Preface to the topical collection—pyroclastic current models: benchmarking and validation
Preface to the topical collection—pyroclastic current models: benchmarking and validation
复制标题
专题集序言——火山碎屑流模型：基准测试和验证
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
G. Valentine
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Valentine
火山碎屑流是火山学长期以来的研究热点。它们涉及多相流动过程，产生各种各样的矿床，构成火山灾害和风险的主要来源。请注意，这里使用的术语火山碎屑流代替了各种其他术语，如火山灰流、火山碎屑流、火山底涌、火山碎屑流、火山碎屑涌和火山碎屑密度流（参见LaCroix 1904; Ross和Smith 1961;摩尔1967; Fisher 1979; Branney和Kokelaar 2002）。早期的工作重点是通过详细的现场和沉积学研究来解释火山碎屑流过程（例如，Fisher和沃茨（1970）;斯帕克斯（1976）;步行者（1983）;威尔逊（1985）。与过程相关的问题自然导致了在过去四十年中日益复杂的理论研究，同时，为了减灾应用而预测火山碎屑流的某些方面（如跳动、温度、动压和深度）的需要为理论模型开发提供了额外的动力（例如，Sparks et al. 1978; Valentine and Wohletz 1989; Neri et al. 2003; Patra et al. 2005）。火山碎屑流物理学的复杂性，涉及广泛的多相流制度，意味着大多数理论模型求解计算密集型的数值方法，而不是分析方法。实验研究与现场和理论工作一起发展，从模拟实验到专注于颗粒流和稀流的工作（例如，Bursik and Woods 2000; Roche et al. 2008; Andrews and Manga 2011），以及在过去十年中，数十米尺度的大规模实验，旨在尽可能多地包括与自然火山碎屑流相比的相关物理学（Dellino et al. 2007; Lube et al. 2015）。尽管还有许多问题，但我们对火山碎屑流的了解在过去15年中有所加快。这种加速是由几个研讨会，集中在确定关键问题和连接现场，实验和建模研究的重要性补充。最近的一次会议于2019年1月在新西兰（陶波和帕默斯顿北）举行，由梅西大学和国家地球物理和火山学研究所的研究人员共同组织。该讲习班完全侧重于将火山碎屑流模型与实验数据进行比较，以进行验证（评估计算模型在多大程度上反映了当前的物理问题）和基准测试（将不同的计算模型相互比较，使用定义明确的数据集来确定问题）。研讨会与会者得出结论认为，实验数据集和计算模型已经足够成熟，可以为社区推动的支持火山碎屑流模型基准和验证（B&V）的努力建立势头。这个专题收藏旨在支持这样一个社区驱动的努力，为研究人员提供一个平台，发表新兴的B&V工作，并作为那些有兴趣贡献和/或参与的资源，因为我们进一步推进我们的建模能力和我们的火山碎屑岩电流模型的优势和劣势的理解。该集合以Esposti Ongaro等人的观点论文开始，该论文提出了基准和验证的框架，沿着简要回顾了火山碎屑岩当前模型的主要类别。其他论文将包括以下内容：（1）具体实验（实验室规模和大规模）的详细描述和可用于B&V的结果数据集;（2）特定模型的B&V结果;（3）现场数据集（来自观测到的电流或沉积物），这些数据集受到足够的限制，可用作
Pyroclastic currents are a long-standing research focus in volcanology. They involve multiphase flow processes that produce a wide range of deposits and that comprise a major source of volcanic hazard and risk. Note that the term pyroclastic current is used here in lieu of a variety of other terms such as nuée ardentes, ash flow, pyroclastic flow, volcanic base surge, pyroclastic flow, pyroclastic surge, and pyroclastic density current (c.f. LaCroix 1904; Ross and Smith 1961; Moore 1967; Fisher 1979; Branney and Kokelaar 2002). Early work focused on interpreting pyroclastic current processes through detailed field and sedimentological studies of deposits (e.g., Fisher and Waters 1970; Sparks 1976; Walker 1983; Wilson 1985). Process-related questions naturally led to theoretical studies that have grown in sophistication over the past four decades, while in parallel, the need to forecast some aspects of pyroclastic currents (such as runout, temperature, dynamic pressure, and depth) for hazard mitigation applications provided additional impetus for theoretical model development (e.g., Sparks et al. 1978; Valentine and Wohletz 1989; Neri et al. 2003; Patra et al. 2005). The complexity of pyroclastic current physics, involving a wide range of multiphase flow regimes, means that most theoretical models are solved by computation-intensive numerical approaches rather than analytical methods. Experimental research grew alongside field and theoretical work, ranging from analog experiments to focused work on granular flows and dilute currents (e.g., Bursik and Woods 2000; Roche et al. 2008; Andrews and Manga 2011) and, in the past decade, to large-scale experiments on the scales of tens of meters that are aimed at including as much of the relevant physics, compared with natural pyroclastic currents, as possible (Dellino et al. 2007; Lube et al. 2015). Although many questions remain, our understanding of pyroclastic currents has accelerated in the past 15 years. This acceleration was complemented by several workshops that centered on identifying key problems and the importance of linking field, experimental, and modeling research. The most recent of these was held in January 2019 in New Zealand (Taupo and Palmerston North) and was co-organized by researchers at Massey University and Istituto Nazionale de Geofisica e Vulcanologia. That workshop focused entirely on the comparison of pyroclastic current models with experimental data for the purpose of validation (assessing how well a computational model represents the physical problem at hand) and benchmarking (comparison of different computational models with one another, using a well-defined dataset to define a problem). Workshop attendees concluded that experimental datasets and computational models have matured sufficiently to build momentum towards a community-driven effort that supports benchmarking and validation (B&V) of pyroclastic current models. This Topical Collection is aimed at supporting such a community-driven effort by providing a platform for researchers to publish emerging B&V work and to serve as a resource for those interested in contributing to and/or participating as we further advance our modeling capabilities and our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of pyroclastic current models. The Collection opens with a Perspectives paper by Esposti Ongaro et al. that presents a framework for benchmarking and validation, along with a brief review of the main classes of pyroclastic current models. Additional papers will include the following: (1) detailed descriptions of specific experiments (lab-scale and large-scale) and resulting datasets that can be used for B&V; (2) B&V results for specific models; (3) field datasets (from observed currents or deposits) that are sufficiently constrained for use as This paper constitutes part of a topical collection: Pyroclastic current models: benchmarking and validation