细长柔性植株瞬态阻力的风洞模拟

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2025.00020

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为揭示柔性植株变形导致的瞬态阻力变化特征，在风洞内对细长柔性植株在不同风力作用下的瞬态阻力进行了测量，阻力采集时间间隔为0.01 s，分析了瞬态阻力、瞬态阻力系数的统计参数随来流风速的变化特征。结果表明：细长柔性植株瞬态阻力和阻力系数随时间呈明显的波动。植株的平均阻力和均方根脉动阻力均随来流风速的增加而增加，而由于柔性变形的影响，植株的平均阻力系数、均方根脉动阻力系数随来流风速的增加而减小。植株的阻力脉动强度和阻力系数脉动强度基本不随来流风速而变化。植株均方根脉动阻力与均方根脉动风速正相关，而均方根脉动阻力系数与均方根脉动风速负相关。

关键词: 柔性植株, 阻力, 阻力系数, 风洞实验

Abstract:

To reveal the characteristics of instantaneous drag force caused by deformation of flexible plant， the instantaneous drag force of the slender flexible plant at different wind speeds is measured in a wind tunnel with sampling time interval of 0.01 s. The variation of statistical parameters of instantaneous drag force and drag coefficient with incoming wind speed are analyzed. The results show that both the instantaneous drag force and drag coefficient of the slender flexible plant fluctuate obviously with time. Mean drag force and RMS fluctuation drag force of plant increase with the incoming wind speed， while due to the flexibility， mean drag coefficient and RMS fluctuation drag coefficient of plant decrease with the incoming wind speed. The fluctuation intensities of drag force and drag coefficient of plant generally do not change with the incoming wind speed. A positive correlation is identified between RMS fluctuation drag force and RMS fluctuation wind speed， whereas a negative correlation is observed between RMS fluctuation drag coefficient and RMS fluctuation wind speed.

Key words: flexible plant, drag force, drag coefficient, wind tunnel experiment

中图分类号:

X169

李艳敏, 亢力强. 细长柔性植株瞬态阻力的风洞模拟[J]. 中国沙漠, 2025, 45(5): 24-33.

Yanmin Li, Liqiang Kang. Simulation of instantaneous drag force of slender flexible plant model in wind tunnel[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2025, 45(5): 24-33.

图/表 13

表1 不同植株类型的阻力系数

Table 1 Drag coefficients of different plant types

植株类型	植物名称	阻力系数	测量方法	文献来源
灌木	Larrea tridentata（沙漠杉）	0.49	实地测量	[13]^†
	Sarcobatus vermiculatus （小螺旋沙棘）	1.43	实地测量	[15]^†
	Sarcobatus vermiculatus （大螺旋沙棘）	0.44		[15]^†
	Euonymus alatus（翅果卫矛）	0.42	风洞实验	[16]^†
	Hibiscus syriacus（木槿）	0.49~0.61	风洞实验	[20]
	Thuja occidentalis （绿宝石柏）	0.73~0.83
	Ilex crenata（冬青）	0.79
乔木	Picea pungens （蓝杉）	0.39	风洞实验	[16]^†
	Pinus contorta（曲松）	0.47	风洞实验	[17]
	Tsuga heterophylla （西部红杉）	0.47
	Thuja plicata （巨柏）	0.22
	Populus trichocarpa （毛白杨）	0.17	风洞实验	[18]
	Alnus rubra （红杨）	0.22
	Betula papyrifera（白桦）	0.15
	Acer macrophyllum （大叶枫）	0.26
	Populus tremuloides （颤杨）	0.28
	Acer×freemanii（弗里曼枫）	0.46	实地测量	[19]
	Quercus bicolor （双色橡）	0.38
	Quercus imbricaria （鳞叶橡）	0.43
	Prunus persica （桃）	0.38~0.78	风洞实验	[21]
	Pyrus spp （梨）	0.4~0.64
	Camellia oleifera （油茶）	0.56~0.83
草本	Pennisetum setaceum（狼尾草）	0.34	风洞实验	[16]^†

图1 柔性植株模型

Fig.1 Flexible plant model

图2 风洞内风速廓线（uf为高度z处的风速，uf0为来流风速）

Fig.2 Wind speed profiles in wind tunnel （uf is the wind speed at height z， and uf0 is the incoming wind speed）

图3 风洞内植株瞬态阻力测量示意图

Fig.3 Sketch of instantaneous drag force measurement of plant in wind tunnel

图4 植株瞬态阻力随时间的变化序列

Fig.4 Variation of instantaneous drag force of plant with time

图5 植株与圆木棒平均阻力（A）、均方根脉动阻力（B）、阻力脉动强度（C）随来流风速的变化

Fig.5 Variation of mean drag force （A）， RMS fluctuation drag force （B） and drag force fluctuation intensity （C） of plant and rigid round stick with incoming wind speed

图6 植株瞬态阻力系数随时间的变化序列

Fig.6 Variation of instantaneous drag coefficient of plant with time

图7 植株与圆木棒平均阻力系数（A）、均方根脉动阻力系数（B）和阻力系数脉动强度（C）随来流风速的变化

Fig.7 Variation of mean drag coefficient （A）， RMS fluctuation drag coefficient （B） and drag coefficient fluctuation intensity （C） of plant and rigid round stick with wind speed

