4.4 Article

Field observations of wind profiles and sand fluxes above the windward slope of a sand dune before and after the establishment of semi-buried straw checkerboard barriers

期刊

AEOLIAN RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 -, 页码 59-70

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.aeolia.2015.11.003

关键词

Wind profile; Aerodynamic roughness length; Sand flux; Straw checkerboard barriers

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [41171004, 41330746]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Straw checkerboard barriers are effective and widely used measures to control near-surface sand flow. The present study measured the wind profiles and sand mass flux above the windward slope of a transverse dune before and after the establishment of semi-buried straw checkerboards. The 0.2 m high checkerboards enhanced the aerodynamic roughness length to larger than 0.02 m, which was two to three orders of magnitude higher than that of the bare sand. The modified Charnock model predicted the roughness length of the sand bed during saltation well, with C-m = 0.138 +/- 0.003. For the checker-boards, z(0) increased slowly to a level around 0.037 m with increasing wind velocity and the rate of increase tended to slow down in strong wind. The barriers reduced sand flux and altered its vertical distribution. The total height-integrated dimensionless mass flux of saltating particles (q(0)) above bare sand followed the relationship In q(0) = a + b(u(*t)/u(*)) + c(u(*t)/u(*))(2), with a peak at u(*)/u(*t) approximate to 2, whereas a possible peak appeared at u(*)/u(*t) approximate to 1.5 above 1 m x 1m straw checkerboards. The vertical distribution of mass flux above these barriers resembled an elephant trunk, with maximum mass flux at 0.05-0.2 m above the bed, in contrast with the continuously and rapidly decreasing mass flux with increasing height above the bare sand. The influences of the barriers on the wind and sand flow prevent dune movement and alter the evolution of dune morphology. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据