Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development and testing of a micro wind tunnel for on-site wind erosion simulations

Environmental Fluid Mechanics volume 16, pages 1065–1083 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Wind erosion processes affect soil surfaces across all land uses worldwide. Understanding the spatial and temporal scales of wind erosion is a challenging undertaking because these processes are diverse and highly variable. Wind tunnels provide a useful tool as they can be used to simulate erosion at small spatial scales. Portable wind tunnels are particularly valued because erosion can be simulated on undisturbed soil surfaces in the field. There has been a long history of use of large portable wind tunnels, with consensus that these wind erosion simulation tools can meet real world aerodynamic criteria. However, one consequence of striving to meet aerodynamic reality is that the size of the tunnels has increased, making them logistically difficult to work with in the field and resulting in a tendency to homogenise naturally complex soil surfaces. This homogenisation is at odds with an increasing awareness of the importance that small scale processes have in wind erosion. To address these logistical and surface homogenisation issues we present here the development and testing of a micro wind tunnel (MWT) designed to simulate wind erosion processes at high spatial resolution. The MWT is a duct-type design—0.05 m tall 0.1 m wide and with a 1.0 m working section. The tunnel uses a centrifugal motor to suck air through a flow‐conditioning section, over the working section and then through a sediment collection trap. Simulated wind velocities range from 5 to 18 m s−1, with high reproducibility. Wind speeds are laterally uniform and values of u * at the tunnel bed (calculated by measuring the pressure gradients within the MWT) are comparable with those of larger tunnels in which logarithmic profiles can be developed. Saltation sediment can be added. The tunnel can be deployed by a single person and operated on slopes ranging from 0 to 10°. Evidence is presented here that the MWT provides new and useful understanding of the erodibility of rangelands, claypans and ore stockpiles.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. Leys JF (1999) Wind erosion on agricultural land. In: Gouldie AS, Livingstone I, Stokes S (eds) Aeolian environments, sediments and landforms. Wiley, pp 143–166

  2. Webb NP, Strong CL (2011) Soil erodibility dynamics and its representation for wind erosion and dust emission models. Aeolian Res 3:165–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zobeck TM (1991) Abrasion of crusted soils: influence of abrader flux and soil properties. SSSAJ 55(4):1091–1097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Goossens D, Offer ZY (2000) Wind tunnel and field calibration of six Aeolian dust samplers. Atmos Environ 34(7):1043–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Pelt RS, Zobeck TM, Baddock MC, Cox JJ (2010) Design, construction and calibration of a portable boundary layer wind tunnel for field use. Trans Am Soc Agric Biol Eng 53(5):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  6. Etyemezian V, Nikolich G, Ahonen S, Pitchford M, Sweeney M, Gillies J, Kuhns H (2007) The portable in-situ wind erosion laboratory (PI-SWERL): a new method to measure windblown dust properties and potential for emissions. Atmos Environ 41:3789–3796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hagen LJ (2004) Evaluation of the wind erosion prediction system (WEPS) erosion submodel on cropland fields. Environ Model Softw 19:171–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Webb NP, McGowan HA (2009) Approaches to modelling land erodibility by wind. Prog Phys Geogr 33:587–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Butler HJ, Hogarth WL, McTainsh GH (1996) A source-based model for describing dust concentrations during wind erosion events: an initial study. Environ Softw 11(1–3):45–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bagnold RA (1941) The physics of blown sand and desert dunes. William Morrow & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chepil WS (1953) Field structure of cultivated soils with special reference to erodibility by wind. Soil science society proceedings, pp 185–190

  12. Zhang YM, Wang HL, Wang XQ, Yang WK, Zhang DY (2006) The microstructure of microbiotic crust and its influence on wind erosion for a sandy soil surface in the Gurbantunggut Desert of Northwestern China. Geoderma 132:441–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Maurer T, Hermann L, Gaiser T, Mounkaila M, Stahr K (2006) A mobile wind tunnel for wind erosion field measurements. J Arid Environ 66(2):257–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nickling WG, Gillies JA (1993) Dust emission and transport in the Male, West Africa. Sedimentology 40:859–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gillette DA (1978) Tests with a portable wind tunnel for determining wind erosion threshold velocities. Atmos Environ 12:2309–2313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Belnap J, Gillette DA (1997) Disturbance of biological soil crusts: impacts on potential wind erodibility of sandy desert soils in southeastern Utah. Land Degrad Dev 8:355–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Belnap J, Gillette DA (1998) Vulnerability of desert biological soil crusts to wind erosion: the influences of crust development, soil texture, and disturbance. J Arid Environ 39:133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sweeney M, Etyemezian V, Macpherson T, Nickling W, Gillies J, Nikolich G, McDonald E (2008) Comparison of PI-SWERL with dust emission measurements from a straight-line field wind tunnel. J Geophys Res 113:(F01012). doi:10.1029/2007/JF000830

