1998
DOI: 10.1006/jare.1997.0370
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of averaging time on the apparent threshold for aeolian transport

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
50
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
4
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition to the difference of mean particle size and slope angle, the state of the airflow in the field is one of the main factors affecting the threshold velocity. Under the different states of the airflow, the threshold velocity fluctuated significantly (Stout and Zobeck, 1997;Stout, 1998;McKenna Neuman et al, 2000). Because we use the 1-min mean wind velocity, it is difficult to assess the fluctuation of the airflow.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…In addition to the difference of mean particle size and slope angle, the state of the airflow in the field is one of the main factors affecting the threshold velocity. Under the different states of the airflow, the threshold velocity fluctuated significantly (Stout and Zobeck, 1997;Stout, 1998;McKenna Neuman et al, 2000). Because we use the 1-min mean wind velocity, it is difficult to assess the fluctuation of the airflow.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Even shorter sampling intervals are necessary to arrive at the true value of erosion threshold wind speed. Calculated threshold values decrease as wind speed averaging time increases (Stout, 1998). Stout (1998) found that threshold estimates based on a 10 s averaging time were about 18 per cent less than estimates based on a 1 s averaging time.…”
Section: Sampling Intervalmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Calculated threshold values decrease as wind speed averaging time increases (Stout, 1998). Stout (1998) found that threshold estimates based on a 10 s averaging time were about 18 per cent less than estimates based on a 1 s averaging time. The recommended sampling interval to estimate erosion threshold wind speed is 1 s.…”
Section: Sampling Intervalmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…The lower concentration of soluble solids at S6 was most probably a result of the low ground turbulence of wind speed which deposited a small volume of soluble solid into the dust fall collectors. Strong ground turbulence of wind speed can also contribute to the source of dust and fine particulates originating from exposed ground surface (Stout, 1998;Sami et al, 2006;Pandey et al, 2008). A study by Latif and Rozali (1999) in Teluk Kalung, Norela et al (2004) and Norela et al (2009) in Nilai and Serdang respectively recorded a higher concentration of soluble solids, while a study by Latif and Rozali (1999) in another sub-location in the Air Keroh industrial area and Latif and Rozali (2000) detected a lower concentration of soluble solids.…”
Section: Deposited Particulatesmentioning
confidence: 99%