Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Brittle fragmentation by rapid gas separation in a Hawaiian fountain

Abstract

Brittle fragmentation, generating small pyroclasts from magma, is a key process determining eruptive style. How low-viscosity magma fragments within a rising fountain in a brittle manner, however, is not well understood. Here we describe a fragmentation process in Hawaiian fountains on the basis of observations from the 2018 lower East Rift Zone eruption of Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai’i. The dominant fragmentation mechanism is inertia driven and produces a population of large fluidal pyroclasts. However, when sufficient volcanic gas is released in the fountain, a subpopulation of smaller and more vesicular pyroclasts is generated and entrained into the gas-dominant convective plume. The size distribution of these pyroclasts is similar to that of brittlely fragmented solid materials. The erupted high-vesicularity pyroclasts sometimes preserve a deformed shape. These observations suggest that late-stage rapid expansion lowers the gas temperature adiabatically and cools the outer surface of liquid pyroclasts below the glass transition temperature. The rigid crust fragments as the hot interior attempts to expand due to further volatile diffusion from the melt into bubbles. Adiabatic expansion of volcanic gas occurs in all eruptions. Brittle fragmentation induced by rapid adiabatic cooling may be a widespread process, although of varying importance, in explosive eruptions.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Time-lapse photographs of F8 fountain.
Fig. 2: Infrared images of the lava fountain and pyroclasts at F8.
Fig. 3: Texture analysis of pyroclasts.
Fig. 4: Possible mechanisms for generating the smaller pyroclasts.

Data availability

The movie used for Fig. 1 is Supplementary Video 1; movies used for Fig. 2, CT data and pictures of reticulites are available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4UVYQ.

Code availability

To create Figs. 2 and 4 and Extended Data Fig. 7, we used MATLAB 9.5. The MATLAB scripts used for the calculations are available from the corresponding author upon request. The CT data in Fig. 3 was analysed using Fiji Is Just ImageJ (https://imagej.net/Fiji) with the Trainable Weka Segmentation plug-in (https://imagej.net/Trainable_Weka_Segmentation).

References

  1. 1.

    Neal, C. A. et al. The 2018 rift eruption and summit collapse of Kīlauea volcano. Science 363, 367–374 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Gansecki, C. et al. The tangled tale of Kīlauea’s 2018 eruption as told by geochemical monitoring. Science 366, eaaz0147 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Eggers, J. & Villermaux, E. Physics of liquid jets. Rep. Prog. Phys. 71, 036601 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Namiki, A. & Manga, M. Transition between fragmentation and permeable outgassing of low viscosity magmas. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 169, 48–60 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Villermaux, E. The formation of filamentary structures from molten silicates: Pele’s hair, angel hair, and blown clinker. C. R. Mécanique 340, 555–564 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Jones, T. J., Reynolds, C. D. & Boothroyd, S. C. Fluid dynamic induced break-up during volcanic eruptions. Nat. Commun. 10, 3828 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Dingwell, D. B. Volcanic dilemma: flow or blow? Science 273, 1054–1055 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Gonnermann, H. M. Magma fragmentation. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 43, 431–458 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Houghton, B. & Gonnermann, H. Basaltic explosive volcanism: constraints from deposits and models. Geochemistry 68, 117–140 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Moitra, P., Gonnermann, H. M., Houghton, B. F. & Tiwary, C. S. Fragmentation and plinian eruption of crystallizing basaltic magma. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 500, 97–104 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Spina, L. et al. Gas mobility in rheologically-layered volcanic conduits: the role of decompression rate and crystal content on the ascent dynamics of magmas. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 524, 115732 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Arzilli, F. et al. Magma fragmentation in highly explosive basaltic eruptions induced by rapid crystallization. Nat. Geosci. 12, 1023–1028 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Mastin, L. G. Generation of fine hydromagmatic ash by growth and disintegration of glassy rinds. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 112, B02203 (2007).

  14. 14.

