GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L20301, doi:10.
1029/2012GL053716, 2012
Experimental craters formed by single and multiple buried
explosions and implications for volcanic craters
with emphasis on maars
Greg A. Valentine,1 James D. L. White,2 Pierre-Simon Ross,3 Jamal Amin,4
Jacopo Taddeucci,5 Ingo Sonder,6 and Peter J. Johnson4
Received 28 August 2012; revised 12 September 2012; accepted 14 September 2012; published 16 October 2012.
[1] Craters at many volcanoes, including most maars, are
formed by multiple subsurface explosions. Experiments
compared the crater formed by a single large, buried explo-
sion, with craters formed by multiple explosions with the
same cumulative energy. Explosive charges were detonated
in pads composed of layered aggregates, in three configura-
tions: (1) a single large charge buried near its optimal crater
excavation depth; (2) three charges, each with 1/3 the energy
of the first one, buried at approximately the same depth with
respect to the original pad surface; (3) the same three charges
buried successively deeper. Final crater size in the multiple
explosion cases is not a good indicator of the energy of indi-
vidual explosions. However, crater morphology, and ejecta
volume and distribution can be good indicators of explosion
energy and depth. These results directly impact the estimate
of the energy released by past maar eruptions and future
hazard assessments. Citation: Valentine, G. A., J. D. L. White,
P.-S. Ross, J. Amin, J. Taddeucci, I. Sonder, and P. J. Johnson (2012),
Experimental craters formed by single and multiple buried explosions
and implications for volcanic craters with emphasis on maars,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L20301, doi:10.1029/2012GL053716.
1. Introduction
[2] Many volcanic craters are formed by multiple explo-
sions. In particular, maar volcanoes are formed by many
subsurface explosive interactions of magma with ground-
water. The resulting landform is a deep crater with a bottom
below the pre-eruption ground surface, surrounded by a low
profile tephra (ejecta) ring. Beneath the maar is a funnel-
shaped body (diatreme) of fragmented country rock, juvenile
volcaniclastic material, and intrusions [Lorenz, 1986; White
and Ross, 2011; Valentine and White, 2012]. Maars are
1
Department of Geology and Center for Geohazards Studies, University
at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA.
2
Geology Department, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
3
Centre Eau Terre Environnement, Institut National de la Recherche
Scientifique, Québec City, Québec, Canada.
4 produced several-cm sized composite “clasts” that are not
Department of Geology, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York,
USA.
5
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy.
6
Center for Geohazards Studies, University at Buffalo, Buffalo,
New York, USA.
Corresponding author: G. A. Valentine, Department of Geology,
University at Buffalo, 411 Cooke Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA.
(gav4@buffalo.edu)
©2012. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
0094-8276/12/2012GL053716
L20301
typically 100s of meters to >1 km in diameter, and diatremes
can extend as deep as 2 km.
[3] Recent work [Taddeucci et al., 2010; Valentine et al.,
2011] has opened the question: Can features such as maar
crater diameter be used to estimate explosion energy, which
in turn can be used for hazard assessment? For a given
explosion energy there is an optimal depth of burial that will
result in excavation of a maximum diameter crater [e.g.,
Goto et al., 2001; Yokoo et al., 2002]. Empirical scaling
relationships show that both optimal depth and crater
diameter vary proportionally with E1/3, where E is the
energy released by an explosion [e.g., Sato and Taniguchi,
1997]. However, the scaling relationships were developed
for craters produced by single explosions, rather than by
multiple explosions as at a maar volcano. It is not clear
whether maar crater diameter can be related to explosion
energy in the same way that crater diameter relates to the
energy of a single explosion. Here we compare experimental
data from a single explosion crater with craters produced by
multiple explosions. In all of the cases, the total explosive
energy was the same, but in the multiple-explosion cases it
was divided into three smaller explosions.
