See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/273058211

Characterisation of the volcano-sedimentary

deposits of an active strato-volcano: the Merapi
case example (Central Java, Indonesia)

CONFERENCE PAPER · SEPTEMBER 2012

DOWNLOADS VIEWS

29 18

4 AUTHORS:

Adrien Selles B. Deffontaines

French Geological Survey Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée
5 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 123 PUBLICATIONS 1,323 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Heru Hendrayana Sophie Violette

Gadjah Mada University Ecole Normale Supérieure de Paris and UPM…
17 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 75 PUBLICATIONS 673 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Available from: Adrien Selles

Retrieved on: 11 August 2015
 Characterisation of the volcano-sedimentary
deposits of an active strato-volcano: the Merapi
case example (Central Java, Indonesia).

Adrien Selles1,3,4 , Benoit Deffontaines2 , Heru Hendrayana1 , Sophie

Violette3
1 Universitas Gadjah Mada, Geological Engineering Department, Yogyakarta, INDONESIA

2 Université Paris-Est Marne-La-Vallée; Laboratoire International Associé ADEPT CNRS

France-Taiwan; Laboratoire de Géomatique Appliquée - ENSG-IGN, FRANCE

3 University Pierre and Marie Curie - Sorbonne Universités-UMR.7619-Sisyphe & CNRS,

Paris, FRANCE

4 Danone Water Resources and Process, Evian, FRANCE

E-mail contact: adrien.selles@gmail.com

Abstract
Merapi is one of the most active and dangerous strato-volcanoes in In- donesia
and is situated within Central Java, a region with a huge density in average
1,400 people per km2, one of the most densely populated areas of Indonesia.
The objective of this study is to better characterize the sedimentary ar- chitec-
ture of the East flank of Merapi volcano. By identifying the specific de- posits
and subsequent alteration weathering and dismantling processes, the geological
and geomorphological history of Merapi’s edifice may be recons- tructed with
respect to the distinct phases of building edifice due to eruptions and disman-
tling the volcano by erosion and associated local to distal sedimen- tation. This
work contributes to understand the processes of development, destruction and
sedimentation of a complex active strato-volcano and the ef- fect of these pro-
cesses on the hydrological behavior of the surrounding area. The geological and
geomorphological interpretation is based on the characte- rization of the litho-
logical facies and their temporal and planimeter evolution along the Eastern
flank of Merapi and is proposed in the form of a concep- tual model. As an ap-
plication the water resource behavior in the proximity is closely linked with the
structure of the volcano. In order to characterize the hydrodynamic behavior of
the Eastern flank of Merapi volcano, a better knowledge of the geological and
geomorphological structure is essential.

Keywords: Merapi volcano, volcano-sedimentary structure evolution.

1
Introduction
Merapi is one of the most active and dangerous strato-volcanoes in Indonesia
and is situated within Central Java, wich is one of the most densely populated
region of Indonesia (1,400 people per km2 ). Even during the periods without
eruption, the remobilization and the gravitational collapse of the old volcanic
products is a risk for the local population and an important contribution on the
sedimentary series.
The objective of this study is to better characterize the volcano-sedimentary
geometry of the East flank of Merapi volcano massif in view to characterize the
aquifer resources of this kind of active strato-volcano. Indeed, the geometry of
these deposits has a strong impact on the groundwater flow-path.
First of all, after a brief summary of the Merapi history, a characterisation
and a classification of the Merapi deposits will be presented, then, we will focus
on the sedimentation processes and the spatial repartition of the remobilized
materials on the Eastern flank of Merapi.

1 State of the art and methodology

In order to identify the different deposits and subsequent weathering, erosion
and dismantling processes, several geological and geomorphological surveys have
been done on the East flank of Merapi volcano. A stratigraphic cross-section
has been done along the Pusur river and Soka river. The spatial repartition
of the various deposits resulting of the eruptive (pyroclastic material and ashes
deposits) or the remobilization processes (lahars [9]) and lava blocs layers ([12]
[8]) has been described.
The geological and geomorphological history of Merapi’s massif may be re-
constructed with respect to the distinct phases of building up due to eruptions
and dismantling of the volcano by erosion and associated local to distal sedi-
mentation.