    Schipper, C. I., White, J. D. & Houghton, B. F. Syn- and post-fragmentation textures in submarine pyroclasts from Lō‘ihii seamount, Hawai‘i. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 191, 93–106 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Stovall, W. K., Houghton, B. F., Gonnermann, H., Fagents, S. A. & Swanson, D. A. Eruption dynamics of Hawaiian-style fountains: the case study of episode 1 of the Kīlauea Iki 1959 eruption. Bull. Volcanol. 73, 511–529 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Porritt, L., Russell, J. & Quane, S. Pele’s tears and spheres: examples from Kilauea Iki. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 333-334, 171–180 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Turcotte, D. L. Fractals and fragmentation. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 91, 1921–1926 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Oddershede, L., Dimon, P. & Bohr, J. Self-organized criticality in fragmenting. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3107–3110 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Domokos, G., Kun, F., Sipos, A. A. & Szabó, T. Universality of fragment shapes. Sci. Rep. 5, 9147 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Fowler, A. C. & Scheu, B. A theoretical explanation of grain size distributions in explosive rock fragmentation. Proc. R. Soc. A 472, 20150843 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Åström, J. A., Ouchterlony, F., Linna, R. P. & Timonen, J. Universal dynamic fragmentation in D dimensions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 245506 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Carmona, H. A., Wittel, F. K., Kun, F. & Herrmann, H. J. Fragmentation processes in impact of spheres. Phys. Rev. E 77, 051302 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kueppers, U., Scheu, B., Spieler, O. & Dingwell, D. B. Fragmentation efficiency of explosive volcanic eruptions: a study of experimentally generated pyroclasts. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 153, 125–135 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Rust, A. C. & Cashman, K. V. Permeability controls on expansion and size distributions of pyroclasts. J. Geophys. Res. 116, B11202 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Jones, T. J. et al. Primary and secondary fragmentation of crystal-bearing intermediate magma. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 327, 70–83 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Pioli, L., Bonadonna, C. & Pistolesi, M. Reliability of total grain-size distribution of tephra deposits. Sci. Rep. 9, 10006 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Mangan, M. T. & Cashman, K. V. The structure of basaltic scoria and reticulite and inferences for vesiculation, foam formation, and fragmentation in lava fountains. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 73, 1–18 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Alidibirov, M. A. A model for viscous magma fragmentation during volcanic blasts. Bull. Volcanol. 56, 459–465 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Namiki, A. et al. Fragility and an extremely low shear modulus of high porosity silicic magma. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 392, 106760 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Höhler, R. & Cohen-Addad, S. Rheology of liquid foam. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 17, R1041–R1069 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Cohen-Addad, S., Höhler, R. & Pitois, O. Flow in foams and flowing foams. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 45, 241–267 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Wright, H. M. N., Cashman, K. V., Rosi, M. & Cioni, R. Breadcrust bombs as indicators of vulcanian eruption dynamics at Guagua Pichincha volcano, Ecuador. Bull. Volcanol. 69, 281–300 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Anderson, K. R. et al. Magma reservoir failure and the onset of caldera collapse at Kīlauea volcano in 2018. Science 366, eaaz1822 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Patrick, M. R. et al. Cyclic lava effusion during the 2018 eruption of Kīlauea volcano. Science 366, eaay9070 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Clarke, B. et al. Fluidal pyroclasts reveal the intensity of peralkaline rhyolite pumice cone eruptions. Nat. Commun. 10, 2010 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Arzilli, F. et al. Crystallization kinetics of alkali feldspar in peralkaline rhyolitic melts: implications for Pantelleria volcano. Front. Earth Sci. 8, 177 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Oppenheimer, C. et al. Influence of eruptive style on volcanic gas emission chemistry and temperature. Nat. Geosci. 11, 678–681 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Rust, A. C. & Manga, M. Effects of bubble deformation on the viscosity of dilute suspensions. J. Non-Newton. Fluid 104, 53–63 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Walker, D. & Mullins, O. Surface tension of natural silicate melts from 1,200°-1,500 °C and implications for melt structure. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 76, 455–462 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Dingwell, D. B. & Webb, S. L. Structural relaxation in silicate melts and non-Newtonian melt rheology in geologic processes. Phys. Chem. Minerals 16, 508–516 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Papale, P. Strain-induced magma fragmentation in explosive eruptions. Nature 397, 425–428 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    McBirney, A. R. & Murase, T. Factors governing the formation of pyroclastic rocks. Bull. Volcanol. 34, 372–384 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Zhang, Y. A criterion for the fragmentation of bubbly magma based on brittle failure theory. Nature 402, 648–650 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Kameda, M. et al. Advancement of magma fragmentation by inhomogeneous bubble distribution. Sci. Rep. 7, 16755 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Timár, G., Kun, F., Carmona, H. A. & Herrmann, H. J. Scaling laws for impact fragmentation of spherical solids. Phys. Rev. E 86, 016113 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Villermaux, E. & Bossa, B. Single-drop fragmentation determines size distribution of raindrops. Nat. Phys. 5, 697–702 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Timár, G., Blömer, J., Kun, F. & Herrmann, H. J. New universality class for the fragmentation of plastic materials. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 095502 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Pandolfi, R. J. et al. Xi-cam: a versatile interface for data visualization and analysis. J. Synchrotron Radiat. 25, 1261–1270 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Nguyen, C. T. et al. Film drainage and the lifetime of bubbles. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 14, 3616–3631 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Princen, H. M., Aronson, M. P. & Moser, J. C. Highly concentrated emulsions. II. Real systems. The effect of film thickness and contact angle on the volume fraction in creamed emulsions. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 75, 246–270 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Gibson, L. J & Ashby, M. F. Cellular Solids: Structure and Properties 2nd edn (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Thermophysical Properties Database System (AIST, 2020); https://tpds.db.aist.go.jp/tpds-web/index.aspx?MaterialID=6515

