JB005369.
Woods, A., and J. Kienle (1994), The dynamics and thermodynamics of
volcanic clouds: Theory and observations from the April 15 and April
21, 1990 eruptions of Redoubt Volcano, Alaska, J. Volcanol. Geotherm.
Res., 62(1-4), 273–299.
Zilitinkevich, S., T. Elperin, N. Kleeorin, I. Rogachevskii, I. Esau, T.
Mauritsen, and M. Miles (2008), Turbulence energetics in stably stratified
geophysical flows: Strong and weak mixing regimes, Q. J. R. Meteorol.
Soc., 134(633), 793–799, doi:10.1002/qj.264.