DOE TIC-11223 (Handbook On Atmospheric Diffusion)
DOE TIC-11223 (Handbook On Atmospheric Diffusion)
DOE TIC-11223 (Handbook On Atmospheric Diffusion)
( DE82002045)
Handbook on
ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
Steven R. Hanna
Gary A. Briggs
Rayford P. Hosker, Jr.
. .
Prepared f o r the
Office of Healtli a n d Environmental Research
Ofilce of Energy Research
U . S. Department of Ener,q\
1982
Published by
TECH N 1C A L IN F 0R M A TI 0 N CENTER
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
NOTICE
Hanna, Steven R.
Handbook on atmospheric diffusion.
1982
With the Clean Air Acts and increased environmental Basic meteorological concepts are covered first
consciousness, many engineers, consulting companies, and then plume rise, source effects, and diffusion
planners, and meteorologists find themselves pro- models. Chapters on cooling tower plumes and urban
pelled into the work of calculating atmospheric diffusion are included. Suggestions are made for
diffusion. Many of these people are not interested in calculating diffusion in special situations, such as for
knowing the detailed theoretical derivation of a instantaneous releases (puffs), over complex terrain,
formula and its complete set of references. All they over long distances (10 km t o global scales), and
want to know are the best current formulas for their during times when chemical reactions or dry or wet
problems plus a simple physical description of the deposition are important.
principles of analysis. This book should be helpful to This work was performed under an agreement
those who must make such problem-solving calcula- between the U. S. Department of Energy and the
tions of atmospheric diffusion. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The book can be used also as a textbook for a
one-quarter course at either the upper undergraduate
or the graduate level. In fact, the basic outline [Editors Note: Dr. Steven Hanna and Dr. Gary
evolved from a graduate course on atmospheric Briggs were with National Oceanic: and Atmospheric
diffusion taught in the Environmental Engineering Administration, Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffu-
Department at the University of Tennessee. sion Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., during the
The number of pages was purposely limited to preparation of this book; at present Dr. Hanna is with
make the book more usable. A detailed index permits Environmental Research and Technology, Lexington,
quick location of subject areas, and a few problems Mass., and Dr. Briggs is with Environmental Pro-
are provided after each chapter. tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.]
Steven R. Hanna
Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory
September 1981
iii
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...
111 2-8 Multiple Sources . . . . . . . . 17
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1 Meteorology . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1-1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Source Effects . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1-2 General Circulation . . . . . . . 1 3-1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1-3 Vertical Temperature Structure 3-2 Stack Aerodynamic Effect . . . . 19
and Stability . . . . . . . . . . 2 3-3 Structure of Flow Around
1-3.1 Adiabatic Temperature Gradient 2 Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1-3.2 Stability . . . . . . . . . 3 3-4 Diffusion Calculations
1-4 Structure of the Planetary Around Buildings . . . . . . . . 21
Boundary Layer . . . . . . . . 4 3-4.1 Isolated Sources Upwind
1-4.1 Turbulence Fluxes . . . . . 4 of Buildings . . . . . . . 22
1 - 4 2 Ekman Spiral . . . . . . . 5 3-4.2 Sources Close to Buildings . . 22
1-4.3 Similarity Theory Gives Wind Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
and Temperature Profiles in
Surface Layer . . . . . . . 6 4 Gaussian Plume Model for Continuous
1-4.4 Turbulence Parameters . . . 7 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
41 Why Use theGaussianModel? . . . .
..
1-5 Use of Spectra to Estimate 25
Turbulence Parameters . . . . . . 8 4 2 Formof theGaussianMode1 . . . . 25
1-6 Lagrangian Turbulence . . . . . . 9 4-3 Stability Classification Schemes . . 27
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4 4 Choice of oYand . . . . . . . 27
44.1 Stability ClassMethod . . . 27
2 PlumeRise . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4-4.2 Theoe ando. Method . . . 30
2-1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 5 Wind-Speed Variation with Height . 31
2-2 Top-Hat-ModelEquations . . . . . 11 4 6 Maximum Ground Concentration
2-2.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . 11 and Fumigation . . . . . . . . . 32
2-2.2 Set of Equations for 4 7 Averaging Times and Peak-to-Mean
Vertical Plume . . . . . . 12 Concentration Ratios . . . . . . 33
2-2.3 Set of Equations for 4-8 Sector Model for Long Sampling
Bent-Over Plume . . . . . 13 Times . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2-3 Plume Trajectory Near Source . . . 13 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2-3.1 Vertical Plumes . . . . . . 13
2-3.2 Bent-Over Plumes . . . . . 13 5 Statistical Models of Diffusion from
2-4 Plume Rise Limited by Ambient Continuous-PointSources . . . . . . . 36
Stability . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5-1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 36
2 4 . 1 Vertical Plumes . . . . . . 14 5-2 Taylors Theorem . . . . . . . . 36
2-4.2 Bent-Over Plumes . . . . . 14 5-3 InfluenceofEddy S i z e o n o . . . . 38
2-5 Plume Penetration of Elevated 5-4 Lagrangian-Eulerian Relations . . . 39
Inversion . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5-5 Monte Carlo Particle Trajectory
2-6 Plume Rise Determined by Models of Diffusion . . . . . . . 40
Ambient Turbulence . . . . . . 15 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2-6.1 Nearly Neutral Conditions . 16
2-6.2 Convective Conditions . . 16 6 Puff Diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2-7 Maximum Ground Concentration 6-1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 41
withBreakupMode1 . . . . . . . 17 6-2 Statistical Approach . . . . . . . 41
V
-.--
vi
1
2 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
p = 0.5 x lo6
dynes/cm2
/LOW TEMPERATURE\
HIGH DENSITY
FORCE .