1.1 Merapi history

As most andesitic volcanoes, Merapi’s history has been an alternation of effusive
and explosive episodes. Based on the work of [3, 15] the chronology of the Merapi
can be divided in 4 units depending on the eruption and deposit types.
The periods are termed “Ancient Merapi” (40 000 - 14 000 years B.P.),
“Middle Merapi” (14 000 - 2 200 years B.P.), “Recent Merapi” (2 200 years B.
P. - 1786 A.D.) and “Modern Merapi” (after 1786 A.D.). [3, 5] suggest that
the Merapi activity begun before 40 000 years B.P. with a pre-Merapi edifice.
The only evidence for the existence of a pre- Merapi activity is on the Gunung
Bibi (Gg.Bibi) with a K-Ar datation of 670 ±250 Ka B.P. The Gg. Bibi would
correspond to a relief of a residual structure oldest and probably largest.
This structure may have had a complex history with one or more major
explosive eruptions. This work is focus on the East flank of Merapi, which
appears to be the rest of the old volcanic structure (Fig. 1).

2
Figure 1: Cross section of the different stages of the Merapi volcano history [5].

1.2 Deposit characterization

During the Merapi’s evolution, the deposit types show an important hetero-
geneity. Based on the literature [1, 5], a geological survey allowed to establish
a classification and a spatial repartition of the deposits on the eastern flank of
the Merapi (Tab.1 and Fig.2).

3
1.2.1 Andesitic lava flow deposits
The slow release of andesitic magma causes the extrusion of viscous lava flows
accumulated as endogenous domes. The extension of these andesitic lava flow
deposits is relatively limited (5 km from the crater: central and proximal zone).
The massive lava flow deposits are not fractured and show aquitard properties.

1.2.2 Pyroclastic materials

These deposits are composed by a mixture of juvenile pyroclasts, lithic, mag-
matic volatiles and external water. The origin of these deposits is the explosive
volcanic eruption and can be divided in two classes: pyroclastic flow and pyro-
clastic surge [6]. They can travel at high velocities (30 to 200 m/s), can have
high temperatures (>550°C), and can reach over 100 km from their source.
The pyroclastic materials tend to be controlled by the topography over which
they flow, often being preferentially channelled down valleys but they can also
surmount topographic obstacles more than 1.5 km high.

Pyroclastic flow deposits Pyroclastic flow deposits Pyroclastic flow deposits

origin can be the direct explosive volcanic eruptions [14]or gravitational collapse
of an active summit dome [16]. Pyroclastic flows involve the lateral movement
of pyroclasts as a gravity controlled, hot, high concentration gas/solid disper-
sion, which may in some instances be partly fluidized. These deposits can have
aquitard or aquifer properties depending on the cimented matrix proportion.

Pyroclastic surge deposits Pyroclastic surges are turbulent, low-concentration

density currents that deposit relatively thin, fine-grained, cross-bedded and
wavy and planar laminated sequences. These deposits could have several origins
[14, 7]. Phreatomagmatic eruptions for base surge, base of the pyroclastic flow
deposits for ground surge and ash cloud surge. Because of their hot cementation
process, these compact deposits play the role of aquitard.

1.2.3 Volcanic ashes

During the eruptions, a large quantity of ashes, pumices and lapilli are produced
and cover the landscapes. The pyroclastic air fall deposits are commonly well
sorted and they maintain an even thickness over local topography (mantle bed-
ding) [10]. The tuffs can be found until 25 km from the vent (distal zone) and
show a large lateral repartition. The alteration can cause a rapid reduction of
permeability and give aquitard properties to the tuffs.

