Numerical system for forecasting volcanic ash
dispersion in Ecuador
René Parra
Instituto de Simulación Computacional,
Colegio de Ciencias e Ingeniería
Universidad San Francisco de Quito
Quito, Ecuador
rrparra@usfq.edu.ec
Abstract—Volcanic ash can cause air pollution and other
environmental impacts. In the last 15 years, 5 volcanoes in
Ecuador have produced moderate to large explosive eruptions.
Hence, information about the volcanic ash dispersion in
forecasting time is priority in Ecuador. For this purpose we build
a system based on the WRF and FALL3D, both Eulerian models,
used for forecasting meteorology and volcanic ash dispersion
respectively. These models solve numerically the full atmospheric
and volcanic ash dispersion governing equations, using finite-
difference approximations. Currently this system generates
information about the potential path of volcanic ash and the
affected areas by ash fallout, owing to eruptions at the
Tungurahua and Cotopaxi volcanoes. This paper describes the
main components of this system, its advantages, and limitations
by analyzing the Ecuadorian case study.
Keywords—WRF, FALL3D, ESP, Tungurahua, Cotopaxi
I. INTRODUCTION
Volcanic ash can cause air pollution and other
environmental impacts [1], such as damage to buildings and
crops, health issues by inhalation of particles, and air traffic
disruptions [2, 3]. To protect public health and improve risk
management, regions potentially affected should rely on
information regarding the possible ash dispersion trajectories
and ground deposition patterns [4, 5].
Ash emitted during explosive eruptions is dispersed by
prevailing winds. Atmospheric Transport Models (ATMs) are
pivotal for forecasting ash deposition at regions under the
influence of active volcanoes [6, 7, 8, 9]. ATMs with different
complexity have been developed over the last decades to
describe volcanic ash dispersion [10].
One component of any ATM is the meteorological driving
model, which describes the state and evolution of the
atmosphere in which the volcanic ash is introduced. ATMs
also require a set of volcanological inputs, the Eruption Source
Parameters (ESP) [11], including particle grain size
distribution and the characterization of the source term (i.e.,
plume height, eruption duration, mass eruption rate, and
vertical distribution of mass along the eruptive column).
Deterministic ATMs numerically solve the full atmospheric
governing equations, using finite-difference approximations,
but only at discrete locations referred as grid points [12]. Each
978-1-5386-6657-9/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
grid point holds the average value for a volume of surrounding
air, referred as a grid cell. Eulerian ATMs describe the
dynamics of the atmosphere into domains composed by three
dimensional arrays of fixed grid cells. For mesoscale studies-
phenomena with spatial scales between 10 and 1000 km-ATMs
use grid cells with resolutions of few km. Owing to these
features, Eulerian models can provide results with high spatial
and temporal resolutions. However, they need to solve huge
amounts of equations, demanding large computational
resources to share numerical tasks in multiple processors. For
this purpose, computational codes of Eulerian models are
written in parallel mode.
To the contrary, and although being deterministic,
Lagragian models can forecast the dispersion of air pollutants
[13], using less computational resources in comparison with
Eulerian models. However, Lagrangian models only describe
the pollutants’ behavior into a unique volume of atmosphere.
Statistical models can be used for forecasting air quality
[14, 15], using less computational resources than deterministic
models. However, they require both huge datasets and
appropriate correlations.
The Ecuadorian volcanic arc hosts about 85 quaternary
volcanoes, 25 of which are erupting, active or potentially
active. In the last 15 years, 5 volcanoes produced moderate to
large explosive eruptions with significant ash plumes
(Pichincha 1999-2001, Sangay permanent, Tungurahua 1999-
to present, El Reventador 2002-to present, Cotopaxi 2015).
Tungurahua (Lon. 78.446° W, Lat. 1.468° S, 5023 masl,
Fig. 1) is a large stratovolcano located in the Real Cordillera