Fig. 1.1 Cross section of the earths atmosphere, showing how sloping pressure surfaces result at
mid-atmosphere. Westerly winds are caused by a balance between pressure forces and Coriolis forces.
The equation of motion says that air will first be Other hydrodynamic forces, which are beyond the
accelerated toward the poles along the upper constant scope of this chapter, frequently cause the westerly
pressure surface in the figure: flow to be compressed into narrow belts, called jet
streams, with speeds up to 200 km/hr.
Meteorological data are gathered from many
stations across the globe and are stored at the
National Climatic Center, National Oceanic and
where u = easterly component of wind speed Atmospheric Administration ( N O M ) , Asheville, N.C.
v = northerly component of wind speed Many statistical operations (e.g., annual wind roses or
y = northerly
. - coordinate axis frequency distributions of wind direction and speed)
subscript p = constant pressure surface have already been carried out and can be obtained
f = Coriolis parameter, which is equd to from the National Climatic Center at very reasonable
two times the earths rotation rate times prices. Surface weather summaries at larger National
the sine of the latitude Weather Service stations are collected into reports
called Local Climatological Data, which are mailed
The parameter f is of the order of sec- . The to subscribers monthly. The Climate Atlas of the
apparent Coriolis force arises as a result of the earths United Stutes (U. S. Department of Commerce, 1968)
rotation, which constantly displaces a Cartesian co- contains many data useful for diffusion calculations.
ordinate system fixed to the surface. An analogy is
given by rolling a marble from the edge o f a rotating 1-3 VERTICAL TEMPERATURE
record turntable toward the center. The marble will
STRUCTURE AND STABILITY
encounter regions with less angular momentum than
it has. To an observer fixed to the turntable, the
marble will always curve toward the right if the
1-3.1 Adiabatic Temperature Gradient
turntable is rotating counterclockwise. SiSlarly, in
the northern hemisphere the Coriolis force is t o the
right, and in the southern hemisphere it is to the left. If a parcel of dry air is moved vertically without
The poleward pressure force is thus balanced by a exchanging heat with its environment (i.e., adiabati-
Coriolis force toward the equator in both hemi- cally), the first law of thermodynamics becomes
spheres, which causes general westerly flow at mid-
levels in the atmosphere at mid-latitudes. The magni- 1
tude of the resulting geostrophic wind speed is 0 = cp dT - -dp
P
given by setting du/dt = 0 in Eq. 1.3, which yields the
formula
where cp is the specific heat of air a t constant
pressure (lo ergs g- K-l) and T must be in
degrees Kelvin (or absolute). Substituting from the
METEOROLOGY 3
hydrostatic equation (Eq. 1.2) yields the formula for temperature gradient is a function of temperature
the adiabatic temperature gradient: ranging from about -0.9"C/100 m in cold polar
climates to about -0.4"C/lOO rn in warm tropical
climates. The saturated water-vapor mixing ratio (ni,)
is a function of temperature and is presented graphi-
cally in Fig. 11.4 of Chap. 11. With each 10C rise in
or a temperature decrease of about 1C for each temperature, m, roughly doubles.
elevation increase of 100 m. The potential tempera-
ture (e) is an important parameter defined from
Eq. 1.5 by substituting for (l/p) with the use of the
equation of state (Eq. 1.1) and by integrating from 1-3.2 Stability
sea-level pressure ( l o 6 dynes/cm2) to the pressure p
a t any level. Meteorologists distinguish threc states of the
atmospheric surface layer: unstable, neutral, arid
stable. These adjectives refer to the reaction of a
parcel of air displaced adiabatically in the vertical
direction. Figure 1.2 shows the environmental l a p
rates that give rise to these stability classes. In each
where the ratio R/cp equals 0.286. In other words, example the parcel originates a t the height indicated
the potential temperature of a parcel of air a t by the circle in the figure; at this height the
temperature (T) and pressure (p) is the temperature temperature of the parcel is the same as that of its
that would result if the parcel were brought adia- environment. If the density of the parcel is less than
batically from a pressure p to a pressure of lo6 that of its environment (pp < pe or T, > Te), then
dynes/cm'. It follows thet the parcel is accelerated upward. If the density of the
parcel is mort: than that of its environment (pp > pe
or Tp < Te), then the parcel is accelerated downward.