2. Experiment Setup
[4] Three pads, each 4 m  4 m in plan view and with
their bases 30 cm below the surrounding ground surface,
were constructed outdoors with layers of aggregates. In
Pads 1 and 2, the basal layer was 30 cm of light brown
gravel (median grain size 5 mm) and the middle layer was
30 cm of medium to coarse, light gray sand (median grain
size 1 mm). The layers were mechanically compacted, which
reduced the layer thicknesses by 1–2 cm, and were damp-
ened slightly with water to provide some cohesion for post-
explosion excavation. The top layer was composed of crushed
asphalt product that formed a dark gray, poorly sorted bed
(median grain size 4 mm). This layer was not mechani-
cally compacted, but developed some strength because many
asphalt particles stuck together in the daytime heat (this also
reflected in granulometric data). Pads 1 and 2 each had a
total thickness of 85–90 cm. Pad 3 had the same structure
but the layer of sand beneath the crushed asphalt product
was 35 cm thick, and there was an additional 45 cm
thick layer of the light gray sand below the three layers
described above.
[5] The charges consisted of a mixture of trinitrotoluene
(TNT) and pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), with an
approximate explosive energy density of 6  106 J/kg.
1 of 6
L20301 VALENTINE ET AL.: SINGLE AND MULTIPLE EXPLOSION CRATERS
Charges were emplaced in holes with diameters of 15 cm,
which were refilled with aggregate and tamped prior to
detonation. Note that the energy release by these chemical
explosives is likely more rapid than would be expected for a
volcanic explosion, which would affect coupling between
the explosions and surrounding media. However, our focus
here is on the relative variations from single versus multiple
explosions, rather than the quantitative details of crater
dynamics.
[6] Explosive charges were emplaced in different config-
urations in the pads (Table 1). Pad 1, a reference case, had a
single charge of 0.45 kg at a depth of 50 cm, approximately
the depth for optimal crater excavation (55 cm, based upon
Goto et al. [2001]). In Pad 2, the explosive energy
was divided into three charges, each 0.15 kg. Each of the
three explosions occurred at approximately the same depth
(50 cm) with respect to the original pad surface, thus
testing the effects of dividing the explosive energy into
discrete bursts but without variations in the location of the
bursts. In Pad 3, the three charges (each 0.15 kg) were
emplaced at different depths. Charge 1 was emplaced 50 cm
below the pad surface (as in the explosions for Pads 1 and 2).
Charge 2 was emplaced between 40–50 cm deeper than the
lowest point in the crater that was produced by Charge 1;
depth was less well constrained for this charge because of
failure of the walls of the emplacement hole (material had
been weakened by the Charge 1 explosion). Charge 3 was
emplaced 50 cm deeper than the deepest part of the crater
that was produced by Charge 2. This configuration simulates
a maar-diatreme volcano in which explosions are progres-
sively deeper as an eruption proceeds [Lorenz, 1986]. In all
cases, charges were emplaced beneath the center of the
pads in plan view. Explosions were separated in time by
30–45 minutes, allowing crater diameter, depth, and mor-
phology to be recorded after each explosion.
[7] Explosions were recorded with a high-speed
(600 frames/s) video camera located about 50 m from the
test pads on an elevated surface. Ejecta deposits were
sampled on plastic mats situated at regular radial distances
along a single line from each of the explosion sites, begin-
ning 2.5 m from ground zero (4.2 m at Pad 3). Only the
explosions at Pads 1 and 2 resulted in significant quantities
of ejecta reaching these sample collection sites; the samples
for Pad 2 were collected at the end of the three-explosion
sequence there. The pads were excavated after all explo-
sions were completed in order to document the subsurface
structures, and the excavation results will be presented
elsewhere.
3. Crater Characteristics
[8] The single 0.45 kg explosion (3  106 J) at Pad 1
produced a 1.92 m diameter, 47 cm deep crater (Table 1 and
Video 1; compare with predicted diameter of 1.9 m using the
relationships in Goto et al. [2001]).1 The explosion took
place in the sand layer beneath the topmost layer of crushed
asphalt; most of the ejected material was crushed asphalt but
finer grained, lighter colored sand was ejected in streaks that
are preserved in crater wall and rim deposits (Figure 1a). The
crater was cone shaped with walls sloping inward at 26 ,
surrounded by a rim of ejecta with a hummocky surface.
