Technical Note

Landslides (2022) 19:747– 759
DOI 10.1007/s10346-021-01784-5
Received: 25 April 2021
Accepted: 14 October 2021
Published online: 9 January 2022
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany,
part of Springer Nature 2021
S. Daniel Andrade · Stefanie Almeida · Emilia Saltos · Daniel Pacheco ·
Stephen Hernandez · Wilson Acero
A simple and general methodology
to calibrate seismic instruments for debris
flow quantification: application to Cotopaxi
and Tungurahua volcanoes (Ecuador)

Abstract Debris flows are hazardous phenomena occurring at vol-
canoes, and monitoring them has proved as challenging as impera-
tive in several cases. The use of seismic instruments to measure
and study the physical properties of debris flows has witnessed
significant progress in the last years, with the use of improved
sensors, innovative methodologies and high-resolution analysis.
However, the application of such studies to the practical task of
providing early warnings remains limited by the significant amount
of infrastructural and technological resources commonly required
for their deployment. In Ecuador, debris flows at volcanoes are
detected by means of seismic instruments which are usually part
of broader monitoring networks, thus requiring calibration to
provide quantitative information about the flows and feed early-
warning systems. In the present work, a theoretical approach based
on the Buckingham Π-theorem is used to determine an expression
that linearly correlates the seismic signal produced by a transiting
debris flow with its discharge rate, for instruments installed in dif-
ferent substrata and at variable distances from the drainage. The
expression is experimentally tested with Acoustic Flow Monitors
and Broad-band seismometers installed in the vicinity of drain-
ages at Tungurahua and Cotopaxi volcanoes, where actual debris
flows occurred in relation to eruptive activity. The experiments
consist in comparing the measured peak amplitude values of the
seismic signal envelopes with the estimated peak discharge rates
of several events. The results confirm the validity of the theoreti-
cal expression with linear correlations observed between the seis-
mic amplitudes and the discharge rates, thus defining calibration
expressions that can be generally applied to varied environments
and instruments. The seismic instruments calibrated through this
methodology can provide instantaneous and reliable predictions of
debris flow discharge rates within less than an order of magnitude
and only requiring limited data processing and storage. Such level
of prediction could help to improve early warning systems based on
seismic instruments installed in locations where more developed
instrumental arrays are unavailable or unpractical.
Keywords Debris flow monitoring · Seismic instruments · Peak-
discharge rate · Buckingham Π-theorem
Introduction
Debris flows are common phenomena occurring at volcanoes, where
they are known as lahars, and often represent major hazards for com-
munities and infrastructure placed close to the drainages downstream
(Brown et al. 2017; Thouret et al. 2020). They can occur directly asso-
ciated to eruptive periods, and when volcanoes are dormant or even
extinct (Cascini et al. 2014; Vallance and Iverson 2015; Thouret et al.
2020)⁠. Multiple water sources associated to volcanoes can give place to
the formation of debris flows, among them rain (Lavigne and Thouret
2003; Santangelo et al. 2021)⁠, crater lakes (Manville and Cronin 2007;
Massey et al. 2010), glaciers (Pierson et al. 1990; Thouret 1990)⁠ and
ground-water bodies (Johnson et al. 2018). The size of such debris
flows depends on the availability of water and sediments during their
formation and transport, with volumes ranging from ­103 to ­108 ­m3 and
peak discharges from 1 to ­104 ­m3/s (Thouret et al. 2020). In the present
study, the term debris flow implies a volumetric solid content > 60%
vol. of the water–sediment mixture, while the term hyperconcentrated
flow implies solid contents between 20 and 60% vol. (Jakob and Hungr
2005; Vallance and Iverson 2015).
Different types of monitoring instruments may be deployed
with the aim of identifying the potential or the actual occurrence
of debris flows. Such instruments can be varied and their meas-
urements linked to different physical parameters associated with
debris flow occurrence, including rainfall (Bacchini and Zannoni
2003; Osanai et al. 2010; Berenguer et al. 2015), ground and/or infra-
sound vibrations (Arattano 1999; Kumagai et al. 2009; Hübl et al.
2013; Kogelnig et al. 2014; Abancó et al. 2014; Schimmel and Hübl
2016), flow stage/depth (Arattano and Marchi 2008; Jacquemart
et al. 2017), surface or internal velocity (Arattano and Marchi 2005;
Yang et al. 2011; Theule et al. 2018; Cui et al. 2018), basal or internal
forces (McArdell et al. 2007; Iverson et al. 2011; Berger et al. 2011)
and visual aspect by video tracking which is usually complemen-
tary with other instruments (Berti et al. 1999; Genevois et al. 2001;
Marchi et al. 2002; McCoy et al. 2010; Vázquez et al. 2016). When
transmitted and analyzed in real time, the data produced by those
instruments are expected to feed early-warning systems that could
trigger actions downstream in order to reduce the risk associated
to populations or infrastructures in critical locations (Arattano and
Marchi 2008; Coviello et al. 2019). However, the deployment and
maintenance of such instrumental networks can prove prohibitive
because of either logistical, financial or security constraints related
to both the instrumentation itself as well as the resources and infra-
structure required for the transmission, storage and analysis of the
data they produce (Hübl and Mikoš 2018; Hürlimann et al. 2019).
Research related to the use of seismometers for debris flow mon-
itoring in volcanic and non-volcanic environments has increased
in recent decades due to their adaptability and reliability as well as

Landslides 19 & (2022) 747

 Technical Note
to the significant advances in seismology and flow dynamics theo-
ries (Marcial et al. 1996; Lavigne et al. 2000; Kumagai et al. 2009;
Vázquez et al. 2016; Walter et al. 2017; Lai et al. 2018; Coviello et al.
2018; Allstadt et al. 2018, 2020). Regardless of the seismic instrument
used to identify or characterize debris flows, all the studies men-
tioned above have consistently shown that their seismic energy is
mostly contained in frequencies between 10 and 100 Hz. In the cases
of Tungurahua and Cotopaxi volcanoes (Ecuador), seismic instru-
ments have been installed by Instituto Geofísico of Escuela Politéc-
nica Nacional (IG-EPN) since year 2000 with the aim of monitor-
ing both deep volcano-magmatic activity and surface phenomena
like debris flows (Kumagai et al. 2007, 2009; Mothes and Vallance
2015; Jones et al. 2015)⁠. Although the data produced by those seismic
instruments is telemetered in real time and could be analyzed in
near real time, their performance during debris flow monitoring Fig. 1  Schematic representation of the system corresponding to a
debris flow transiting close to a seismic instrument with the physical
is limited by two factors: the lack of additional data from comple-
parameters considered in the present analysis
mentary instruments to better assess the flows (i.e. stage sensors
or high resolution cameras) and the lack of a calibration to obtain
quantitative information about the debris flows (i.e. discharge rate) composed of volcaniclastic deposits and/or lava flows and thus
from the seismic records. Limited resources for volcano monitor- is represented by its bulk density δS. The seismic instrument is
ing as well as a usually harsh environment in Ecuador prevent the recording a signal S corresponding to high frequency surface waves
improvement of the first factor. produced by the transiting flow and is installed at a distance x from
In the present paper, a theoretical framework based on the the drainage, which is consequently measured from the drainage
Buckingham Π-theorem (Buckingham 1914) is used to obtain a talweg along the surface of the terrain to the seismometer location.
theoretical simple expression that correlates the recorded seismic Table 1 lists those parameters and their dimensions.
signal (envelope) with the approximate debris flow discharge rate, Given that the system is defined by 5 parameters which are
for instruments installed in different substrata and at variable expressed by 3 dimensions, then the Buckingham Π-theorem states
distances from the drainage. This expression is then tested and that 2 dimensionless numbers Π1 and Π2 must exist such that
validated with instrumental observations and field measurements
performed during and after rain-triggered debris flows occurred as Π1 = Qa ∗ x b ∗ 𝛿Lc ∗ S, (1)
a consequence of eruptions at Tungurahua and Cotopaxi volcanoes.
The results show that discharge rate predictions below the order of Π2 = Qd ∗ x e ∗ 𝛿Sf ∗ 𝛿L, (2)
magnitude for debris flows may be obtained once the instruments
are calibrated through the application of the theoretical expression. Π1 = k ∗ Π2 (3)
These methodology and results may be applied to the cases when
only seismic instruments are available to detect debris flows, or Given that Π1 and Π2 are dimensionless numbers, then the val-
cases when adequate installation locations for monitoring instru- ues of the exponents a, b, c, d, e and f in Eqs. (1) and (2) must verify
ments, defined by substrata type and distance from the drainage to
[Q]a ∗ [x]b ∗ [𝛿L]c ∗ [S] = 1 (4)
the sensor, need to be chosen.

