评估风化研究中估算剪切速度的不同方法

IF 3.1 3区 地球科学 Q2 GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL
Pei Zhang , Brandon L. Edwards , Nicholas P. Webb , Andrew Trautz , John A. Gillies , Nancy P. Ziegler , Justin W. Van Zee
{"title":"评估风化研究中估算剪切速度的不同方法","authors":"Pei Zhang ,&nbsp;Brandon L. Edwards ,&nbsp;Nicholas P. Webb ,&nbsp;Andrew Trautz ,&nbsp;John A. Gillies ,&nbsp;Nancy P. Ziegler ,&nbsp;Justin W. Van Zee","doi":"10.1016/j.aeolia.2024.100945","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Sonic anemometry represents an important technological advance for aeolian studies, fostering better understanding of near-surface turbulence and improved methods for estimating shear velocity (<span><math><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mo>∗</mo></mrow></msub></math></span>). Here, we compare <span><math><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mo>∗</mo></mrow></msub></math></span> estimated from the Law of the Wall approach and from four methods that use 3-D wind vector measurements from sonic anemometers: double rotation, triple rotation, planar fit, and a newly developed approach based on invariants of the Reynolds stress tensor. Data were collected over 7.5 months at the Jornada Experimental Range in the Chihuahuan Desert, southern New Mexico, USA. We used <span><math><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mo>∗</mo></mrow></msub></math></span> estimates from the double rotation method as a reference for comparing the other methods because of its prevalence in the aeolian literature. On average, <span><math><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mo>∗</mo></mrow></msub></math></span> estimates from the other three methods are within 5.0 % of estimates from the double rotation approach. Estimates from the triple rotation approach were 2.2 % lower on average. Estimates from the planar fit method were the most similar, within 1.3 % on average. Estimates from the stress tensor approach were 4.9 % larger on average. We found significant discrepancies, ranging from −14.7 % to 13.7 %, among <span><math><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mo>∗</mo></mrow></msub></math></span> estimated from the Law of the Wall and the other methods. This underscores the need for careful methodology selection to ensure accurate characterization of boundary layer turbulence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49246,"journal":{"name":"Aeolian Research","volume":"70 ","pages":"Article 100945"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An evaluation of different approaches for estimating shear velocity in aeolian research studies\",\"authors\":\"Pei Zhang ,&nbsp;Brandon L. Edwards ,&nbsp;Nicholas P. Webb ,&nbsp;Andrew Trautz ,&nbsp;John A. Gillies ,&nbsp;Nancy P. Ziegler ,&nbsp;Justin W. Van Zee\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.aeolia.2024.100945\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Sonic anemometry represents an important technological advance for aeolian studies, fostering better understanding of near-surface turbulence and improved methods for estimating shear velocity (<span><math><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mo>∗</mo></mrow></msub></math></span>). Here, we compare <span><math><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mo>∗</mo></mrow></msub></math></span> estimated from the Law of the Wall approach and from four methods that use 3-D wind vector measurements from sonic anemometers: double rotation, triple rotation, planar fit, and a newly developed approach based on invariants of the Reynolds stress tensor. Data were collected over 7.5 months at the Jornada Experimental Range in the Chihuahuan Desert, southern New Mexico, USA. We used <span><math><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mo>∗</mo></mrow></msub></math></span> estimates from the double rotation method as a reference for comparing the other methods because of its prevalence in the aeolian literature. On average, <span><math><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mo>∗</mo></mrow></msub></math></span> estimates from the other three methods are within 5.0 % of estimates from the double rotation approach. Estimates from the triple rotation approach were 2.2 % lower on average. Estimates from the planar fit method were the most similar, within 1.3 % on average. Estimates from the stress tensor approach were 4.9 % larger on average. We found significant discrepancies, ranging from −14.7 % to 13.7 %, among <span><math><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mo>∗</mo></mrow></msub></math></span> estimated from the Law of the Wall and the other methods. This underscores the need for careful methodology selection to ensure accurate characterization of boundary layer turbulence.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aeolian Research\",\"volume\":\"70 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100945\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aeolian Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875963724000569\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aeolian Research","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875963724000569","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

声波风速测量是风化研究的一项重要技术进步,有助于更好地了解近地表湍流和改进剪切速度(u∗)的估算方法。在这里,我们比较了根据壁面定律方法和利用声波风速计三维风矢量测量的四种方法估算的 u∗:双旋转、三旋转、平面拟合和基于雷诺应力张量不变式的新开发方法。我们在美国新墨西哥州南部奇瓦瓦沙漠的乔纳达实验场收集了 7.5 个月的数据。我们使用双旋转法估算的 u∗ 作为比较其他方法的参考,因为该方法在风化文献中非常普遍。平均而言,其他三种方法得出的 u∗ 估计值与双旋转法得出的估计值相差 5.0%。三重旋转法的估计值平均低 2.2%。平面拟合方法的估计值最为接近,平均在 1.3 %以内。应力张量法的估计值平均高出 4.9%。我们发现,用墙体定律和其他方法估算的 u∗ 存在很大差异,从-14.7%到13.7%不等。这强调了需要谨慎选择方法,以确保边界层湍流的准确特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An evaluation of different approaches for estimating shear velocity in aeolian research studies
Sonic anemometry represents an important technological advance for aeolian studies, fostering better understanding of near-surface turbulence and improved methods for estimating shear velocity (u). Here, we compare u estimated from the Law of the Wall approach and from four methods that use 3-D wind vector measurements from sonic anemometers: double rotation, triple rotation, planar fit, and a newly developed approach based on invariants of the Reynolds stress tensor. Data were collected over 7.5 months at the Jornada Experimental Range in the Chihuahuan Desert, southern New Mexico, USA. We used u estimates from the double rotation method as a reference for comparing the other methods because of its prevalence in the aeolian literature. On average, u estimates from the other three methods are within 5.0 % of estimates from the double rotation approach. Estimates from the triple rotation approach were 2.2 % lower on average. Estimates from the planar fit method were the most similar, within 1.3 % on average. Estimates from the stress tensor approach were 4.9 % larger on average. We found significant discrepancies, ranging from −14.7 % to 13.7 %, among u estimated from the Law of the Wall and the other methods. This underscores the need for careful methodology selection to ensure accurate characterization of boundary layer turbulence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Aeolian Research
Aeolian Research GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL-
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
43
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The scope of Aeolian Research includes the following topics: • Fundamental Aeolian processes, including sand and dust entrainment, transport and deposition of sediment • Modeling and field studies of Aeolian processes • Instrumentation/measurement in the field and lab • Practical applications including environmental impacts and erosion control • Aeolian landforms, geomorphology and paleoenvironments • Dust-atmosphere/cloud interactions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信