1
Animations are available in the HTML.
2 of 6
L20301
[9] The first explosion at Pad 2 (Table 1) occurred beneath
50 cm of overburden (compare with the optimum depth of
burial of 35 cm; Goto et al. [2001]). The resulting crater
diameter was 1.5 m (compare to predicted 1.35 m; Goto
et al. [2001]), but it had a very subdued, shallow shape with
a hummocky floor rather than a conical shape. This is
because much of the ejected material (mainly crushed
asphalt and some sand) was disaggregated and lifted only
2 m or so in a low vertical jet before falling back into the
crater; only a small amount fell outside the crater (see
Video 2). The second charge (Video 3) was placed near the
same level as the first, with respect to the original pad
surface, but the overburden (measured from the low point of
the Charge 1 crater) was similar to the optimum burial depth
for the 0.15 kg charge. As a result, Charge 2 efficiently
ejected material already loosened by the previous explosion,
destroying the hummocky structures in the Charge 1 crater
and producing a deeper (53 cm) and wider (1.8 m diameter)
crater. The crater was cone shaped, with a steeper-sloped
inner part (1.3 m diameter) that we infer corresponded to the
edge of the damage zone from Charge 1. The average slope
of the Charge 2 crater was 30 , steeper than the crater in
Pad 1, because of the pre-damaged aggregate. In order to
maintain an approximately constant detonation location,
Charge 3 was buried in the bottom of the Charge 2 crater, so
that the top of the cylindrical (12 cm long) charge was
even with the crater bottom. Most of the energy of the
Charge 3 blast was transmitted into air shock, although a
small amount of crushed asphalt was sheared off the walls
of the Charge 2 crater and ejected onto the surrounding pad
surface (Video 4). Although Charge 3 did not widen the
existing crater significantly (Figure 1b), it did further
weaken the material around it. Within 10 minutes after the
detonation, concentric tension fractures opened up around
the crater to distances of 30 cm from its rim, as the
weakened pad material responded to the open crater
topography. However, when the crater was re-examined two
days later these fractures had “healed” without significant
slumping into the crater.
[10] The crater produced by Charge 1 at Pad 3 had a
smaller diameter than, but was otherwise similar to, the
Charge 1 crater at Pad 2, because of the essentially identical
blast conditions (Table 1 and Video 5). Charge 2 was placed
between 40–50 cm lower than the lowest level of the Charge
1 crater, such that it was also beneath its optimum depth in
terms of overburden, but not as much as was Charge 1. This
fact, plus the pre-weakened aggregate (due to the Charge 1
detonation), resulted in further excavation of the crater
(Video 6) and destruction of the hummocky surface and
development of a conical new crater with inner slopes of
26 . Charge 3 was detonated 45 cm beneath the Charge 2
crater, in the crushed gravel layer. Ejection of material was
quite limited; most material (dominated by crushed asphalt,
less sand, and a minor amount of gravel) rose <2 m above
the crater rim and simply fell back into the crater or onto its
rim (Video 7), depositing hummocks of debris several cm
high on the crater floor (Figure 1c), and slightly reducing
the crater diameter from 1.80 m (after Charge 2) to 1.78 m.
The slopes of the crater walls were, however, steepened
by the Charge 3 explosion. This, plus the additional accu-
mulation of ejecta rim deposits, meant that the crater vol-
ume increased slightly.
 L20301

Table 1. Charge (explosion) depths and crater geometry

Depth of Charge Depth of Charge Rim Height
With Respect With Respect With Respect Crater Depth
to Bottom of to Pre-explosion Crater to Original From Crater Ejected
Pad Charge Previous Crater Pad Surface Diameterb Pad Surface Raised Rimc Volumed Volumee
Number Numbera (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m3) (m3) Notes – Crater Morphology
1 1 – 0.5 1.92 0.09 0.47 0.45 0.31 Cone shaped crater, well-defined rim, smooth inward sloping walls. Radial streaks of
sand (middle layer) deposited on crater walls. Hummocky rim and ejecta blanket.