A theoretical framework for calibration [Q]d ∗ [x]e ∗ [𝛿S]f ∗ [𝛿L] = 1 (5)

The Buckingham Π-theorem has been long applied in Earth Sci-
with Eqs. (4) and (5) being dimensional equations. Thus, by intro-
ences, especially during the scaling procedure and interpretation
ducing the dimensions of each parameter in Eq. (4), it is obtained
of analogue experiments (Hubbert 1937; Schellart and Strak 2016).
In general, however, this theorem establishes correlations existing L3a ∗ T −a ∗ Lb ∗ M c ∗ L−3c ∗ L ∗ T −1 = 1 (6)
among independent parameters (variables) involved in a specific
physical system through the use of dimensional equations (Buck-
ingham 1914). Table 1  Parameters representing the physical system
The application of this theorem initially requires the identifica- Parameter Symbol Dimensions
tion and dimensional definition of the most relevant parameters
Debris flow discharge rate Q L3*T−1
representing the physical system to be studied. For the present
study the physical system corresponds to a debris flow transiting Debris flow bulk density δL M*L−3
at a given point of a drainage close to which a seismic instrument
Substratum density δS M*L−3
is installed (Fig. 1). Thus, from a continuum-mechanics perspective,
the main mechanical parameters that describe the debris flow are Source-instrument distance x L
the discharge rate Q and the bulk density of the water–sediment
Seismic signal S L*T−1
mixture δL (Vallance and Iverson 2015). In a volcano, the substrata
on which the seismic instrument is installed might typically be

748 Landslides 19 & (2022)

and consequently, by balancing of dimension T, a =  − 1, by balancing
of dimension M, c = 0, and by balancing of dimension L, b = 2. When
the values obtained for a, b and c are introduced in Eq. (1), then
Π1 = Q−1 ∗ x 2 ∗ S
Similarly, by introducing the dimensions of each parameter in
Eq. (5) and then using the same procedure described above, it is
obtained that d = 0, e = 0 and f =  − 1 and thus
Π2 = 𝛿S−1 ∗ 𝛿L
Finally, by replacing Eqs. (7) and (8) in Eq. (3), it is obtained
Q = M ∗ (𝛿S∕𝛿L) ∗ x 2 ∗ S
which correlates the discharge rate Q of a debris flow with the cor-
responding seismic signal S, thus theoretically allowing to trans-
form the later into the former. It is important to note that M is a
constant term equivalent to k−1 from Eq. (3) and for any given seis-
mic instrument installed in a fixed monitoring point, x will be also
a constant as well as δS, while δL can display some variability either
during a single event or for different events. Thus, Eq. (9) predicts
an approximate linear correlation between Q and S. Experimental
measurements of debris flows are required to test Eq. (9).
Experimental instruments and methodology
For the present study, testing Eq. (9) implied that the signal
recorded by the seismic instruments (S) was systematically com-
pared with measurements of the discharge rate (Q) of actual debris
flow events. In the case of Ecuadorian volcanoes, debris flows are
monitored with two types of seismic instruments: (1) Acoustic Flow
Monitors (AFM); (2) Broad-band seismometers (BBS).
AFMs are based on L10AR digital exploration geophones which
have a flat response between 10 and 300 Hz and were originally
Fig. 2  Seismic records of debris flows as observed at: (a) JUI-01 Acoustic Flow Monitor (AFM) at Tungurahua volcano; and (b) BNAS broad
band seismometer (BBS) at Cotopaxi volcano
designed by the US Geological Survey (Hadley and LaHusen 1991;
Hadley et al. 1995). These instruments have been used for debris
flow detection during several volcanic crises, including Pinatubo
(Philippines) (Marcial et al. 1996), Merapi (Indonesia) (Lavigne
(7) et al. 2000) and Nevado de Huila (Colombia) (Pulgarín et al. 2009).
In the case of Tungurahua and Cotopaxi volcanoes, the seismic
records of debris flows are obtained by AFMs in three steps. First,
the raw signal from the geophone is filtered between 10 and 300 Hz
at the station site. Then, the average absolute-amplitude value of the
(8) signal is measured in non-overlapping 5-min windows. Finally, this
averaged value is digitized and telemetered to the IGEPN monitor-
ing center in the form of a value between 0 and 4095, effectively
(9) obtaining a seismic envelope (Fig. 2a). AFMs can be set up so the
average amplitudes are obtained in different frequency ranges (i.e.
10–100 Hz) or time-windows (i.e. 2 or 10 min). The signal is com-
monly used to trigger system alarms when pre-defined amplitude
thresholds are exceeded. Given their design, which prioritizes the
minimization of telemetered data, the raw signal measured by the
AFM geophone is lost, and it is not possible to obtain seismic veloc-
ity information from the telemetered values.
Conversely, BBSs are usually part of seismic networks aimed at
monitoring volcano-magmatic or tectonic activity, but eventually
they have also been used as tools for debris flow monitoring (Kumagai
et al. 2009; Doyle et al. 2010; Vázquez et al. 2016). In the case
of Ecuadorian volcanoes, BBSs are Guralp CMG-40 T sensors that
have a flat instrument response for frequencies above 1/60 Hz. The
recorded signal is digitized by 24-bit data loggers before being telem-
etered to the IGEPN monitoring center at a rate of 50 sps (Kumagai
et al. 2007, 2010; Ruiz et al. 2012). Upon arrival at the IGEPN monitor-
ing center, the Real-time Seismic Amplitude Measurement (RSAM or
seismic envelope) method is applied to the raw waveforms for vari-
ous purposes (Endo and Murray 1991; Arattano et al. 2014). For the
case of debris flows, this process entails filtering the data above 10 Hz
and measuring the average absolute amplitude in non-overlapping
Landslides 19 & (2022) 749
 Technical Note
windows of 60 s (Fig. 2b). The size of the time-window has been
defined following logistic considerations at IGEPN, where optimiza-
tion of resources for data storage and display has prevailed. The use
of shorter time-windows will be discussed later.
Two drainages were selected, where rain-triggered flows have
been observed with the seismic instruments mentioned above: (a)
The Quebrada Palmaurcu ravine (Tungurahua volcano) where two
AFM instruments JUI-01 and JUI-02 have been installed since 2011
(Fig. 3a) (Almeida and Andrade 2016); and (b) the Quebrada Cut-
zualo ravine (Cotopaxi volcano) where the BBS instrument BNAS
has been installed since 2006 (Kumagai et al. 2007) (Fig. 3b). In both
drainages, rain-triggered debris flows occurred as a consequence of
eruptive activity in the corresponding volcano (Mothes and Vallance
2015; Hidalgo et al. 2018).
Given that no instruments were available to measure the dis-
charge rate simultaneously with the seismic signals, the correlations
were made using the peak-discharge rates of each event as esti-
mated by fieldwork. Thus, Eq. (9) was indeed tested by comparing
the peak values of the seismic envelopes with the estimated peak-
discharge rates of individual flows.

