Analysis of the seismic activity associated with the 2010 eruption of Merapi Volcano, Java

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2013.03.024Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Precursory seismic activity started about 6 weeks before eruption onset.

  • Seismic energy release was 3 times that of previous effusive eruptions.

  • Sources of VT events are split into two clusters with different depths.

  • Upward shifting of sources 10 days before eruption

  • Hindsight forecasting of eruption time is obtained with good precision.

Abstract

The 2010 eruption of Merapi is the first large explosive eruption of the volcano that has been instrumentally observed. The main characteristics of the seismic activity during the pre-eruptive period and the crisis are presented and interpreted in this paper. The first seismic precursors were a series of four shallow swarms during the period between 12 and 4 months before the eruption. These swarms are interpreted as the result of perturbations of the hydrothermal system by increasing heat flow. Shorter-term and more continuous precursory seismic activity started about 6 weeks before the initial explosion on 26 October 2010. During this period, the rate of seismicity increased almost constantly yielding a cumulative seismic energy release for volcano-tectonic (VT) and multiphase events (MP) of 7.5 × 1010 J. This value is 3 times the maximum energy release preceding previous effusive eruptions of Merapi. The high level reached and the accelerated behavior of both the deformation of the summit and the seismic activity are distinct features of the 2010 eruption.

The hypocenters of VT events in 2010 occur in two clusters at of 2.5 to 5 km and less than 1.5 km depths below the summit. An aseismic zone was detected at 1.5–2.5 km depth, consistent with studies of previous eruptions, and indicating that this is a robust feature of Merapi's subsurface structure. Our analysis suggests that the aseismic zone is a poorly consolidated layer of altered material within the volcano. Deep VT events occurred mainly before 17 October 2010; subsequent to that time shallow activity strongly increased. The deep seismic activity is interpreted as associated with the enlargement of a narrow conduit by an unusually large volume of rapidly ascending magma. The shallow seismicity is interpreted as recording the final magma ascent and the rupture of a summit-dome plug, which triggered the eruption on 26 October 2010.

Hindsight forecasting of the occurrence time of the eruption is performed by applying the Material Failure Forecast Method (FFM) using cumulative Real-time Seismic Amplitude (RSAM) calculated both from raw records and on signals classified according to their dominant frequency. Stable estimates of eruption time with errors as small as ± 4 h are obtained within a 6 day lapse time before the eruption. This approach could therefore be useful to support decision making in the case of future large explosive episodes at Merapi.

Introduction

Merapi is located on Java Island, about 30 km north of the city of Yogyakarta. It is considered as one of the most dangerous volcanoes of Indonesia because of densely populated surroundings and high levels of eruptive activity. The recent history of Merapi (Voight et al., 2000) is characterized by two eruptive styles: 1) effusive growth of viscous lava domes, with typical recurrence of 4 to 6 years, which collapse gravitationally to produce pyroclastic flows known as «Merapi-type nuées ardentes», 2) exceptional explosive eruptions of relatively large size, associated with column collapse and pyroclastic flows that reach or exceed distances of 10–15 km from the summit. The October–November 2010 eruption is the first large explosive event (VEI ~ 4) at Merapi that has been recorded by a multi-parametric monitoring network. It is also the first modern eruption that was not preceded by emergence of a lava dome. For example, previous instrumentally observed VEI = 1–2 eruptions in 1984, 1986, 1992, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2001, and 2006 were all characterized by lava extrusion followed by dome collapses. Consequently there is a unique opportunity to compare the seismic activity associated with the two types of eruption and to look for precursory evidence of a transition between effusive and explosive styles.

As for most volcanoes in the world, the seismic activity of Merapi is characterized by a large variety of events that correspond to different locations and physical processes of the sources. Since 1984, the classification of events at Merapi includes the following types: deep (VTA) and shallow (VTB) volcano-tectonic, multiphase (MP), low frequency (LF), very long period (VLP) events, tremor and rock fall (Ratdomopurbo and Poupinet, 2000). Hypocenter distributions of VT events from past eruptions display an aseismic zone at 1.5–2.5 km depth, which has been interpreted as a ductile high-temperature zone (Ratdomopurbo and Poupinet, 2000, Wassermann and Ohrnberger, 2001, Hidayati et al., 2008).