2 1 – 0.5 1.50 0.1 0.18 0.16 0.09 Poorly defined shallow crater, subdued rim, hummocky interior with small mounds of
crushed asphalt several cm high.
f
2 0.32 0.4–0.5 1.80 0.1 0.53 0.45 0.30 Cone shaped crater, but with a nested, steeper sloped inner part (130 cm diameter).
Relatively smooth ejecta blanket and rim.
3 0.03 0.55 1.80 0.1f 0.51 0.43 0.28 Cone shaped crater, outer rim developed during Charge 2 explosion, steep inner crater
with 1.3 m diameter (similar to Charge 2 crater). Relatively smooth ejecta blanket
and rim. Concentric cracks opened around rim during several minutes after blast.

3 of 6
3 1 – 0.5 1.32 0.07 0.15 0.09 0.05 Poorly defined shallow crater, subdued rim, hummocky interior with central mound of
crushed asphalt nearly as high as the raised rim. Crushed asphalt deposited in patches
around crater, extending 1 m from rim.
2 0.4–0.5 0.5–0.6 1.80 0.15 0.43 0.36 0.17 Cone shaped crater with gentle slopes on inner 20–30 cm diameter floor. Hummocky rim
with sand from second layer down deposited in a fan around 2/3 of the ejecta blanket.
3 0.45 0.72 1.78 0.17 0.41 0.45 0.25 Bowl shaped crater with hummocky central floor. Hummocks in rim more subdued than
after previous shot. Sand from second layer down asymmetrically deposited in one
quadrant of crater and ejecta blanket.
a
Energy of Charge 1 at Pad 1 was 3  106 J. Energies of each charge in Pads 2 and 3 were 106 J.
b
Average of 2–4 measurements across center of crater to crest of raised rim on either side.
c
Crater depth measured from height of raised rim.
d
Total volume measured from top of ejecta rim to bottom of crater, and accounting for features such as hummocks within craters.
e
Assumes inner slope of ejecta rim is 30 , and is an estimate of the crater volume with respect to the original pad surface.
f
VALENTINE ET AL.: SINGLE AND MULTIPLE EXPLOSION CRATERS

Measured from photographs.

L20301
L20301 VALENTINE ET AL.: SINGLE AND MULTIPLE EXPLOSION CRATERS
Figure 1. Oblique photos of final craters at each of the
pads. White vertical bars indicate opposing crater rims.
(a) Pad 1 crater (diameter 1.92 m). (b) Pad 2 final crater
(diameter 1.8 m). Note steep inner part of crater wall. (c) Pad 3
final crater (1.78 m diameter). Note light colored hummock
on crater bottom. In all three photos, dark material is
derived from the topmost pad layer (crushed asphalt), and
light material is sand from the middle layer.
[11] To summarize, the single explosion case produced a
crater diameter of 1.92 m, while the multiple explosion cases
(but adding up to the same total energy for each pad)
resulted in crater diameters of 1.78–1.80 m (a difference of
7%), regardless of the location of the explosions for the
configurations tested here. Similarly, the final volumes of
each of the craters were essentially the same when measured
from the high point of the ejecta rim to the crater bottoms
(but see below; Table 1). Final crater size appeared to reflect
the cumulative energy released, although the generality of
this conclusion must be tested with a wider range of con-
figurations. Crater size is not a good indicator of the energies
of individual explosions at a multi-explosion crater. How-
ever, the shape of a crater, especially the presence of
4 of 6
L20301
hummocks and departure from conical geometry (steeper
walls and broader floor), is an indicator of relatively weak
or/and too-deeply-buried explosions.
4. Ejecta Dynamics
[12] Although the final crater volumes produced at each
pad, when measured from the tops of the ejecta rims, were
similar (Table 1), the ejected volumes (based upon the crater
volumes measured from the original pad surfaces rather than
ejecta rims) and dispersal of the ejecta were sensitive to the
explosion energies and depths (Figure 2). The single large
explosion at Pad 1 dispersed ballistic ejecta radially away
from the explosion epicenter to distances exceeding 16 m.