of the Ecuadorian Andes. Since the beginning of its current
activity in October 1999, ash fallout has been the most
frequent and widespread volcanic hazard [16, 17]. Based on
field data of the eruption on 14 July 2013 and numerical
studies, ESP were proposed for forecasting ash dispersion and
sedimentation from vulcanian eruptions at Tungurahua [9].
On 14 August 2015, Cotopaxi volcano (Lon. 78.436° W,
Lat. 0.677° S, 5897 masl, Fig. 1) awoke with its first
significant eruption in more than 70 years, after approximately
four months of precursory activity [18]. Cotopaxi is an ice-
capped stratovolcano located about 50 km south of Quito
(capital of Ecuador, Fig. 1).
 Although the Cotopaxi volcano has been monitored since
1983 by the Instituto Geofísico – Escuela Politécnica Nacional
(IG-EPN)[19], its recent unrest demands information about the
ash dispersion in forecasting time. In the same way, based on
field and numerical studies, preliminary ESP were established
for modeling ash dispersion at Cotopaxi, for similar eruptions
as the one that happened on 14 August 2015 [20].
As a key objective of the Research Group of Volcanic Ash
in Ecuador (“Grupo de Investigación sobre la Ceniza
Volcánica en el Ecuador”, GICVE), we build a numerical
system for forecasting the potential path of volcanic ash.
Currently this system includes to Tungurahua and Cotopaxi
volcanoes. This paper describes the main elements of this
system and the lessons learned until now from its use.
Fig. 1. Volcanoes with moderate to large explosive eruptions in the last 15
years in Ecuador. Domains for modeling: Master domain: 80x80 cells,
36 km; Subdomain 1: 109x109 cells, 12 km; Subdomain 2: 199x199
cells, 4 km.
II. METHOD
Fig. 2 shows the main components of the numerical
system, which is based on two Eulerian models.
First, global forecasted meteorology is downloaded from
the GFS dataset [21]. As these results have low spatial
resolution (grid cells of about 110 km) for the purpose of our
system, meteorology needs to be downscaled to generate wind
fields and other atmospheric parameters with higher spatial
resolution. For this purpose, the GFS data are used to set the
initial and boundary conditions for nested domains of
modeling.
Then, the Weather Research & Forecasting (WRF3.7.1)
model [22, 23] is used for forecasting the meteorology over
Ecuador (Fig. 1). WRF is a last-generation non-hydrostatic
model used also for weather research. It is a fully compressible
model that solves the equations of atmospheric motion, with
applicability to global, mesoscale, regional and local scales.
We use a master domain of 80 × 80 cells (grid cells of 36 km)
and two nested subdomains (Fig. 1). The subdomain 2 covers
Ecuador with 199 × 199 cells (grid cells of 4 km) and 35
vertical levels (model top pressure at 50 hPa, 22 km
approximately). WRF’s equations, and numeric approaches are
described in [24].
Next, the meteorological output is ingested into the
FALL3D V7.1.4 model [25]. FALL3D is a 3D time-dependent
model for the transport and deposition of volcanic ash. It
solves the advection-diffusion-sedimentation equation on a
structured terrain-following grid using a second-order finite-
differences explicit scheme. It also uses the ESP for modeling
on a domain consistent with the Subdomain 2 of Fig 1. The
results generated by FALL3D are written into a NetCDF
format file. The governing equations and parameterizations of
FALL3D are described in [26].
Then, animated gif files are generated using the Integrated
Data Viewer (IDV) software [27]. Finally, these files are
uploaded to the web link of GICVE [28].
Coupling WRF and FALL3D has been effective in
modeling volcanic ash dispersion in different regions [e.g. 6,
29]. For the Ecuadorian case, the performance in modeling
past eruptions at Tungurahua [9] and Cotopaxi volcanoes [20]
was decisive in the choice of these models for our system.
Fig. 2. Main components of the numerical system for forecasting volcanic
ash dispersion in Ecuador.
 Currently, the system forecasts the potential path of
volcanic ash and sedimentation pattern at the Tungurahua and
Cotopaxi volcanoes, with similar ESP established for the 14
July 2013 and 14 August 2015 eruptions, respectively.