Fig. 3  Seismic instruments

used in the present study for
debris flow detection at: (a)
Tungurahua volcano; and (b)
Cotopaxi volcano. Drainages
relevant for the present study
are highlighted in light blue

750 Landslides 19 & (2022)

 Every time an instrument recorded anomalous values, the signal
was manually inspected to decide if it was useful for the experi-
ment. Only signals corresponding to debris flow-type lahars were
selected for analysis. From previous experience (Arattano et al.
2014; Vázquez et al. 2016), debris flow signals are often charac-
terized by a surge with a sharp initiation where the peak value is
reached in a relatively short time (few minutes), after which the
signal roughly displays a sustained (sometimes exponential) decay
(Fig. 2). Additional surges may follow the initial. This is opposite
to the hyperconcentrated flow-type lahars, which are characterized
by longer lasting signals, with no clear initiation and consistently
displaying several peak-value points (Coviello et al. 2018).
When a recorded event was selected for analysis, fieldwork was
immediately performed to determine the peak discharge (Q) of the
flow. The value of Q for every event was obtained with
Q=v∗A (10)
where v is the average speed and A the wet section of the flow
in a specific location (Fig. 4a). These parameters were deter-
mined in places close to the seismic station where the drainage
displayed a clearly curved trajectory which allowed the applica-
tion of the super-elevation concept (Fink et al. 1981; Pierson et al.
1990; Prochaska et al. 2008), so an approximate value of v may be
obtained from the forced vertex equation
1∕2
v = (g ∗ r ∗ h ∗ l −1 ) (11)
where g is the acceleration of gravity and the geometrical param-
eters h, l and r are shown in Fig. 4a,b.
When a suitable curve was identified in the field, a convenient
fixed reference point P0 was established from where all the meas-
urements required to determine A, h, l and r were made using a
hand-held laser distance meter (Fig. 4a,b). Suitable curves were
those where the debris flow lateral marks and a super-elevation
were clearly identifiable (Fig. 4a). The determination of A required
Fig. 4  (a) Photograph of the Quebrada Cutzualo ravine (Cotopaxi
volcano) during fieldwork, after a debris flow recorded on 2016–01-
13. Geometrical parameters for the application of Eqs. (10) and (11)
are shown. Note the marks left by the flow during transit. (b) Sche-
the measurement of a section across the drainage and was lim-
ited by the debris flow marks (Fig. 4a). The values of h and l were
obtained from the geometry of A.
The determination of r for the application of Eq. (11) in any sur-
veyed curve entailed the following procedure:
• The curve of the drainage was delineated and marked with 4–6
points placed in the middle of the wet channel. These are the “C
points” in Fig. 4b, where only three are displayed for simplicity.
• The relative spatial position of the C points was established with
reference to point P0, using the hand-held laser distance meter
and with E-W and N-S axes as a local coordinate system.
• Circles, with their respective radii, were calculated from all the
possible inscribed angles formed by groups of three C points
(Fig. 4b).
• The radius of each calculated circle was used as r in Eq. (11).
Given that several circles can be calculated for each curve, and
more than 2 curves were measured for most of the studied events,
the procedure described above implied dispersions in the values
of v and subsequently of Q. Then, the value of Q of all events will
be presented as the average of all measurements with a standard
deviation in the results section (Tables 2 and 3).
Finally, to complete all the parameters required in Eq. (9), the
value of x for each seismic instrument was directly measured in
the field when distances were less than 40 m (the case at Tungura-
hua volcano), while a 4-m-pixel DEM was used when the distances
were larger (the case at Cotopaxi volcano). The value of δS was
obtained from published data. A value of 2400 kg*m−3 was used
when the substratum corresponded to andesitic lava flows (Lesher
and Spera 2015), and a value of 1800 kg*m−3 when the substratum
was composed of unconsolidated pyroclastic or epiclastic breccias
(Bernard et al. 2016b). The density of the moving debris flow (δL)
was impossible to measure. However, given that only debris flow-
type events were considered for this study, a constant flow density
matic diagram showing the geometric array employed to estimate
one value of r from three C points that define one circle. Field meas-
urements employed between 4 and 6 C points, from which up to 10
different circles and values of r were obtained in each curve
Landslides 19 & (2022) 751
 Technical Note
Table 2  Data for debris flow Date Instrument S (counts) No. curves No. Circles Q ­(m3/s) St-dv
events studied at Tungurahua Q
volcano. The detailed
seismic and geometrical 2012–12-01 JUI-01 1140 2 24 72.9 5.3
field measurements of each
event are provided in the JUI-02 1251 2 24 72.9 5.3
supplementary material of this 2013–02-08 JUI-01 331 1 19 28 3.0
work
2013–05-04 JUI-01 190 1 9 19.1 0.9
JUI-02 73 1 9 19.1 0.9
2014–06-01 JUI-01 618 4 34 43 9.7
2014–09-15 JUI-01 366 3 22 14.9 1.3
JUI-02 257 3 22 14.9 1.3
2014–12-07 JUI-01 451 2 16 25.5 1.3
JUI-02 657 2 16 25.5 1.3

of 2000 kg*m−3 for all events will be used during the analysis of
the results (Iverson 1997; Manville et al. 1998). A discussion will be
presented regarding this assumption.
Results
AFM instruments at Tungurahua volcano
The AFM instrument JUI-01 is installed x = 35 m away from the
Quebrada Palmaurcu ravine (Fig. 3a) in a location where the sub-
stratum corresponds to an andesitic lava flow with an assumed
density δS of 2400 kg/m3, while JUI-02 is installed x = 31 m away
from the same drainage in a location where the substratum is com-
posed of unconsolidated pyroclastic flow breccias with an assumed
density δS of 1800 kg/m3 (Fig. 3a). In total between 2012 and 2014,
JUI-01 recorded signals corresponding to six debris flows that could
be assessed in the field, but only four of those events were also
recorded by JUI-02 due to temporary malfunctions of the instru-
ment. All the recorded events correspond to rain-triggered debris
flows formed as excess sediments accumulated in the upper flanks
of Tungurahua due to ongoing eruptions.
Table 2 summarizes the instrumental data and the field measure-
ments for each debris flow event. The peak seismic signals S varied
from 114 to 1140 AFM counts for JUI-01 and from 72 to 1251 for
JUI-02, while the peak discharges Q as estimated during fieldwork
varied from ~ 15 to ~ 73 ­m3/s. The detailed seismic and field data
obtained for each event are available as supplementary material
to this work.
When the values of Q are plotted against S, lineal correlations are
observed for both instruments, in agreement with Eq. (9) (Fig. 5).
The slope values of the linear regressions obtained in each station
allow the calculation of the product M * δS/δL present in Eq. (9), by
extracting the value of x2 corresponding to either JUI-01 or JUI-02.
Then, Eq. (9) can be written for the case of any AFM installed at a
distance x from the drainage as
Q = 4.7 × 10−5 ∗ x 2 ∗ S + 3.8 (12)
when the instrument is installed in a substratum composed of
andesitic lava flow, and as
Q = 5.1 × 10−5 ∗ x 2 ∗ S + 4.8 (13)
when it is installed in a substratum composed of unconsolidated
pyroclastic or epiclastic volcanic breccias.
Confidence intervals for Q can be calculated for each AFM so
Eqs. (12) and (13) can be used for discharge rate predictions based
on measurements of S (Fig. 5). However, given that the sample size
of discharge rates (Q) in both instruments is small, the intervals
have been calculated using a confidence percentage of only 75%. For
JUI-01 (Fig. 5a), where the sample size is 6 events, the confidence
interval is ± 10.0 ­m3/s, while for JUI-02 (Fig. 5b), where the sample
size is only 4, the interval is ± 15.5 ­m3/s.

