10.08.2015 Views

Wind Erosion in Western Queensland Australia

Modelling Land Susceptibility to Wind Erosion in Western ... - Ninti One

Modelling Land Susceptibility to Wind Erosion in Western ... - Ninti One

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Chapter 2 – Land Erodibility Controlsgeometry for particle shapes than cones. The outcome was a model that could be applied todeterm<strong>in</strong>e the threshold friction velocity of both dry and wet sediment:s fu* tw= A gd(2.25)fwhere u *tw is the threshold friction velocity for entra<strong>in</strong>ment as affected by near surface soilmoisture, ρ s is the particle density (Mgm -3 ), ρ f is the fluid density (Mg m -3 ), g is thegravitational acceleration (ms -2 ), d is the particle diameter (m). A def<strong>in</strong>es the effect ofmoisture on the threshold by the expression:A =A11+ w +A21( )sfgd21 +A3md2 dexpw 6.5w1.5(2.26)where A 1 , and A 2 are coefficients associated with aerodynamic and <strong>in</strong>ter-particle forcesbetween dry particles, σ is the surface tension of the liquid (Nm -1 ), ψ md is the matric potentialat oven dryness, w is the gravimetric water content (kgkg -1 ), and w 1.5 is the gravimetric watercontent at -1.5 MPa (kgkg -1 ). The coefficient A 3 is associated with the effects of soil moisturethrough capillary and adhesive forces, and is determ<strong>in</strong>ed by curve fitt<strong>in</strong>g to experimental datadepend<strong>in</strong>g on soil particle shape and dimensions. Cornelis et al. (2004b) calibrated the modelus<strong>in</strong>g w<strong>in</strong>d tunnel measurements of u *t at a range of soil water contents then compared modelpredictions with those of Chepil (1956). Good agreement was found between the models,although discrepancies were found between these models and those of Azzizov (1977), Hottaet al. (1985) and Chen et al. (1996).Limitations of the models are that they have been developed for limited particle size and soiltexture ranges. Model accuracy also tends to decl<strong>in</strong>e outside the ranges of data from whichthey were developed. Cornelis and Gabriels (2004a) reported that <strong>in</strong>consistencies <strong>in</strong> themethods and tim<strong>in</strong>g used <strong>in</strong> previous research to identify the moment of particle mobilizationhas created differences <strong>in</strong> the model performance. Further, under moist conditions surfaceparticles may rapidly dry under high w<strong>in</strong>d velocities, dropp<strong>in</strong>g below the entra<strong>in</strong>mentthreshold and mobiliz<strong>in</strong>g for a moment until particles are removed and the moist surface49

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!