Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-zzw9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-30T02:32:07.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Snow saltation threshold measurements in a drifting-snow wind tunnel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2017

Andrew Clifton
Affiliation:
WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Flüelastrasse 11, CH-7260 Davos Dorf, Switzerland E-mall: clifton@slf.ch
Jean-Daniel Rüedi
Affiliation:
WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Flüelastrasse 11, CH-7260 Davos Dorf, Switzerland E-mall: clifton@slf.ch
Michael Lehning
Affiliation:
WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Flüelastrasse 11, CH-7260 Davos Dorf, Switzerland E-mall: clifton@slf.ch
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wind tunnel measurements of snowdrift in a turbulent, logarithmic velocity boundary layer have been made in Davos, Switzerland, using natural snow. Regression analysis gives the drift threshold friction velocity (u*t), assuming an exponential drift profile and a simple drift to friction velocity relationship. Measurements over 15 snow covers show that u*t is influenced more by snow density and particle size than by ambient temperature and humidity, and varies from 0.27 to 0.69 ms–1. Schmidt’s threshold algorithm and a modified version used in SNOWPACK (a snow-cover model) agree well with observations if small bond sizes are assumed. Using particle hydraulic diameters, obtained from image processing, Bagnold’s threshold parameter is 0.18. Roughness lengths (z0) vary between snow covers but are constant until the start of drift. Threshold roughness lengths are proportional to . The influence of macroscopic objects on the roughness length is shown by the lower values measured over the smooth and flat snow surface of the wind tunnel (0.04 ≤ z0 ≤ 0.13 mm), compared to field measurements. Mean drifting-snow grain sizes for mainly new and partly decomposed snow are 100–175 μm, and independent of surface particle size.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2006
Figure 0

Table 1. Weather conditions and snow characterization for wind tunnel tests. RH: relative humidity; SMP: SnowMicroPen; SP: sphericity; DN: dendricity

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Schematic view of the wind tunnel experiment. Anemometers are at 0.05 and 0.1m above the snow at the start of the experiment. An SPC is at 0.05m above the snow at the same streamwise position.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Velocity profiles over snow. Profiles were measured by dynamic pressure rake over snow on 2 March 2006. Different markers indicate different measurement plateaux. Filled points show data fitted using the log-law (Equation (1)). The fit is limited to z ≤ 0.1 m. Drift occurs in plateaux 2–4, and data are limited to 0.05 ≤ z ≤ 0.1 m. The calculated u* and z0 are summarized in Table 2.

Figure 3

Table 2. Fits to the velocity profiles shown in Figure 2. Velocity data are fitted using Equation (1). R2 is the value of the coefficient of determination for the fit. P(drift) is the probability of drift in that plateau

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Drifting-snow mass flux as a function of u*. Snow mass flux is averaged over measurement plateaux during measurements on 9 March 2005. Data are fitted using Equation (8). Three different values of λ were tested, and u*t = 0.30 ms–1 in each case. The number beside each data point is the total number of observed particles at each point.

Figure 5

Fig. 4. Values of z0 and u* up to and including the drift threshold. Each thin line shows one experiment. Wind velocities were measured by anemometers at two heights. The model for drifting sand and soil of Owen (1964) (Equation (3)) is also shown.

Figure 6

Table 3. Boundary layer characteristics at saltation threshold for wind tunnel tests

Figure 7

Fig. 5. Values of z0 and u* shown in Figure 4 normalized by the saltation threshold values for each experiment.

Figure 8

Fig. 6. Influence of ambient conditions and snow properties on saltation threshold conditions.

Figure 9

Fig. 7. Surface penetration resistance compared to threshold aerodynamic shear stress. Penetration resistance is measured by SMP.

Figure 10

Fig. 8. Comparison of diameters of airborne and surface snow particles. Airborne particle diameters are calculated using a fit to SPC data (Equation (13)). Surface particle diameters are measured from images.

Figure 11

Fig. 9. Measurements of u*t as a function of surface particle hydraulic diameter, dh. The lines are Equation (9) (Bagnold, 1941) with threshold parameter 4 = 0.1 (solid line) and 4 = 0.2 (dashed line).

Figure 12

Fig. 10. Comparison of predicted and measured u*t. (a) Schmidt (1980) formulation; and (b) SNOWPACK 9.1 formulation. Circles show predictions assuming d1/db = 10, and squares assume d1/db = 2.5. The cases where the calculated and measured thresholds are identical are shown with dotted lines.

Figure 13

Fig. 11. Drift threshold wind speeds at 10m above the surface as a function of air temperature. Wind tunnel data are extrapolated from measured u*t and z0t. The dashed line shows Equation (11) (Li and Pomeroy, 1997a).