This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv

Validation of the FALL3D ash dispersion model using observations of the 2010
Eyjafjallajökull volcanic ash clouds
A. Folch a, *, A. Costa b, c, S. Basart a
a
Barcelona Supercomputing Center e Centro Nacional de Supercomputación, Jordi Girona 29, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
b
Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AL, UK
c
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Osservatorio Vesuviano, Via Diocleziano 328, Napoli, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: During AprileMay 2010 volcanic ash clouds from the Icelandic Eyjafjallajökull volcano reached Europe
Received 1 February 2011 causing an unprecedented disruption of the EUR/NAT region airspace. Civil aviation authorities banned
Received in revised form all flight operations because of the threat posed by volcanic ash to modern turbine aircraft. New
22 June 2011
quantitative airborne ash mass concentration thresholds, still under discussion, were adopted for
Accepted 24 June 2011
discerning regions contaminated by ash. This has implications for ash dispersal models routinely used to
forecast the evolution of ash clouds. In this new context, quantitative model validation and assessment of
Keywords:
the accuracies of current state-of-the-art models is of paramount importance. The passage of volcanic
Volcanic ash dispersion
Numerical model
ash clouds over central Europe, a territory hosting a dense network of meteorological and air quality
Model validation observatories, generated a quantity of observations unusual for volcanic clouds. From the ground, the
2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption cloud was observed by aerosol lidars, lidar ceilometers, sun photometers, other remote-sensing instru-
ments and in-situ collectors. From the air, sondes and multiple aircraft measurements also took
extremely valuable in-situ and remote-sensing measurements. These measurements constitute an
excellent database for model validation. Here we validate the FALL3D ash dispersal model by comparing
model results with ground and airplane-based measurements obtained during the initial 14e23 April
2010 Eyjafjallajökull explosive phase. We run the model at high spatial resolution using as input hourly-
averaged observed heights of the eruption column and the total grain size distribution reconstructed
from field observations. Model results are then compared against remote ground-based and in-situ
aircraft-based measurements, including lidar ceilometers from the German Meteorological Service,
aerosol lidars and sun photometers from EARLINET and AERONET networks, and flight missions of the
German DLR Falcon aircraft. We find good quantitative agreement, with an error similar to the spread in
the observations (however depending on the method used to estimate mass eruption rate) for both
airborne and ground mass concentration. Such verification results help us understand and constrain the
accuracy and reliability of ash transport models and it is of enormous relevance for designing future
operational mitigation strategies at Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The AprileMay 2010 explosive eruption of Eyjafjallajökull
volcano in Iceland triggered an unprecedented disruption of the
European-North Atlantic (EUR/NAT) region airspace. The resulting
socioeconomic impact was enormous: 25 countries affected, over
4 million passengers were stranded due to cancellation or delay of
over 100,000 flights, and direct costs to airlines were measured in
billions of Euros (Oxford-Economics, 2010). The main disruptive
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: arnau.folch@bsc.es (A. Folch).
episode, lasting from 15 to 21 April, was caused by the arrival and
residence at low tropospheric levels of volcanic ash and aerosols in
the United Kingdom (U.K.) and North and Central Europe. Because
volcanic ash poses a threat to modern high-bypass turbine
aircrafts (Casadevall et al., 1996) and following the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) regulations (ICAO, 2000),
European civil aviation regulators banned all flight operations on
15 April. On 20 April new guidelines based on some safe ash
concentration thresholds were adopted. The adoption of the new
guidelines, which substituted the previous “zero ash tolerance”
criterion, consented to resume operations in large areas previously
banned. Other sporadic disruptions of the European airspace
occurred until mid-May but caused less impact. At the end of the

1352-2310/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.06.072
 Author's personal copy
166 A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183
crisis, quantitative criteria defined by the U.K. Civil Aviation
Authority (CAA) and EUROCONTROL discerned zones of low (ash
concentration between 0.2 and 2 mg m
3), medium (between 2
and 4 mg m
3) and high (>4 mg m
3) contamination. Whether
these quantitative criteria (or other similar) will eventually
become regulatory and alternative to the classical “avoid any ash”
approach is a matter of ongoing debate. In any case, the Eyjafjal-
lajökull event dramatically demonstrated the limitations of the
precautionary “zero ash tolerance” criterion when applied to long-
lasting eruptions affecting large areas with dense air traffic and
hosting main international hubs, such as the case of central
Europe.
Several Volcanic Ash Transport and Dispersal Models (VATDM)
are routinely used by Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers (VAACs) to
forecast ash cloud location and issue periodic Volcanic Ash Advi-
sories. Other VATDM are used to describe ash ground deposits
especially in highly urbanized areas near volcanoes (e.g. Catania,
Italy, Scollo et al., 2009). The London VAAC, responsible for the
Icelandic volcanoes, uses the U.K. Met Office’s Lagrangian Numer-
ical Atmospheric-dispersion Modeling Environment (NAME) model
(Ryall and Maryon, 1998; Jones et al., 2007). The adjacent Toulouse
and Montreal VAACs use MOCAGE (Peuch et al., 1999) and MLDP0
(D’Amours et al., 2010) respectively. During the Eyjafjallajökull
crisis, other models different from those used at VAACs were also
run to support national decision makers in different countries,
including EURAD (Ackermann et al., 1998), FALL3D (Costa et al.,
2006; Folch et al., 2009), FLEXPART (Stohl et al., 1998), HYSPLIT
(Draxler and Hess, 1998), MCCM (Grell et al., 2000), REMOTE
(Langmann et al., 2008), and CMAQ (Byun and Ching, 1999). The
main difficulties to model transport of volcanic ash are given by the
quantification of the source term (mass eruption rate, column
height, total grain size distribution), the possible occurrence of ash
aggregation, and the properties of ash particles themselves that can
vary notably in shape and size (from sub-microns to millimeters).
In AprileMay 2010 the aviation industry and regulators reques-
ted the U.K. Met Office to supplement the London VAAC standard
ICAO binary forecast (ash/no ash) with a forecast of ash concentra-
tions according to the new criteria. The eventual adoption by ICAO of
quantitative safety thresholds of ash concentration would have
important implications for modeling strategies. If models are
required to quantify concentration rather than just predict ash cloud
location it is essential to constrain the source term (column height
and mass eruption rate) and to quantitatively validate VATDM. Some
validations of VATDM are typically done by comparing with ground
deposit and satellite measurements. Comparison with deposits is
the traditional way volcanologists test VATDM but becomes chal-
lenging or even impossible for the finest fraction of the cloud (made
of micron-size particles) reaching very large distances. Multi-
channel satellite imagery and ash detection algorithms (e.g. Prata,
2008) are typically used for validating VATDM qualitatively
through simultaneous agreement of modeled and observed top-
view cloud position and shape (problems with this method arise
when meteorological clouds obscure the view). A more quantitative
validation with satellite retrievals is also possible (e.g. Corradini
et al., 2011) but is less common. In contrast, VATDM comparisons
with ground-based remote and aircraft in-situ measurements are
very scarce in the literature (see e.g. Wang et al., 2008; Dacre et al.,
2011).
The passage and the residence of Eyjafjallajökull volcanic clouds
over a densely monitored territory generated an unprecedented
quantity of data. The cloud was observed by aerosol lidars (lidars
originally deployed for cloud aerosol studies), lidar ceilometers
(single wavelength lidars originally deployed for cloud base height
monitoring), sun photometers and other remote-sensing instru-
ments used at several meteorological and air quality observatories
across Europe. Moreover, sondes and aircraft measurements gave
additional extremely valuable in-situ measurements.
Here we compare some of these measurements made using
different techniques with FALL3D (Costa et al., 2006; Folch et al.,
2009) dispersal model simulations focusing on the 14e23 April
2010 main eruption phase. The manuscript is arranged as follows.
Firstly, we briefly summarize the eruption chronology and the cloud
dispersal characteristics during 14e23 April 2010. Secondly, we
overview the FALL3D model and discuss the model set up for this
particular simulation, including the meteorological dataset used, ash
granulometry and aggregation, source term evaluation, and model
grid resolution. Thirdly, we perform a sensitivity analysis to estimate
the effect of the model input uncertainties on the results. Model
results are then compared against remote ground-based and in-situ
aircraft-based measurements, including lidar ceilometer from the
German Meteorological Service, aerosol lidars and sun photometers
from EARLINET and AERONET networks, and flight missions of the
German DLR Falcon aircraft. In general, such an opportunity to vali-
date models versus a wide range of multi-technique observations has
no precedent. Finally, we conclude with a general discussion on the
results and on the implications for operational VATDM. Comparison
results help to constrain VATDM accuracy and reliability and it is of
enormous relevance for informing the design of future operational
mitigation strategies at VAACs.
2. Eruption chronology and ash cloud trajectory
After several months of seismic activity and crustal deformation
Eyjafjallajökull volcano (19.62 W, 63.63 N, 1666 m above sea level,
a.s.l.) erupted on 20 March 2010, producing fire fountains and basaltic
lava flows at the East flank of the volcano (Sigmundsson et al., 2010).
On 14 April a new intrusion of trachy-andesitic magma lead to
a submittal activity. Melting of the volcano summit caldera ice cap
caused phreatomagmatic explosions, generation of relatively fine-
grained ash, and eruption columns rising up to 9 km a.s.l. The
subsequent ash clouds were transported toward central Europe by the
prevailing high and mid-troposphere north-westerly winds. On 18
April phreatomagmatism waned and the eruption activity shifted to
pulsating water-rich ash-poor columns of much lower height. This
situation went on for about two weeks until explosive activity
increased again on 5 May producing a sustained magmatic activity
that lasted for another three weeks. Both the 14e18 April and the
5e20 May episodes caused significant air traffic disruption in Europe.
Fig. 1 shows the synoptic meteorological situation during 14e22
April. In opposition to what typically occurs during the winter, on
14e15 April there was a high located south of Iceland and another
north of Scandinavia (Petersen, 2010). This situation favored north-
westerly tropospheric winds that transported ash over the Faroe
Islands and Norway during 15 April early morning and later on over
South England and Denmark (Fig. 1aed). Airspace was closed in
several countries including Norway, Sweden, Finland, United
Kingdom, Belgium, Netherlands and Ireland. The cloud penetrated
German airspace during the early morning of the 16 April and then
moved toward central Europe during 16 and 17 April when it
became partly mixed with the atmospheric boundary layer.
German airspace was closed on afternoon 16 April. When the ash
cloud reached the Alps range it was deflected E-W roughly and
circulated clockwise around a high centered over the English
channel to re-enter the continent a couple of days later (see
streamlines on Fig. 1cee). The formation of a trough and a pro-
longed calm wind situation was the cause of ash residing in the
lower troposphere over Europe (Fig. 1eef, 18e19 April). Because of
the mixing of fresh and recirculated ash fluxes, heterogeneous
multilayer sub-clouds (detected also by different aircraft observa-
tions) were formed. The situation changed dramatically late on the
 Author's personal copy