Table 3  Data for debris Date Instrument S (µm/s) No. curves No. circles Q (m3/s) St-dv
flows studied at Cotopaxi Q
volcano. The detailed
seismic and geometrical field 2015–08-28 BNAS 6.26 5 56 6.6 1.7
measurements of each event
are provided as supplementary 2015–09-20 BNAS 40.28 5 48 33.5 4.1
material to this work 2015–11-16 BNAS 23.89 2 14 10.2 4.5
2015–11-28 BNAS 54.43 7 58 33.2 7.5
2016–01-13 BNAS 74.10 9 76 52.0 7.1
2016–04-09 BNAS 11.77 3 26 11.5 3.5

752 Landslides 19 & (2022)

Fig. 5  Plots of Q vs. S for the debris flows observed at Quebrada
Palmaurcu (Tungurahua volcano) for (a) JUI-01 AFM instrument
(installed in a lava flow substratum); and (b) JUI-02 AFM instrument
It is important to notice that the seismic signals provided by
AFMs are not direct measurements of the ground velocity, and
due to the way these instruments work, the actual seismic signal
is lost during data acquisition. Thus, Eqs. (12) and (13) are only
valid for AFM instruments that use the same sensors and signals
processed in the same way as the instruments installed in Quebrada
Palmaurcu (Tungurahua volcano). Consequently, Eqs. (12) and (13)
should allow the calibration of any of those AFM instruments for
debris flow quantification, provided that x is measured and the
geological characteristics of the substrate are known. This is the
specific case of all AFM instruments installed at Tungurahua and
Cotopaxi volcano.
BBS instrument at Cotopaxi volcano
The BBS instrument BNAS is installed x = 110 m away from the Que-
brada Cutzualo ravine (Fig. 3b), on a substratum composed of recent
unconsolidated pyroclastic flow and epiclastic breccias with an
assumed density δS of 1800 kg/m3. A total of 6 rain-triggered debris
flows were recorded that could be surveyed in the field between
August 2015 and April 2016, as Cotopaxi volcano experienced an
eruptive phase which produced a significant accumulation of loose
ash in its upper western flank (Bernard et al. 2016a; Hidalgo et al.
2018). Little is known about the specific conditions of the Quebrada
Cutzualo upper catchment because its dangerous location has pre-
vented in situ assessments. Table 3 summarizes the instrumental
data and the field measurements for each event. The peak seismic
velocities S varied from ~ 6.26 to ~ 74.1 μm/s, while the peak dis-
charges Q as measured in the field varied from ~ 6.6 to ~ 52 ­m3/s. The
detailed seismic and field data obtained for each event are available
as supplementary material to this work.
Similar to the case of AFM’s and in agreement with Eq. (9), a
linear correlation is observed when the values of Q and S are plotted
(Fig. 6). Here again, the slope value of linear regression enables the
calculation of the product k * δS/δL present in Eq. (9), by extracting
the value of x2 corresponding to BNAS. Then, Eq. (9) can be writ-
ten for the case of BBSs placed at a distance x from the drainage as
(installed in an unconsolidated volcanic breccia substratum). Dashed
lines in both diagrams represent confidence intervals of 75% for pre-
dictions of Q from measured S
Q = 5.48 × 10−5 ∗ x 2 ∗ S + 1.26 (14)
when the instrument is installed in a substratum composed of
unconsolidated volcanic breccias. Confidence intervals for Q have
been calculated so Eq. (14) can be used for predictions based in
measurements of S. Similarly to AFMs, by using a percentage of
only 75%, the confidence interval for Q is ± 8.4 ­m3/s, with a sample
size of 6 events.
It is important to note that the data provided by BNAS corre-
sponds to actual seismic velocities, so that Eq. (14) should apply to
any seismic instrument displaying a flat instrumental response for
frequencies above 1/60 Hz and seismic envelope (RSAM) measure-
ments from signals obtained at 50 sps, filtered above 10 Hz in non-
overlapping windows of 60 s, during the occurrence of a debris flow.
Validation of results
Validation of results was made by direct and indirect approaches.
The direct validation was based on testing either Eqs. (12), (13) or
(14) for past debris flow events recorded in drainages different
from Quebrada Palmaurcu (Fig. 3a) or Quebrada Cutzualo (Fig. 3b),
and by comparing observed peak discharges with those predicted
from the seismic records. Although abundant seismic records of
debris flowss actually exist at IGEPN (Mothes and Vallance 2015),
the results obtained during this work could only be validated for
a few events. The main challenge has been obtaining reliable data
for the peak discharges Q of the debris flows events used for direct
validation.
The direct validation approach was possible for three instru-
ments: VAZ-01 (AFM) and BRUN (BBS), installed respectively 24 m
and 955 m away from Rio Vazcum drainage at Tungurahua volcano
(Fig. 3a), and MIS-01 (AFM) installed 105 m away from Quebrada
Mishahuaycu drainage at Cotopaxi volcano, which has Quebrada
Chanchunga as its main tributary (Fig. 3b). The substrate around
Río Vazcum is composed by both lavas and consolidated volcanic
breccias, while at Quebrada Mishahuaycu it is composed of par-
tially consolidated volcanic breccias. Thus, Eq. (12) was used for the
Landslides 19 & (2022) 753
 Technical Note
Fig. 6  Plot of Q vs. S display-
ing the observations made at
Quebrada Cutzualo (Coto-
paxi volcano) for BNAS BBS
instrument (installed in an
unconsolidated volcanic brec-
cia substratum). Dashed lines
represent confidence intervals
of 75% for predictions of Q

validation of events recorded at AFM stations VAZ-01 and MIS-01,
and Eq. (14) for the case of BRUN.
Three debris flow events were recorded by VAZ-01 between
2005 and 2012 at Rio Vazcum, Tungurahua volcano (Table 4). The
peak discharges Q of those events were estimated at those times by
IGEPN staff using Eq. (10) by measuring accurate cross sections
A at Rio Vazcum but having to assume values of v in the range of
5–10 m/s. All three were rain-triggered events of exceptional size
and were studied in some detail just after their occurrence because
they produced some level of damage downstream in Baños town
(Fig. 3a). On August 25, 2008, BRUN recorded a big debris flow at
Rio Vazcum originating from a landslide occurred downstream
from VAZ-01 which produced damage in Baños (Fig. 3a). Finally,
one debris flow was recorded by MIS-01 on November 28, 2015 at
Quebrada Mishahuaycu, Cotopaxi volcano (Table 4, Fig. 3b). In
this case, the peak discharge Q was estimated using the exact same
methodology and staff as all other events detailed in the present
work.
Table 4 shows that predicted and observed peak discharges are
generally in agreement, especially in the case of the event recorded
by MIS-01 at Quebrada Mishahuaycu drainage. In all cases, the peak
discharges obtained from Eqs. (12) and (14) would have allowed
issuing reliable predictions within less than an order of magnitude.
This information could have improved the early warnings provided
by IGEPN.
An indirect validation approach was used with the aim to tackle
the lack of peak discharge measurement information. For this, a
comparison of data coming from one AFM and one BBS monitor-
ing the same drainage from contrasting distances was performed,
under the hypothesis that both instruments should provide similar
predictions for simultaneously recorded events. Such a compari-
son was possible at Quebrada Mapayacu (Tungurahua volcano)
where MAP-01 (AFM) and BMAS (BB) instruments are respec-
tively installed at 45 m and 840 m away from the drainage (Fig. 7).
The substratum underneath MAP-01 is composed of young and
poorly consolidated volcanic breccias, and thus Eq. (13) was used
for predictions. Conversely, the substratum underneath BMAS is
composed by both lavas and partially consolidated volcanic brec-
cias, and thus Eq. (14) was used for predictions.
Five debris flow events occurred at Quebrada Mapayacu between
2011 and 2014 that could be simultaneously recorded by MAP-01
and BMAS (Table 5). The seismic amplitudes recorded by both
instruments are varied and span more than one order of magni-
tude. Table 5 shows that the predictions of peak discharges pro-
duced by either instrument are in general agreement, with most of
them closely overlapping. As in the direct validation, this approach
also suggests that the results presented here can be used to provide
reliable predictions of debris flows peak discharges within less than
an order of magnitude from seismic records.

