Shield For Sand-An Innovative Barrier For Windblown Sand Mitigation
Shield For Sand-An Innovative Barrier For Windblown Sand Mitigation
Shield For Sand-An Innovative Barrier For Windblown Sand Mitigation
ae 237
Engineering
Luca Bruno1,4,*, Nicolas Coste3,4, Davide Fransos3,4, Andrea Lo Giudice2,3,4, Luigi Preziosi2,4 and
Lorenzo Raffaele1,4
1
Department of Architecture and Design, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy; 2Department of Mathematical Sciences
“Giuseppe Luigi Lagrange”, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy; 3Optiflow Company, Marseille, France and
4
Windblown Sand Modeling and Mitigation joint research group, Italy
Abstract: Background: Windblown sand mitigation for civil structures in arid environment is crucial.
Indeed, the number of railways crossing deserts and arid lands is increasing. A number of sand mitiga-
tion measures already exist. Among them, sand barriers are particularly intended for line-like infrastruc-
tures. We reviewed patented sand barriers on the basis of their shape and porosity.
Objective: A new solid barrier for windblown sand mitigation called Shield for Sand is presented.
Shield for Sand has been designed with the aim of maximizing the sand trapping efficiency through
an upper windward deflector and simplifying its maintenance by complaining to sand removal ma-
ARTICLE HISTORY chines. The development of Shield for Sand follows the path traced by the Technology Readiness
Received: October 24, 2017
Level scale.
Revised: January 30, 2018
Accepted: March 01, 2018 Methods: The preliminary design of Shield for Sand has been supported by computational simulations
of the wind flow around the barrier. Then, Shield for Sand has been tested in a wind tunnel with drifting
Recent Patents on Engineering
DOI:
10.2174/1872212112666180309151818 sand in order to assess its efficiency. Both computational and experimental approaches allow an increase
of the Technology Readiness Level.
Results: The reversed flow induced by Shield for Sand increases its sand accumulation potential with re-
spect to similar existing sand mitigation measures, such as the straight vertical wall. The efficiency of
Shield for Sand resulting from the wind tunnel test is very high and almost constant with increasing sand
accumulation level.
Conclusion: The Shield for Sand working principles and performances are confirmed excellent. Final full-
scale in-situ experiments are necessary to test the barrier under real environmental operational conditions.
Keywords: Windblown sand, mitigation measures, barrier, railway infrastructure, technology readiness levels, shield for sand.
1. INTRODUCTION desert belt at the northen horse latitudes. Fig. (1) depicts a
number of existing, under construction, and planned railway
The attempt to mitigate windblown sand arises from the
tracks ranging from China to North Africa. In particular,
interaction with a number of human activities and civil struc-
North-western China comprehends a total length of 10.000
tures and infrastructures in the desert and arid environments.
Km of affected railways, e.g. the Lanzhou−Xinjiang line
In particular, windblown sand affects roads [1], railways [2],
across the Gobi desert, the Xining-Lhasa line along the Tibet
industrial facilities and pipelines [3], farms [4], towns, and plateau, the Linhai-Ceke line across the Ulanbuhe, Yama-
buildings [5]. Windblown sand transport results from soil
leike, and the Badain Jaran Deserts. Apart from China, the
erosion and causes sand accumulation around human-built
majority of the in-service desert railways are located in the
obstacles. Line-like infrastructures, such as railways, are the
Middle East – North Africa (MENA) region, e.g. the Iranian
most sensitive to such an issue.
railway Network comprehending an overall length of about
In the last 10 years, the number of railways crossing de- 400 km of track exposed to windblown sand, the 550 Km
serts or arid zones has increased. Railways crossing regions long Dammam–Riyadh line in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
affected by windblown sand are particularly located in the (KSA), the 2.400 Km long North South Railway in KSA, the
266 Km long phase 1 of the Etihad Rail network in United
Arab Emirates (UAE). The railway lines crossing deserts and
*Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Architecture
and Design, Politecnico di Torino, P.O. Box: I-10125, Torino, Italy; arid regions are expected to rapidly grow in the next years.