A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183 167

Fig. 1. Meteorological synoptic situation over Europe during 14 (a), 15 (b), 16 (c), 17 (d), 18 (e), 19 (f), 20 (g), 21 (h), 22 (i), and 23 (j) April 2010 at 00 UTC. Plots show streamlines and
contours of wind velocity (in m s
1) at 5500 m above ground level (500 hPa circa). Meteorological data has been interpolated from ERA-Interim reanalysis at 1.5 horizontal
resolution.
 Author's personal copy
168 A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183
Fig. 1. (continued).
20 April and through the 21 April onwards when strong north-
westerly winds finally cleared the remaining suspended ash from
the airspace (Fig. 1hei).
3. Model simulation of ash cloud during 14e23 April
3.1. The FALL3D model
FALL3D (Costa et al., 2006; Folch et al., 2009) is an Eulerian
model for transport and deposition of volcanic ash particles. The
model solves a set of advection-diffusion-sedimentation equations
(one equation for each particle class) on a structured terrain
following grid using a second-order Finite Differences explicit
scheme. Each particle class is characterized by particle diameter,
density and shape. The model deals simultaneously with a wide
spectrum of particle sizes (from lapilli to fine ash) and trace gas
components (e.g. H2O). Particle aggregation can be accounted for
using the wet aggregation model described in Costa et al. (2010) but
the model has no wet deposition mechanisms yet. The FALL3D
model follows an off-line strategy, i.e., independent global or
mesoscale meteorological models provide the meteorological fields
a priori. The main volcanological model inputs are mass eruption
rate (MER), total grain size distribution (TGSD), and height and
shape of eruption column. The eruption column height and shape
and the mass distribution within the column (source term) can be
described using either a 1D Buoyant Plume Theory (BPT) model
based on that of Bursik (2001) or an empirical relationship based on
Suzuki (1983). The BPT option can provide the MER and the vertical
distribution of mass given a column height. The empirical rela-
tionship option requires an independent assessment of MER, e.g. by
using the MER versus column height fits (Sparks et al., 1997; Mastin
et al., 2009). Primary FALL3D model outputs are the time-
dependent deposit load and airborne mass concentration for each
particle class. However, other physical and optical properties of ash
clouds (e.g. particle number concentration, optical depth and
extinction coefficients at 0.5 mm) are also computed as explained in
Corradini et al. (2011).
FALL3D has already been validated against several tephra
deposit data and space-based ash cloud observations from different
eruptions (Costa et al., 2006; Macedonio et al., 2008; Folch et al.,
2009; Scollo et al., 2008, 2009; Corradini et al., 2011). Here we
validate the model against several types of ground-based and
space-based observations. To this purpose we run a high-resolution
simulation using, as the only constrained inputs, the meteorological
fields, the total grain size distribution (TGSD), and the observed
column heights.
 Author's personal copy
A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183
3.2. Meteorological data
As meteorological input data for FALL3D we use ECMWF ERA-
Interim reanalysis obtained from the ECMWF data server. ERA-
Interim reanalysis archive contains four times daily data at a 1.5
horizontal resolution and at 37 pressure levels, from 1000 to 1 hPa.
Meteorological fields are interpolated to the FALL3D computational
mesh on an hourly basis interval using a linear interpolation in time
and bilinear in space. For this simulation we fixed the FALL3D grid
resolution to 0.25  0.25 in the horizontal and to 100 m in the
vertical (the resulting mesh is of 241  141  100 nodal points). To
run the dispersal model on a grid finer than that of the meteoro-
logical model does not improve the advection term but reduces
numerical diffusion and improves model accuracy. Note that the
resolution is much finer than the resolution typically used in
operational mode, when model execution time is a priority.
3.3. Reconstructed TGSD, ash aggregation and effective TGSD
TGSD depends on eruption style and intensity, and may vary
from one eruption phase to another as actually occurred during the
Eyjafjallajökull eruption. Data from samples collected by scientists
of the Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland, during 15,
17, and 18 April 2010 at distances varying between 20 and 55 km
from the volcano (http://www.earthice.hi.is/page/ies_EYJO2010_
Grain) revealed a relatively fine-grained tephra as expected
because of the phreatomagmatic activity occurring initially.
Unfortunately, data available from the first days are too scarce in
order to reconstruct the TGSD during the initial 14e18 April
phreatomagmatic period considered here.
Bonadonna et al. (2011a) reconstructed the TGSD from in-situ
sampling carried out from 4 to 8 May 2010 at distances ranging
from 2 to 56 km from the vent, applying a Voronoi tessellation
technique, both with and without the integration of information
derived from satellite (MSG-SEVIRI) for the fine ash fractions. The
fraction of fine ash (diameter < 64 mm or F > 4) is about 35%. Here
we assume that the TGSD during the simulated period is similar to
the that reconstructed by Bonadonna et al. (2011a) using Voronoi
tessellation technique to field observations without information
derived from satellite (Fig. 2). It is worth noting that the stronger
phreatomagmatic activity during the 14e18 April period could have
produced a higher amount of fine ash, although it is still very
reasonable to assume that TGSDs in the two periods were similar.
The wet aggregation model implemented in FALL3D (Costa et al.,
2010; Folch et al., 2010) requires a reliable estimation of the total
amount of water (magmatic plus meteoric) and needs a very fine
computational grid (few kms) to compute the wet aggregation
processes occurring in the plume. Because the FALL3D model can
adopt a uniform horizontal grid resolution only, the use of the wet
aggregation model for such large-scale domains (60  35 in our
case) is prohibitive from a computational point of view. To
circumvent this limitation and, simultaneously, to estimate the
effect of fine ash wet aggregation, in our simulations we considered
an effective TGSD that accounts for wet aggregation. Such an
effective TGSD has been obtained running FALL3D with the wet
aggregation model on a small-scale domain (2  2 ) considering
the reconstructed TGSD (Bonadonna et al., 2011a) and assuming
fully saturated water conditions. The use of an effective fine ash
depleted TGSD to model long-range transport can be justified
because most of ash aggregates from Eyjafjallajökull eruption had
a quite large settling velocity (typically >1 m s
1, see Taddeucci et
al., (2011); Bonadonna et al., (2011a)) therefore falling mainly in the
proximal region. The resulting effective TGSD is shown in Fig. 2
(gray bars). We estimate that more than 20% of the fine ash
(d  64 mm) aggregated and the fraction of particle classes finer
169
Φ
Fig. 2. TGSD reconstructed by Bonadonna et al. (2011a) for the 4e8 May period (black bars)
and effective TGSD (i.e. particle percentages remaining after aggregation) used in the
simulations (gray bars). The lower axis shows the particle class or bin diameter (in mm) and
the upper axis indicates the corresponding F value, defined as d (in mm) ¼ 2  pow (
F).
The class of aggregates in the effective TGSD is at 250 mm (F ¼ 2). The distribution contains
14 classes at equally-spaced F values. However, as we do not mean to model proximal
distances (teens to few hundreds of kms) in detail, all particles above F ¼ 2 (250 mm in
diameter) were grouped into a single class. Thus, our simulations consider in practice 10
particle classes (bins) varying in diameter from F ¼ 1 (d ¼ 500 mm) to F ¼ 10 (d ¼ 1 mm).
Density and sphericity were set to typical values of 2700 kg m
3 and 0.9 respectively.
than 5 microns (typical effective classes used for LIDAR retrieval) is
less than 3.5%.
3.4. Source term: column height and mass eruption rate
The source term in VATDM is defined by eruption column
height, MER, vertical distribution of mass and TGSD (discussed in
Section 3.3). Quantifying the source term is a bottleneck of
VATDM although it is essential if models have to compute
airborne ash concentration. Because column height is the easiest
parameter to constrain in real-time (e.g. by using radar, visual
observations or ground-based lidars), MER is typically inferred
from height either using empirical or semi-empirical relation-
ships (e.g. Wilson and Walker, 1987; Sparks et al., 1997; Mastin
et al., 2009) or running 1D radial-averaged BPT models (e.g.
Woods, 1995; Bursik, 2001).
The C-band weather radar of the Icelandic Meteorological Office
(IMO) observed the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic plume during the
whole eruption period (Petersen, 2010). The radar, located 150 km
from the volcano, provided 5-min plume altitudes with a minimum
detection height of 2.5 km a.s.l. (z0.8 km a.g.l.) because of
mountain ranges and curvature of the Earth. Here we use hourly-
averaged values of the heights provided by IMO (http://andvari.
vedur.is/warason/radar/), interpolating linearly to cover observa-
tion holes, and assumed a minimum altitude of 2.5 km (a.s.l.) when
the plume was not detected by radar (Fig. 3a).
Given hourly values of column height, we used both a BPT model
(Bursik, 2001; Carazzo et al., 2006, 2008) and the Suzuki (1983)
mass distribution with A ¼ 4 and l ¼ 1 (Pfeiffer et al., 2005)
combined with the empirical relationship given in Mastin et al.
(2009) to estimate the MER. Empirical relationships hold better
for strong sustained vertical columns and can capture the correct
order of magnitude. However, they are not suitable to describe
weak bent-over plumes where plume dynamics is strongly affected
 Author's personal copy

