To improve our understanding of the physics of volcanic plumes and their interaction with the atmosphere, increasingly sophisticated numerical models of eruptive columns have been developed by a growing number of research groups. These models are different in their design and scope, but all have the fundamental goal of characterizing the dynamics of volcanic plume formation and ultimately providing estimates of source conditions. Descriptions of volcanic columns (or plumes, we use the terms interchangeably in this paper) are important for hazard mitigation because they can be used in models that forecast the dispersion of ash and hazardous gases in the atmosphere. The accuracy of tephra dispersal forecasts is strongly dependent on the source term, which describes both the mass eruption rate of volcanic emissions and their initial vertical distribution in the atmosphere. However, until now there has not been a systematic effort to compare how these source terms are derived. For this study, we have brought together 13 different models to perform a set of simulations using the same input parameters, so that results can be meaningfully compared and evaluated. The motivation is twofold: (1) to provide a conceptual overview of what the various models can accomplish, and (2) to target specific areas for further exploration by the research community as a whole.

AC was partially supported by a grant of the International Research Promotion Office Earthquake Research Institute, the University of Tokyo. AC, GM, AN, MdMV, TEO and MC were partially supported by the EU-funded project MEDiterranean SUpersite Volcanoes (MEDSUV) (grant n. 308665). AVE acknowledges NSF Postdoctoral Fellowship EAR1250029 and a USGS Mendenhall Fellowship. MIB was supported partially by NSF-IDR and AFOSR. AJH, MJW, and JCP were partially supported bythe NERC-funded projectVanaheim (grantno. NE/I01554X/1) and the EU-funded project FutureVolc (grant no. 308377). FG, GC, ST, and EK were partially supported by INSU, CNRS. We wish to thank T. Koyaguchi, S. Solovitz, and an anonymous reviewer for constructive suggestions that improved the quality of the manuscript.

Peer Reviewed