1.2.4 Lahar deposits

The Indonesian term “lahar” designed a flow mixture of rock debris and water
with high sedimentation concentration who remobilized erupted deposits during
the tropical rain events. These deposits are poorly sorted and contain particles

4
that range in grain size from clay to boulder-size [13]. Because their high hetero-
geneity of material remobilized, the lahar deposits can be aquifer or aquitard,
depending on their matrix proportion.

1.2.5 Gravitational collapse

The implementation of andesitic flows along the steep slopes of Merapi (> 35%)
causes gravitational collapses. [2] showed that the volume of dome and lava
material collapse can be important (estimate to 7800 m3 /day) and that the
stratigraphical studies have to take into account these phenomenons. For this
work, we have considered these gravitational collapse deposits as “boulders lay-
ers”.
These “landslides” are composed by massive andesitic blocs and follow the
valley incision. The repartition of these deposits will depend of several factors
as the slopes and the valleys shape. Help by the flow remobilization during the
rainy season, these deposits can be found until 20 km from the vent (Distal
zone).

1.2.6 Local landslide

Some local landslides can occurred along the river incisions during the rany
season. These landslides remobilize the previous volcaniclastic deposits. These
phenomenons are caused by steep slopes and the reaction of the non-consolidated
material with the high rainfall rate during the monsoon.

1.2.7 Cooked paleo-soil

During the eruptions, the circulation of a hot and fast materials as the pyro-
clastic flow or surge, burn the soil and modify the composition of the paleo-
topography. This facies is composed by brown to red coloration indurated rocks
with sometimes burned vegetation elements (mainly bamboo). In some out-
crops, a charcoal layer can be find under the cooked paleo-soil. As this layer
is hardly indurated, the cooked-paleo-soil surface is an impervious layer for the
water flow circulation.

5
Figure 2: Geological map of the East flank of Merapi volcano with the springs
location (modified after Wirakusumah et al., 1989)

2 Transport and depositional processes

The capital aspect of volcaniclastic sediments is that they are principally com-
posed of fragments generated by volcanic processes rather than weathering.
Moreover, these debris are loosely consolidated and emplaced as thick, landscape-
mantling layer or valley fills that are susceptible to rapid erosion. Each volcano-
sedimentary deposits have been identified and classify (Tab. 1).
It is important to notice that the East flank of Merapi volcano has been
spared by most of the recent eruptions. Indeed, the pyroclastic flow and lava
flow deposits have been concentrated on the North, South and West sides. How-
ever, the airfall deposits of the last eruptions can be found as recent tuff layers.
The East flank is in inter-eruption stage, where the most recent sediments come
from the remobilization of the old volcanic materials by hyperconcentrated flow
(lahar), gravitational collapse of the massive lava and the local landslides.

6
 The Merapi volcano follows the global facies variations of a strato-volcano:
central, proximal, medial and distal zone [4]. These zones have been defined
according to the distance from the volcanic source. For each zone, the charac-
teristics of the depositional environment have been described (Tab. 2).

Litho Grain size Size Stratification Clast Interpretation

facies graded orientation
code
P Actual pedogenic features: red, brown coloration, finer grained, root clasts.
Ps Cooked paleosoil, dark to red coloration, charcoal
T Tephra, volcanic ashes, Normal Cross-beds None Fallout tuff
fine to medium
Tp Tephra, yellow to Base surge to
red coloration, volcanic Normal Cross-beds None phreatomagmatic
ashes, fine to medium eruption deposits
M Mud, silt, fine grain Massive Laminated None Weathered tuffs
SL Breccia, Sand, from fine Reverse Planar None Hyperconcentrated
to coarse with conglomerate to normal flood flow (lahar)
PF Gravel to boulders, sand Normal Planar None Pyroclastic flow
consolidated matrix or reverse cross-beds
Gb Gravel, pebble matrix Reverse Normal Long-axis Channel fills
to normal elongation
BL Boulders layers (> 1m) Normal None None Debris-flow deposits
to reverse
ALF Massive andesitic lava flow deposits

Table 1: Litho-facies determination of the volcano-sedimentary deposits of the

East flank of Merapi volcano.