  53. 53.

    Di Genova, D., Romano, C., Giordano, D. & Alletti, M. Heat capacity, configurational heat capacity and fragility of hydrous magmas. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 142, 314–333 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Zhang, Y. & Stolper, E. M. Water diffusion in a basaltic melt. Nature 351, 306–309 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Okumura, S. & Nakashima, S. Water diffusion in basaltic to dacitic glasses. Chem. Geol. 227, 70–82 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Benage, M. C. et al. Tying textures of breadcrust bombs to their transport regime and cooling history. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 274, 92–107 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Ryan, M. P. & Sammis, C. G. The glass transition in basalt. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 86, 9519–9535 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Wilson, L. & Head, J. W. III. Ascent and eruption of basaltic magma on the earth and moon. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 86, 2971–3001 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Harashima, A. Thermodynamics, Statistical Mechanics (in Japanese) (Baifukan, 1978).

  60. 60.

    Wilson, L., Sparks, R. S. J. & Walker, G. P. L. Explosive volcanic eruptions — IV. The control of magma properties and conduit geometry on eruption column behaviour. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 63, 117–148 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Namiki, A. & Kagoshima, T. Intermittent and efficient outgassing by the upward propagation of film ruptures in a bubbly magma. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 119, 919–935 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Newman, S. & Lowenstern, J. B. VolatileCalc: a silicate melt-H2O-CO2 solution model written in Visual Basic for excel. Comput. Geosci. 28, 597–604 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Ferguson, D. J. et al. Magma decompression rates during explosive eruptions of Kīlauea volcano, Hawai’i, recorded by melt embayments. Bull. Volcanol. 78, 71 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Shea, T. et al. Textural studies of vesicles in volcanic rocks: an integrated methodology. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 190, 271–289 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Ramsey for allowing us to use his FLIR camera, M. Benage for internal review at the USGS, L. DeSmither for sharing her data for fountain height, the field crews from the USGS for their help during the field work, D. Churchill for taking the SEM images in Extended Data Fig. 3 and Y. Tanaka for measuring the vesicularity in Extended Data Table 1. X-ray microtomography was enabled by access to the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Advanced Light Source on beamline 8.3.2. A.N. was supported by JSPS Kakenhi grant numbers 17KK0092 and 19H00721. M.M. was supported by NSF grant number 1615203. B.F.H. was supported by NSF grant number 1829188. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.R.P. recorded the visible and infrared movies, M.M. obtained the CT data and A.N. analysed both datasets. B.F.H. interpreted them in the context of the eruption dynamics. A.N. and M.M. wrote the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and contributed to preparing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atsuko Namiki.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review informationNature Geoscience thanks Laura Spina and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Rebecca Neely.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Map around the F8 cone.

a,b, Panoramic view from the location marked by the red circle in (c) taken on September 16th, 2018. The view angle is denoted by characters α − χ in (c). c, Photo around the F8 cone downloaded from Google Earth in June 2020. The bluish region is the overlay of the digital elevation map around the F8 cone created from thermal images acquired during a helicopter overflight on August 15th, 2018. The yellow square and green square with white rim are the location where the photos in Figs. 1a, 2, and 1b were taken, respectively. The red circle and blue plus indicate the sites where samples in Fig. 3a,b-c are collected, respectively. d, Pictures of the ground surface in a region 0.5 m × 75 mm taken in August 2018. The numbers correspond to the locations denoted by × in (c). The location close to the vent ( × 1 in c) is covered by silvery spatter. Sites close to the cone ( × 2-16) were initially covered by lava flows, then covered by broken reticulite, Pele’s hairs, and tears. The typical size of the pyroclasts is smaller than 50 mm. The locations west of number 17 are covered by large ( > 50 mm) reticulite with a black rind that erupted during the fountaining. The volume ratio of the widespread tephra/cone for F8 has not yet been reported but based on the 1959 Kīlauea Iki cone with similar dimensions to the F8 cone, the volume fraction of F8 widespread tephra is as low as 2%.