The ratio of the thickness of ejecta at the crater rim to the
total crater depth (R) was 0.2. The explosion sequence in
Pad 2 ejected about 10% less volume and resulted in much
less ejecta reaching the sampling locations, with most of the
ejecta mass falling within 7 m of the epicenter. At the end
of the explosion sequence at Pad 2, R = 0.2, similar to that at
Pad 1. The Pad 3 explosion sequence ejected 20% less
material than the Pad 1 case, and produced no deposits on
the sample pads which began about 2.5 m from the epi-
center at Pad 2, and 4.2 m from the Pad 3 epicenter. At
Pad 3 the final crater had R = 0.4, illustrating how the deep-
ening explosions were progressively less able to disperse
material far from the explosions’ epicenter. Material from the
crushed asphalt (topmost) layer was ejected with a range of
clast sizes up to several cm, but many of these were com-
posite clasts that tended to break apart upon landing, which
complicates any detailed interpretation of the granulometry
of the ejecta deposits.
[13] The experiments demonstrated processes related to
the formation of dilute pyroclastic density currents at maars.
Most of the explosions took place in the sand layer that was
overlain by coarser crushed asphalt, and this sand included a
small fraction of fine silt. At Pad 1, material was ejected very
energetically to a maximum height of 15 m, with coarse
clasts (“lapilli”) following ballistic trajectories. As the bal-
listic material traveled away from the explosion site, fine silt,
which has high particle drag with the gas phase, remained
over the epicenter in a dilute plume that slowly diffused into
Figure 2. Ejecta deposition (measured in mass per unit
area) as a function of distance from ground zero at Pads 1
and 2. The Pad 3 explosion sequence did not result in any
ejecta reaching the sampling surfaces (starting at 4.2 m
from ground zero).
L20301 VALENTINE ET AL.: SINGLE AND MULTIPLE EXPLOSION CRATERS
Figure 3. Late stages of the explosion at Pad 1 and of the
third explosion at Pad 3. Small black arrows indicate trajec-
tories of large clasts, larger gray arrows show flow of dusty
gas. (a) At Pad 1, material is dispersed very effectively,
coarse clasts following ballistic paths and the dilute cloud
of fine material slowly diffuses and settles partly as a weak
density current (arrows), after coarser ballistic clasts have
dispersed. (b) At Pad 3, the poorly sorted mixture collapses
rapidly within a small radius of the explosion epicenter.
The rapid sedimentation of coarse material expels a dilute
cloud of silt and gas (dusty gas) laterally outward, in turn
forming a density current.
the atmosphere and a weak density current developed due to
the slightly higher density of the dusty gas relative to
ambient air (Figure 3a and Video 1). In contrast, the lower
energy bursts that were detonated below their optimal
excavation depths (Charge 1 at Pad 2, and all the charges at
Pad 3) ejected material only a few meters above the
5 of 6
L20301
epicenters and most of that material simply collapsed back
into the craters or within 2–4 m of the crater rims. As
the high-particle-concentration jet collapsed, coarse clasts
fell relatively directly to the ground while the dusty gas
component of the mixture, along with new silt propelled
from the crater floor by coarse-clast impacts, was expelled
laterally outward, in turn forming dilute density currents that
traveled up the craters’ walls and outward beyond the rims
(Figure 3b and Video 7). At Pad 1, the slightly higher den-
sity of the dusty gas initiated the current, whereas at Pad 3,
explosion 3, the density current was initiated by the effects
of the wide range of particle-gas coupling in the multiphase
mixture of the jet. These processes, when occurring on a
larger scale in Nature, could contribute to the formation of
fine-grained deposits in tephra rings with evidence of having
been emplaced by lateral currents (e.g., dune bedding). They
are discrete-explosion variants of column collapse, and are
base surges in the original sense used for buried (or under-
water) nuclear and phreatomagmatic explosions [see Fisher
and Schmincke, 1984].
