4.4 Article

Statistical characterization of sedimentation velocity of natural particles

期刊

AEOLIAN RESEARCH
卷 44, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.aeolia.2020.100593

关键词

Sedimentation velocity; Aerodynamic drag; Natural particles; Statistics; Nonlinear regression; Copula modelling

资金

  1. European Union within the MSCA-ITN-2016-EID research project Sand Mitigation around Railway Tracks (SMaRT)
  2. European Union [721798]
  3. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [721798] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aeolian sediment transport has major repercussions for global climatic variations, air quality, human health, agricultural areas, air and ground transportation, civil structures and infrastructures. This led to the development of models to understand the involved physical process, and to predict the dynamics of aeolian sediment transport. The sedimentation velocity is one of the key model parameters characterizing sediment behavior. It allows the prediction of the mode of transport, the distribution of particles above the ground, and the sediment transport rate. Despite its importance, there is substantial discrepancy among the sedimentation velocity laws for natural particles, also due to the large dispersion of experimental data. This study proposes the statistical characterization of the experimental measurements of sedimentation velocity available from the literature. 1812 experimental measurements were recovered from 11 studies. Their variability was discussed, providing an aerodynamic reading. Nonlinear regression was carried out on the consolidated dataset in order to assess the average value. Two well-known laws initially conceived for spheres were refitted to natural particles providing high coefficients of determination equal to 0.90 and 0.93. Then, copula-based regression was performed in order to seize the variability of sedimentation velocity. Finally, the results from the two approaches were compared and critically discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据