7
 Characteristics Central Proximal Medial Distal
(2962-2400m asl) (2400-800m asl) (800-400m asl) (400-200m asl)
Geomorphology
Slope angle 20-45° 15-20° ≤ 4° ≤ 2°
Distance
from the vent 0-2 km 2-10 km 10-15 km 15-25 km
Deposits
Lithofacies
Abundant ALF, PF ALF, BL, SL, Tp, T,PF PF, Gb, Tp, T, Ps, SL T, Tp, P, SL, Ps
Minor T, BL M, Gb P, BL PF, Gb, M
Rare P, Ps M BL
Geometry
Thickness ALF ≥ 20m ALF ≥ 10m; Gb ≥ 10m; T≥ 15m; Tp≥ 2m
PF≥30m T,PF ≥15m SL ≥ 4m; T≥ 15m SL ≥ 5m;
BL≥5m BL, SL≥ 5m; Tp≥ 2m P, Ps � 1m; BL≥ 2m; Gb ≥ 3m; PF ≥ 2m;
T≥5m M ≤ 2m; Gb ≥ 5m Tp≥ 2m; PF ≥ 5m; P, M, Ps � 1m;
P, Ps � 0.5m M≥ 1m BL � 1m
Shape Massive (ALF), Mostly channel form, Channel form, Tabular
instable and debris flow deposits, tabular deposits (PF) deposits (T, Tp, Ps)
well cimented some tabular deposit local landslides some channel form (Gb)
deposits (PF), (ALF, T) hyperconcentrated flood
flow (lahar)

Table 2: Characteristics of the volcano-sedimentary deposits environment along

the East flank of Merapi volcano.

After several pluridisciplinary field surveys (geological, hydrogeological and

geomorphological), a conceptual model for lithological-facies geometry and se-
quences is proposed (Fig. 3).
The actual central zone of Merapi is composed by pyroclastic flow deposits
and massive lava flows. The actual andesitic lava dome results from the effusive
stage of the last eruption (2010). The periodic collapse events or total destruc-
tion of this summit dome trigger violent pyroclastic flow (“Merapi-type” nuées
ardentes) [11].

8
 In the proximal zone (2-10 km from the vent), the slopes are important
(> 20°) and the river incisions can reach more than 100m. The massive lava
deposits are covered by thick layer of lapilli and tuffs. In some part, these tuffs
are weathered and have a high proportion of clay. Into the “V” shape river
incisions, the water can flow on the lava deposits or through the pyroclastic
flow deposits.
The rivers are filled by huge andesitic blocs coming from the dismantling of
the lava flow deposits in the upper parts. The pyroclastic flow and the tuffs
deposits play the role of “soap” layers and the lava deposits collapse in huge
blocs. Because of the steep slopes, these blocs can go far along the river profile
and are a main risk for the infrastructures and the villages located downstream.
The July 25th 2012, a lava flow deposits collapsed on the West flank of Merapi
volcano and some blocs have been found until 8 km from the summit. This
process creates channels of bloc during the inter-eruption period and can be
transported far from the source. These layers can be recovered by the airfall or
pyroclastic flow deposits during the eruptions.
The tuffs and the lava will play the role of impervious barriers. At the oppo-
site, the pyroclastic flow and the paleo-channels of blocs will be the preferential
way for the water flow. Some springs can be found in the river incision at the
interface between these paleo-channels and the tuff deposits.
Because of the contrast of erodability between the massive lava flow and the
pyroclastic materials, relief inversion could occur rapidly. The lava flow filled
the paleo-valley and the important precipitation during the rainy season incised
the previous hills composed by pyroclastic flow around the lava flow deposits.
This process can explain the localization of the lava deposits near the ridges on
the valley sides.