5. Conclusions
[14] For the configurations tested here the crater size
(diameter, total volume) is not a good indicator of the energy
of individual explosions. Hazards associated with explosions
at maars and other multi-explosion volcanic craters may be
overestimated if crater diameter is used to estimate individ-
ual explosion energy. Crater morphology can provide some
evidence of the relative strength or/and depth of explosions,
in that ejecta from weak or too-deeply buried explosions will
not rise very high and much of it falls back into the crater.
This results in a departure from a simple cone-shaped crater
that forms when material is effectively excavated by explo-
sions that occur close to their optimal depths. The most
sensitive indicator of the strength of individual explosions is
ejecta dispersal; an indicator of this is the ratio of the
thickness of ejecta deposits on the crater rim to the total
crater depth. The experiments provide clues about the sour-
ces of pyroclastic surges that are commonly evidenced in
tephra ring deposits; even relatively weak or too-deeply-
buried explosions can drive surges as proximal fallback of
coarse material expels the fine ash-gas (dusty gas) mixture
and forces it radially outward. Future experiments will
explore a wider range of geometries and will focus on ejecta
dynamics and relationships between experimental ejecta
deposits with known source conditions, and those found in
nature where source conditions are less well constrained.
[15] Acknowledgments. We thank D. Schonwalder, S. Pansino,
J. Ball, D. Ruth, M. Bursik, P. Scarlato, G. Babonis, S. Ogburn, and
R. Andrews for assistance in preparing the site and during the experiments.
D. Goralski provided invaluable logistics support. Comments by P. Dellino
and an anonymous reviewer improved the manuscript. The experiment was
funded by the University at Buffalo, through the Center for Geohazards
Studies. We also acknowledge support from NSERC (Discovery grant to
P.S.R.), the New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation, and Employment
(to J.D.L.W.), and INGV (to J.T.).
[16] The Editor thanks Bernd Zimanowski and Pierfrancesco Dellino
for their assistance in evaluating this paper.
References
Fisher, R. V., and H.-U. Schmincke (1984), Pyroclastic Rocks, Springer,
Berlin, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-74864-6.
Goto, A., H. Taniguchi, M. Yoshida, T. Ohba, and H. Oshima (2001),
Effect of explosions energy and depth to the formation of blast wave
L20301 VALENTINE ET AL.: SINGLE AND MULTIPLE EXPLOSION CRATERS L20301

and crater: Field explosion experiment for the understanding of volca-
nic explosion, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 4287–4290, doi:10.1029/
2001GL013213.
Lorenz, V. (1986), On the growth of maars and diatremes and its relevance
to the formation of tuff-rings, Bull. Volcanol., 48, 265–274, doi:10.1007/
BF01081755.
Sato, H., and H. Taniguchi (1997), Relationship between crater size and
ejecta volume of recent magmatic and phreato-magmatic eruptions:
Implications for energy partitioning, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 205–208,
doi:10.1029/96GL04004.
Taddeucci, J., G. Sottili, D. M. Palladino, G. Ventura, and P. Scarlato
(2010), A note on maar eruption energetics: Current models and their
application, Bull. Volcanol., 72, 75–83, doi:10.1007/s00445-009-0298-2.
Valentine, G. A., and J. D. L. White (2012), Revised conceptual model for
maar-diatremes: Subsurface processes, energetics, and eruptive products,
Geology, doi:10.1130/G33411.1, in press.
Valentine, G. A., N. L. Shufelt, and A. R. L. Hintz (2011), Models of maar
volcanoes, Lunar Crater (Nevada, USA), Bull. Volcanol., 73, 753–765,
doi:10.1007/s00445-011-0451-6.
White, J. D. L., and P.-S. Ross (2011), Maar-diatreme volcanoes: A review,
J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 201, 1–29, doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.
2011.01.010.
Yokoo, A., H. Taniguchi, A. Goto, and H. Oshima (2002), Energy and
depth of Usu 2000 phreatic explosions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(24),
2195, doi:10.1029/2002GL015928.

6 of 6