Eruptions at Merapi are generally preceded by VT and MP seismicity on varying time scales from weeks to months (Ratdomopurbo and Poupinet, 2000, Voight et al., 2000, Suharna et al., 2007). However, at least two of the past eruptions were not preceded by significant increases in seismicity (1986 and 1994) and these are interpreted as gravitational collapses of summit domes. During the 1991 eruption, about 25% of the shallow VT events were seismic multiplets. These were families of events with similar waveforms and are interpreted to indicate either sources very close to each other and with identical focal mechanisms or to non-destructive and repetitive sources. Ratdomopurbo and Poupinet (1995) analyzed multiplets during 1992 using a cross-spectral method comparison of coda waves. They detected an increase of 1.2% in seismic velocity, possibly related to the pressurization of the magma feeding system. Using records of a repeatable controlled source, Wegler et al. (2006) also observed an increase of the shear wave velocity before the 1998 eruption.

The velocity structure of Merapi is still poorly known. Active experiments using air gun shots have been carried out to investigate this structure (Lühr et al., 1998, Wegler et al., 1999). But, because the direct P- and S-waves generated by surficial sources were rapidly attenuated by scattering within the heterogeneous volcanic medium, no velocity model could be obtained. However, spindle-like shapes of seismogram envelopes were explained by a diffusion model (Wegler and Lühr, 2001). Lacking a more detailed velocity model, hypocenter determinations at Merapi generally use a homogeneous model with P-wave velocity of 3 km s 1 (Ratdomopurbo, 1995, Hidayati et al., 2008) or 2.8 km s 1 (Wassermann and Ohrnberger, 2001). At a broader scale, tomographic analysis (Koulakov et al., 2007, Koulakov et al., 2009, Wagner et al., 2007) reveals an exceptionally strong low velocity anomaly in the crust between the Merapi and Lawu (east of Merapi) volcanic groups. This anomaly is interpreted as a fluid and melt bearing magmatic feeder zone for the volcanoes in the area.

Focal mechanisms of VT events recorded in 2000–2001 were estimated by Hidayati et al. (2008) using both polarity and amplitude of P-wave first motions. VTA and most deep VTB events are of normal-fault types; whereas, VTB events located close to the surface yield both reverse and normal fault solutions.

Hidayat et al., 2000, Hidayat et al., 2002 studied very-long period (VLP) events that occurred in 1998 and determined that these have periods of 6–7 s, display similar waveforms from event to event, and are coeval with MP or LF earthquakes. They carried out moment tensor inversion of the waveforms and proposed a source model consistent with a dipping crack located at about 100 m depth under the 1998 dome. They suggested a source process involving the sudden release of pressurized gas through the crack over a time span of about 6 s. No VLP events were observed during the active periods of 2001 and 2006; whereas, a significant number of VLP events were observed in 2010 prior to and during the eruption (Jousset et al., 2013).

In this paper, we focus on seismic activity that accompanied the 2010 eruption, as well as activity during the year preceding the eruption. We describe the types of seismic events observed and provide a detailed chronology of the seismicity during this period. In particular, the spatial and temporal distribution of the VT earthquake hypocenters yields important information bearing on pre-eruptive processes. We apply the Material Failure Forecast Method (Voight, 1988) to the RSAM values and test the potential of this approach to forecast the time of the eruption onset. Comparisons of seismicity between 2010 and earlier eruptions give some insights into precursory seismic features that may be used to distinguish explosive from effusive eruptions.

