Erupted magma volume estimates at Santiaguito and Pacaya Volcanoes, Guatemala using digital elevation models

High resolution digital elevation models (DEMs) of Santiaguito and Pacaya volcanoes, Guatemala, were used to estimate volume changes and eruption rates between 1954 and 2001. The DEMs were generated from contour maps and aerial photography, which were analyzed in ArcGIS 9.0®. Because both volcanoes were growing substantially over the five decade period, they provide a good data set for exploring effective methodology for estimating volume changes. The analysis shows that the Santiaguito dome complex grew by 0.78 ± 0.07 km3 (0.52 ± 0.05 m3 s-1) over the 1954-2001 period with nearly all the growth occurring on the El Brujo (1958-75) and Caliente domes (1971-2001). Adding information from field data prior to 1954, the total volume extruded from Santiaguito since 1922 is estimated at 1.48 ± 0.19 km3. Santiaguito’s growth rate is lower than most other volcanic domes, but it has been sustained over a much longer period and has undergone a change toward more exogenous and progressively slower extrusion with time. At Santiaguito some of the material being added at the dome is subsequently transported downstream by block and ash flows, mudflows and floods, creating channel shifting and areas of aggradation and erosion. At Pacaya volcano a total volume of 0.21 ± 0.05 km3 was erupted between 1961 and 2001 for an average extrusion rate of 0.17 ± 0.04 m3 s-1. Both the Santiaguito and Pacaya eruption rate estimates reported here are minima, because they do not include estimates of materials which are transported downslope after eruption and data on ashfall which may result in significant volumes of material spread over broad areas. Regular analysis of high resolution DEMs using the methods outlined here, would help quantify the effects of fluvial changes to downstream populated areas, as well as assist in tracking hazards related to dome collapse and eruption.

COMPRESSION BEHAVIOR AT HIGH STRAIN RATE FOR AN ULTRA HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETE

The need for a stronger and more durable building material is becoming more important as the structural engineering field expands and challenges the behavioral limits of current materials. One of the demands for stronger material is rooted in the effects that dynamic loading has on a structure. High strain rates on the order of 101 s-1 to 103 s-1, though a small part of the overall types of loading that occur anywhere between 10-8 s-1 to 104 s-1 and at any point in a structures life, have very important effects when considering dynamic loading on a structure. High strain rates such as these can cause the material and structure to behave differently than at slower strain rates, which necessitates the need for the testing of materials under such loading to understand its behavior. Ultra high performance concrete (UHPC), a relatively new material in the U.S. construction industry, exhibits many enhanced strength and durability properties compared to the standard normal strength concrete. However, the use of this material for high strain rate applications requires an understanding of UHPC’s dynamic properties under corresponding loads. One such dynamic property is the increase in compressive strength under high strain rate load conditions, quantified as the dynamic increase factor (DIF). This factor allows a designer to relate the dynamic compressive strength back to the static compressive strength, which generally is a well-established property. Previous research establishes the relationships for the concept of DIF in design. The generally accepted methodology for obtaining high strain rates to study the enhanced behavior of compressive material strength is the split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB). In this research, 83 Cor-Tuf UHPC specimens were tested in dynamic compression using a SHPB at Michigan Technological University. The specimens were separated into two categories: ambient cured and thermally treated, with aspect ratios of 0.5:1, 1:1, and 2:1 within each category. There was statistically no significant difference in mean DIF for the aspect ratios and cure regimes that were considered in this study. DIF’s ranged from 1.85 to 2.09. Failure modes were observed to be mostly Type 2, Type 4, or combinations thereof for all specimen aspect ratios when classified according to ASTM C39 fracture pattern guidelines. The Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB) model for DIF versus strain rate does not accurately predict the DIF for UHPC data gathered in this study. Additionally, a measurement system analysis was conducted to observe variance within the measurement system and a general linear model analysis was performed to examine the interaction and main effects that aspect ratio, cannon pressure, and cure method have on the maximum dynamic stress.