the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 12 Sep 2022
Modeling the Inhibition Effect of Straw Checkerboard Barriers on Wind-blown Sand
Abstract. Straw checkerboard barriers (SCBs) are usually laid to prevent or delay the process of desertification caused by aeolian sand erosion in arid and semi-arid regions. Understanding the impact of SCBs and its laying length on aeolian sand erosion is of great significance to reduce the damage and the laying costs. In this study, a three-dimensional wind-blown sand model in presence of SCBs was established by introducing the splash process and equivalent sand barriers into a large-eddy simulation airflow. From this model, the inhibition effect of SCBs on wind-blown sand was studied qualitatively, and the sensitivity of aeolian sand erosion to the laying length was investigated. The results showed that the wind speed in the SCBs area decreases oscillatively along the flow direction. Moreover, the longer the laying lengths, the lower the wind speed in the stable stage behind SCBs, and the lower the sand transport rate. We further found that the concentration of sand particles near the side of SCBs is higher than that in its central region, which is qualitatively consistent with the previous research. Our results also indicated that whether the wind speed will decrease below the impact threshold or the fluid threshold is the key factor affecting whether sand particles can penetrate the SCBs and form stable wind-blown sand behind the SCBs under the same conditions. Our research can provide theoretical support for the minimum laying length of SCBs in anti-desertification projects.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2737 KB)
-
Supplement
(5521 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2737 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(5521 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Haojie Huang
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-714', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Oct 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Haojie Huang, 09 Dec 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-714', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Nov 2022
This is an interesting paper that uses numerical simulation to study the inhibition effect of straw checkboard barriers (SCBs) on wind-blown sand, and also the influence of SCB’s laying length was discussed. Based on the simulation results, the wind field, particle concentration and transport rules around the SCBs are revealed and analyzed. These works have positive significance for people to deeply understand the function of SCB and effectively improve its use effect. This article thus has the potential to be an important contribution. However, there are several major issues with the article.
First of all, it is suggested that the language and format of the full text should be carefully examined and revised. There are many obvious grammatical and formatting errors, such as in line 95-96, line 190, 195, 198, 220, 226, line 231-232, line 273, line 314-318…
Line 161, In Figure 1 we don’t see any information about the inlet condition setting.
Line 254-256, is there any evidence to confirm that SCB can be approximated as vegetation when evaluate rfa in equation 16?
How to describe the dynamic behavior after the collision of saltation particles and SCB?
Line 264, what is wall-normal direction. There are several walls in the simulation region.
Line 293, what are delta t, H and M in Eq. 17? What is the meaning of ‘mass in the range’? Is it similar to concentration? Why dx is divided here? From the physical concept, the scale information in the x direction should not appear here (should be y direction). Anyway, please check and define all the variables involved in the Eq. 17 and give the dimension of q.
Line 309, what is the difference between the transport rate density and the transport rate defined in eq. 17?
Line 301-350, the author spent a great deal of space to analyze and discuss the structural characteristics of aeolian sand flow without SCBs, but it seems that this is not the focus of this paper. Appropriate reduction is recommended.
In the part of model validation, the verification of the simulation results of sand flow with SCBs is not sufficient. The qualitative comparison cannot prove that the simulation results of the adopted model are credible in the presence of SCBs. Some quantitative comparisons are necessary. I believe the author should be able to find the observation data of the sand flow in the presence of SCB.
Line 434-443, the sand accumulation pattern in a single SCB should be related to the vortex structure of the local flow. It seems to be too far-fetched to explain it only from the result of time-averaged wind speed.
Line 466, why does the laying length of SCBs affect the sand transport rate in the upwind area (x<5m)?
Line 474, 478-479, it is a little strange here that the author did not consider the fluid entrainment. How does the wind-blown sand flow recover in the downwind area of the SCBs where the sand transport rate has reduced to zero?
Line 481-482, is it possible that the length of the computation domain is not enough?
The results in Figure 14 and Figure 12 do not seem to agree. Fig. 12 shows that there is almost no sand flow in the area of SCB, but Fig. 14 shows a different result.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-714-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Haojie Huang, 09 Dec 2022
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-714', Andreas Baas, 05 Dec 2022
Dear Authors,
The manuscript has now attracted two comprehensive reviews. The referees have raised a number of important questions and concerns about the study, both in terms of the simulations themselves as well as the presentation of the results, and the paper will require major revisions followed by another round of reviews. I suggest that you reflect on the issues raised by the referees to consider whether more research and analysis work may be required to improve the study , OR whether you believe all the issues can be addressed by better discussion and presentation of the current results in a revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Andreas Baas
Handling EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-714-EC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Haojie Huang, 09 Dec 2022
Dear Handling Editor,
Thank you very much for your attention and the evaluation comments on my paper ‘Modeling the Inhibition Effect of Straw Checkerboard Barriers on Wind-blown Sand’. I have replied the reviewers' comments one by one. I hope that two anonymous reviewers can recognize our efforts, and we also respect your decision.