Section snippets

Seismic network

The monitoring system of Merapi is operated by BPPTK (Balai Penyelidikan dan Pengembangan Teknologi Kegunungapian), which belongs to CVGHM (Center of Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation). Monitoring of Merapi is mainly based on seismic, deformation and geochemical measurements. A permanent seismic network consists of four short-period (SP) stations equipped with L4C and L22 seismometers. Signals are transmitted to Yogyakarta by radio with VHF modulation and are digitized by a Güralp

Main features of the seismic events

For consistency, the same classification of seismic signals has been used at Merapi since the initial installation of a telemetered network in 1982 (Ratdomopurbo, 1995, Ratdomopurbo and Poupinet, 2000). The main types of signal are classified as volcanotectonic (VT), multiphase (MP), low-frequency (LF), rockfall (RF), and tremor. VT events are characterized by clear onsets and high frequency content (up to 25 Hz). These types of events are similar to common tectonic earthquakes and are

Chronological description of the pre- and co-eruptive seismicity

This section summarizes the history of the seismic activity during the year preceding the eruption, with a focus on the last few weeks preceding the eruption as well as the eruption itself. It mainly relies on routine manual counting and classification of events based on waveform shape. Daily statistics are reported in local time (GMT + 7). Seismic energy reported below is calculated using the Gutenberg–Richter equation:logE=11.8+1.5Mwhere M is the magnitude (Gutenberg and Richter, 1956) and E is

Source locations

From the database of seismic events of Merapi, 679 events recorded on 4 to 9 seismic stations were located for the period that between October 2009 and October 2010. In the present work, the Hypoellipse program (Lahr, 1999) was used with a homogeneous half space velocity model assuming Vp = 3 km s 1 and Vp/VS = 1.86 (Ratdomopurbo and Poupinet, 2000). In order to estimate realistic uncertainties on hypocenter positions, a Monte-Carlo method of error simulation was applied. The observed arrival times

RSAM and hindsight forecasting

Real Time Seismic Amplitude Measurement (RSAM) is a robust tool for monitoring volcanic activity because it provides a simple indicator of the level of seismic energy released (Endo and Murray, 1991). At Merapi, real-time monitoring by RSAM was carried out during the critical period of the eruptive crisis of 2010. A module made by BPTTK calculated the RSAM value every 5 min from the discriminator output of station KLA (Fig. 1). This provided valuable information on the magnitude of the increase

Discussion

The 2010 eruption seismic activity of Merapi during pre-eruptive and eruptive periods presents both features commonly observed during previous monitored eruptions and some characteristics that had never been recorded before, such as an unusually high level of energy release. The types of events identified in 2010 are similar to those observed since seismic stations were installed on the volcano in 1982. Although empirically determined from waveform observations, the event classification also

Conclusion

After an exceptional eruption, it is of paramount importance to carry out a thorough analysis of the data from the monitoring network that could not be processed in detail during the crisis. Aside from early seismic swarms observed 12 to 4 months before the 2010 crisis, the seismic activity of Merapi increased almost monotonically during the 6 weeks preceding the eruption. The numbers of LF events, VLP events and tremors recorded in this period were larger than for smaller past eruptions. The

Acknowledgment

We wish to acknowledge the efforts of the BPPTK staff especially Ilham Nurdin, Febri Sadana, and Purwoto for their struggle to ensure the seismic stations work properly. We are grateful to VDAP USGS for the assistance and donation of short period stations and to MIAVITA project for the broadband stations. The MIAVITA project was financed by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Program for Research and Technological Development, Area “Environment,” Activity 6.1 “Climate Change,

References (74)

  • A. Müller et al.

    3-D modeling of the deep electrical conductivity of Merapi volcano (Central Java): integrating magnetotellurics, induction vectors and the effects of steep topography

    Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research

    (2004)
  • C. Newhall et al.

    10000 years of explosive eruptions of Merapi Volcano, Central Java: archaeological and modern implications

    Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research

    (2000)
  • J. Power et al.

    Seismic evolution of the 1989–1990 eruption sequence of Redoubt volcano, Alaska

    Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research

    (1994)
  • A. Ratdomopurbo et al.

    An overview of the seismicity of Merapi volcano, (Java, Indonesia), 1983–1995

    Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research

    (2000)
  • C. Stephens et al.

    Seismological aspects of the 1989–1990 eruptions at Redoubt volcano, Alaska: the SSAM perspective

    Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research

    (1994)
  • P.I. Tokarev

    The prediction of large explosions of andesitic volcanoes

    Journal of Geodynamics

    (1985)
  • B. Voight et al.

    Historical eruptions of Merapi Volcano, Central Java, Indonesia, 1768–1998

    Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research

    (2000)
  • J. Wassermann et al.