In the medial zone (10-15 km from the vent), the river incisions are less
important (> 30m). The lithological facies are composed by an alternation of
pyroclastic flow deposits and tuffs with paleo-channels of andesitic blocs. This
alternation represents the old syn-eruption and inter-eruption sequences with
aggradation and degradation cycle controlled by volcanism related sediment
imput. During the syn-eruption period, the sediments cover the topography and
present a planar configuration. The inter-eruption periods are characterized by
the erosion or the syn-eruption deposits and sedimentation of gravel, pebble and
bloc channels. This erosion-sedimentation process will follow the rivers with a
complex configuration of meanders with a high lateral dispersion.
An indurated clay layer with brown to dark coloration indicates the paleo-
surface. Charcoal can be found on the outcrops has been interpreted as a cooked
paleo-soil. Indeed, during the eruption, the pyroclastic flow deposits (nuées ar-
dentes) burned the soil surface.

9
 The aquifer resources are concentrated into the paleo-channels (mostly 10
m thick and 5 m large), where the matrix proportion is less important. The
rivers tend to have a U shapes and a regressive erosion can be observed around
400m of elevation. The water follows the paleo-rivers and many springs occurs
when the actual river profile cross a paleo-chanel. The impervious properties of
the base surge and tuffs deposits give to the aquifer a local confined behavior
(Fig.3).

Figure 3: Paleo-channel along the Pusur river in the Medial zone. Identification
of the sediments sequences and their hydrodynamic properties.

In the distal zone (15-25 km from the vent), the lithological facies are dom-
inated by the lahar deposits (breccia, gravel and sand). The U shape rivers
incise the remobilized material. Most of the tuffs deposits are weathered and
show a high proportion of clay. Some paleo-chanels, composed by gravel, or
andesite blocs, can be found and are the main path for the groundwater flow.
The alternation of these paleo-chanels with tuffs and lahar deposits give to the
aquifers a confined behavior.

10
Figure 4: Conceptual model of the geometrical repartition of the volcano-clastic
deposits along the eastern flank of Merapi volcano.

11
3 Conclusion and perspectives
This work contributes to understand: i) the processes of building up, dismantel-
ing and sedimentation of a complex active strato-volcano, ii) the effect of these
processes on the hydrological behavior of the surrounding area.
The geological and geomorphological interpretation is based on the charac-
terisation of the lithological facies and their temporal and planimeter evolution
along the Eastern flank of Merapi. Based on the literature and with the contri-
bution of new field surveys, a conceptual model is proposed.

Following the main facies zonation described by the literature (proximal, me-
dial and distal zone) the configuration of the litho-facies have been identified.
The valley-confined rivers draining the Merapi contain aggradational terraces
that correlate not only to climatically induced sediment load/discharge varia-
tion, but to volcanic periods and sporadic gravitational collapses. The high-
lighting of the blocs and boulders layers organized in paleo-channel far from
the proximal zone, bring a capital information about the gravitational collapse
hazard along the actual rivers.

The water resource behavior is closely linked with the structure of the vol-
cano. The spatial repartition of the deposit hosting an aquifer is directly linked
with the sedimentation, erosion and weathering processes. The aquifer resources
follow the inter-eruption structures with a specific organization. The paleo-
channel composed by blocs and boulders are considered as preferential water
circulation way. This circulation will follow the paleo-meanders and a better
understanding of the precise localization of these paleo-channels will improve
the water resource management in this area. In order to characterize the hy-
drodynamic behavior of this kind of strato-volcano, a better knowledge of the
geological and geomorphological structure is essential.

Acknowledgment
This article presents part of the research funded by Danone Research-Water
Division (France), Danone AQUA (Indonesia) and ANRT-CIFRE (France).

