Final Report by - Department of Mechanical and Aerospace ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4 10 -5 Broken Crust Study (UCD Fence Soil) Approximate Velocity Profiles u * z 0 ≈ 3.0 x 10 -4 m 0 5 10 15 20 Wind Speed (m/s) Figure 85. Approximate velocity profiles based on two sampling heights and the Law-of –the-Wall equation curve fit for a broken crust. Since there is primarily no saltation, all values of velocity could be used to obtain a wide range. Though only two experimental points were obtained, there is a good focus at the z-axis and the ability to obtain an approximate z 0 = 3.0 x 10 -4 m. 139
PM 10 Concentration (mg/m 3 ) 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Broken Crust Response PM 10 at 0.0127 m PM 10 at 0.216 m 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 uref (m/s) Figure 86. The PM 10 concentrations versus uref for a broken crust. The concentrations are not very large for the hard broken crust when subjected to wind alone; however, there is a distinct moment at which emissions become more noticeable at 0.013 m as indicated by the line on the plot. These concentrations are greater than the emissions for the unbroken hard crust, but still are not high concentrations in comparison to the loose soil emissions. 140
Page 1 and 2:
Final Report Simulation and Analysi
Page 3 and 4:
Executive Summary of Report • Fou
Page 5 and 6:
magnitude. Loose soil surfaces with
Page 7 and 8:
Table of Contents v Page 2.8.5. Fet
Page 9 and 10:
List of Tables Table Page 1. GPS lo
Page 11 and 12:
List of Figures Figure Page 12. TSI
Page 13 and 14:
List of Figures Figure Page 35. The
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
List of Figures Figure Page 81. Con
Page 21 and 22:
1. Introduction 1.1. Background The
Page 23 and 24:
a) b) d) Figure 1. Owens Lake histo
Page 25 and 26:
1.2. Project Objectives and Applica
Page 27 and 28:
Section 2. Experimental Techniques
Page 29 and 30:
valley surface winds; and in the su
Page 31 and 32:
a) b) Radiative Arctic/Pacific Air
Page 33 and 34:
Figure 6. The process of formation
Page 35 and 36:
soil in these locations appeared qu
Page 37 and 38:
Lone Pine “North Sheet Simulation
Page 39 and 40:
2.3. Soil Properties Properties of
Page 41 and 42:
2.4. Wind Tunnel Quantification of
Page 43 and 44:
2.5. Measurement Instrumentation Th
Page 45 and 46:
concentration limit. For the DustTr
Page 47 and 48:
height of oil in a U-tube. The pres
Page 49 and 50:
a) b) Figure 12. TSI DustTrak used
Page 51 and 52:
∆P, (Pa) 800 600 400 200 0 Pressu
Page 53 and 54:
2.6. Measurements 2.6.1. Threshold
Page 55 and 56:
four different soils and variations
Page 57 and 58:
was repeated for up to five velocit
Page 59 and 60:
coarse Owens Lake sand (Soil #2 and
Page 61 and 62:
The procedure of crust formation is
Page 63 and 64:
a minimum temperature difference be
Page 65 and 66:
Figure 16. Schematic of the believe
Page 67 and 68:
Figure 18. Bagnold (1941) experimen
Page 69 and 70:
a) b) Figure 20. The above figure i
Page 71 and 72:
me Control Volume l, length Figure
Page 73 and 74:
0.30 m Soil being Tested 5.0 m Wind
Page 75 and 76:
a) b) Figure 26. Photographs of the
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 28. Photograph showing the i
Page 79 and 80:
0.30 m Hard Soil Crust Wind Directi
Page 81 and 82:
Section 3. Results Summary • Soil
Page 83 and 84:
extract. The arsenic soil concentra
Page 85 and 86:
that crust development is most like
Page 87 and 88:
3.2. Threshold Studies The threshol
Page 89 and 90:
Voltage (V) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 Nort
Page 91 and 92:
Voltage (V) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 UCD Fe
Page 93 and 94:
tube. The corresponding plots of th
Page 95 and 96:
z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4
Page 97 and 98:
z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4
Page 99 and 100:
z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4
Page 101 and 102:
u * (m/s) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 N