Tel: +39-011-090-4870; E-mail: [email protected] In particular, the 30.000 Km long Arab Network Railway
will connect all the Arab League Countries [6]; the 2.217
Fig. (1). Railways affected by windblown sand along the desert belt in the Northern Hemisphere.
Km long Gulf Railway will link the states member of the the infrastructure translate into line-like devices located be-
Arab Gulf Co-operation Council [6]; a 1373 km long railway tween the sand source and the infrastructure (Fig. 2). These
line, segment of the Eurasian Land Bridge, will connect Chi- mitigation measures range from stabilized sand berms and
na to Iran passing through Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Af- ditches to windblown sand barriers. In the following, we will
ghanistan [7]. focus on windblown sand barriers since they are usually pre-
The effects of windblown sand on railways are manifold ferred to berms and ditches. Indeed, the construction and
maintenance costs of both stabilized sand berms and ditches
and involve several aspects of the infrastructure. A number
are higher than the ones related to windblown sand barriers.
of these effects have occurred in the recent past along with
the built railway's lines crossing arid regions, e.g. the Qing- In the scientific literature, different kinds of SMMs have
hai-Tibet Railway [2], the North-South Mineral Line [8] and been studied and reviewed. Fences are conceived as nets or
the Lanzhou−Xinjiang line [9]. Sand deposition on the infra- sheets with smeared porosity [13]. They reduce the wind
structure can lead to the contamination of ballast, which velocity around them and induce in turn sand accumulation
leads in turn to the increasing of train-induced vibrations and on both upwind and downwind strips (see Fig. (2)). Fence
consequently damage of sleepers, rail pads and rails [10]. It porosity ratio is commonly considered as the most important
causes the jamming of turnouts, the covering of the parameter driving their performance. Porous barriers are
signalling systems, the grinding of rails, the wearing of conceived as solid barriers with localized porosity, i.e. open-
wheels [11] and train elements in general. This results in ings of the same order of magnitude of the barrier height.
increased costs due to the repeated maintenance and loss of They act analogously to smeared porosity fences and addi-
capacity of the line [12], i.e. reduced train speed and delays. tionally generate large turbulent eddies in their wake. Some
Furthermore, windblown sand can lead to disastrous events examples in the literature are represented by the hanging
causing even danger for users, such as train derailment and windshield wall and bottom-opening windshield wall exam-
window breaking [9]. ined in Cheng et al. [14], and the hanging type concrete wall
described in Cheng and Xue [15]. Solid barriers do not pre-
windblown sand path
sent any porosity. They are scarcely investigated in the sci-
wind
entific literature [16]. They induce an upwind vortex in the
mean wind flow, and sand sedimentation mainly occurs on
sand source upwind strip downwind strip infrastructure the upwind strip [17]. Their trapping performances are ex-
SMM
pected to decrease with increasing levels of accumulated
Fig. (2). Sand mitigation measure (SMM). sand. Compared to porous fences, vertical solid barriers of
equal height trap a lower volume of sand per unit length.
With the increasing railway tracks in desert areas, effec- Indeed, porous barriers allow sand sedimentation on both
tive design solutions to cope with windblown sand issues are upwind and downwind strips. However, solid barriers should
mandatory. A number of windblown Sand Mitigation be preferred as SMM around infrastructures since they pre-
Measures (SMM) have been proposed so far. Generally, they vent the sand accumulation in the infrastructure corridor and
aim at avoiding sand deposition on the protected infrastruc- lead to a cheaper sand removal.
