Muography for geological hazard assessment in the South Aegean active volcanic arc (SAAVA)
- PDF / 3,494,104 Bytes
- 14 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 72 Downloads / 183 Views
REVIEW ARTICLE
Muography for geological hazard assessment in the South Aegean active volcanic arc (SAAVA) Constantin D. Athanassas1 Received: 27 January 2020 / Revised: 7 March 2020 / Accepted: 11 March 2020 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
Abstract This article reviews the suitability of muography in identifying geological hazards in the southern Aegean active volcanic arc (SAAVA). Santorini and Nisyros, the most active members of SAAVA, exhibit critical structural failures which are controlled by the regional tectonic stress field. Comparable structural failures in other volcanic complexes (e.g. Canary Islands, Hawaii, Stromboli, etc.) are linked to high geological risk. However, the amount of hazard stemming from potential rupture of volcanoes in the Aegean Sea has not been fully assessed yet, because the volcanoes’ intricate structure challenges both conventional geological and geophysical mapping. On the other hand, muography constitutes a novel remote sensing technique which exploits the penetration of the cosmic rays in the upper solid earth to produce images of the upper solid earth at high spatial resolution. Here, the performance of muography in identifying geological hazards in the SAAVA is evaluated on the basis of available geological information and similar case studies with satisfactory results. Keywords Remote sensing · Imaging · Cosmic rays · Fault · Geological structure · Radiography
Introduction Massive structural failures are known for several coastal and insular volcanoes, for instance Mount Etna (Froger et al. 2001; Deeming et al. 2010), Tenerife (Hunt et al. 2018), Kilauea (Swanson et al. 1976), Réunion (Duffield et al. 1982), Cape Verde (Masson et al. 2008) and more. During volcanic eruptions, the forceful intrusion of magma pressurizes and fractures the edifice to the extent that gravitational pull may cause an immense flank collapse along with a deep-seated shear zone (e.g. Voight and Elsworth 1997; van Wyk de Vries and Francis 1997; Schaefer et al. 2019). Although the pattern of edifice failure in the course of a volcanic eruption may quickly spiral into unpredictability, the same cannot be said for volcanoes that have entered into quiescence: edifice instability is influenced by a superposition of trivial geomechanic factors such as low shear strength, high topographic gradients, pore-fluid pressure, seismic vibration, human load, etc. (cf. Voight and Elsworth 1997; Apuani et al. 2005; Cecchi et al. 2005; Keefer and Larsen, * Constantin D. Athanassas [email protected] 1
National Technical University of Athens, Zografos, 15780 Athens, Greece
2007; Deeming et al. 2010; Di Traglia et al. 2018). A slope failure may not only sweep away the flank (e.g. Blahůt et al. 2018, 2019, 2020) but may also displace seawater at the base of the edifice, transferring enormous amounts of energy far away from the source as tsunami waves (e.g. Waythomas and Watts 2003). The purported rupture of Cumbre Vieja (La Palma, Canary Islands) is a candidate site for massive collapse, capable o
Data Loading...