170 A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183

a b

Fig. 3. Source term characterization. a) Hourly-averaged plume height (km a.s.l.) as measured by the IMO weather radar. Detection limit of the weather radar is 2.5 km (a.s.l.).
b) MER versus time predicted by the BPT model (solid line) and by the empirical fit given by Mastin et al. (2009) (dashed line). The BPT plume model is similar to Bursik (2001) with
radial entrainment coefficient a calculated in accord to Carazzo et al. (2006) and the cross-wind entrainment coefficient b estimated on the basis of the local Richardson number
(0.06  b  0.2). Total erupted masses for the 14e23 April 2010 period are of 1.9  1011 kg and 2  1010 kg respectively.

by the intensity of the surrounding variable wind. BPT approach
also has limitations mainly due to the steady-state assumption and
the poorly constrained cross-wind entrainment effects, but, to date,
is the only alternative to more sophisticated 3D plume models (e.g.
ATHAM, see Herzog and Graf, 2010) that are not operationally
viable. Ambient conditions, necessary to solve the BPT equations,
were supplied interpolating the ERA-Interim wind field and
temperature profiles to the vent coordinates. Conditions at the vent
were set to 65 m s
1 for the exit velocity of the mixture (M. Ripepe,
personal communication 2010), 2% (in weight) for the magmatic
water content, and 1030  C for the exit temperature of the mixture
(a value typical of this magmatic composition).
BPT model and empirical MERs are shown in Fig. 3b. According
to the BPT model, the total erupted mass during the 10-day simu-
lated period is 1.9  1011 kg, almost one order of magnitude larger
than that of the empirical relationship proposed by Mastin et al.
(2009) (2.0  1010 kg). Such a difference is not surprising for
sustaining weak columns because cross-wind effects cause large
variabilities in the MER versus height relationship. The BPT model
needs larger MER because of the stronger entrainment due to cross-
wind effects. As we will show later, when we compare with
observations BPT model seems to overestimate the total mass up to
a factor 3e4, whereas the Mastin et al. (2009) relationship strongly
underestimate the total mass (up to an order of magnitude).
However, all observations are bound within these two cases.
4. Model results and validation
Several reasons preclude a direct quantitative validation of
VATDM. First of all, VATDM give mass concentration, a variable hard
to measure directly. Comparison involves model derived variables
(e.g. Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) estimated from model concen-
tration) and retrievals from observations. These, in turn, are also
based on assumptions that have an associated uncertainty. On the
other hand, it is often difficult to discriminate in the observed
signals the effect of other atmospheric components from that of
ash. Notwithstanding these limitations, we perform here semi-
quantitative and quantitative comparisons with data obtained
using several techniques.
4.1. Analysis of uncertainty on the simulation results
Before proceeding to compare simulations with observations, it is
necessary to estimate how the typical uncertainties in model inputs
can affect the predictions of the model. Rather than an exhaustive
sensitivity analysis, beyond the scope of this paper, our purpose is
to perform different simulations varying relevant inputs (column
height, MER and vertical mass distribution inside the eruption
column) within the typical uncertainty. This allows us to assess the
spread of forecasts with respect to a reference forecast, i.e. to asso-
ciate an uncertainty to the reference simulation used later to
compare with the observations. We consider:
i) Column height uncertainty. The IMO C-band weather radar has
a minimum detection height of 2.5 km a.s.l. (due to the
mountain ranges and curvature of the Earth) and an error
associated with the radar measurements (due to scanning
angles) that, at certain altitude, can be up to 1 km. Although
reasonably constrained, this error can affect the estimation of
MER and the dispersion of ash in the case of a strong wind
shear. Here we accounted for a mean column height
measurement error of DH ¼ 500 m and run simulations
considering H
DH and H þ DH, where H is the column
height of the reference run.
ii) MER and column mass distribution uncertainty. As discussed in
Section 3.4, the BPT model and the fit proposed by Mastin
et al. (2009) give upper and lower bounds for the MER. In
addition, we consider also the effect of different vertical mass
distributions, namely given by distribution predicted by BPT
(Bursik, 2001), Suzuki distribution (Suzuki, 1983; Pfeiffer
et al., 2005), and point source concentrated at the top of the
column.
The reference case assumes column heights as given by IMO
weather radar, MER and column mass distribution estimated through
the BPT model, and the effective TGSD presented in Section 3.3. Fig. 4
gives a snapshot of the FALL3D ash cloud simulation for the reference
case showing the ash mass load from 14 to 21 April (an animated gif
file showing the ash mass load from 14 to 22 April is available as online
 Author's personal copy

A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183 171

Fig. 4. Composite image of FALL3D results for the reference run at different time slices. Contours are ash column load in ton km
2 or g m
2. Assuming a homogeneous ash cloud
1 km thick these contours would correspond to mass concentrations expressed in mg m
3. An animated gif file showing the ash mass load from 14 to 22 April is available as online
material.
 Author's personal copy

172 A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183

Table 1
Sensitivity analysis at 4 different points of the domain. (1) plume height as given by the IMO radar. (2) MER estimated by means of the Buoyant Plume Theory (BPT). (3) MER
estimated as in Mastin et al. (2009). Meaning of used symbols is the following: H column height of the reference run; DH ¼ 500 m; C ¼ Concentration; Cref ¼ Concentration of
the reference run; CL ¼ Column load; CLref ¼ Column load of the reference run.