Best wishes,
hj
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-714-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Haojie Huang, 09 Dec 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-714', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Oct 2022
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Haojie Huang, 09 Dec 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-714', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Nov 2022
This is an interesting paper that uses numerical simulation to study the inhibition effect of straw checkboard barriers (SCBs) on wind-blown sand, and also the influence of SCB’s laying length was discussed. Based on the simulation results, the wind field, particle concentration and transport rules around the SCBs are revealed and analyzed. These works have positive significance for people to deeply understand the function of SCB and effectively improve its use effect. This article thus has the potential to be an important contribution. However, there are several major issues with the article.
First of all, it is suggested that the language and format of the full text should be carefully examined and revised. There are many obvious grammatical and formatting errors, such as in line 95-96, line 190, 195, 198, 220, 226, line 231-232, line 273, line 314-318…
Line 161, In Figure 1 we don’t see any information about the inlet condition setting.
Line 254-256, is there any evidence to confirm that SCB can be approximated as vegetation when evaluate rfa in equation 16?
How to describe the dynamic behavior after the collision of saltation particles and SCB?
Line 264, what is wall-normal direction. There are several walls in the simulation region.
Line 293, what are delta t, H and M in Eq. 17? What is the meaning of ‘mass in the range’? Is it similar to concentration? Why dx is divided here? From the physical concept, the scale information in the x direction should not appear here (should be y direction). Anyway, please check and define all the variables involved in the Eq. 17 and give the dimension of q.
Line 309, what is the difference between the transport rate density and the transport rate defined in eq. 17?
Line 301-350, the author spent a great deal of space to analyze and discuss the structural characteristics of aeolian sand flow without SCBs, but it seems that this is not the focus of this paper. Appropriate reduction is recommended.
In the part of model validation, the verification of the simulation results of sand flow with SCBs is not sufficient. The qualitative comparison cannot prove that the simulation results of the adopted model are credible in the presence of SCBs. Some quantitative comparisons are necessary. I believe the author should be able to find the observation data of the sand flow in the presence of SCB.
Line 434-443, the sand accumulation pattern in a single SCB should be related to the vortex structure of the local flow. It seems to be too far-fetched to explain it only from the result of time-averaged wind speed.
Line 466, why does the laying length of SCBs affect the sand transport rate in the upwind area (x<5m)?
Line 474, 478-479, it is a little strange here that the author did not consider the fluid entrainment. How does the wind-blown sand flow recover in the downwind area of the SCBs where the sand transport rate has reduced to zero?
Line 481-482, is it possible that the length of the computation domain is not enough?
The results in Figure 14 and Figure 12 do not seem to agree. Fig. 12 shows that there is almost no sand flow in the area of SCB, but Fig. 14 shows a different result.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-714-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Haojie Huang, 09 Dec 2022
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-714', Andreas Baas, 05 Dec 2022
Dear Authors,
The manuscript has now attracted two comprehensive reviews. The referees have raised a number of important questions and concerns about the study, both in terms of the simulations themselves as well as the presentation of the results, and the paper will require major revisions followed by another round of reviews. I suggest that you reflect on the issues raised by the referees to consider whether more research and analysis work may be required to improve the study , OR whether you believe all the issues can be addressed by better discussion and presentation of the current results in a revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Andreas Baas
Handling EditorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-714-EC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Haojie Huang, 09 Dec 2022
Dear Handling Editor,
Thank you very much for your attention and the evaluation comments on my paper ‘Modeling the Inhibition Effect of Straw Checkerboard Barriers on Wind-blown Sand’. I have replied the reviewers' comments one by one. I hope that two anonymous reviewers can recognize our efforts, and we also respect your decision.
Best wishes,
hj
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-714-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Haojie Huang, 09 Dec 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Haojie Huang
Haojie Huang
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 436 | 111 | 25 | 572 | 46 | 5 | 5 |
- HTML: 436
- PDF: 111
- XML: 25
- Total: 572
- Supplement: 46
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2737 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(5521 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper