首页> 外文期刊>Geomorphology >Comparison of four methods to calculate aeolian sediment transport threshold from field data: Implications for transport prediction and discussion of method evolution
【24h】

Comparison of four methods to calculate aeolian sediment transport threshold from field data: Implications for transport prediction and discussion of method evolution

机译:从现场数据计算风沙沉积物输送阈值的四种方法的比较:运移预测的含义和方法演变的讨论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Aeolian sediment transport threshold is commonly defined as the minimum wind speed (or shear stress) required for wind-driven sediment transport. Accurate and consistent quantification of this threshold is essential because it is an input variable in models used to predict wind erosion, dune activity, and dust emissions. The majority of threshold quantification has been performed with analogs (analytical models or wind tunnels); however, in the past few decades field-based approaches to threshold parameterization have become more common. Although several methods of calculating transport threshold from field data are available, their comparability is unknown. To address this issue we collected high resolution sediment transport and wind measurements (1 Hz) on an active sand dune for 11 days and compared four different methods of calculating threshold: (i) time fraction equivalence method (TFEM); (ii) Gaussian time fraction equivalence method (GTFEM); (iii) instantaneous method; and (iv) regression method. Time-paired measurements from the two most widely used methods (TFEM and GTFEM) were strongly correlated (r = 0.977); however, correlations between other methods varied (from r = 0.861 to r = 0.261). To demonstrate the implications of using different threshold calculation methods we predicted mass transport, which ranged from 63.6 (instantaneous method) to 126.6 kg per crosswind meter (regression method). This inconsistency suggests that the threshold calculation method could have an appreciable impact on transport predictions. Threshold values are similarly inconsistent when the measurement interval is modified. As such, we do not recommend comparing any measured threshold with another. We discuss several strategies that may mitigate the impact of this issue such as clarification of semantics and method standardization. We also discuss several criticisms of field-based threshold measurements and re-conceptualizations that could allow investigators to develop a better understanding of field-based measurements. Overall, results from this study could allow future investigators to improve threshold (and transport) predictions.
机译:风沙沉积物输送阈值通常定义为风动沉积物输送所需的最小风速(或切应力)。准确,一致地量化此阈值至关重要,因为它是用于预测风蚀,沙丘活动和粉尘排放的模型中的输入变量。大多数阈值量化都是使用类似物(分析模型或风洞)完成的;然而,在过去的几十年中,基于现场的阈值参数化方法变得越来越普遍。尽管有几种根据现场数据计算运输阈值的方法,但它们的可比性尚不清楚。为了解决这个问题,我们在活动沙丘上收集了11天的高分辨率泥沙传输和风速测量结果(1 Hz),并比较了四种计算阈值的方法:(i)时间分数当量法(TFEM); (ii)高斯时间分数等效法(GTFEM); (iii)瞬时方法; (iv)回归法。两种最广泛使用的方法(TFEM和GTFEM)的时间配对测量值具有很强的相关性(r = 0.977)。但是,其他方法之间的相关性也有所不同(从r = 0.861到r = 0.261)。为了证明使用不同阈值计算方法的含义,我们预测了质量传输,范围从63.6(瞬时方法)到每侧风计126.6 kg(回归方法)。这种不一致表明阈值计算方法可能会对运输预测产生可观的影响。修改测量间隔时,阈值也类似不一致。因此,我们不建议将任何测得的阈值与另一个进行比较。我们讨论了可能减轻此问题影响的几种策略,例如语义的澄清和方法的标准化。我们还将讨论对基于现场的阈值测量和重新概念化的一些批评,这些批评可能使研究人员对基于现场的测量有更好的理解。总体而言,这项研究的结果可能使未来的研究人员能够改善阈值(和运输)预测。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号