Column height H(1) H þ DH H
DH H H

(2)
MER estimation model BPT BPT BPT BPT Mastin(3)

Column vertical mass distribution BPT BPT BPT Point Point

16APR 15UTC Leipzig C/Cref at 3 km 1.0 0.86 1.71 0.84 0.05
CL/CLref 1.0 0.58 1.43 0.90 0.05
17APR 06 UTC Paris C/Cref at 2 km 1.0 0.34 2.92 2.18 0.12
CL/CLref 1.0 0.80 2.17 1.41 0.07
18APR 15 UTC Chilbolton C/Cref at 3 km 1.0 0.62 1.14 0.63 0.04
CL/CLref 1.0 0.54 1.50 0.95 0.06
19APR 12UTC Lille C/Cref at 2 km 1.0 1.22 0.53 0.49 0.03
CL/CLref 1.0 2.99 0.50 2.07 0.12

material). A first qualitative inspection reveals that the simulation
reproduces the main features of the ash cloud evolution described in
Section 2. A more detailed comparison between FALL3D ash mass
column load and processed MSG satellite SEVIRI images for the 16
April, reported in Fig. 5, shows a qualitative agreement. An overview of
the sensitivity of results to input uncertainty is shown in Table 1, where
airborne concentration and column load obtained for the different
runs at four different selected locations, are compared with results
obtained for the reference case. Typically, uncertainties in column
height and vertical mass distribution affect the column loadings and
concentration values by a factor of 2e3. In contrast, as expected,
variations in concentration due to different estimations of the MER
differ by a factor 10 or even larger.
4.2. Comparison with the DWD lidar-ceilometer network
The German Meteorological Service (DWD) manages a network
of lidar ceilometer originally designed for cloud base height

Fig. 5. Qualitative comparison between FALL3D ash mass column load (in ton km
2 or g m
2) for the reference run and processed MSG Spinning Enhanced Visible Infra-red Imager
(SEVIRI) images (Pavolonis, 2010). Results over Germany at 16 Apr 06 UTC (top) and 18 UTC (bottom). The satellite-based volcanic ash retrievals were developed in preparation for
the next generation of Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES-R) where a retrieval scheme developed for cirrus clouds (Heidinger and Pavolonis, 2009; Heidinger
et al., 2010) was adapted to volcanic ash clouds. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
 Author's personal copy

A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183 173

monitoring. The network consists of Jenoptik CHM15K low-power
instruments providing aerosol backscatter intensity profiles at
a single wavelength of 1064 nm (Flentje et al., 2010a). Ceilometers
are simple backscatter lidars (one wavelength) that do not resolve
depolarization and hence do not distinguish particle types.
However, if they are calibrated with co-located measurements can
be used to estimate, with large uncertainties, particle extinction
coefficients and mass concentrations (Flentje et al., 2010a; Heese
et al., 2010) that can be used for a quantitative model validation.
The arrival of the ash cloud front over Germany during 16 April was
registered by all DWD network stations as a layer at about 6e7 km
altitude that gradually descended with time to 2e4 km. The cloud was
observed as a dense layer of w1 km thick. According to Emeis et al.
(2011) this apparent sinking motion can be attributed to the slanted
orientation of the layer (probably reflecting, in turn, a progressive
decrease of the eruption column height). The negative (downwards)
wind vertical component and the particle sedimentation also favored
the sinking motion to some extent but were too weak (z0.01 m s
1
and <0.01 m s
1 respectively) to be the only causes. On the 17 April
only south German stations observed the layer, which entrained and
mixed with the convective planetary boundary layer from noon
onwards (Flentje et al., 2010a). This phenomenon is described in detail
in Flentje et al. (2010b) at the Hohenpeissenberg Meteorological
Observatory (47.8 N, 11.0 E, 985 m a.s.l.).
Fig. 6 compares semi-quantitatively time series of measured
intensity backscatter profiles at Dornick (North Germany, 54.2 N,
10.4 E, 25 m a.s.l.) and Hohenpeissenberg (South Germany, 47.8 N,
11.0 E, 985 m a.s.l.) with FALL3D simulated extinction coefficients (the
simulated contour of 0.1 km
1 relates roughly with a measured
scatter intensity of 200 in arbitrary units). Comparison permits
a validation of the model cloud arrival times, cloud altitudes and
thicknesses. For both locations simulated cloud arrival times differ
from observations by less than 1 h and top layer altitudes differ by less
than 1 km (consistent with Dacre et al. (2011)). On the 17 April, at
Hohenpeissenberg at 3 km altitude level, the ash layer was first
observed at 06 UTC, in excellent agreement with the simulations
(Fig. 6c). Typically simulated layer thicknesses are thicker than the
observed one (2e3 times thicker). This is due to a few reasons. First,
the low observation threshold is not well defined, second, the real
layers are sometimes thinner than the vertical computational reso-
lution (100 m), third, it can reflect numerical diffusion effects inherent
of Eulerian models, forth, it can be due to an incorrect vertical
distribution of source. The thin ash layers visible by ceilometer on 18
April (z00 UTC) at 3e4 km and on 19 April afternoon are also well
captured by the model at right times and locations (Fig. 6b). The
model predicted also a peak on 20 April at noon but this is not visible
from ceilometer, clearly obscured by low clouds at that time.
Using co-located sun photometer aerosol optical depth and
nephelometer measurements, Flentje et al. (2010a,b) estimate
extinction coefficient profiles from ceilometer backscatter intensity at
1064 nm. This allows for a more quantitative comparison with the
FALL3D results, shown in Fig. 7. Inferred extinction coefficient peak