ture. This can be achieved following different working prin-
ciples, such as promoting sand deposition away from the In the engineering practice, both porous and solid barriers
protected infrastructure by decreasing the wind speed, reduc- are employed as SMM along railways. Net fences are adopt-
ing wind erosion over the sand sources, or, alternatively, ed along the Etihad railway (UAE) and have been tested
increasing wind erosion over the infrastructure. The sand along the North-South line (KSA). They are also largely em-
mitigation measures that promote sand deposition away from ployed in oil industry [18]. Straight Vertical Wall (SVW) has
Shield for Sand: an Innovative Barrier for Windblown Sand Mitigation Recent Patents on Engineering, 2018, Vol. 12, No. 3 239
been tentatively tested. For example, a 4-meter high SVW deed, they are recommended in dune-building applications
was proposed as SMM in the preliminary design of the Seg- when the fast formation of the dune is required and sand
ment 1 of the Oman National Railway Network [19]. A 1.5- removal is not necessary. Localized-porosity barriers [24,
meter high SVW was recently tested in situ along the Mecca- 25] have been patented and adopted also in railway engineer-
Medina high-speed railway line in KSA [20], showing ques- ing applications. Basic vertical solid barriers, e.g. [26] are
tionable performances. Solid barriers other than SVW re- usually intended to act as both windbreakers and SMM.
main scarcely exploited. Novelty and inventive step of such barriers rely on the
adopted materials or construction processes rather than in the
1.1. SMM Patent Landscaping well-known working principle. Some aerodynamically
shaped solid barriers with different geometries have been
In the following, patented SMMs are reviewed, with par-
ticular attention to barriers, and on the basis of their catego- patented [27, 28]. However, the inventors have only qualita-
tively conjectured their aerodynamic and trapping perfor-
rization.
mances. Deflectors are conceived to take advantage from the
wind acceleration induced by them to promote windblown
sand transport or alternatively sedimented sand erosion.
They can be subdivided into free end deflectors [29-31] and
deflecting vanes [32] respectively. In particular, free end
deflectors accelerate the wind upward and are conjectured to
SDWHQWV¿OHG
make the flying sand cross over the infrastructure. They have
been proposed for road and railway applications, and for
windblown snow or sand. The conjectured working principle
looks physically sound for snow, while it seems questionable
for sand because of its density. Deflecting vanes locally ac-
celerate downwards the wind in their wake, close to the
downwind road pavement. They are conjectured to keep it
free of sand.
\HDU &1<
&1
Fig. (3) shows the trend of the inventive activity along time, )HQFHV
i.e. the number of filed patents in the last 20 years. Between
1996 and 2016, 162 SMM patents were filed. The overall
increasing trend testifies the growing industrial interest on &1
the topic. In particular, 52% of patents have been filed dur- 3RURXV
3RURXV
ing the last five years. This suggests an increasing patenting &18
6ROLG
6ROLG
potential in the next coming years.
ometry is generally characterized by three parts: 1. a founda- by pointwise curved steel pillars and a steel deflecting panel
tion; 2. a lower quasi-vertical part; and 3. an upper windward fixed at its intrados.
concave deflector (Fig. 5a). The values of the cross section
main geometrical parameters depend on the specific con- 75/
struction site, i.e. the magnitude of the incoming sand flux. )XOOVFDOH
2SHUDWLRQDO
75/ HQYLURQPHQW
V\VWHP
D ¿HOGWHVWV
ȕ 75/
75/
Į /DERUDWRU\
7HFKQRORJ\ VLPXODWHG
+ SURWRW\SH 75/ HQYLURQPHQW
ZLQGWXQQHOWHVW
+
75/
&RPSXWDWLRQDO
% GRZQZLQGVWULS LQIUDVWUXFWXUH 75/ SURRIRIFRQFHSW
E &)'VLPXODWLRQV
7HFKQRORJ\
FRQFHSW 75/
&RQFHSWXDO
75/ 'HVLJQ
XSZLQGVDQGWUDSSLQJYRUWH[
The development of a patented technology shall reach an
appropriate level of maturity to allow its actual application
Fig. (5). S4S: geometry of the barrier (a) and rendering along a under operational environmental conditions. The so-called
mitigated railway with simulated streamlines (b). Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is a method of estimat-
The three parts and their shape ensure functional re- ing, managing and developing a technology. Conceived by
quirements and the barrier working principles. The founda- NASA in the Seventies [36], TRL is today widely adopted in
tion opposes the overturning moment induced by both wind- a number of technological fields and by Research & Devel-
induced load and passive trapped sand pressure. The quasi- opment institutions, e.g. the H2020 EU framework program.