  19. Zingg AW (1951) A portable wind tunnel and dust collector development to evaluate the erodibility of field surfaces. Agron J 43(2):189–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Raupach MR, Leys JF (1990) Aerodynamics of a portable wind erosion tunnel for measuring soil erodibility by wind. Aust J Soil Res 28(2):177–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. White FM (1994) Fluid Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schetz JA, Fuhs AE (1999) Fundamentals of fluid mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Batchelor GK (1967) An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  24. Raupach MR, Hughes DE, Cleugh HA (2006) Momentum absorption in rough-wall boundary layers with sparse roughness elements in random and clustered distributions. Bound-Layer Meteorol 120:201–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shao Y, Raupach MR (1992) The overshoot and equilibration of saltation. J Geophys Res 97(20):559–564

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pietersma D, Stetler LD, Saxton KE (1996) Design and aerodynamics of a portable wind tunnel for soil erosion and fugitive dust research. Trans ASAE 39:2075–2083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Goossens D, Offer ZY (2000) Wind Tunnel and field calibration of six Aeolian dust samplers. Atmos Environ 12(12):1043–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. McTainsh GH, Leys JF, Nickling WG (1999) Wind erodibility of arid lands in the channel country of Western Queensland, Australia. Zeitschrift fur geomorphologie 116:113–130

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gillette DA, Adams J, Muhs D, Kihl R (1982) Threshold friction velocities and rupture moduli for crusted desert soils for the imput of soil particles into the air. J Geophys Res 87:9003–9015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Aubault HA (2014) Estimating the impacts of pastoral activities upon wind erosion in the arid and semi-arid rangelands of eastern Australia. Ph.D. Thesis, Griffith University

  31. Pickup G (1989) New land degradation survey techniques for arid Australia: problems and prospects. Aust Rangel J 11:74–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. McTainsh GH, Leys JF (1993) Chapter 7—wind erosion. In: McTainsh GH, Boughton WC (eds) Land degradation processes in Australia. Longman-Cheshire, Melbourne, pp 188–233

    Google Scholar 

  33. Reheis MC (2006) A 16-year record of eolian dust in Southern Nevada and California, USA: controls on dust generation and accumulation. J Arid Environ 67:487–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Valentin C, Bresson LM (1992) Morphology, genesis and classification of surface crusts in loamy and sandy soils. Geoderma 55:225–245

  35. Thomas AD, Dougill AJ (2006) Distribution and characteristics of cyanobacterial soil crusts in the Molopo Basin, South Africa. J Arid Environ 64:270–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hupy JP (2004) Influence of vegetation cover and crust type on wind-blown sediment in a semi-arid climate. J Arid Environ 58:167–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gillies JA, Watson JG, Rogers CF, Dubois D, Chow JC, Langston R, Sweet J (1999) Long-Term Efficiencies of Dust Suppressants to Reduce PM 10 Emissions from Unpaved Roads. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 49:3–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cowherd C Jr, Bohn R, Cuscino T (1979) Iron and steel plant open source fugitive emission evaluation; Report No EPA-600/2-79-103. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC, U.S

    Google Scholar 

  39. Chan Kon L, Durucan S, Korre A (2007) The development and application of a wind erosion model for the assessment of fugitive dust emissions from mine tailings dumps. Int J Min Reclam Environ 21(3):198–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the major contribution to the design and construction of the MWT by their late co-author Mike Raupach who passed away recently. Mike’s passing is a great loss to our research community. Thanks to Samantha McMillan for initial testing and development work on the MWT. This work was partially funded by the UK NERC (NE/K011461/1) and Griffith University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia

    Craig L. Strong

  2. New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage, Gunnedah, NSW, 2380, Australia

    John F. Leys

  3. The Climate Change Institute, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia

    Mike R. Raupach

  4. Department of Geography, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK

    Joanna E. Bullard & Hélène A. Aubault

  5. School of Agricultural, Computational and Environmental Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, 4350, Australia

    Harry J. Butler

  6. Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, 4111, Australia

    Grant H. McTainsh

Authors
  1. Craig L. Strong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John F. Leys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mike R. Raupach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joanna E. Bullard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hélène A. Aubault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Harry J. Butler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Grant H. McTainsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Craig L. Strong.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Strong, C.L., Leys, J.F., Raupach, M.R. et al. Development and testing of a micro wind tunnel for on-site wind erosion simulations. Environ Fluid Mech 16, 1065–1083 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-016-9478-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-016-9478-8

Keywords

search

Navigation