Fig. 6. Time series of ceilometer intensity backscatter profiles (left, in arbitrary units) and FALL3D reference run computed extinction coefficient at 0.5 mm (right, in km
1). Top:
Dornick (North Germany) from 15 to 18 April 2010. Measured signals above 5 km were identified as meteorological clouds. Middle: Hohenpeissenberg (South Germany) from 16 to
21 April 2010. Bottom: zoom at Hohenpeissenberg on 17 April. The seemly intermittence of the observed layer is due to low clouds that prevented the observation of the ash layer
above. Ceilometers profiles modified from Flentje et al. (2010a,b).
 Author's personal copy
174 A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183
Fig. 7. Extinction coefficient profiles inferred by Flentje et al. (2010a) from ceilometer backscatter intensity at 1064 nm (left) and computed by FALL3D at 532 nm (right, solid line:
BPT model, dashed line: Mastin et al. (2009)). Observations at Hohenpeissenberg on 17 April at 07:30 (black), 08:30 (blue), 09:30 (green), and 10:30 (yellow) UTC. (For interpretation
of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
values on 17 April morning are 5(2)  10
4 m
1 at heights between
2.7 and 3 km a.s.l., whereas the reference run simulation predicts
values of 2.5  10
4 m
1 at heights between 3 and 3.6 km. Peak
differences are within a factor of two, the simulated maximum is
w0.5 km higher but it can be observed that the model is more
diffusive (simulated profile width is about thrice larger). A very good
agreement is obtained for mass concentration as peak values inferred
from measurements are 600(400) mg m
3 whereas the model
predicts a decrease from 875 (07:30 UTC) to 750 mg m
3 (10:30 UTC).
4.3. Comparison with ground-based aerosol lidars
Europe hosts a large number of ground-based lidars designed for
meteorological and aerosol observations. Lidar networks like the
European Aerosol Research LIdar NETwork (EARLINET; www.earlinet.
org) allow scientists to study continental and long-term processes not
evident from single-point lidar measurements. Lidars provide infor-
mation about vertical structure of troposphere aerosol layers.
Advanced multi-wavelength lidars that measure polarization can be
combined with retrieval algorithms to give information about optical
(e.g. extinction, backscatter, AOD) and microphysical aerosol proper-
ties (e.g. size or shape). This provides an excellent framework for
model validation. We have compared the FALL3D model results with
measurements from ground-based lidars at Belsk (Poland), Cabauw
(Netherlands), Cardington and Chilbolton (U.K.), Leipzig and Munich
(Germany) and Palaiseau (France). For some of these lidars only
a semi-quantitative comparison is possible while for others, like the
multi-wavelength Munich and Leipzig Raman lidars, a more quanti-
tative validation can be carried out.
Fig. 8 shows a comparison with measurements of the SIRTA lidar
located at Palaiseau, 20 km south of Paris (49 N, 2 E, http://sirta.ipsl.
polytechnique.fr/), during 17 and 18 April 2010, when the ash cloud
was stagnant over northern France (see Fig. 4). Observations indicate
a thin layer descending from 3.5 to 2 km altitude during the morning
and afternoon of 17 April and remaining at this height until it mixes
with the PBL on afternoon of 18 April. This is quite consistent with the
model results although the simulated cloud is always thicker than
observed. Simulated peak concentration values for the reference run
are of about 1500 mg m
3 at 2 km height on 17 April 06 UTC.
Fig. 9 shows a similar semi-quantitative comparison with
measurements from a lidar deployed at the Science and Technology
Facilities Council (STFC) facility at Chilbolton Observatory (51.14 N,
1.42 W, http://www.chilbolton.rl.ac.uk/) during 16, 18, and 20 April
2010. At Chilbolton, the model predicts the cloud to arrive around
midnight of 16 April at 3e4 km height. This early arrival was not
observed by the lidar, although was predicted even by few other
models used to simulated ash cloud transport (Dacre et al., 2011). Likely
it reflects cumulative errors in the driving NWP wind fields (Dacre
et al., 2011), including the ERA reanalysis used here. At noon of 16
April, a layer of ash was detected descending from 2.5 to about 1 km
height in 3 h (from 12:00 to 15:00 UTC). This decrease is in good
agreement with the model, that in addition predicts layer mass
concentrations of 400 mg m
3 for the reference run. On 18 April the
model predicts a concentration peak at 2.5 km from 14:00 to 17:00 UTC
(Fig. 9b). This was actually observed by the lidar a couple of hours later
(18:00 UTC) at a lower altitude (w1.8e2 km). On 20 April the model
predicts a third flux of ash crossing over Great Britain from north to
south (see Fig. 4) and arriving at Chilbolton early morning. Layer height
is predicted by model to fall from about 4 to 1 km height in about 8 h
and to achieve a maximum concentration of 900 mg m
3 at 07:00 UTC
approximately. This series of event was clearly observed by the lidar,
although during the first 3 h of 20 April clouds partly obscured the lidar
observations. Also in this case, the agreement between model and
observation is satisfactory with time differences of 1e2 h and
discrepancies in altitude below 0.5 km. Similar results have been found
for other lidars all over Europe (not all results are shown here).
Ansmann et al. (2010) reported Raman-lidar observations at
Leipzig (51.4 N, 12.4 E) and Munich-Maisach (48.2 N, 11.3 E)
during 16e17 April 2010, including inferred vertical concentration
and extinction profiles at different time slices. Fig. 10 compares
 Author's personal copy
A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183
Fig. 8. Comparison between 532 nm linear polarization measured at Paris during 17e18 April 2010 (left) and computed FALL3D mass concentration for the reference run (right).
these profiles with the FALL3D results obtained for the BPT refer-
ence run and the run having the MER calculated in accord to Mastin
et al. (2009). At Leipzig, time-averaged concentration (from 14:15
to 15:30 UTC on 16 April) from the lidar reached a peak of roughly
850 mg m
3 at 3.3 km height and the ash layer was observed to be
about 1.5 km thick. In this case the simulations show concentration
peaks of 3400 and 100 mg m
3 respectively, i.e. 4 times higher and
8.5 times lower than the observation. Layer thicknesses are
generally overestimated by a factor 2 for the reference run, whereas
the run having the MER calculated in accord to Mastin et al. (2009)
systematically underestimate concentration. Results for the refer-
ence run are in a much better agreement with observations at
Munich on 17 April, where differences with observations are
smaller in both peak intensity (about 950 and 1000 mg m
3 for
model and observation respectively) and altitude (Fig. 10b). Layer
thickness are overestimated by a factor 2 also in this case, reflecting
the fact that BPT model tends to overestimate MER.
4.4. Comparison with AERONET sun photometers
AErosol RObotic NETwork (AERONET, Holben et al., 1998) is
a federation of ground-based remote-sensing aerosol networks
devoted to assess aerosol optical properties and validate satellite
retrievals of aerosol optical properties. AERONET provides globally
distributed observations of columnar AOD in diverse aerosol
regimes and at different wavelengths computed for three data
quality levels: Level 1.0 (unscreened), Level 1.5 (cloud-screened;
Smirnov et al., 2000), and Level 2.0 (cloud-screened and quality-
assured, longer delay). AOD is calculated from sun-photometer
measurements of the direct (collimated) solar radiation.
175
Additionally, direct-sun AOD processing now includes the Spectral
Deconvolution Algorithm (SDA) described in O’Neill et al. (2003).
This algorithm yields fine (sub-micron) and coarse (super-micron)
AOD at a standard wavelength of 500 nm from which the Fine Mode
Fraction (FMF) to total AOD can be computed.
Here we use AOD and AODcoarse at 500 nm from the SDA
retrievals at several AERONET sites for further quantitative model
validation. Two limitations should be pointed out about AERONET
data. First, direct-sun radiance measurements are possible during
daylight only and can be obscured by clouds, although this should
be corrected in Level 1.5 and 2.0 data. Second, if no information on
particle type is available, total AOD does not allow for the distinc-
tion between ash and other aerosol. This can mislead the effect of
ash if the background contribution is not well constrained. We
compare with AODcoarse to eliminate the contribution of anthro-
pogenic aerosols, mainly found in the finer fractions. Notwith-
standing these limitations, the comparison allows us to test the
ability of the model to predict cloud arrival times and AOD
modulation.
Fig. 11 shows the simulated ash AOD over Central Europe at
different time slices. According to the model (reference run simu-
lation), large values (AOD > 1.5) are predicted only during 15 April
and 16 April morning over Denmark and Germany, although the
18e19 April pulse also causes values of AOD z 1.5 over Scotland.
During most of the episode, low to moderate ash AOD values
(0.1e0.75) are dominant over the continent. Fig. 12 compares time
series of sun-photometer derived AOD and AODcoarse with FALL3D
ash AOD predictions at 4 different localities: Cabauw, Helgoland,
Lille, and Munich. Results at other locations (e.g. Belsk, Brussels,
Chilbolton, or Lägren, not shown here) present a similar agreement
 Author's personal copy

176 A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183

Fig. 9. Comparison between backscatter range corrected signal measured at Chilbolton (UK) during 16, 18, and 20 April 2010 (left) and computed FALL3D mass concentration for the
reference run (right).

a b

Fig. 10. Comparison between mass concentrations estimated by Ansmann et al. (2010) from Raman-lidar observations (open circles) and FALL3D results for the reference run (solid
line) and computing the MER as in Mastin et al. (2009) (dashed line). a) Leipzig 16 April 2010. Observations are averaged from 14:15 to 15:30 UTC. Model results are plotted at 15:00
UTC. b) Munich-Maisach 17 April 2010. Observations are averaged from 01:40 to 02:30 UTC. Model results are plotted at 02:00 UTC.
 Author's personal copy

A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183 177

Fig. 11. FALL3D ash AOD (532 nm) over central and north Europe at different time slices for the reference run. The localities reported in Fig. 12 are indicated.