Table 4  Data for debris flow Date Station x (m) S (counts) Q predicted ­(m3/s) Q estimated
events used for the direct ­(m3/s)
validation approach of results.
VAZ-01 and MIS-01 are AFM 2005–12-12 VAZ-01 24 3582 91–111 100–200
instruments, while BRUN is
a BBS. Values of estimated 2008–08-25 BRUN 955 6.2 (*) 285–302 300–600
Q for events recorded with 2011–11-11 VAZ-01 24 1650 39–59 50–100
AFMs were calculated using a
velocity range of 5–10 m/s 2012–12-01 VAZ-01 24 3069 77–97 90–180
2015–11-28 MIS-01 105 75 32–52 35–40

(*): units are μm/s.

754 Landslides 19 & (2022)

Fig. 7  Seismic instruments
monitoring Quebrada Mapay-
acu drainage at Tungurahua
volcano

Discussion formulation, with the disadvantage of introducing significant

complexity and potentially larger uncertainty in the experimental
Theoretical and experimental assumptions methodology and results. The coherence between the theoretical
The results obtained in this work are based on the theoretical for- formulation and the experimental results in the present work
mulation of Eq. (9) and the experimental determination of Eqs. (12), strongly suggest that the physical system can be adequately rep-
(13) and (14). Assumptions have been made and justified during the resented by Eq. (9) and the parameters defined in Table 1.
development of both steps, though some require further discussion. During experiments, perhaps the most significant assump-
The formulation of Eq. (9), based on the Buckingham tion corresponds to the definition of the dimensionless number
Π-theorem, represents a physical system on which the main Π2 in Eq. (8) and its use, due to the impossibility of measuring
components are represented by only a few parameters (Table 1, the debris flow bulk density δL for the studied events and conse-
Fig. 2). Indeed, the theorem allows for the introduction of as quently using a constant value of 2000 kg/m3. In fact, the density
many parameters as considered necessary to properly represent of a debris flow is expected to display changes depending on the
the physical system, depending on the effects or inter-dependencies segment of the flow where it is measured, with the frontal part
to be determined and observed during experiments. Thus, of the flow having the highest densities and its tail the lowest
additional parameters related to the geometry of the channel (i.e. (Iverson 1997; Manville et al. 1998; Vallance and Iverson 2015).
width or depth), fluid dynamics (i.e. flow basal friction or viscos- Then, the value used for the experiments is considered to be in
ity) or to the propagation of seismic waves (i.e. wave velocity or agreement with the fact that the whole analysis is based on meas-
medium attenuation) could be considered during the theoretical urements corresponding to the peak discharges and thus to the
denser flow front.
Additionally, when considering natural debris flows formed at
Table 5  Data for debris-flows events recorded at Quebrada Mapay- volcanoes and transiting on either lava formations, consolidated
acu (Tungurahua volcano) and used for the indirect validation or unconsolidated volcanic breccias, the value of Π2 will tend to be
approach in either case close to 1 and thus become less relevant. This can be
Date S S Q predicted Q predicted seen in the close similarity between Eqs. (12) and (13) for the case
MAP-01 BMAS MAP-01 BMAS of AFMs installed in different substrata at Tungurahua volcano.
(counts) (μm/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) On the contrary, the value of Π2 should not be neglected in the
specific cases of either a dense debris flow transiting close to a
2011–02-17 770 3.14 73–93 108–124 seismic instrument installed on an especially light or unconsoli-
2012–01-03 550 1.98 51–71 65–82 dated formation, or in general when the flows correspond to diluted
mixtures with lower densities (i.e. hyperconcentrated flows).
2012–04-20 490 2.11 44–64 70–87
In the case of individual debris flows, the assumptions with Π2
2012–05-17 145 0.48 9–29 10–27 would imply that Eqs. (12), (13) or (14) can be generally useful when
considering the flow front and body, but they could not apply for
2014–06-01 40 0.33 − 2–18 5–21
the diluted flow tail. Thus, Eqs. (12), (13) or (14) could be used to