12
References
[1] S. D. Andreastuti, B. V. Alloway, and I. E. M. Smith. A detailed tephros-
tratigraphic framework at merapi volcano, central java, indonesia: im-
plications for eruption predictions and hazard assessment. Journal of
Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 100(1-4):51–67, 2000. doi: DOI:
10.1016/S0377-0273(00)00133-5.
[2] F. Beauducel. Structures et comportement mécanique du volcan Merapi
(Java) : une approche méthodologique du champ de déformations. PhD
thesis, 1998.
[3] P.C. Berthommier. Étude volcanologique du Merapi (Centre Java): téphros-
tratigraphie et chronologie - produits éruptifs. PhD thesis, 1990.
[4] I Bogie and K.M. Mackenzie. The application of a volcanic facies model
to an andesitic stratovolcano hosted geothermal ,system at wayang windu,
java, indonesia. In Proceedings 20th NZ Geothermal workshop, pages 265–
270, 1998.
[5] G. Camus, A. Gourgaud, P. C. Mossand-Berthommier, and P. M. Vincent.
Merapi (central java, indonesia): An outline of the structural and magma-
tological evolution, with a special emphasis to the major pyroclastic events.
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 100(1-4):139–163, 2000.
doi: DOI: 10.1016/S0377-0273(00)00135-9.
[6] N. Carey, Steven. Transport and deposition of tephra by pyroclastic flows
and surges, volume 45. Society for sedimentary geology, 1991.
[7] Richard V. Fisher. Models for pyroclastic surges and pyroclastic flows.
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 6(3–4):305 – 318, 1979.
[8] Matthias Hort, Malte Vöge, Ralf Seyfried, and Antonius Ratdomop-
urbo. In situ observation of dome instabilities at merapi volcano, in-
donesia: A new tool for volcanic hazard mitigation. Journal of Vol-
canology and Geothermal Research, 153(3-4):301–312, 2006. doi: DOI:
10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2005.12.007.
[9] F. Lavigne, J. C. Thouret, K. Kelfoun, and S. Bronto. Toward a revised haz-
ard assessment at merapi volcano, central java. Journal of Volcanology and
Geothermal Research, 100(1-4):479–502, 2000. doi: DOI: 10.1016/S0377-
0273(00)00152-9.

[10] V. Manville, K. Nemeth, and Kano K. Source to sink: A review of three

decades of progress in the understanding of volcaniclastic processes, de-
posits, and hazards. Sedimentary Geology, 220:136–161, 2009.
[11] C. Newhall, G. Bronto, S. Alloway, B. Banks, N. G. Bahar, I. del Marmol,
M. A. Hadisantono, R. D. Holcomb, R. T. McGeehin, J. Miksic, J. N.

13
 Rubin, M. Sayudi, S. D. Sukhyar, R. Andreastuti, S. Tilling, R. I. Torley,
R. Trimble, and A. D. D. Wirakusumah. 10,000 years of explosive eruptions
of merapi volcano, central java: archaeological and modern implications.
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 100(1-4):9–50, 2000. doi:
DOI: 10.1016/S0377-0273(00)00132-3.

[12] Lothar M. Schwarzkopf, Hans-Ulrich Schmincke, and Shane J. Cronin. A

conceptual model for block-and-ash flow basal avalanche transport and de-
position, based on deposit architecture of 1998 and 1994 merapi flows.
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 139(1–2):117 – 134, 2005.
<ce:title>Modeling and Simulation of Geophysical Mass Flows</ce:title>.

[13] A. Smith, Gary and R. Lowe, Donald. Lahars: Volcano-hydrologic events

and deposition in the debris flow-hyperconcentrated flow continuum. Sed-
imentation in Volcanic Settings, 45:59–70, 1991.
[14] R.S.J. Sparks. Mont pelée, martinique: May 8 and 20, 1902, pyroclastic
flows and surges — discussion. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal
Research, 19(1–2):175 – 180, 1983.
[15] R. W. Van Bemmelen. The Geology of Indonesia, volume vol. IA. The
Hague, Netherlands, govt. print. off., edition, 1949.
[16] John V. Wright, Alan L. Smith, and Stephen Self. A working terminology
of pyrocalstic deposits. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research,
8(2–4):315 – 336, 1980.

14