Extended Data Fig. 2 A large spatter clast.

A large spatter clast close to the vent ( × 1 in Extended Data Fig. 1c).

Extended Data Fig. 3 SEM images of pyroclasts.

Back-Scatter Electron (BSE) Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) images of pyroclasts from F8 shown in Fig. 3b. Images were collected at 20kV on a Zeiss EVO-10 Variable Vacuum SEM at the University of California, Berkeley. a, A wide field of view shows that crystallinity is low except for the region with clusters of phenocrysts (for example, blue rectangle). The area fraction of crystals in the blue rectangle is 25 %. The outer rim of the sample outlined by the red curve, which experienced fragmentation, contains few crystals. b, Magnified image shows the microlite free glass between bubbles.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Infrared data for other time spans.

Same as Fig. 2, but for other time spans. On 4 and 6 June (19:47-20:00), the fountain shows similar trends observed in Fig. 2a-c, 6 June (20:01-20:12). On 31 May, (a-c and blue curve in j), we used another lens (FOL36mm lens, 28), and the spatial resolution is 0.19 m/pixel. Thus it is difficult to compare with other data directly. However, the areal ratio Sh/Sl is lower than on 4 and 6 June, but higher than 8 June.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Example of one pyroclast from the tephra deposit.

The right and left parts were initially connected. To show the interior, we broke a pyroclast entirely coated by a black glassy rind. The internal brown region is made of small bubbles. A large bubble exists in the middle of the pyroclast. This photograph is taken on August 9th at the location denoted by blue plus in Extended Data Fig. 1.

Extended Data Fig. 6 A collection of photographs of the high vesicularity pyroclasts.

A collection of photographs of the high vesicularity pyroclasts including large bubbles ( ~ 20-30 mm). The size of each picture is approximately 0.1 × 0.1 m2. The edge color of each panel indicates the image locations of samples; blue and whites correspond to blue + and around the white × in Extended Data Fig. 1, and black indicates 1.6 km west-southwest from the F8 vent. The photographs are taken from July - September 2018.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Estimated conditions around the vent.

a, The vent pressure estimated from fountain height and magma vesicularity. Yellow lines identify the observed range of fountain heights, 30-80 m. b, The estimated gas temperature following adiabatic expansion by the pressure reduction from (a). The blue region indicates the glass transition temperature of 680-730 C53,57. c, Estimated vesicularity range from the solubility of water in a basaltic magma62. The initial volatile fraction of the LERZ magma is not yet known, but that for other similar fountains is estimated to be 0.55-0.75 wt.%63, which we used. The blue curves and region show exsolved volatile fraction and vesicularity at the vent, respectively. The red curve shows the remaining volatiles in the melt. We here do not consider CO2, because the estimated CO2 fraction of 170-400 ppm63 is sufficiently smaller than water, and CO2 bubbles exsolved deeper may behave differently from steam bubbles. d, Vesicularity of pyroclasts. The blue and red curves show the vesicularity change from ϕo to ϕ by adiabatic and constant temperature decompression, respectively, from 106 Pa to 105 Pa. We here use 106 Pa as a typical estimate based on (a). The black dashed and dot-dashed curves show the porosity increases by the additional exsolution of 0.01 wt.% and 0.1 wt.% water, respectively. The green shaded region indicates the measured porosity of fall deposited pyroclasts. Estimated vesicularities in (c,d) and pressure in (a) suggest that the magma in the fountain can have a porosity > 0.6, if the separation of gas and melt was not efficient. See Methods for details.

Extended Data Table 1 Measured vesicularities depending on the location of the pyroclasts.

The sampling sites indicate the markers denoted in Extended Data Fig. 1. To obtain the vesicularity, we measured the mass and volume of pyroclasts. To measure the volume, we coated the pyroclasts with a paraffin film and immersed within water. The volume of the solid part is calculated by the mass of the pyroclasts and the density of the solid part, which was obtained by weighing and measuring the volume of the powdered pyroclasts using a pycnometer64.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Video 1

Video of Fig. 1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Namiki, A., Patrick, M.R., Manga, M. et al. Brittle fragmentation by rapid gas separation in a Hawaiian fountain. Nat. Geosci. 14, 242–247 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00709-0

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing