The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2018.12.020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of wind speed averaging time on sand transport estimates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this study, we selected the equation of Lettau and Lettau (1978) because it has been proven to predict the sand transport rate well (Sauermann et al, 2001; Sherman et al, 1998, 2013). In addition, based on our previous field and wind tunnel experiments (Jia et al, 2019; Shen et al, 2019), we found that this model is widely applicable for predicting the sand transport rate. Based on an approach similar to that of Bagnold (1936) and Kawamura (1951), Lettau and Lettau (1978) developed their sand transport model to explicitly account for the excess (relative to the entrainment threshold) shear velocity: qgoodbreak=CdDρg()u*goodbreak−u*normaltu*2, where q is the sand transport rate (kg m −1 s −1 ); C is a constant (taken as 6.7); d is the median grain size (mm); D is the reference grain diameter (0.25 mm); ρ is the fluid density of air (1.25 kg m −3 ); g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m s −2 ); u* is the shear velocity (m s −1 ); and u*normalt is the threshold shear velocity for particle entrainment (m s −1 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 66%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…In this study, we selected the equation of Lettau and Lettau (1978) because it has been proven to predict the sand transport rate well (Sauermann et al, 2001; Sherman et al, 1998, 2013). In addition, based on our previous field and wind tunnel experiments (Jia et al, 2019; Shen et al, 2019), we found that this model is widely applicable for predicting the sand transport rate. Based on an approach similar to that of Bagnold (1936) and Kawamura (1951), Lettau and Lettau (1978) developed their sand transport model to explicitly account for the excess (relative to the entrainment threshold) shear velocity: qgoodbreak=CdDρg()u*goodbreak−u*normaltu*2, where q is the sand transport rate (kg m −1 s −1 ); C is a constant (taken as 6.7); d is the median grain size (mm); D is the reference grain diameter (0.25 mm); ρ is the fluid density of air (1.25 kg m −3 ); g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m s −2 ); u* is the shear velocity (m s −1 ); and u*normalt is the threshold shear velocity for particle entrainment (m s −1 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…After using the 1 min datasets to parameterize the Lettau and Lettau equations (Equation ) and after calculating the value of C , we used the longer‐duration datasets to validate the model's predictions. Because fluctuations in wind velocity should not be neglected and these fluctuations tend to be greater over longer measurement periods, the averaging time for wind speed strongly influences the calculation of the sand transport rate (Martin et al, 2013; Shen et al, 2019; Yizhaq et al, 2020). Therefore, it is not reasonable to verify the accuracy of the transport prediction equation using the sand transport rate measured over longer periods.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Relevant studies show that sand transported by the wind accumulates around any type of obstacle [ 24 , 25 ], and the decrease in near-surface wind speed easily causes sand material accumulation, while the increase in wind speed easily causes blown sand flow erosion [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. In the wind-speed-weakening area upwind, because the wind-speed-weakening range and intensity of the bridge were smaller than those of the subgrade, the range and intensity of sand material accumulation upwind of the bridge were smaller than those of the subgrade.…”
Section: Cause Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%