New insights into the wind-dust relationship in sandblasting and direct aerodynamic entrainment from

wind tunnel experiments

Sagar 1
Parajuli (psagar@utexas.edu), Ted 2
Zobeck , Gary 1
Kocurek , Zong-Liang 1
Yang , and Georgiy Stenchikov 3
1Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
2USDA Agricultural Research Service, Lubbock, TX
3King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia

Introduction Figure 2. Figure 3. Wind tunnel set up

Wind profile
(a) (b)
• Numerous parameterizations have
been developed for predicting wind
erosion, yet the physical mechanism
of dust emission is not fully
understood. Sandblasting is thought
1
to be the primary mechanism for dust
emission [Bagnold, 1941], but recent Figure 1. Close-up view of the two soil types
studies [e.g., Macpherson et al., 2008] used in this study showing the soil texture.
suggest that dust emission by direct (a) Silty clay loam soil, (b) Loam soil.
aerodynamic entrainment can be
significant. In this work, we use Instruments, Materials, and Methods
carefully designed wind tunnel
• Two types of soils were used: (a) Figure 4. Digital elevation model (in
experiments to answer the following (a)
Silty clay loam representing highly mm) of the soil surface: silty clay loam.
research questions:
disturbed urban areas and loam soil (a) -1
• How does the dust flux emitted by u* = 0.750.01 ms

dm/dlog (d p) [g m ]
2000

-3
5
representing agricultural areas Minimally dispersed-dry
direct aerodynamic entrainment 4

Volume (%)
(Figure 1). Fully dispersed-wet
compare to that from sandblasting? 3 1500
• Experiments were conducted in a
• How does the PSD of dust emitted 2
wind tunnel facility of the United
from sandblasting differ from that 1 1000
States Department of Agriculture- 0 -1
resulting from direct aerodynamic 0 1 2 3
Agriculture Research Service (USDA- 10 10 10 10 10
entrainment? Is the PSD of the ARS) located in Lubbock, Texas Size classes (m) 500
(b)
emitted dust related to parent soil (Figures 2, 3). 5
PSD? • Commercially available laser 4
Minimally dispersed-dry 0
Volume (%)

Fully dispersed-wet 14000 0 1 2

• How sensitive is the PSD of the diffraction particle-sizer Beckman 10 10 10
3 u* = 0.46 ms-1
emitted dust to friction velocity in Coulter Multisizer LS 13 320 was 2
-1
Diameter (m)
12000 u = 0.61 ms
sandblasting and direct aerodynamic used for determining the PSD of the 1 * (b)

Dust concentration (g m-3)

entrainment? -1
soils and sand used using both dry 0 u*
= 0.75 ms
-1
u* = 0.710.01 ms
-1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10000
• What

dm/dlog (d p) [g m ]
is the exact physical 2000

-3
(minimally dispersed) and wet (fully Size classes (m)
mechanism for dust emission in dispersed) systems (Figure 5). (c)
12 8000
sandblasting and direct aerodynamic • A portable optical laser spectrometer Dry 1500
Volume (%)

entrainment? 9
(GRIMM 1.109) designed to measure 6000
the dust particle number 6 1000
Results and conclusions concentration in 31 channels sized 3
4000
between 0.25 and 32 𝜇m was used to 0 -1
500
0 1 2 3
measure the PSD of emitted dust 10 10 10 10 10
• Dust emission in pure sandblasting Size classes (m) 2000
(Figures 7, 8, 9, 10). 0
may increase or decrease with Figure 5. Minimally and fully dispersed 10
0
10
1
10
2
• Surface roughness of the soil was
increasing wind friction velocity particle size distribution of (a) silty clay loam 0
measured with a HDI Advance 3-d 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Diameter (m)
depending upon the mean jump soil, (b) loam soil, and (c) abrading sand. Time elapsed (sec)
scanner from LMI Technologies
length function (Figures 6 and 7). 200 Figure 7. Temporal profile of mean emitted dust Figure 9. Dust concentration and PSD in (a) sandblasting and
(Figure 4).
• Emitted dust PSD in sandblasting is Silty clay loam soil
Loam soil concentration for silty clay loam soil for sandblasting case.
(b) direct aerodynamic entrainment at similar friction speeds.
sensitive to soil type but not to the 180