    Automatic hypocenter determination of volcano induced seismic transients based on field coherence — an application to the 1998 eruption of Mt. Merapi, Indonesia

    Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research

    (2001)
  • N. Aisyah et al.

    Aktivitas G. Merapi Periode September–Desember 2010 (Erupsi G. Merapi 26 Oktober–7 November 2010)

  • F. Beauducel et al.

    Collection and three-dimensional modeling of GPS and tilt data at Merapi volcano, Java

    Journal of Geophysical Research

    (1999)
  • F. Beauducel et al.

    Constraints on magma flux from displacements data at Merapi volcano, Java

    Journal of Geophysical Research

    (2000)
  • A.F. Bell et al.

    Challenges for forecasting based on accelerating rates of earthquakes at volcanoes and laboratory analogues

    Geophysical Journal International

    (2011)
  • A.F. Bell et al.

    Forecasting volcanic eruptions and other material failure phenomena: an evaluation of the failure forecast method

    Geophysical Research Letter

    (2011)
  • P. Berthommier et al.

    Le Merapi (Centre Java): elements de chronologie d'un strato-volcan andésitique

    Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences Paris

    (1990)
  • M. Campillo

    Phase and correlation in ‘random’ seismic fields and the reconstruction of the Green's function

    Pure and Applied Geophysics

    (2006)
  • B. Chouet

    Resonance of a fluid driven crack: radiation properties and implications for the source of long-period events and harmonic tremor

    Journal of Geophysical Research

    (1988)
  • B. Chouet

    Long-period volcano seismicity: its source and use in eruption forecasting

    Nature

    (1996)
  • B. Chouet et al.

    Source mechanism of Vulcanian degassing at Popocatépetl Volcano, Mexico, determined from waveform inversions of very long period signals

    Journal of Geophysical Research

    (2005)
  • M. Commer et al.

    New results on the resistivity structure of Merapi Volcano (Indonesia), derived from three-dimensional restricted inversion of long-offset transient electromagnetic data

    Geophysical Journal International

    (2006)
  • S. De la Cruz-Reyna et al.

    A model to describe precursory material-failure phenomena: applications to short-term forecasting at Colima volcano

    Mexico Bulletin of Volcanology

    (2001)
  • E.T. Endo et al.

    Real-time Seismic Amplitude Measurement (RSAM): a volcano monitoring and prediction tool

    Bulletin of Volcanology

    (1991)
  • E.T. Endo et al.

    A comparison of preeruption real-time seismic amplitude measurements for eruptions at Mount St. Helens, Redoubt volcano, Mount Spurr, and Mount Pinatubo

  • T. Fukuzono et al.

    Experimental study of slope failure in cohesive soils caused by rainfall

  • J.L. Got et al.

    Strain localization and fluid migration from earthquake relocation and seismicity analysis in the western Vosges (France)

    Geophysical Journal International

    (2011)
  • B. Gutenberg et al.

    Earthquake magnitude, intensity, energy and acceleration (second paper)

    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

    (1956)
  • D. Hidayat et al.

    Source mechanism of very-long-period signals accompanying dome growth activity at Merapi volcano, Indonesia

    Geophysical Research Letter

    (2002)
  • S. Hidayati et al.

    Focal mechanism of volcano-tectonic earthquakes at Merapi volcano, Indonesia

    Indonesian Journal of Physics

    (2008)
  • Cited by (79)

    • Probabilistic analysis to correlate seismic data with lava extrusion phases at Merapi volcano (Indonesia)

      2022, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      RF and PF seismic events are related to the instability of the dome, outflow of lava, and dome collapse phenomena. Finally, the so-called MP events are associated with magma flow in the upper conduit and a shallow process that occurs during dome formation (Wassermann, 2012); Budi-Santoso et al., 2013; Jousset et al., 2013). These earthquakes are similar to the hybrid earthquake signals at other volcanoes (McNutt, 2005; Zobin, 2012) and are characterized by emergent onsets, with a range of frequency contents between 0.2 and 20 Hz (Jousset et al., 2013), but with a dominant frequency between 4 and 8 Hz (Fig. 1a).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Tel.: + 62 22 727 2606.

    2

    Tel.: + 49 30 288 1299.

    View full text