Page 103 and 104:
u * (m/s) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 U
Page 105 and 106:
3.4. PM10 Loose Soil Emission Rates
Page 107 and 108: source of emissions and dust storms
Page 109 and 110: z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4
Page 111 and 112: z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4
Page 113 and 114: z (m) UCD Fence Soil (Soil #4), ure
Page 115 and 116: Table 5. Emission Rates for enhance
Page 117 and 118: z (m) South Saltation Simulation, u
Page 119 and 120: PM 10 Emission Rate (µg/m 2 s) Sou
Page 121 and 122: z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 North Sand (
Page 123 and 124: North Sand Sheet (Soil #2 over Soil
Page 125 and 126: Q, Sand Flux (kg/m*s) 0.35 0.30 0.2
Page 127 and 128: Q, Sand Flux (kg/m*s) 0.08 0.06 0.0
Page 129 and 130: 3.7. Fetch Studies In studying the
Page 131 and 132: similar amounts of PM 10; however,
Page 133 and 134: z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 UCD Fence So
Page 135 and 136: Emission Rate (mg/m*s) 15 10 Dirty
Page 137 and 138: Emission Rate (mg/m*s) 8 6 4 2 0 No
Page 139 and 140: Emission Rate (mg/m*s) North Sand S
Page 141 and 142: 3.8. Moisture Content Studies The m
Page 143 and 144: z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4
Page 145 and 146: Emission Rate (g/m 2 s) PM 10 Emiss
Page 147 and 148: %(PM 2.5 /PM 10 ) 40 30 20 10 Pipe
Page 149 and 150: 3.10. Crust Studies Experimentally,
Page 151 and 152: sand abrasion, broken apart by expa
Page 153 and 154: z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4
Page 155 and 156: Emission Rate (mg/m 2 s) 4 3 2 1 0
Page 157: Figure 84. The hard crust was broke
Page 161 and 162: • The major results are re-summar
Page 163 and 164: enhancing the emissions. Moisture c
Page 165 and 166: developed allow comparisons of the
Page 167 and 168: Gillette, D.A., and Passi, R., 1988
Page 169 and 170: White, B.R., 1979. Soil Transport b
Page 171 and 172: Appendix A: Loose Soil Emissions Co
Page 173 and 174: z (m) 1.00 0.10 0.01 Old Pipe Line
Page 175 and 176: z (m) 1.00 0.10 0.01 Old Pipe Line
Page 177 and 178: z (m) 1.00 0.10 0.01 North Sand (So
Page 183 and 184: Dirty Socks Dune Sand (Soil #3), ur
Page 185 and 186: Dirty Socks Dune Sand (Soil #3), ur
Page 187 and 188: z (m) 1.00 0.10 0.01 UCD Fence Soil
Page 191 and 192: z (m) UCD Fence Soil (Soil #4), ure
Page 195 and 196: Appendix B: Enhanced Saltation Emis
Page 197 and 198: z (m) 1.00 0.10 0.01 North Saltatio
Page 199 and 200: z (m) North Saltation Simulation, u
Page 201 and 202: z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4
Page 203 and 204: South Sand Saltation Simulation, ur
Page 205 and 206: z (m) South Saltation Simulation, u
Page 207 and 208: z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4
Page 209 and 210:
Appendix C: Fetch Study Concentrati
Page 211 and 212:
z (m) Dirty Socks Sand Fetch Study,
Page 213 and 214:
Dirty Socks Sand Fetch Study, uref
Page 215 and 216:
z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4
Page 217 and 218:
z (m) UCD Fence Soil Fetch Study, u
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
z (m) 10 0 10 -1 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4
Page 229 and 230:
z (m) 1.00 0.10 0.01 Old Pipe Line
Page 231 and 232:
z (m) 1.00 0.10 0.01 Old Pipe Line
Page 233 and 234:
z (m) UCD Fence Soil (Soil #4), ure
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Appendix E: PM2.5 Study Concentrati
Page 241 and 242:
z (m) 1.00 0.10 0.01 Old Pipe Line
Page 243 and 244:
z (m) 1.00 0.10 0.01 Old Pipe Line
Page 245 and 246:
z (m) 1.00 0.10 0.01 UCD Fence Soil
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Appendix F: Wallace Laboratories Ch
Page 253 and 254:
234
Page 255 and 256:
236
Page 257 and 258:
Appendix H: Individual Soil Gradati
Page 259 and 260:
%Passing 100 80 60 40 20 0 North Sa
Page 261:
%Passing 100 80 60 40 20 0 UCD Fenc
show all

Final Report by - Department of Mechanical and Aerospace ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?