Next Article in Journal
Spatial Characteristics and Temporal Evolution of Chemical and Biological Freshwater Status as Baseline Assessment on the Tropical Island San Cristóbal (Galapagos, Ecuador)
Next Article in Special Issue
Key Aesthetic Appeal Concepts of Coastal Dunes and Forests on the Example of the Curonian Spit (Lithuania)
Previous Article in Journal
Influences of Catchment and River Channel Characteristics on the Magnitude and Dynamics of Storage and Re-Suspension of Fine Sediments in River Beds
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sensitivity of Storm-Induced Hazards in a Highly Curvilinear Coastline to Changing Storm Directions. The Tordera Delta Case (NW Mediterranean)
Open AccessTechnical Note

Influence of Different Sieving Methods on Estimation of Sand Size Parameters

CASEM (Centro Andaluz Superior de Estudios Marítimos), Universidad de Cádiz, 11510 Cádiz, Spain
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2019, 11(5), 879;
Received: 27 March 2019 / Revised: 14 April 2019 / Accepted: 23 April 2019 / Published: 26 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Coastal Dynamic and Evolution)
Sieving is one of the most used operational methods to determine sand size parameters which are essential to analyze coastal dynamics. However, the influence of hand versus mechanical shaking methods has not yet been studied. Herein, samples were taken from inside the hopper of a trailing suction dredger and sieved by hand with sieves of 10 and 20 cm diameters on board the dredger. Afterwards, these same samples were sieved with a mechanical shaker in the laboratory on land. The results showed differences for the main size parameters D50, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis. Amongst the main results, it should be noted that the highest values for D50 and kurtosis were given by the small sieves method. On the other hand, the lowest values were given by the mechanical shaker method in the laboratory. Furthermore, standard deviation and skewness did not seem to be affected by the sieving method which means that all the grainsize distribution was shifted but the shape remained unchanged. The few samples that do not follow these patterns have a higher percentage of shells. Finally and definitely, the small sieves should be rejected as a sieving method aboard. View Full-Text
Keywords: D50; sieving; sand size; sand parameters; coastal dynamics D50; sieving; sand size; sand parameters; coastal dynamics
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Poullet, P.; Muñoz-Perez, J.J.; Poortvliet, G.; Mera, J.; Contreras, A.; Lopez, P. Influence of Different Sieving Methods on Estimation of Sand Size Parameters. Water 2019, 11, 879.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Search more from Scilit
Back to TopTop