friction velocity in the range of friction

4 350
Physical Mechanism Silty clay loam soil, aero.
Particle counts (sec-1)

velocities tested (Figure 8). 160

3.9 Loam soil, aero. y = 2.7e+02 x - 87
• PSD is sensitivity to soil type in the Silty clay loam soil, salt. 300 2
R = 0.60
Aerodynamic 140
Loam soil, salt.
aerodynamic entrainment case as 3.8

Mean dust conc. [g m ]

Sandblasting

-3
Entrainment
Mean modal dia. by mass (m)

well, but the sensitivity to friction 120 250

3.7
speed shows mixed results (Figure 8). If the mean jump length is 𝑙 and The presence of
soil bed length 𝐿, no. of times a roughness elements on
• Dust emission by aerodynamic particle hit the soil bed is 𝐿/ 𝑙. the soil surface absorb 100
3.6
entrainment is a function of soil wind momentum by drag 200
partition which enhances
surface roughness (Figure 10) and it 𝑙=𝐿 dust emission.
80
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 3.5
The momentum extracted -1
can be comparable to that by Friction velocity u (m s )
by roughness elements is
* 150
sandblasting provided the soil surface primarily controlled by Figure 6 SENSIT counts data (sec −1 ) (solid 3.4
𝑙 = 𝐿/2 roughness density,
has sufficient roughness (Figure 9). expressed in terms of lines) and estimated impact counts using
• Inclusion of aerodynamically frontal area index equation (2) (dotted lines) vs. wind friction 3.3 100
[Chappell et al., 2010] as: velocity for the sandblasting case.
entrained dust in terms of the surface 𝑙 = 𝐿/3 3.2
𝜆 = 𝑛𝑏ℎ/𝑆 (3)
roughness can improve dust 𝐿 References 50
Where,
emission characterization in global/ Sand transport capacity for non-
𝑛, ℎ, and 𝑏 are the no.,
3.1
erodible bed is [Ho et al., 2011]:
regional dust models, especially in height, and width of • Bagnold, R. A. (1941), The Physics of Blown Sand and Desert Dunes, Methuen and Company:
𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∝ 𝑢∗ − 𝑢∗𝑡 2 𝑢∗ − 𝑢∗𝑡 (1) roughness elements William Morrow.
3 0
highly disturbed anthropogenic dust Modified Equation for impact within an area 𝑆.
• Chappell, A., S. Van Pelt, T. Zobeck, and Z. Dong (2010), Estimating aerodynamic resistance of
rough surfaces using angular reflectance, Remote Sens. Environ., 114(7), 1462–1470. 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
• Ho, T. D., A. Valance, P. Dupont, and A. O. El Moctar (2011), Scaling laws in aeolian sand
sources such as construction sites, density (𝑞′ ) to account for the transport, Phys. Rev. Lett., 106(9), 094501, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.094501. Friction velocity u* (m s-1) SDI of elevations
increase in jump length with • Macpherson et al. (2008), Dust emissions from undisturbed and disturbed supply-limited
agricultural areas, urban settings, and increasing friction velocity:
desert surfaces, J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 2003–2012, 113(F2).
• Parajuli, S. P., Zobeck, T. M., Kocurek, G., Yang, Z. L., and Stenchikov, G, New insights into the
Figure 8. Mean modal diameter of emitted dust PSD vs. friction Figure 10. Standard deviation index (SDI) of elevations vs.
cattle grazing areas. 𝑞′ ∝ 𝑢∗ − 𝑢∗𝑡 2 𝑢∗ − 𝑢∗𝑡 𝐿/𝑙 (2)
wind-dust relationship in sandblasting and direct aerodynamic entrainment from wind tunnel
experiments (2015), Under review, J. Geophys. Res.
velocity for sandblasting and aerodynamic entrainment cases. mean dust concentration in aerodynamic entrainment.