(generally there are a few periods of good agreement and others
that show poor agreement).
4.5. Comparison with in-situ aircraft particle counter
Several measurement flights were carried out during the 14e23
April week including, among others, the German DLR Falcon 20
(http://www.dlr.de/), the U.K. NERC Dornier (http://arsf.nerc.ac.uk/)
and FAAM BAe164 (www.faam.ac.uk/), the Swiss METAIR DIMO
(www.metair.ch), or the French SAFIR ATR (www.safire.fr). In-situ
and remote airborne measurements played a key role in support-
ing decisions of agencies and operators.
Here we compare FALL3D model results with in-situ measure-
ments from the German DLR Falcon 20. The Falcon aircraft performed
several flights from 19 April to 18 May equipped with a Doppler wind
lidar and in-situ aerosol instrumentations like optical particle
counter spectrometers and trace gas instruments (Schumann et al.,
2011). The first Falcon flight was performed on 19 April as a request
to support airspace re-opening decisions after four days of airspace
shut down. The 19 April flight path crossed over Munich, Leipzig,
Cabauw, and Stuttgart in coincidence with ground-based lidars.
Schumann et al. (2011) derived ash mass concentrations at different
flight legs from measured ash particle number size distributions.
Fig. 13 shows modeled airborne ash concentration at different
flight levels on 19 April at the time of the Falcon flight (17:00 UTC).
Different height-dependent structures are visible reflecting the
mixing of different ash pulses and the recirculation of ash sus-
pended in the lower troposphere for several days. Actually, the 19
 Author's personal copy

178 A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183

Fig. 12. Comparison between FALL3D ash AOD, level 1.5 aerosol AOD (circles), and AODcoarse (solid points) at 500 nm measured by different AERONET sun photometers (Cabauw,
Helgoland, Lille and Munich). Results shown for the entire period of simulation. Note that all the particle classes considered in the TGSD belong to the aerosol coarse mode (>1 mm).
Contribution to this mode is expected to be mainly from natural aerosols (e.g. sea salt, mineral dust, volcanic ash). Two FALL3D simulations are plotted, BPT reference run (solid line)
and with the MER as in Mastin et al. (2009) (dashed line).

April flight Lidar observations revealed multiple ash layers at
3.7e5.8 km altitudes that typically were 0.5e2 km thick and
100e300 km wide (Schumann et al., 2011). Fig. 14 compares
different estimations of concentration with the FALL3D model
results. At Leipzig during 19 April 1510 UTC measurements show the
presence of two layers at roughly 2 and 4 km height with concen-
tration maxima of circa 180 mg m
3. The reference run (mass over-
estimation) captures only a single peak of 340 mg m
3 at 3 km above
the ground. For the other 3 legs, model results for the two simula-
tions shown in Fig. 14 cover the measured concentration values.
 Author's personal copy

A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183 179

Fig. 13. FALL3D (reference run) ash concentration contours (mg m
3) over Germany on 19 April 17:00 UTC, in coincidence with the time of the DLR Falcon 20 flight. Results are
shown at four different flight levels of FL050, FL100, FL150 and FL200, roughly corresponding to altitudes of 5, 10, 15, and 20 thousand feet respectively.

4.6. Comparison with in-situ ground-based measurements
Ground-based particle counters for boundary layer aerosol
studies measure size-resolved particle number concentrations. This
kind of data may provide an additional method for validating
models. Some of them registered in some locations a sharp increase
in number concentration of particles larger than 1 mm in coinci-
dence with the overpass of the ash cloud. For example, Flentje et al.
(2010b) report that at Hohenpeissenberg (Germany) PM5 particle
mass concentrations increased from 20 mg m
3 to 40 mg m
3 (with
peaks of 50 mg m
3) on 17 April and remained elevated till 23 April.
For comparison, Fig. 15 shows FALL3D model predicted PM5 ground
concentrations at this locality for the reference run and for the run
having the MER calculated in accord to Mastin et al. (2009). The
simulated concentration, for the reference run, increases along 17
April up to 68 mg m
3, in agreement with observations.
5. Summary and discussion
We performed several semi-quantitative and quantitative
comparisons between FALL3D VATDM and independent
measurements and observations of the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic
 Author's personal copy

180 A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183

Fig. 14. Comparison between FALL3D vertical concentration profiles (above ground level, a.g.l.) and concentration values reported in Schumann et al. (2011) (Table 3) at different
flight legs during 19 and 22 April Falcon flights. FALL3D results are shown for the reference run (solid line) and computing the MER as in Mastin et al. (2009) (dashed line). These can
be considered as upper and lower bounds for the erupted mass and hence for the concentration downwind. The two circles in the Stuttgart, Munich, and Skagerrak legs indicate
maximum and minimum concentration values estimated by Schumann et al. (2011).