图8 不同来流风速下植株形态侧视图（图中数字表示来流风速大小）

Fig.8 Side view of plant shape at different incoming wind speeds （the number indicates the size of incoming wind speed）

图9 不同来流风速下植株弯曲角度

Fig.9 Bend angle of plant at different incoming wind speeds

图10 植株阻力系数随弯曲角度的变化

Fig.10 Variation of drag coefficient of plant with bend angle

图11 植株均方根脉动阻力（A）、均方根脉动阻力系数（B）与均方根脉动风速（uf0，rms）的关系

Fig.11 Relationship between RMS fluctuation drag force （A）， RMS fluctuation drag coefficient （B） of plant and RMS fluctuation wind speed （uf0，rms）

图12 植株瞬时阻力（A、C）与瞬时阻力系数（B、D）的概率密度分布

Fig.12 Probability density distribution of instantaneous drag force （A， C） and instantaneous drag coefficient （B， D） of plant

参考文献 22

[1]	吴正.风沙地貌与治沙工程学［M］.北京：科学出版社，2003.
[2]	Sterk G， Herrmann L， Bationo A.Wind-blown nutrient transport and soil productivity changes in southwest Niger［J］.Land Degradation and Development，1996，7（4）：325-335.
[3]	Sterk G， Haigis J.Farmers' knowledge of wind erosion processes and control methods in Niger［J］.Land Degradation and Development，1998，9（2）：107-114.
[4]	Goudie A S.Desert dust and human health disorders［J］.Environment International，2014，63：101-113.
[5]	Chepil W S， Woodruff N P.The physics of wind erosion and its control［J］.Advances in Agronomy，1963，15：211-302.
[6]	Cheng H， Liu C C， Zou X Y，et al.Wind erosion rate for vegetated soil cover：a prediction model based on surface shear strength［J］.Catena，2020，187：104398.
[7]	Burri K， Gromke C， Lehning M，et al.Aeolian sediment transport over vegetation canopies：a wind tunnel study with live plants［J］.Aeolian Research，2011，3：205-213.
[8]	董治宝，陈渭南，董光荣，等.植被对风沙土风蚀作用的影响［J］.环境科学学报，1996（4）：437-443.
[9]	Wolfe S A， Nickling W G.The protective role of sparse vegetation in wind erosion［J］.Progress in Physical Geography：Earth and Environment，1993，17（1）：50-68.
[10]	Mayhead G J.Some drag coefficients for British forest trees derived from wind tunnel studies［J］.Agricultural Meteorology，1973，12：123-130.
[11]	Miri A， Dragovich D， Dong Z B.The response of live plants to airflow：implication for reducing erosion［J］.Aeolian Research，2018，33：93-105.
[12]	Kang L Q， Zhang M， Li C Y，et al.Effect of plant shapes on sand transport rate and aerodynamic particle entrainment rate from the perspective of plant drag［J］.Catena，2024，237：107818.
[13]	Wyatt V E， Nickiing W G.Drag and shear stress partitioning in sparse desert creosote communities［J］.Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences，1997，34（11）：1486-1498.
[14]	Grant P F， Nickling W G.Direct field measurement of wind drag on vegetation for application to windbreak design and modelling［J］.Land Degradation and Development，1998，9（1）：57-66.
[15]	Gillies J A， Lancaster N， Nickling W G，et al.Field determination of drag forces and shear stress partitioning effects for a desert shrub （Sarcobatus vermiculatus，greasewood）［J］.Journal of Geophysical Research：Atmospheres，2000，105（D20）：24871-24880.
[16]	Gillies J A， Nickling W G， King J.Drag coefficient and plant form response to wind speed in three plant species：Burning bush （Euonymus alatus），Colorado Blue Spruce （Picea pungens glauca.），and Fountain Grass （Pennisetum setaceum）［J］.Journal of Geophysical Research：Atmospheres，2002，107（D24）：4760.
[17]	Rudnicki M， Mitchell S J， Novak M D.Wind tunnel measurements of crown streamlining and drag relationships for three conifer species［J］.Canadian Journal of Forest Research，2004，34（3）：666-676.
[18]	Vollsinger S， Mitchell S J， Byrne K E，et al.Wind tunnel measurements of crown streamlining and drag relationships for several hardwood species［J］.Canadian Journal of Forest Research，2005，35（5）：1238-1249.
[19]	Kane B， Pavlis M， Harris J R，et al.Crown reconfiguration and trunk stress in deciduous trees［J］.Canadian Journal of Forest Research，2008，38（6）：1275-1289.
[20]	Cao J X， Tamura Y， Yoshida A.Wind tunnel study on aerodynamic characteristics of shrubby specimens of three tree species［J］.Urban Forestry and Urban Greening，2012，11（4）：465-476.
[21]	Zhang C， Zhou H P， Xu L Y，et al.Wind tunnel study of the changes in drag and morphology of three fruit tree species during air-assisted spraying［J］.Biosystems Engineering，2022，218：153-162.
[22]	Vogel S.Drag and flexibility in sessile organisms［J］.American Zoologist，1984，24（1）：37-44.