Landslides 19 & (2022) 755

 Technical Note
transform the whole seismic envelope of a debris flow (Figs. 1 and or 10 s size, but it is clearly significant when the window is 1 s (Table 6).
2) into a hydro-graph which allows an estimation of the flow bulk However, whatever window is used, the regression lines obtained always
volume. However, significant errors in volume estimation are to be confirm the validity of the theoretical expression (9) (Fig. 8).
expected when the actual flows display long diluted tails. Then, when the value of x is extracted from the correlation
Another significant assumption is related to parameter x in constants (Fig. 8a,b,c), complementary calibration expressions for
Eq. (9), which represents the distance from the noise source (debris debris flow quantification are obtained:
flow) to the seismometer, and was measured from the drainage tal-
weg over the surface to the seismic station (Fig. 2). Given that the Q = 5.49 × 10−5 ∗ x 2 ∗ S + 0.75 (15)
present analysis assumes distance x as being constant, then in prac- when the seismic envelope uses a 30 s window;
tice x should be large enough so the noise source can be considered
as punctual for any discharge (Q). If a seismometer is installed too Q = 5.35 × 10−5 ∗ x 2 ∗ S + 0.02 (16)
close to a drainage, then contrasting peak discharges of flows could
when the seismic envelope uses a 10 s window; and
produce such differences in the wet sections (i.e. size of the noise
source) that x could not be considered as constant anymore, meas- Q = 3.53 × 10−5 ∗ x 2 ∗ S + 0.46 (17)
uring it from the drainage talweg would become inadequate, and
finally Eq. (9) would not suitably represent the physical system. when the seismic envelope uses a 1 s window, as compared with the
Thus, when calibrating instruments with the methodology pre- 60 s window in Eq. (14).
sented here, it is useful to have a beforehand rough estimation of the
flows’ peak discharges (Q) to be observed. This, together with a knowl- Physical considerations
edge of the drainage shape and Eq. (9), would also help to decide the
most adequate installation sites for the seismometer. For instance, the Recent works on the seismic characteristics of debris flows have
results obtained with VAZ-01 (Fig. 3a), which is the station installed attempted to correlate the averaged seismic amplitude (enve-
closest to the drainage of all presented here, suggest that a distance lope) with physical parameters of the flow through either theo-
of x = 25 m seems adequate to quantify flows up to 100–150 m ­ 3/s with retical and experimental approaches (Coviello et al. 2019; Farin
an AFM (Table 4). All other stations in the present study are installed et al. 2019). Specifically, Coviello et al. (2019) make a thorough
at much larger distances, and given the measured peak discharges in review of previous work and present an energy balance analysis
general < 100 ­m3/s, it is considered that x is constant in all experiments. for debris flows which is experimentally tested.
One of the core findings by Coviello et al. (2019) after
Time‑window for the seismic envelope detailed measurements of debris flows in the Gadria basin
(Italy) is that the averaged seismic amplitude (S) linearly cor-
Perhaps, the most useful expression in this work is Eq. (14), which relates to the kinetic energy per unit area (Ek) of the flow, which
should apply to any 60-s window envelope obtained from a 50 sps raw is defined as
seismic signal filtered between 10 and 50 Hz that has been recorded by
Ek = 0.5 ∗ ma ∗ v 2 (18)
any instrument with flat response above 1/60 Hz. This gives Eq. (14)
a potentially large span of application to a variety of seismic instru- where v is the flow velocity and ma is the mass per unit area of the
ments, including geophones, short-period and broad band seismom- flow producing seismic noise. The linear correlation between Ek
eters, provided that the signal is transformed to velocity units. and S presented by Coviello et al (2019) is indeed equivalent to the
However, many previous works have used different, usually results obtained in the present work, except that Ek is defined in
shorter time-windows to obtain the seismic envelope (Arattano terms of the flow discharge (Q) given that
et al. 2014; Vázquez et al. 2016; Coviello et al. 2019). Longer time-
windows imply enhanced averaging and smoothing of the original
signal and equivalent loss of data and detail, with the potential
advantage of producing smaller amounts of data to be stored,
Table 6  Values of peak average-amplitude S for envelopes obtained
processed and displayed, which can be helpful for example when with time-windows of 30 s, 10 s and 1 s. Values of the peak discharge
resources for real-time monitoring are limited. On the contrary, Q are the same as in Table 3
shorter time-windows provide a more detailed picture of the flow,
Date S S S S Q ± st-dev
enabling for example the possibility to perform tasks like automatic
60 s env 30 s env 10 s env 1 s env (m3/s)
detection with elaborate algorithms or velocity estimations by sig-
(μm/s) (μm/s) (μm/s) (μm/s)
nal cross-correlations when more that one instrument is available
in the drainage (Coviello et al. 2019). 2015–08-28 6.26 6.43 6.78 9.21 6.6 ± 1.7
Thus, additional envelopes with time-windows of 30 s, 10 s and 2015–09-20 40.28 41.06 45.57 64.71 33.5 ± 4.1
1 s have been created for the events recorded by the BNAS instru-
ment at Quebrada Cutzualo, so additional forms of Eq. (14) can be 2015–11-16 23.89 25.92 26.6 37.68 10.2 ± 4.5
obtained. The peak average-amplitude values S in each new enve- 2015–11-28 54.43 54.79 57.68 85.09 33.2 ± 7.5
lope have been extracted (Table 6) and plotted against the peak
discharges Q of each flow to obtain new regression lines (Fig. 8). 2016–01-13 74.10 74.26 76.66 118.06 52.0 ± 7.1
The results show that the effect of shorter time-windows on the aver- 2016–04-09 11.77 12.38 14.31 23.72 11.5 ± 3.5
aged amplitudes remains relatively small when windows are 60 s, 30 s