vertical part allows an easy clearance of the accumulated TRLs are based on a scale ranging from 1 to 9. For simplici-
sand by means of removal machines: For the sake of clarity, ty, TRL scale can be roughly subdivided into three parts,
Fig. (5a) includes the front view of an actual sand blower which refer to corresponding distinct stages of development
machine [34]. The upper windward concave deflector is the of the selected technology.
key component in ensuring S4S innovative working princi- In Fig. (6), the general TRL scale is summarized and re-
ples: it promotes local downward deflection of the wind flow ferred to the S4S development process. In the first part
upwind the barrier, and in turn, maximizes the size of the in- (TRL1-3), the S4S technology concept is investigated by
duced upwind recirculation vortex (Fig. 5b). The local re- means of basic research on windblown sand phenomena [37]
versed flow strongly decreases the velocity gradient close to and engineering constraints to be fulfilled. S4S barrier is
the ground, and consequently the wall shear stress patented [33]. The concept is proved by assessing its work-
. Sedimentation is guarantee where is lower ing principle and aerodynamic performances by means of
than a threshold value which depends on the physical prop- Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations [17]. This
erties of the sand at the construction site [35]. As a result, the part corresponds to the conceptual and preliminary design
upwind vortex induced by S4S acts as a sand trapping one. phases in Civil Engineering. In the second part (TRL4-6),
Qualitatively, the larger the upwind vortex is, the higher the S4S prototype is tested in laboratory environment conditions
sand trapping performances, that is: i. sand is accumulated in order to validate/demonstrate the technology. In particular,
along the upwind strip only, ii. the volume of the trapped sand wind tunnel tests with windblown sand are performed on a
is as large as possible; iii. the trapping vortex still holds also scaled mockup and its trapping performances are measured
for high levels of accumulated sand, and high trapping effi- [38]. This part corresponds to the detailed design phase in
ciency in turn. Civil Engineering. In the third part (TRL7-9), the full-scale
Alternative construction methods, embodiments and ma- system is tested under operational environmental conditions
terials can be specified for each part of S4S notwithstanding towards system qualification, production process launching
the general principles above. Options should comply with and commercial deployment. This part corresponds to the as-
the construction requirements for civil engineering applica- built design phase in Civil Engineering [39].
tions (simplicity of construction/prefabrication/assembling The scientific approach to windblown sand mitigation is
and maintenance, durability), and use building components at its early-stage. As a result, Research & Development ac-
possibly already employed in the industrial chain of other tivities often follow trial and error procedures resulting in
kinds of barriers (such as noise or wind barriers) in the substantial additional costs. To the Author’s best knowledge,
Country where the barrier is built. For instance, the render in there are no studies devoted to the development of SMMs in
Fig. (5b) depicts a solid reinforced concrete continuous ver- the framework of TRL. In the following, the applied meth-
tical wall, while the windward concave deflector is formed
Shield for Sand: an Innovative Barrier for Windblown Sand Mitigation Recent Patents on Engineering, 2018, Vol. 12, No. 3 241
100h
u (z)
25h
z
ods and obtained results to conceive and validate S4S by where is the turbulent kinetic energy, is the dissipation
increasing its TRL are provided and discussed. rate and is the turbulent kinematic viscosity. The defini-
tion of the other terms can be found in Menter et al. [40].