ash clouds obtained using different techniques during 14e23
April 2010. FALL3D model simulations used ERA-Interim mete-
orological data at 1.5 resolution (off-line coupling strategy), an
effective TGSD derived from field observations (Bonadonna
et al., 2011a) and simulations on a small-scale that account for
wet aggregation, and hourly-averaged values of eruption
column heights as measured by the IMO weather radar. Source
term (MER and vertical distribution of mass) has been computed
from observed heights using both i) a BPT model that accounts
for wind induced plume bent-over and cross-wind entrainment
effects and ii) a distribution (Suzuki, 1983; Pfeiffer et al., 2005)
combined with the empirical relationship suggested by Mastin
et al. (2009) to estimate the MER from column height. We
have found that, for this particular eruption (characterized by
a low to moderate eruption intensity and a very oscillating
column height), these two strategies provide an upper and
a lower bound for the MER and hence for the downwind ash
concentration. In particular, model results were compared with:
i) DWD lidar ceilometer, ii) ground-based lidars (from EARLINET
and others), iii) sun photometers from AERONET, iv) DLR Falcon
 Author's personal copy
A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183
Fig. 15. PM5 ground concentration (in mg m
3) predicted by FALL3D at Hohen-
peissenberg (South Germany) from 16 to 23 April 2010. Two cases, BPT reference
run (line with circles) and with the MER as in Mastin et al. (2009) (line with cross),
are plotted.
20 aircraft particle counter and, v) a ground-based particle
counter located at Hohenpeissenberg (Germany). Main findings
can be summarized as follows:
 Observed and computed cloud arrival times agree with time
differences of few hours (typically lower than 1e2 h) at all
analyzed localities (except for the UK on the 16 April).
 Discrepancies between observed and computed cloud alti-
tudes are below 1 km (0.5 km in most cases). The simulated
cloud is always much thicker than the observed (by a factor of
2e3 at least). As explained, this can be partially explained by
the numerical diffusion of Eulerian models, by poor quantifi-
cation of the detection threshold, and by the poor vertical
resolution of NWP. In fact, the vertical resolution of the
underlying NWP data (not the interpolated resolution) can
only capture the gradients/features in the flow over a number
of grid lengths.
 Measurements of ash mass concentration are always bounded
by the two cases characterized by different estimations of the
MER, i.e. through BPT theory (Bursik, 2001; Carazzo et al., 2008)
and using an empirical relationship (Mastin et al., 2009)
respectively. In general, total mass difference between the BPT
and the empirical model is almost an order of magnitude.
However, the reference run (MER estimated by means of a BPT
model) shows, in general, a better agreement with the obser-
vations, typically within a factor 2e3 and up to 4e5 maximum.
The tendency to overestimate concentration reflects the fact
that, for such low columns, cross-wind entrainment is not
properly estimated.
 The simulations (for the reference case) captures AOD varia-
tions and differences with AERONET AODcoarse measurements
are lower than 0.2.
Results show that is crucial to improve methods for estimation
of MER (for weak eruptions), estimation of TGSD, and aggregation
effects. The use of an effective TGSD (combining Bonadonna et al.
(2011a) analysis with preliminary modeling of aggregation)
allowed us to model long-range transport. Further studies more
focussed on the quantification of aggregation on the ash transport
181
during the Eyjafjallajökull eruption are the subject of ongoing
research. However, preliminary modeling of aggregation process
of Eyjafjallajökull eruption indicates that more than 20% of the
fine ash aggregated and the fraction of particle classes finer than
5 microns (the effective classes used for LIDAR retrieval) is less
than 3.5%. For comparison, Dacre et al. (2011) estimated that
around 3% of the total emitted mass was transported as far as
these sites by small ash particles (although they used a very
different TGSD). However they estimated MER through Mastin
et al. (2009) and they assumed that this fraction consists of all
particles  100 microns diameter, although it is necessary to
consider that only particle finer than 5 microns are typically used
for LIDAR retrieval.
The adoption of quantitative ash concentration safe criteria
has important implications on mitigation strategies. From
a modeling point of view, a key point to investigate is whether
VATDM can predict airborne concentrations with a sufficient
accuracy. In this context, an adequate estimation of the source
term is a pivotal issue because model input uncertainties are
a major source of inaccuracy. For the case of the Eyjafjallajökull
volcanic ash clouds simulations considered here, where input
parameters were much more constrained than during the time of
an emergency, we found that differences between the concen-
tration computed by the model and the peak concentration
inferred from observations are typically overestimated within
a factor 2e3 (up tp 4e5 in a few cases) for the reference run,
either airborne and at ground. However, it must be stressed that,
at present, to achieve such agreement in operational mode is
unlikely because model inputs are typically less constrained. For
example, TGSD is very often not available during an eruption
because difficulties in sampling and time needed for data pro-
cessing. Column height measurements may not be available or if
so, be available at a low frequency (e.g. daily values), especially for
poorly monitored volcanoes. Finally, techniques to measure MER
on real or nearly real-time are not well consolidated yet, so that
this key model input has to be inferred from BPT models or
empirical fits from the observed column heights. In the case of
weak plumes, like Eyjafjallajökull eruption, BPT models tend to
overestimated whereas empirical fits tend to underestimate
concentration values.
This study demonstrates that current state-of-the-art VATDMs,
like FALL3D, can model far-range dispersion and sedimentation of
volcanic ash clouds satisfactorily when inputs are well con-
strained. Strategies for improving model accuracy during emer-
gencies, such as real-time or nearly real-time data assimilation or
ensemble forecast techniques, were discussed recently at the “Ash
dispersal forecast and civil aviation workshop” (Bonadonna et al.,
2011b) and reader are encouraged to read the final report at
http://www.unige.ch/sciences/terre/mineral/CERG/Workshop.
html.
Acknowledgments
This work has been partially funded by the Spanish CGL2009-
10244 ATMOST project. AF is grateful to the Ramón y Cajal scientific
program. We acknowledge the constructive reviews of two anon-
ymous referees which have improved this manuscript notably. We
also thank S. Karlsdóttir and G.N. Petersen from IMO for providing
radar eruption column heights. C. Bonadonna from University of
Geneva provided granulometric data and suggestions for
improving the paper. A. Ansman from Leibniz Institute for Tropo-
spheric Research and U. Schumann from DLR kindly provided us
data from Leipzig and Munich lidars and Falcon 20 flight respec-
tively. We thank M. Pavolonis from NOAA for the satellite images.
We also wish to acknowledge the British Atmospheric Data Centre,
 Author's personal copy
182 A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183
which is part of the NERC National Centre for Atmospheric Science
(NCAS), for the use of lidar data from Chilbolton and Cardington. H.
Dacre from University of Reading, UK, is acknowledged for her
suggestions. Finally we warmly thank G. Macedonio from INGV,
Italy for his support and suggestions.
Appendix. Supplementary material
The Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found online, at doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.06.072.
References
Ackermann, I.J., Hass, H., Memmesheimer, M., Ebel, A., Binkowski, F.S., Shankar, U.,
1998. Modal aerosol dynamics model for Europe: development and first
applications. Atmospheric Environment 32, 2981e2999.
Ansmann, A., et al., 2010. The 16 April 2010 major volcanic ash plume over central
Europe: EARLINET lidar and AERONET photometer observations at Leipzig and
Munich, Germany. Geophysical Research Letters 37, L13810. doi:10.1029/
2010GL043809.
Bursik, M., 2001. Effect of wind on the rise height of volcanic plumes. Geophysical
Research Letters 18, 3621e3624.
Bonadonna, C., Genco, R., Gouhier, M., Pistolesi, M., Alfano, F., Cioni, R., Hoskuldsson, A.,
Ripepe, M., 2011a. Tephra sedimentation during the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption
(Iceland) from deposit, radar and satellite observations. Geophysical Research
Abstracts 13, EGU2011-3476-2, EGU General Assembly 2011.
Bonadonna, C., Folch, A., Loughlin, S., Puempel, H., 2011b. Future developments in
modelling and monitoring of volcanic ash clouds: outcomes from the first
IAVCEI-WMO workshop on Ash Dispersal Forecast and Civil Aviation, Bulletin of
Volcanology, doi:10.1007/s00445-011-0508-6.
Byun, D., Ching, J., 1999. Science Algorithms of the EPA Models-3 Community
Multiscale Air Quality Modeling System, EPA/600/R-99/030. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
Carazzo, G., Kaminski, E., Tait, S., 2006. The route to self-similarity in turbulent jets
and plumes. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 547, 137e148.
Carazzo, G., Kaminski, E., Tait, S., 2008. On the dynamics of volcanic columns:
a comparison of field data with new model of negatively buoyant jets. Journal of
Volcanology and Geothermal Research 178, 94e103.
Casadevall, T.J., et al. (Eds.), 1996. The 1991 Pinatubo Eruptions and Their Effects on
Aircraft Operations. Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, Quezon