WRF and FALL3D codes were compiled with gfortran and

complementary tools, into a Linux Operative System
(OpenSUSE Leap 42.2). The numerical system has a dedicated
core with 24 processors (E5, 2.00 GHz) and 65.9 GB of RAM
memory. This hardware is part of the High Performance
Computing System at Universidad San Francisco de Quito
(HPC-USFQ).

Table I shows the schedule of numerical processes. On the

first day, WRF generates the meteorological forecasting for
the next four days. After, FALL3D generates the volcanic ash
dispersion forecasting for 2 to 4 days. These simulations
demand about 24 h, corresponding 80% of this time to the
meteorological component.

A new process begins during the 4 day, which generates

the volcanic ash forecasting for 5 to 7 days.

TABLE I. SCHEDULE OF NUMERICAL PROCESSES FOR FORECASTING

VOLCANIC ASH DISPERSION IN ECUADOR

Days
Models 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
WRF Meteorological forecasting
Ash dispersion
FALL3D forecasting
WRF Meteorological forecasting
Ash dispersion
FALL3D forecasting

III. RESULTS
As examples, Figs. 3 and 4 show the forecasting for 24
April 2018 and 28 April 2018 at Tungurahua and Cotopaxi,
respectively. The white to gray scale shows the region affected
by ash fallout (thickness in m). Volcanic ash clouds at Flight
Level (FL) of 200, 300 and 400 are shown in gray, red and
blue respectively. FLs are delivered in 100 feet units,
measured above mean sea level when the pressure at sea level
is 1013.2 mb (e.g. FL300 = 30 000 feet, ≈ 9.1 km).

For Tungurahua, at 13h00 Local Time (LT), the system

forecasted ash clouds at FL200 and FL300, moving W and
NW respectively (Fig. 3). At 23h00 LT, forecasted ash fallout
affected mainly the SW region of the vent.

For Cotopaxi, at 15h00 LT, the system forecasted ash

clouds at FL200 and FL300, moving W (Fig. 4). At 21h00
LT, forecasted ash fallout affected mainly the W region of the
volcano.

Historically forecasted results (Tungurahua: since February

of 2015, Cotopaxi: since June of 2017) can be consulted at the Fig. 3. Forecasting volcanic ash dispersion. Tungurahua: 24 April 2018.
web link of GIVCE [28].

