2014
DOI: 10.1002/2014jf003128
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Aeolian particle flux profiles and transport unsteadiness

Abstract: Vertical profiles of aeolian sediment flux are commonly modeled as an exponential decay of particle (mass) transport with height above the surface. Data from field and wind-tunnel studies provide empirical support for this parameterization, although a large degree of variation in the precise shape of the vertical flux profile has been reported. This paper explores the potential influence of wind unsteadiness and time-varying intensity of transport on the geometry (slope, curvature) of aeolian particle flux pro… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
60
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 78 publications
(205 reference statements)
2
60
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A large AP value (close to a maximum of 1) indicates essentially continuous transport in time whereas a small AP value (close to the minimum of 0) indicates only occasional transport interspersed with dominant periods of transport quiescence(Bauer and Davidson-Arnott, 2014). The spatial pattern in AP was similar for the entire 3-hour measurement period, with larger AP values (up to 0.5) at the dune crest and on the back-beach.…”
mentioning
confidence: 72%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A large AP value (close to a maximum of 1) indicates essentially continuous transport in time whereas a small AP value (close to the minimum of 0) indicates only occasional transport interspersed with dominant periods of transport quiescence(Bauer and Davidson-Arnott, 2014). The spatial pattern in AP was similar for the entire 3-hour measurement period, with larger AP values (up to 0.5) at the dune crest and on the back-beach.…”
mentioning
confidence: 72%
“…Cross-multiplication of the q T and α time series was performed on the instantaneous (1 Hz) data without time lags since the instruments were closely spaced. Invoking time lag schemes of up to several seconds has minimal consequences for the gross patterns of transport because the phase relationship between peak transport events and wind direction is relatively stable during sustained gusts when transport activity is most pronounced Bauer and Davidson-Arnott, 2014). As a consequence, slight phase lags may yield slight differences in sediment flux but not in the overall cross-shore transport direction.…”
Section: Cross-shore Sediment Particle Fluxmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…During each field campaign, multiple (three to nine) Wenglor optical sensors (Barchyn, Hugenholtz, et al, ) at heights from the bed surface up to 0.3 m counted saltating particles (at 25 Hz), which we combine into vertically integrated saltation particle count rates N (Figure a). Wenglors were mounted on one or two fixed vertical arrays (Martin et al, ), with a maximum spanwise separation among sensors of 1.3 m. Though numbers and heights of Wenglors, and thus corresponding measurements of total saltation number counts (Bauer & Davidson‐Arnott, ; Hilton et al, ), varied among field sites and deployment days (Martin et al, ), we are concerned here only with the frequency of occurrence of saltation. Based on the observed constant vertical shape of saltation profiles (Martin & Kok, ) and the fact that Wenglor sensor saturation (e.g., Hugenholtz & Barchyn, ; Sherman et al, ) appears to be absent (Martin et al, ), we assume that differences in Wenglor heights among deployments affect only the possibility of false negatives (i.e., potential under‐detection of saltation frequency), and we correct for this by treating particle arrivals as a Poisson process (see Appendix A).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, such LF studies are unable to resolve the HF spatial and temporal variability in saltation flux (i.e., ≤~1 minute) resulting from wind turbulence in the atmospheric boundary layer (e.g., Baas and Sherman, 2005). Furthermore, estimates of total (vertically-integrated) saltation flux typically depend on fitting curves to vertical profiles of saltation flux, but there remains disagreement over fitting protocols (Ellis et al, 2009a) and over the proper functional form for these fits: exponential (Dong et al, 2012;Fryrear and Saleh, 1993;Namikas, 2003), power law (Zobeck and Fryrear, 1986), or some hybrid of these (Bauer and Davidson-Arnott, 2014;Dong et al, 2011). Such variability and fitting uncertainty is thought to produce much of the disagreement between measurements and models of aeolian saltation flux (Barchyn et al, 2014b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, it is necessary to calculate vertical profile fits in order to estimate the total saltation flux. In addition to issues of deciding the best form for such profile fits (described above), turbulent variability and counting uncertainties may hinder the convergence of vertical flux profiles over short time scales (e.g., Bauer and Davidson-Arnott, 2014). Thus, existing studies of high-frequency saltation flux variability are limited to examination of relative or height-specific saltation fluxes (e.g., Baas, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%