City and University of Washington Press, Seattle, p. 1115.
Corradini, S., Merucci, L., Folch, A., 2011. Volcanic ash cloud properties: comparison
between MODIS satellite retrievals and FALL3D transport model. IEEE Geo-
science and Remote Sensing Letters 8 (2), 242e252.
Costa, A., Macedonio, G., Folch, A., 2006. A three-dimensional Eulerian model for
transport and deposition of volcanic ashes. Earth and Planetary Science Letters
241 (3e4), 634e647.
Costa, A., Folch, A., Macedonio, G., 2010. A model for wet aggregation of ash
particles in volcanic plumes and clouds: I. Theoretical formulation. Journal of
Geophysical Research. doi:10.1029/2009JB007175.
Dacre, H.F., Grant, A.L.M., Hogan, R.J., Belcher, S.E., Thomson, D.J., Devenish, B.J.,
Marenco, F., Haywood, J.M., Ansmann, A., Mattis, I., Clarisse, L., 2011. Evaluating
the structure and magnitude of the ash plume during the initial phase of the
2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption using lidar observations and NAME simulations.
Journal of Geophysical Research 116, D00U03, doi:10.1029/2011JD015608.
D’Amours, R., Malo, A., Servranckx, R., Bensimon, D., Trudel, S., Gauthier-
Bilodeau, J.P., 2010. Application of the atmospheric Lagrangian particle
dispersion model MLDP0 to the 2008 eruptions of Okmok and Kasatochi
volcanoes. Journal of Geophysical Research 115, D00L11. doi:10.1029/
2009JD013602.
Draxler, R.R., Hess, G.D., 1998. An overview of the HYSPLIT_4 modeling system of
trajectories, dispersion, and deposition. Australian Meteorological Magazine 47,
295e308.
Emeis, S., Forkel, R., Junkermann, W., Schäfer, K., Flentje, H., Gilge, S., Fricke, W.,
Wiegner, M., Freudenthaler, V., Gross, S., Ries, L., Meinhardt, F., Birmili, W.,
Münkel, C., Obleitner, F., Suppan, P., 2011. Measurement and simulation of the
16/17 April 2010 Eyjafjallajókull volcanic ash layer dispersion in the northern
Alpine region. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11, 2689e2701. doi:10.5194/
acp-11-2689-2011.
Flentje, H., Heese, B., Reichardt, J., Thomas, W., 2010a. Aerosol profiling using the
ceilometer network of the German Meteorological Service. Atmospheric
Measurement Techniques Discussions 3, 3643e3673.
Flentje, H., et al., 2010b. The Eyjafjallajökull eruption in April 2010-detection of
volcanic plume using in-situ measurements, ozone sondes and lidar-ceilometer
profiles. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 10, 10085e10092.
Folch, A., Costa, A., Macedonio, G., 2009. FALL3D: a computational model for
volcanic ash transport and deposition. Computer and Geosciences. doi:10.1016/
j.cageo.2008.08.008.
Folch, A., Costa, A., Durant, A., Macedonio, G., 2010. A model for wet aggregation of
ash particles in volcanic plumes and clouds: II. model application. Journal of
Geophysical Research. doi:10.1029/2009JB007176.
Grell, G.A., Emeis, S., Stockwell, W.R., Schoenemeyer, T., Forkel, R., Michalakes, J.,
Knoche, R., Seidl, W., 2000. Application of a multiscale, coupled MM5/Chem-
istry Model to the complex terrain of the VOTALP Valley Campaign. Atmo-
spheric Environment 34, 1435e1453.
Heese, B., Flentje, H., Althausen, D., Ansmann, A., Frey, S., 2010. Ceilometer lidar
comparison: backscatter coefficient retrieval and signal-to-noise ratio deter-
mination. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques 3, 1763e1770.
Heidinger, A.K., Pavolonis, M.J., 2009. Gazing at Cirrus Clouds for 25 Years through
a Split Window. Part I: Methodology. Journal of Applied Meteorology and
Climatology 48 (6), 1100e1116.
Heidinger, A.K., Pavolonis, M.J., Holz, R.E., Baum, B.A., Berthier, S., 2010.
A comparison of the sensitivity to cloud pressure offered by the NPOESS/VIRRS
and GOES-R/ABI Infrared observations for cirrus cloud remote sensing. Journal
of Geophysical Research 115. doi:10.1029/2009JD012152.
Herzog, M., Graf, H.F., 2010. Applying the three-dimensional model ATHAM to
volcanic plumes: dynamic of large co-ignimbrite eruptions and associated
injection heights for volcanic gases. Geophysical Research Letters 37, L19807.
doi:10.1029/2010GL044986.
Holben, B.N., et al., 1998. AERONET e a federated instrument network and data
archive for aerosol characterization. Remote Sensing of Environment 66,
1e16.
ICAO, 2000. International Civil Aviation Organisation International Handbook on
the International Airways Volcano Watch (IAVW) Operational Procedures and
Contact List, ICAO Doc 9766-AN/968, first ed.
Jones, A.R., Thomson, D.J., Hort, M., Devenish, B., 2007. The U.K. Met Office’s next-
generation atmospheric dispersion model, NAME III. In: Borrego, C.,
Norman, A.-L. (Eds.), Air Pollution Modeling and its Application XVII
(Proceedings of the 27th NATO/CCMS International Technical Meeting on Air
Pollution Modelling and its Application). Springer, pp. 580e589.
Langmann, B., Varghese, S., Marmer, E., Vignati, E., Wilson, J., Stier, P., O’Dowd, C.,
2008. Aerosol distribution over Europe: a model evaluation study with detailed
aerosol microphysics. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 8, 1591e1607.
doi:10.5194/acp-8-1591-2008.
Macedonio, G., Costa, A., Folch, A., 2008. Ash fallout scenarios at Vesuvius:
numerical simulations and implications for hazard assessment. Journal of
Volcanology and Geothermal Research 178, 366e377. doi:10.1016/
j.jvolgeores.2008.08.014.
Mastin, L.G., et al., 2009. A multidisciplinary effort to assign realistic source
parameters to models of volcanic ash-cloud transport and dispersion during
eruptions. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. doi:10.1016/
j.jvolgeores.2009.01.008.
O’Neill, N.T., Eck, T.F., Smirnov, A., Holben, B.N., Thulasiraman, S., 2003. Spectral
discrimination of coarse and fine mode optical depth. Journal of Geophysical
Research 108 4559.
Oxford-Economics, 2010. The Economic Impacts of Air Travel Restrictions due to
Volcanic Ash, Report for Airbus.
Pavolonis, M.J., 2010. Advances in extracting cloud composition information
from space-borne infrared radiances e a robust alternative to brightness
temperatures, part 1: theory. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Clima-
tology 49 (9).
Petersen, G.N., 2010. A short meteorological overview of the Eyjafjallajökull erup-
tion 14 Aprile23 May 2010. Weather 65 (8), 203e207.
Peuch, V.H., Amodei, M., Barthet, T., Cathala, M.L., Josse, B., Michou, M., Simon, P.,
1999. MOCAGE, MOdéle de Chimie Atmosphèrique à Grande Echelle. In:
Proceedings of Météo-France workshop on atmospheric modelling,
pp. 33e36.
Pfeiffer, T., Costa, A., Macedonio, G., 2005. A model for the numerical simulation of
tephra fall deposits. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 140,
273e294.
Prata, A.J., 2008. Satellite detection of hazardous volcanic clouds and the risk to
global air traffic. Natural Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-008-9273-z.
Ryall, D.B., Maryon, R.H., 1998. Validation of the UK Met. Office’s NAME model
against the ETEX dataset. Atmospheric Environment 32, 4265e4276.
Schumann, U., Weinzierl, B., Reitebuch, O., Schlager, H., Minikin, A., Forster, C.,
Baumann, R., Sailer, T., Graf, K., Mannstein, H., Voigt, C., Rahm, S., Simmet, R.,
Scheibe, M., Lichtenstern, M., Stock, P., Rüba, H., Schäuble, D., Tafferner, A.,
Rautenhaus, M., Gerz, T., Ziereis, H., Krautstrunk, M., Mallaun, C., Gayet, J.-F.,
Lieke, K., Kandler, K., Ebert, M., Weinbruch, S., Stohl, A., Gasteiger, J., Gross, S.,
Freudenthaler, V., Wiegner, M., Ansmann, A., Tesche, M., Olafsson, H., Sturm, K.,
2011. Airborne observations of the Eyjafjalla volcano ash cloud over Europe
during air space closure in April and May 2010. Atmospheric Chemistry and
Physics 11, 2245e2279. doi:10.5194/acp-11-2245-2011.
Scollo, S., Folch, A., Costa, A., 2008. A parametric and comparative study of different
tephra fallout models. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 176 (2),
199e211. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2008.04.002.
Scollo, S., Prestifilippo, M., Spata, G., D’Agostino, M., Coltelli, M., 2009. Monitoring
and forecasting Etna volcanic plumes. Natural Hazards and Earth System
Sciences 9, 1573e1585.
Sigmundsson, F., et al., 2010. Intrusion triggering of the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull
explosive eruption. Nature 468, 426e430. doi:10.1038/nature09558.
Smirnov, A., Holben, B.N., Eck, T.F., Dubovik, O., Slutsker, I., 2000. Cloud screening
and quality control algorithms for the AERONET database. Remote Sensing
Environment 73, 337e349.
Sparks, R.S.J., Bursik, M.I., Carey, S.N., Gilbert, J.S., Graze, L.S., Sigurdsson, H.,
Woods, A.W., 1997. Volcanic Plumes. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp. 574.
 Author's personal copy
A. Folch et al. / Atmospheric Environment 48 (2012) 165e183
Stohl, A., Hittenberger, M., Wotawa, G., 1998. Validation of the Lagrangian particle
dispersion model FLEXPART against large-scale tracer experiment data. Atmo-
spheric Environment 32, 4245e4264.
Suzuki, T., 1983. A theoretical model for dispersion of tephra. In: Shimozuru, D.,
Yokoyama, I. (Eds.), Arc Volcanism: Physics and Tectonics. Terra Scientific
Publishing Company (TERRAPUB), Tokyo, pp. 93e113.
Taddeucci, J., Scarlato, P., Montanaro, C., Cimarelli, C., Del Bello, E., Freda, C.,
Andronico, D., Gudmundsson, M.T., Dingwell, D.B., 2011. Aggregation-
dominated ash settling from the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic cloud illuminated
183
by field and laboratory high-speed imaging. Geology 39 (9), 891e894;
doi:10.1130/G32016.1.
Wang, X., et al., 2008. Volcanic dust characterization by EARLINET during Etna’s
eruptions in 2001e2002. Atmospheric Environment 42, 893e905.
Wilson, L., Walker, G.P.L., 1987. Explosive volcanic eruptions-VI. Ejecta dispersal in
plinian eruptions: the control of eruption conditions and atmospheric proper-
ties. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 89, 657e679.
Woods, A., 1995. The dynamics of explosive volcanic eruptions. Reviews of
Geophysics 33, 495e530.