3. METHODS Taking advantage of symmetry, a 2D computational domain
(sketched in Fig. (7)) has been adopted. The boundary condi-
In the following, the methods adopted to develop and tions have been set in order to correctly reproduce arid-zone
validate S4S are reported. The performances of S4S have environment features. In particular, the incoming wind ve-
been quantitatively assessed in two distinct phases. First, a locity profile is prescribed by the log-law
computational simulation is used to demonstrate the concep- , where is the friction velocity,
tual working principles and obtain some preliminary metrics is the Von Karman constant, and
for the performance (TRL3). Secondly, a wind tunnel test is is the aerodynamic roughness of the incoming wind.
performed on a prototype of S4S to simulate the real envi- The prescriptions of Richards and Norris [41] are followed
ronmental working conditions and assess its sand-trapping to set the inlet profile of and . No-slip conditions
performance (TRL5). are imposed on the ground surface and at all the walls. A
typical aeolian sand grains diameter has been
3.1. Computational Simulation assumed, leading to a wall shear stress threshold
A pure aerodynamic study has been performed in order to .
investigate the effect of S4S on the wind flow and to analyze
the implications in terms of performance of the SMM as sed- 3.2. Wind Tunnel Testing
imentation-promoter. Since wall shear stress depends only A 1:10 scale prototype of S4S is tested in the wind tunnel
on wind flow field, such a study allows shedding some light L1-B at the von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics (Bel-
on the zones in which sand erosion and sand sedimentation gium). The prototype consists of three parts: Two lateral
take place due to the presence of the barrier. The mean aero- non-transparent elements made of wood and aluminum, and
dynamic behavior is obtained since the deposition process a central transparent short section made in Plexiglas. Two
takes several months. Indeed, wind and sand sub-domains lateral end-plates are placed next to the lateral free-ends in
present two different characteristic timescales. A Computa- order to reduce the end-tip aerodynamic effects. A reference
tional Fluid Dynamic (CFD) simulation is carried out, using wind tunnel free stream velocity equal to m/s is set.
the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) approach. The adopted sand has a mean grain diameter mm.
The Finite Volume open source code OpenFoam© is used to A uniform sand layer 1 cm thick is spread on the windward
numerically evaluate the flow-field. The RANS momentum side of the barrier between the end-plates. The prototype is
and mass conservation equations read: tested for six sand levels in order to estimate the evolution of
the efficiency of the barrier with increasing sand accumula-
(1)
tion. In particular, each initial sand level is set with a
degrees slope. From the adopted scaling law follows Reyn-
(2) olds number , and Froude number for
particles saltating in the wind tunnel test section
. Re value is within the supercritical aerody-
Given the turbulent flow, SST model, developed namic regime, where significant Re effects do not take place.
by Menter [39] and modified by Menter et al. [40], has been Fr value fulfills the limit criterion set by Owen and Gilette
selected to close the equations: [42, 43], being lower than 20.
For each sand level, both the time-evolution of the profile
of the accumulated sand upwind of the prototype and the
(3) time-evolution of the outgoing sand transport rate above the
S4S deflector are measured. A pulsating laser sheet high-
lights the sand accumulation profile evolution and the saltat-
ing sand grains around S4S. The central transparent section
(4) allows the acquisition of the profile of the accumulated sand
242 Recent Patents on Engineering, 2018, Vol. 12, No. 3 Bruno et al.
in the wind tunnel centerline by charged-coupled device im- er frontal toe and the point on the ground surface upwind the
aging of the pulsed-laser sheet scattered from the accumulat- barrier at which becomes smaller or equal to . The latter
ed sand. Three cameras are installed. Camera #1 captured the is the height of stagnation point on the frontal surface of the
whole sand level evolution. Camera #2 and camera #3 cap- barrier. Hence, we define the sand accumulation potential as
tured the saltating particles below and above the barrier de- . This quantity can be used to compare the per-
flector, respectively. The same pulsed-laser sheet images are formance of different sand-mitigation barriers, at least in a
employed to obtain the concentration field of the saltating concept design phase.
sand grains via the so-called Particle Tracking Velocimetry
As shown in Fig. (9), the barrier induces the formation of
(PTV) algorithms. The incoming sand transport on a flat
an upwind vortex , and a long recirculating wake. Clearly,
surface is measured with the same technique over a uniform
only the upwind vortex affects sand accumulation on the
sand layer. The incoming wind speed is measured by Particle windward side of the barrier by inducing the sedimentation
Image Velocimetry (PIV) technique. The measurement is
of the saltating sand particles.
performed by means of the same laser and cameras using a
smoke generator to seed the wind flow with oil particles
(Fig. 8).