756 Landslides 19 & (2022)


Fig. 8  Plots of Q vs. S displaying the observations made at Quebrada
Cutzualo (Cotopaxi volcano) for BNAS BBS instrument. The envelope
values of S were calculated with windows of a) 30 s; b) 10 s; and c)
1 s. Linear correlations between Q and S are observed for all time-
windows
Q = V ∗ t −1 (19)
where V is debris flow volume and t is unit time, and thus
𝛿L ∗ Q = m ∗ t −1 (20)
which defines a “mass per unit time” term to be introduced in
Eq. (18) instead of ma, and thus Ek may actually be defined as the
kinetic energy per unit time and be written as
Ek = 0.5 ∗ 𝛿L ∗ Q ∗ v 2 (21)
and should linearly correlate to the averaged seismic amplitude (S),
simultaneously in agreement with Eq. (9) and with Coviello et al.
(2019). Given that energy per unit time is the physical definition
of power, then this analysis suggests that the seismic amplitude
produced by a moving debris flow locally and instantaneously cor-
relates to the power produced by that moving mass.
Finally, this energy balance analysis does not consider the distance
between the drainage and the seismic instrument (x) which is a main
parameter in the present work (Fig. 2). This is considered a disadvan-
tage as one of the main reasons to include x during the application of
the Buckingham theorem was to assess its influence in the recorded
signal so it can help in the selection of adequate and safe places for the
installation of the seismic instruments devoted to debris flow detection.
Conclusions
The use of the Buckingham Π-theorem to represent a simplified
physical system in which a debris flow transits close to a seismic
station has provided a general theoretical expression which cor-
relates the seismic signal (S) with the discharge rate of the flow
(Q) through parameters like the flow density (δL), the substratum
density (δS) and the distance (x) between the drainage and the
seismic instrument.
Experiments carried out at Cotopaxi and Tungurahua volcanoes
in which the peak discharges of actual debris flows were compared
with their peak seismic signals have confirmed the validity of the
theoretical expression. As a result, expressions have been obtained
to calibrate the specific cases of AFM instruments operating at
Cotopaxi and Tungurahua, but also in a general way for the case of
seismic envelopes of either 1, 10, 30 or 60-s time-windows obtained
from signals recorded at 50 sps by an instrument displaying a flat
response for frequencies above 1/60 Hz.
The simplicity of the parameters required for the calibration as
well as the characteristics of the seismic signal makes the results
applicable to different geological environments and to a large diver-
sity of seismic instruments.
Given the relatively limited number of observations, the 75%
confidence intervals for the predictions of peak discharges Q from
seismic records S are relatively large. However, various validations
performed under different circumstances suggest that the predic-
tions of discharge rates are reliable within less than an order of
magnitude. This information could be really helpful for the issuing
of early warnings in drainages where only seismic instruments are
available for debris flows monitoring.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the hard and tireless work by the technical
staff at Instituto Geofisico—Escuela Politécnica Nacional in charge of
keeping in function the monitoring networks of the Ecuadorian volca-
noes, especially to Cristina Ramos, Darío García and Carlos Macías who
are in charge of the debris flow detection instruments. The authors wish
to thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive
comments which helped to improve the original manuscript.
Landslides 19 & (2022) 757
 Technical Note
Author contribution
Conceptualization, methodology, fieldwork, formal analysis and origi-
nal draft preparation, S.D.A. and S.A.; methodology and field data cura-
tion, E.S; seismic data curation, D.P., S.H. and W.A.
Funding
This research was funded by SECRETARIA NACIONAL DE PLANI-
FICACIÓN Y DESARROLLO—SENPLADES (ECUADOR), through the
grant “Generación de capacidades para la emisión de alertas tempranas
de Instituto Geofísico de la Escuela Politécnica Nacional—2013–2016.”
Availability of data and materials
The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included and
comprise seismic records (seismic envelopes) of debris flows recorded
at JUI-01, JUI-02, BNAS instruments; field measurements of debris flows
peak discharges as shown in Fig. 4; geospatial vector layer with the
location of instruments mentioned in this study.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Abancó C, Hürlimann M, Moya J (2014) Analysis of the ground vibra-
tion generated by debris flows and other torrential processes at the
Rebaixader monitoring site (Central Pyrenees, Spain). Nat Hazards
Earth Syst Sci 14:929–943. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​nhess-​14-​929-​2014
Allstadt KE, Farin M, Iverson RM et al (2020) Measuring basal force
fluctuations of debris flows using seismic recordings and empirical
green’s functions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface
125:e2020JF005590. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2020J​F0055​90
Allstadt KE, Matoza RS, Lockhart AB et al (2018) Seismic and acoustic
signatures of surficial mass movements at volcanoes. J Volcanol Geoth
Res 364:76–106. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jvolg​eores.​2018.​09.​007
Almeida S, Andrade SD (2016) Obtaining quantitative parameters of
lahars through AFM records in Palmaurcu ravine at Tungurahua vol-
cano. IAVCEI “Cities on Volcanoes 9” Conference, Puerto Varas, Chile
Arattano M (1999) On the use of seismic detectors as monitoring and
warning systems for debris flows. Nat Hazards 20:197–213. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​10080​61916​445
Arattano M, Abancó C, Coviello V, Hürlimann M (2014) Processing the
ground vibration signal produced by debris flows: the methods of
amplitude and impulses compared. Comput Geosci 73:17–27. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cageo.​2014.​08.​005
Arattano M, Marchi L (2005) Measurement of debris flow velocity
through cross-correlation of instrumentation data. Nat Hazards Earth
Syst Sci 5https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​nhess-5-​137-​2005
Arattano M, Marchi L (2008) Systems and sensors for debris-flow moni-
toring and warning. Sensors 8:2436–2452. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
s8042​436
Bacchini M, Zannoni A (2003) Relations between rainfall and trigger-
ing of debris-flow: case study of Cancia (Dolomites, Northeastern
Italy). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3:71–79. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​
nhess-3-​71-​2003
Berenguer M, Sempere-Torres D, Hürlimann M (2015) Debris-flow
forecasting at regional scale by combining susceptibility mapping
and radar rainfall. Nat Hazard 15:587–602. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​
nhess-​15-​587-​2015
Berger C, McArdell BW, Schlunegger F (2011) Direct measurement of
channel erosion by debris flows, Illgraben, Switzerland. J Geophys Res
Earth Surf 116 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2010J​F0017​22
Bernard B, Battaglia J, Proaño A et al (2016a) Relationship between vol-
canic ash fallouts and seismic tremor: quantitative assessment of the
758 Landslides 19 & (2022)
2015 eruptive period at Cotopaxi volcano. Ecuador Bulletin of Volcan-
ology 78:80. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00445-​016-​1077-5
Bernard J, Eychenne J, Le Pennec J-L, Narváez D (2016b) Mass budget
partitioning during explosive eruptions: insights from the 2006 par-
oxysm of Tungurahua volcano, Ecuador. Geochem Geophys Geosyst
17:3224–3240. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​2016G​C0064​31
Berti M, Genevois R, Simoni A, Tecca PR (1999) Field observations of
a debris flow event in the Dolomites. Geomorphology 29:265–274.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0169-​555X(99)​00018-5
Brown SK, Jenkins SF, Sparks RSJ et al (2017) Volcanic fatalities database:
analysis of volcanic threat with distance and victim classification. J
Appl Volcanol 6:15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13617-​017-​0067-4
Buckingham E (1914) On physically similar systems; illustrations of the
use of dimensional equations. Phys Rev 4:345–376. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1103/​PhysR​ev.4.​345
Cascini L, Sorbino G, Cuomo S, Ferlisi S (2014) Seasonal effects of rain-
fall on the shallow pyroclastic deposits of the Campania region
(southern Italy). Landslides 11:779–792. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 007/​
s10346-​013-​0395-3
Coviello V, Arattano M, Comiti F et al (2019) Seismic characterization
of debris flows: insights into energy radiation and implications for
warning. J Geophys Res Earth Surf 124:1440–1463. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1029/​2018J​F0046​83
Coviello V, Capra L, Vázquez R, Márquez-Ramírez VH (2018) Seismic char-
acterization of hyperconcentrated flows in a volcanic environment.
Earth Surf Process Landforms 43:2219–2231. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​
esp.​4387
Cui P, Guo X, Yan Y et al (2018) Real-time observation of an active debris
flow watershed in the Wenchuan Earthquake area. Geomorphology
321:153–166. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​geomo​rph.​2018.​08.​024
Doyle EE, Cronin SJ, Cole SE, Thouret J-C (2010) The coalescence and
organization of lahars at Semeru volcano, Indonesia. Bull Volcanol
72:961–970. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00445-​010-​0381-8
Endo ET, Murray T (1991) Real-time Seismic Amplitude Measurement
(RSAM): a volcano monitoring and prediction tool. Bull Volcanol
53:533–545. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​BF002​98154
Farin M, Tsai VC, Lamb MP, Allstadt KE (2019) A physical model of the
high-frequency seismic signal generated by debris flows. Earth Surf
Proc Land 44:2529–2543. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​esp.​4677
Fink JH, Malin MC, D’Alli RE, Greeley R (1981) Rheological properties of
mudflows associated with the spring 1980 eruptions of Mount St.
Helens Volcano. Washington Geophysical Research Letters 8:43–46.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​GL008​i001p​00043