Fig. 4. Forecasting volcanic ash dispersion. Cotopaxi: 29 April 2018.
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
We build a system for forecasting volcanic ash dispersion
in Ecuador. This system is based in last-generation Eulerian
numerical models, which take advantage of computational
resources to perform huge amounts of mathematical
operations. This approach generates results in forecasting time
with high spatial resolution.
Currently, the system forecasts the potential path of
volcanic ash and sedimentation pattern at Tungurahua and
Cotopaxi volcanoes, using the ESP established for the 14 July
2013 and 14 August 2015 eruptions respectively.
This system uses an off-line approach. It firstly forecasts
the meteorology, and after the volcanic ash dispersion.
The advantage of this approach is the need of a unique
meteorological database, which can be used for forecasting the
ash dispersion at different volcanoes. This feature is very
important, especially in cases of limited computational
resources. Once the meteorology is available, it is possible to
forecast in almost real time, the dispersion of volcanic ash, if
the beginning time of a real eruption is known.
Nevertheless, the off-line approach does not take into
account interactions between volcanic ash emissions and
meteorology. The on-line approach, which works with
feedback, could improve the modeling performance. The
disadvantage of the on-line approach is the need of larger
computational capacities, in part because the meteorology and
the ash dispersion of a unique eruption are processed at the
same time.
Convective movements of the atmosphere promote the
formation of clouds. Such a situation is highly probable in the
Andean region of Ecuador, where volcanic ash forecasting
could be particularly useful. As happened during the
Tungurahua eruption on 14-Jul-2013 [9] and the Cotopaxi
eruption on 14-Aug-2015 [20], satellite sensors could detect
volcanic ash only over the meteorological cloud layers.
Nevertheless, the dispersion below the clouds can happen in
different direction than the observed by remote sensing. This
situation is depicted in Fig. 3, which shows at 09h00 (LT) on
24 April 2018, an ash cloud at FL400 moving NE, although
the forecasted ash fallout affects mainly the SW region of the
vent.
From our experience in using this system, we learned that:
• To get the forecasting products on time, the system
must use dedicated computational resources.
• Scripts codes are required to automatize the
numerical process.
• For future studies the historical results should be
systematically packed and copied to backup devices.
The dispersion of volcanic ash is a priority field of research
in Ecuador. To improve both our understanding and modeling
performance, the following activities can be helpful: a
comparison between the off-line and on-line approaches, study
of the influence of initial and boundary conditions, sensitivity
study about the influence of terminal velocity and ash
aggregations processes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research is part of the project “Calidad del Aire en el
Ecuador” funded with the USFQ Poli-Grants 2017 – 2018. We
thank to Jaime Paez, who implemented the web page where the
results are systematically uploaded. We thank to Scott Thomas
Gibson for checking the English grammar.
REFERENCES
[1] P.M. Ayris, and P. Delmelle, “The immediate environmental effects of
tephra emission,” B. Volcanol., vol 74, pp. 1905-1936, November 2012.
Doi 10.1007/s00445-012-0654-5.
[2] C.J. Horwell, and P.J. Baxter, “The respiratory health hazards of
volcanic ash: a review for volcanic risk mitigation,” B. Volcanol., vol
69, pp. 1–24, July 2006.
[3] T.M. Wilson T.M., and C. Stewart, “Volcanic Ash,” In Encyclopedia of
Natural Hazards, P. Bobrowsky, Eds. Springer, 2012, p. 1074.
[4] G. Macedonio, A. Costa, and A. Longo, “A computer model for volcanic
ash fallout and assessment of subsequent hazard,” Computat. Geosci.,
vol. 31, pp.837–845, August 2005.
[5] R. Bonasia, et al., “Long-range hazard assessment of volcanic ash
dispersal for a Plinian eruptive scenario at Popocatépetl volcano
(Mexico): implications for civil aviation safety,” B. Volcanol., vol. 76,
pp. 789, January 2014, Doi 10.1007/s00445-013-0789-z.
[6] A, Folch, O. Jorba, and J. Viramonte, ”Volcanic ash forecast –
application to the May 2008 Chaitén eruption,” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst.
Sci., vol. 8, pp. 927-940, 2008, Doi: 10.5194/nhess-8-927-2008.
[7] S. Scollo, M. Prestifilippo, G. Spata, M. D’Agostino, and M. Coltelli,
M., “Monitoring and forecasting Etna volcanic plumes,” Nat. Hazards
Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 9, pp. 1573–1585, September 2009.