D
69:
&DPHUD /V]
&DPHUD
/V[
&DPHUD
E
6 6
/V]
/V[
JURXQGVHGLPHQWDWLRQ EDUULHUVWDJQDWLRQ $U
SRLQW SRLQW $V
Fig. (8). Wind tunnel setup. Sketch of the setup (a) and testing sec- Fig. (9). S4S versus SVW: streamlines around barriers and sedi-
tion (b). mentation lengths.
The influence of the barrier profile on the flow field is rele-
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION vant in the upwind zone. The deflector of the S4S barrier leads
First, the results of the aerodynamic comparative analysis to twofold effect. First, it drives the stagnation point up to its
between S4S and SVW are presented. Hence, the efficiency free end, so that is maximized. Secondly, it induces a hori-
of S4S is obtained from the wind tunnel tests. zontal sedimentation length longer than the reference case
(SVW), due to the larger size of the upwind recirculation vor-
4.1. Computational Simulation tex. Altogether, these effects lead to about 100% increment of
sand accumulation potential for S4S barrier with respect to
Computational simulations enable the efficient compara- SVW, as shown by Fig. (10). It is worth stressing that gives
tive analysis of the aerodynamic performances of a number only a first estimation of the real sand trapping performance of
of SMMs. For the sake of conciseness, the preliminary esti- the analyzed barriers. Indeed, the evaluation of the barrier’s
mation of sand trapping performance of S4S barrier is com- efficiency should take into account both barrier aerodynamics,
pared with the one resulting from the Straight Vertical Wall sand transport and sand-bed morphodynamics. The barrier aer-
(SVW), taken as a reference case. Interested readers can re- odynamics directly affect sand transport, sedimentation and
fer to Bruno et al. [17] for a wider comparative analysis of erosion. In turn, the accumulated sand affects the whole aero-
the sand trapping performance among a number of other dynamics. Moreover, close to the ground, the volume fraction
patented solid barriers, e.g. [27,28,29]. The barriers have the of sand is maximum and the dispersed grains tangibly influ-
same height , and are placed at the same distance ence wind velocity field. As a result, the sand trapping perfor-
from the embankment (see Fig. (7)), in order to evaluate the mance will not be constant.
performance in the same working conditions.
The computational simulation of the wind flow allows 4.2. Wind Tunnel Testing
computing wall shear stress on the ground and on the barrier In the wake of the extensive computational simulations,
surface. The horizontal and the vertical characteristic sedi- wind tunnel tests are limited to the S4S barrier because of
mentation lengths and can be defined and evaluated their cost and duration. Photos of the sand accumulation lev-
in turn (Fig. 9). The former is the distance between the barri- els highlighted by the laser sheet are reported in Fig. (11),
Shield for Sand: an Innovative Barrier for Windblown Sand Mitigation Recent Patents on Engineering, 2018, Vol. 12, No. 3 243
while they are plotted for each sand level at initial ( and the working principles of S4S. In particular, the upwind recir-
final ( ) conditions in Fig. (12). culation vortex induced by S4S promotes reversed sand erosion
near the barrier, while the lowering of the wind speed promotes
As / h 2 sand sedimentation upwind the eroded zones. The intersection
Ar / h 2 between initial and final sand levels splits erosion and sedimen-
tation zones. Even if the erosion zone gets necessarily shorter
SVW
S4S
as the sand level increases, sedimentation remarkably still
holds also for the highest sand level (sand level 5 in Fig. 12).
Moreover, Fig. (13) shows both the incoming and outgoing
mean sand concentrations for each sand accumulation level.
