首页> 外文期刊>Continental Shelf Research: A Companion Journal to Deep-Sea Research and Progress in Oceanography >A comparison and measurement standardisation of four in situ devices for determining the erosion shear stress of intertidal sediments
【24h】

A comparison and measurement standardisation of four in situ devices for determining the erosion shear stress of intertidal sediments

机译:确定潮间带沉积物冲剪应力的四种原位装置的比较和测量标准化

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Predictive modelling of estuarine sediment erosion and transport requires a description of the erosional properties of the bed. The two main variables of interest are the critical erosion shear stress (tau(cr)) and the erosion rate (epsilon). A number of different erosion devices exist to measure the erosion shear stress of intertidal sediments in situ. These devices apply different strategies to induce and measure erosion, and the area over which erosion is integrated varies greatly. In addition, the definition of erosion threshold differs between workers. This makes comparison of data collected from different devices very difficult. Four different types of erosion device, Microcosm system, In Situ Erosion Flume (ISEF), SedErode and cohesive strength meter (CSM) were used during the July 1997 EC INTRMUD Humber estuary (UK) field campaign. These devices were deployed simultaneously on the Skeffling intertidal mudflat to allow comparison of the data generated. This involved the comparison of suspended particulate matter (SPM) time series, the nature of the applied shear stress (tau(o)) and the area over which erosion was integrated. The initial goal was to develop a standard analysis procedure for comparison of stability measurements. The erosion threshold calculated from area normalised suspended particulate matter (SPMn) time series was relatively comparable between devices especially between the Microcosm and ISEF, However, device size and natural sediment spatial heterogeneity affected the results. The erosion rate varied by orders of magnitude between the different devices. This variation seemed to be due to the considerable differences in device deployment time. In conclusion, SPM data from different devices are broadly comparable, whilst erosion rates are only comparable if the shear stress steps are of the same duration. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. [References: 25]
机译:河口沉积物侵蚀和运移的预测模型需要描述河床的侵蚀性质。感兴趣的两个主要变量是临界侵蚀剪切应力(tau(cr))和侵蚀速率(epsilon)。存在许多不同的侵蚀装置来测量潮间带沉积物的侵蚀切应力。这些设备采用了不同的策略来诱发和测量腐蚀,并且腐蚀集成的区域差异很大。另外,腐蚀阈值的定义因工人而异。这使得比较从不同设备收集的数据非常困难。在1997年7月的EC INTRMUD汉伯河口(英国)野战期间,使用了四种不同类型的侵蚀设备,缩微系统,原位侵蚀水槽(ISEF),SedErode和内聚强度计(CSM)。这些设备同时部署在Skeffling潮间带泥滩上,以比较生成的数据。这涉及到悬浮颗粒物(SPM)时间序列,施加的剪切应力(tau(o))的性质以及侵蚀被整合的面积的比较。最初的目标是开发用于稳定性比较的标准分析程序。根据面积归一化悬浮颗粒物(SPMn)时间序列计算的侵蚀阈值在设备之间,尤其是在微观世界和ISEF之间,具有相对可比性,但是,设备大小和天然沉积物空间异质性影响了结果。腐蚀速率在不同设备之间变化了几个数量级。这种变化似乎是由于设备部署时间的巨大差异。总之,来自不同设备的SPM数据具有大致可比性,而只有在剪切应力步长相同的情况下,腐蚀速率才具有可比性。 (C)2000 Elsevier ScienceLtd。保留所有权利。 [参考:25]

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