[8] K. Wilkins, et al., “Volcanic ash cloud forecasting: combining satellite
observations and dispersion modelling,” Geophys. Res. Abstracts, vol.
16, p. EGU2014-1615, 2014.
[9] R. Parra, B. Bernard, D. Narváez, J.L. Le Pennec, N. Hasselle, and A.
Folch, “Eruption Source Parameters for forecasting ash dispersion and
deposition from vulcanian eruptions at Tungurahua volcano: Insights
from field data from the July 2013 eruption,” J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res.,
vol. 309, pp. 1–13, January 2016.
[10] C. Bonadona, and A. Costa, “Modeling tephra sedimentation from
volcanic plumes,” in Modeling volcanic processes, S. Fagents, T. Gregg,
and R. Lopes, Eds. Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 173-202.
[11] C. Bonadonna, A. Folch, S. Loughlin, and H. Puempel, “Future
developments in modelling and monitoring of volcanic ash clouds:
outcomes from the first IAVCEI-WMO workshop on Ash Dispersal
Forecast and Civil Aviation,” B. Volcanol., vol. 74, pp. 1-10, January
2012, doi:10.1007/s00445-011-0508-6.
[12] R.B. Stull, Meteorology for scientist and engineers, 2nd ed., CA-USA:
Brooks/Cole, 2000, pp. 311-336.
[13] J. Guang et al., "Forecasting air quality by integration of satellite data
and hysplit trajectory model", 2010 IEEE International Geoscience and
Remote Sensing Symposium, Honolulu, HI, 2010, pp. 2773-2776. Doi:
10.1109/IGARSS.2010.5649461
[14] Y. Rybarczyk and R. Zalakeviciute, "Machine learning approach to
forecasting urban pollution," 2016 IEEE Ecuador Technical Chapters
Meeting (ETCM), Guayaquil, 2016, pp. 1-6. Doi:
10.1109/ETCM.2016.7750810
[15] M. Huang, T. Zhang, J. Wang and L. Zhu, "A new air quality forecasting
model using data mining and artificial neural network," 2015 6th IEEE
International Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science
(ICSESS), Beijing, 2015, pp. 259-262. Doi:
10.1109/ICSESS.2015.7339050
[16] J.L. Le Pennec, G.A. Ruiz, P. Ramón, E. Palacios, P. Mothes, and H.
Yepes, “Impact of tephra falls on the Andean communities: the
influences of eruption size and weather conditions during the 1999–2001
activity of Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador,” J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., vol.
217–218, pp. 91–103, March 2012.
[17] B. Bernard, J. Bustillos, B. Wade, and S. Hidalgo, “Influence of the wind
direction variability on the quantification of tephra fallouts: December
2012 and March 2013 Tungurahua eruptions.” Avances en Ciencias e
Ingenierías, vol. 5, pp. A14–A21, 2013.
[18] H. Gaunt, et al., “Juvenile magma recognition and eruptive dynamics
inferred from the analysis of ash time series: The 2015 reawakening of
Cotopaxi volcano,” J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., vol. 328, pp. 134-146,
December 2016.
[19] S. Hidalgo, et al., “Cotopaxi volcano’s unrest and eruptive activity in
2015: Mild awakening after 73 years of quiescence,” In Abstract volume
of the 2016 EGU General Assembly. p EGU2016–5043-1. 2016.
[20] R. Parra, “Influence of boundary layer schemes in modeling the
dispersion and sedimentation of volcanic ash in Ecuador,” Wit Trans.
Ecol. Envir., in press.
[21] GFS, “Global forecast system,” https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-
access/model-data/model-datasets/global-forcast-system-gfs, accessed
on May 2018.
[22] J. Michalakes et al., “The weather research and forecast model: software
architecture and performance,” In Proc. of the eleventh ECMWF
workshop on the use of high performance computing in meteorology, .
Z. Walter, and G. Mozdzynski (Eds.), World Scientific, pp. 156-168,
2004.
[23] WRF, “The weather research & forecasting model,” http://www.wrf-
model.org/index.php, accessed on May 2018.
[24] W. Skamarock et al., “A Description of the Advanced Research WRF
Version 3”. NCAR/TN-475+STR. NCAR Technical Note. Mesoscale
and Microscale Meteorology Division. NCAR, Boulder, USA. 2008
[25] A. Folch, A. Costa, and G. Macedonio, “FALL3D: a computational
model for transport and deposition of volcanic ash,” Comput. Geosci.,
vol. 35, pp. 1334–1342, June 2009.
[26] A. Folch, A. Costa, and G. Macedonio. “FALL3D-7.1 user’s manual,”
BSC-CNS, INGV, February, 2016.
[27] IDV, “Unidata - integrated data viewer,”
https://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/idv/, accessed on May 2018.
[28] GICVE, “Grupo de investigación sobre la ceniza volcánica en el
Ecuador,”http://www.usfq.edu.ec/programas_academicos/colegios/polite
cnico/institutos/gicve/Paginas/default.aspx, accessed on May 2018.
[29] E. Collini, M.S. Osores, A. Folch, J. Viramonte, G. Villarosa, and G.
Salmuni, “Volcanic ash forecast during the June 2011 Cordón Caulle
eruption,” Nat. Hazards, vol. 6, pp. 389–412. March 2013.