S4S
SMaRT They are plotted preserving the same scale in order to have a
not misleading graphic representation of the amount of incom-
ing and outgoing sand. The mean incoming sand concentration
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 follows a typical decreasing exponential trend and is con-
Fig. (10). S4S versus SVW: accumulation potentials and sizes of stant for each sand level. The height of the saltation layer is
the upwind vortices. determined as the height below which 99% of the total concen-
tration take place and is equal to cm. The mean out-
going sand concentration profile changes slightly as a function
of the filling height.
ĭRXW
ĭLQ
2XWJRLQJVDQG
ij>NJP@
W
WHQG
6DQGOHYHO
\>P@
,QFRPLQJVDQG
ij>NJP @
[>P@
Fig. (12). Sand accumulation profiles against S4S barrier and incoming and outgoing sand concentration
244 Recent Patents on Engineering, 2018, Vol. 12, No. 3 Bruno et al.
In Fig. (14), the efficiency assessed from the wind tunnel the case of the mitigated and unmitigated railway, respec-
measurements is plotted as a function of the filling height tively; iii. infrastructure ballast cleaning is planned when the
ratio , where is the height of the intersection between percentage void contamination reaches 30% (as stated by
the final sand accumulation level ( ) and the barrier pro- Indraratna et al. [45]).
file and is the height of S4S prototype. The measured effi- For the setup above, the following maintenance periods
ciency is approximately constant and about for each
result (Table 1):
tested sand level. The dotted curve represents the fitted effi-
ciency trend of S4S. In particular, it is roughly constant for Table 1. Maintenance Periods.
, decreases steeply in order to have a null
efficiency for the maximum level of sand accumulation, i.e. Maintenance period S4S Unmitigated
. In summary, wind tunnel tests demonstrate S4S
traps more than 90% of the incoming sand, and that keeps Sand removal upwind S4S 2.2 years -
such high performances up to its maximum capacity. These
qualities imply a very small fraction of sand reaches the Sand removal upwind em-
1.9 years 1 month
downwind strip, and permit low frequency sand removal bankment
operations, respectively. Ballast cleaning 3.2 years 10 days
The maintenance frequency around the unmitigated rail-
way is very high. In particular, the ballast cleaning opera-
tions are expected to induce severe LoC even for low rail
traffic volume. Conversely, S4S dramatically reduces the
maintenance frequency, so that maintenance period arises
Ș>@
gineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, USA, [32] L. Wei, “Flow-diverting and wind-curbing road-protection wall for
1991, pp. 2754-2767. desert highway” CN Patent 101761037 B, 2010.
[17] L. Bruno, D. Fransos, and A. Lo Giudice, “Solid barriers for wind- [33] L. Bruno, L. Preziosi, and D. Fransos, “A defecting module for an
blown sand mitigation: aerodynamic behavior and conceptual de- anti-sand barrier, a barrier thus obtained and a protection method
sign guidelines”, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., vol. 173, pp. 79-90, from windblown sand” WO Patent 2016181417, 2016.
2018. [34] A. Schmidt, Santera 3000 technical sheet, 2013.
[18] A. A. A. Alghamdi, and N. S. Al-Kahtani, “Sand control measures [35] L. Raffaele, L. Bruno, F. Pellerey, and L. Preziosi, “Windblown
and sand drift fences”, J. Perform. Constr. Facil., vol. 19, pp. 295- sand saltation: A statistical approach to fluid threshold shear ve-
299, 2005. locity”, Aeol. Res., vol. 23, pp. 79-91, 2016.
[19] ITALFERR, “Preliminary design for Oman National Railway Pro- [36] S. R. Sadin, F. P. Povinelli,, and R. Rosen, “The NASA technology
ject – segment 1 – Oman/UAE border at Al Buraimi - geotechnical push towards future space mission systems,” Acta Astronautica,
study”, Sand mitigation report, 2014. vol. 20, pp. 73-77, 1989.