Genevois R, Galgaro A, Tecca PR (2001) Image analysis for debris flow
properties estimation. Phys Chem Earth Part C 26:623–631. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S1464-​1917(01)​00059-9
Hadley KC, LaHusen RG (1991) Deployment of an acoustic flow-monitor
system and examples of its application at Mount Pinatubo. Philippines
EOS Transactions American Geophysical Union 72:67
Hadley KC, LaHusen RG, Geological Survey (U.S.) (1995) Technical manual
for the experimental acoustic flow monitor. U.S. Geological Survey ;
Earth Science Information Center, Open-file Reports Section [distribu-
tor], Vancouver, Wash.; Denver, CO
Hidalgo S, Battaglia J, Arellano S et al (2018) Evolution of the 2015 Coto-
paxi eruption revealed by combined geochemical and seismic obser-
vations. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 19:2087–2108. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1029/​2018G​C0075​14
Hubbert MK (1937) Theory of scale models as applied to the study of
geologic structures. GSA Bull 48:1459–1520. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1130/​
GSAB-​48-​1459
Hübl J, Mikoš M (2018) Practice guidelines on monitoring and warning
technology for debris flows. In: Sassa K, Guzzetti F, Yamagishi H et al
(eds) Landslide dynamics: ISDR-ICL Landslide Interactive Teaching
Tools (LITT). Springer Nature, pp 567–585
Hübl J, Schimmel A, Kogelnig A et al (2013) A review on acoustic moni-
toring of debris flow. Int J SAFE 3:105–115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2495/​
SAFE-​V3-​N2-​105-​115
Hürlimann M, Coviello V, Bel C et al (2019) Debris-flow monitoring and
warning: review and examples. Earth Sci Rev 199:102981. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​earsc​irev.​2019.​102981
Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 35:245–296.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​97RG0​0426
Iverson RM, Reid ME, Logan M et al (2011) Positive feedback and momen-
tum growth during debris-flow entrainment of wet bed sediment. Nat
Geosci 4:116–121. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​ngeo1​040
Jacquemart M, Meier L, Graf C, Morsdorf F (2017) 3D dynamics of debris
flows quantified at sub-second intervals from laser profiles. Nat Haz-
ards 89:785–800. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​017-​2993-1
Jakob M, Hungr O (2005) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena.
Springer, Berlin, New York
Johnson PJ, Valentine GA, Stauffer PH et al (2018) Groundwater drainage
from fissures as a source for lahars. Bull Volcanol 80:39. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s00445-​018-​1214-4
Jones R, Manville V, Andrade D (2015) Probabilistic analysis of rain-
triggered lahar initiation at Tungurahua volcano. Bull Volcanol 77:68.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00445-​015-​0946-7
Kogelnig A, Hübl J, Suriñach E et al (2014) Infrasound produced by debris
flow: propagation and frequency content evolution. Nat Hazards
70:1713–1733. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​011-​9741-8
Kumagai H, Nakano M, Maeda T et al (2010) Broadband seismic moni-
toring of active volcanoes using deterministic and stochastic
approaches. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 115 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​
2009J​B0068​89
Kumagai H, Palacios P, Maeda T et al (2009) Seismic tracking of lahars
using tremor signals. J Volcanol Geoth Res 183:112–121. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jvolg​eores.​2009.​03.​010
Kumagai H, Yepes H, Vaca M et al (2007) Enhancing volcano-monitoring
capabilities in Ecuador. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 88:245–246.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2007E​O2300​01
Lai VH, Tsai VC, Lamb MP et al (2018) The seismic signature of debris
flows: flow mechanics and early warning at Montecito, California. Geo-
phys Res Lett 45:5528–5535. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2018G​L0776​83
Lavigne F, Thouret J-C (2003) Sediment transportation and deposition
by rain-triggered lahars at Merapi Volcano, Central Java, Indonesia.
Geomorphology 49:45–69. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0169-​555X(02)​
00160-5
Lavigne F, Thouret J-C, Voight B et al (2000) Instrumental lahar monitor-
ing at Merapi Volcano, Central Java, Indonesia. J Volcanol Geoth Res
100:457–478. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0377-​0273(00)​00151-7
Lesher CE, Spera FJ (2015) Chapter 5—Thermodynamic and transport
properties of silicate melts and magma. In: Sigurdsson H (ed) The
encyclopedia of volcanoes, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Amsterdam,
pp 113–141
Manville V, Cronin SJ (2007) Breakout lahar from New Zealand’s crater
lake. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 88:441–442. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1029/​2007E​O4300​01
Manville V, Hodgson KA, White JDL (1998) Rheological properties of a
remobilised-tephra lahar associated with the 1995 eruptions of Rua-
pehu volcano, New Zealand. NZ J Geol Geophys 41:157–164. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00288​306.​1998.​95148​00
Marchi L, Arattano M, Deganutti AM (2002) Ten years of debris-flow mon-
itoring in the Moscardo Torrent (Italian Alps). Geomorphology 46:1–17
Marcial SS, De los Reyes PJ, Chu AV, Solidum RU (1996) Instrumental lahar
monitoring of Mt. Pinatubo. In: Newhall CG, Punongbayan RS (eds)
Fire and mud: eruption and lahars of Mt. Philippines. Univ. Washing-
ton Press, Pinatubo, pp 1015–1022
Massey CI, Manville V, Hancox GH et al (2010) Out-burst flood (lahar)
triggered by retrogressive landsliding, 18 March 2007 at Mt Ruap-
ehu, New Zealand—a successful early warning. Landslides 7:303–315.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10346-​009-​0180-5
McArdell BW, Bartelt P, Kowalski J (2007) Field observations of basal
forces and fluid pore pressure in a debris flow. Geophys Res Lett 34
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2006G​L0291​83
McCoy SW, Kean JW, Coe JA et al (2010) Evolution of a natural debris
flow: In situ measurements of flow dynamics, video imagery, and ter-
restrial laser scanning. Geology 38:735–738. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1130/​
G30928.1
Mothes PA, Vallance JW (2015) Chapter 6—Lahars at Cotopaxi and
Tungurahua volcanoes, Ecuador: highlights from stratigraphy and
observational records and related downstream hazards. In: Shroder
JF, Papale P (eds) Volcanic hazards, risks and disasters. Elsevier, Bos-
ton, pp 141–168
Osanai N, Shimizu T, Kuramoto K et al (2010) Japanese early-warning for
debris flows and slope failures using rainfall indices with Radial Basis
Function Network. Landslides 7:325–338. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10346-​010-​0229-5
Pierson TC, Janda RJ, Thouret J-C, Borrero CA (1990) Perturbation and
melting of snow and ice by the 13 November 1985 eruption of Nevado
del Ruiz, Colombia, and consequent mobilization, flow and deposi-
tion of lahars. J Volcanol Geoth Res 41:17–66. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
0377-​0273(90)​90082-Q
Prochaska AB, Santi PM, Higgins JD, Cannon SH (2008) A study of meth-
ods to estimate debris flow velocity. Landslides 5:431–444. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10346-​008-​0137-0
Pulgarín B, Cardona C, Santacoloma C et al (2009) Volcan Nevado de
Huila (Colombia): erupción y lahar del 20 de noviembre 2008. In: Inter-
national Lateinamerika - Kolloquium LAK2009. Göttingen
Ruiz M, Yepes H, Palacios P et al (2012) Seismic and infrasound monitor-
ing at Cotopaxi volcano. EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts,
p 12986
Santangelo N, Forte G, De Falco M et al (2021) New insights on rainfall
triggering flow-like landslides and flash floods in Campania (Southern
Italy). Landslides. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10346-​021-​01667-9
Schellart WP, Strak V (2016) A review of analogue modelling of geody-
namic processes: approaches, scaling, materials and quantification,
with an application to subduction experiments. J Geodyn 100:7–32.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jog.​2016.​03.​009
Schimmel A, Hübl J (2016) Automatic detection of debris flows and
debris floods based on a combination of infrasound and seis-
mic signals. Landslides 13:1181–1196. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 007/​
s10346-​015-​0640-z
Theule JI, Crema S, Marchi L et al (2018) Exploiting LSPIV to assess debris-
flow velocities in the field. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 18:1–13. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​5194/​nhess-​18-1-​2018
Thouret J-C (1990) Effects of the November 13, 1985 eruption on the
snow pack and ice cap of Nevado del Ruiz volcano, Colombia. J Vol-
canol Geoth Res 41:177–201. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0377-​0273(90)​
90088-W
Thouret J-C, Antoine S, Magill C, Ollier C (2020) Lahars and debris flows:
characteristics and impacts. Earth Sci Rev 201:103003. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​earsc​irev.​2019.​103003
Vallance JW, Iverson RM (2015) Chapter 37—Lahars and their deposits.
In: Sigurdsson H (ed) The encyclopedia of volcanoes, 2nd edn. Aca-
demic Press, Amsterdam, pp 649–664
Vázquez R, Suriñach E, Capra L et al (2016) Seismic characterisation
of lahars at Volcán de Colima. Mexico Bulletin of Volcanology 78:8.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00445-​016-​1004-9
Walter F, Burtin A, McArdell BW et al (2017) Testing seismic amplitude
source location for fast debris-flow detection at Illgraben, Switzer-
land. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 17:939–955. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​
nhess-​17-​939-​2017
Yang H, Wei F, Hu K et al (2011) Measuring the internal velocity of debris
flows using impact pressure detecting in the flume experiment. J Mt
Sci 8:109–116. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11629-​011-​2083-x
S. Daniel Andrade (*) · Stefanie Almeida · Emilia Saltos ·
Daniel Pacheco · Stephen Hernandez · Wilson Acero
Instituto Geofísico, Escuela Politécnica Nacional, Ladrón de Guevara
E11‑253, Quito, Ecuador
Email: dandrade@igepn.edu.ec
Landslides 19 & (2022) 759