[20] R. Mendez, “La arena invade tramos del ave a la meca ante la [37] L. Preziosi, L. Bruno, and D. Fransos, “A multiphase first order
divisin del consorcio espaol”, El confidencial, 2016. model for non-equilibrium sand erosion, transport and sedimenta-
[21] D. C. Fresno, J. J. Del Coz Dìaz, J. R. Hernàndez, and L. A. S. tion”, Appl. Math. Lett., vol. 45, pp. 69-75, 2015.
Fontaneda, “Barrier for deposition of particles”, WO Patent [38] L. Bruno, A. Lo Giudice, L. Preziosi, and L. Raffaele, “Wind tun-
2010133713, 2010. nel tests of the shield for sand barrier”, Final Internal Technical
[22] Y. Tang, J. Qu, Z. Ying, F. Zhou, C. Tie, L. Gu, C. Li, W. Rong, Report, Proof of Concept programme, Politecnico di Torino, 2017.
and Q. Li, “High and vertical HDPE (high-density polyethylene) [39] F. R. Menter, “Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for
sand-blocking fence”, CN Patent 201686941, 2010. engineering applications”, AIAA J., vol. 32, pp. 1598-1605, 1994.
[23] J. J. Grosch, and N. S. Kahtani, “Geogrid sand fence”, WO Patent [40] F. R. Menter, M. Kuntz, and M. R. Langtry, “Ten years of industri-
201059597, 2010. al experience with the SST turbulence model”, In Proceedings of
[24] F. Jiang, K. Li, C. Xue, L. Ding, L. Zhang, Y. Yang, and Y. Da, the Fourth International Symposium on Turbulence, Heat and
“Wind and sand shielding device”, CN Patent 201817781 U, 2010. Mass Transfer, Antalya, Turkey, 2003, 625-632.
[25] C. Li, H. Dong, Y. Shi, Z. Jun, H. Li, and X. Wang, “Sandproof [41] P. Richard, and S. Norris, “Appropriate boundary conditions for
railing of hung concrete upper block board”, CN patent 200996134 computational wind engineering models revisited”, J. Wind Eng.
U, 2007. Ind. Aerodyn., vol. 99, pp. 257-266, 2011.
[26] X. Fang, L. Xiao, X. Wang, H. Yao, Y. Ma, F. Li, and H. Jia, [42] P. R. Owen, and D. Gillette, “Wind tunnel constraint on saltation”.
“Novel wind break fence is moduled to wood” CN Patent Proc. International Workshop on the Physics of Blown Sand, Uni-
205063528 U, 2016. versity of Aarhus, Denmark, 1985, pp. 253-269.
[27] J. P. Newell, “Sand guards for railroad tracks”. U.S. Patent [43] B. R. White, and H. Mounla, “An experimental study of Froude
731320, 1903. number effect on wind-tunnel saltation”, Acta Mechanica, vol. 1,
[28] M. Pensa, P. S. Petrosino, and G. S. Petrosino “Barriera antivento, pp. 145-157, 1991.
particolarmente per venti carichi di sabbia” IT Patent 1224625, [44] L. Raffaele, L. Bruno, F. Pellerey, and D. Fransos, “Incoming
1990. windblown sand drift to civil infrastructures: A probabilistic evalu-
[29] L. Guangyong, and M. Peng, “Wind-preventing sand-throwing ation”, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn, vol. 166, pp. 37-47, 2017.
wall” CN Patent 102002916 B, 2011. [45] B. Indraratna, L. Su, and C. Rujikiatkamjorn, “A new parameter for
[30] N. Takashi, “Protection fence” JP Patent 3138408, 2007. classification and evaluation of railway ballast fouling”, Can. Ge-
[31] A. Sato, and M. Ono, “Snowstorm guard fence structures and jet otech. J., vol. 48, pp. 322-326, 2011.
roofs”, U.S. Patent 4958806, 1990 [46] W. Fabrycky, and B. Blanchard, “Life cycle cost and economic
analysis”. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991.