If the density of the parcel is the same as that of its
environment (TP = Te), then the parcel continues a t
and its original speed. For the example of the unstable
layer, the parcel is continually accelerated away from
its origin. The example of the neutral layer shows
that the temperature of the parcel is always the same
where z is the height above mean sea level. The as that of its environment, and there is no force on it.
adiabatic potential temperature gradient (de/dz) is The sketches above the temperature profiles illustrate
zero. A wide range of temperature gradients is the gravitational analogy for a ball on top of a hill
observed in the atmosphere, but the average value in (unstable), on a flat plain (neutral), and in a valley
the troposphere (lowest 10 km) is -0.65"C/lOO m. (stable).
This represents a balance between vertical mixing We can formalize these stability criteria:
processes and radiztive heat exchanges.
When air is saturated with water vapor and is aT,
rising vertically, the adiabatic temperature decrease is Unstable:
'
-aZ
< -0.98"C/lOO m
less than that given by Eq. 1.6. As air cools, its
capacity for water vapor decreases, and liquid water is
condensed. This process releases heat to the air a t a Neutral: -
aTe - -0.98"C/lOO m (1.11)
a2
rate of about 540 cal/g (latent heat of vaporization,
L) of condensed water. Thus part of the internal aT
energy used in expansion is recovered from latent Stable: e>
aZ
-0.98"C/lOO m (inversion
heat release, and the moist adiabatic temperature condition)
gradient (dT/dz)m is given by
Typically, the criterion for instability is satisfied only
within about 100 m of the surface on a sunny day.
The atmosphere is neutral on a windy and cloudy day
or night and is stable near the surface a t night or at
where m, is the saturated mixing ratio (mass of water any time in an elevated inversion layer. During stable
vapor per mass of air a t saturation). The wet adiabatic conditions a parcel displaced from an equilibrium
4 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
A V
t t
- - b
TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE
UNSTABLE NEUTRAL STABLE
Fig. 1.2 Illustration of unstable, neutral, and stable environmental temperature profiles (- - -). An
air parcel moved adiabatically cools as it rises vertically (-).
level, as in Fig. 1.2, will oscillate about the equi- the atmosphere, which.& in turn, directly related to
librium level with the Brunt-Vaisala frequency nBV diffusion.
(radians/sec):-
w 1-4 STRUCTURE OF THE PLANETARY
BOUNDARY LAYER
A = ~ + A (1.14)
Clearly the stability parameter Ri gives us more where A could represent such variables as tempera-
information than s about the state of turbulence in ture, absolute humidity, or pollutant concentration.
METEOROLOGY 5
The average is usually over a time period of about 1 If -4is the concentration of a pollutant, then
hr. Further, the Reynolds averaging procedure is Eq. 1.18 yields the diffusion equation:
used :
-
A=O and A=A (1.15)
dA aA aA aA aA
-=- + u --+ BtS (1.16) where S can represent internal processes, such as
dt at ax v-
ay t w -aZ
=
chemical reactions. If A is the wind-speed component
u or v in the x or y direction, then Eq. 1.20 yields the
where B includes all external effects, S includes all equations of motion. For unaccelerated flow homo-
internal sources, and w is verticalspeed. Also, assume geneous in the x and y directions, these equations
that the atmosphere is incompressible: become
t - t -av= o aIv
-aU (1.17)
ax ay aZ
By substituting Eq. 1.14 into Eq. 1.16, using Eq. 1.17
(multiplied by A), and averaging according to
Eq. 1.15, we obtain
where K,, refers to the vertical component of the
diffusivity coefficient for momentum, or the eddy
a A - a -. 4t
-- aA
ii-tv--+a i w-a?l
- viscosity. There is a balance among pressure, Coriolis,
dt at ax ay aZ and frictional forces in Eqs. 1.21 and 1.22. From this
point on, the bar notation for averages has been
- -
= B + --(u
a
s ax .4)
-I
removed.
- a
aY
(v)-a
aZ (w)
(1.18) 1-4.2 Ekman Spiral
(1 24)
If we orient the x axis parallel to the geostrophic The equation of motion (Eq. 1.25) can be used to
wind vector and assume that ug and vg are constant show that 4 usually vanes by less than 20%in the
with height, the solution to these equations is surface layer, or the lowest 50 m of the atmosphere.
During neutral or adiabatic conditions, the hypothesis
u(z) = ug(l - e-az cos az) (1.27) K, a (scaling speed) x (scaling length) can be used,
where the surface value of friction velocity (u+) is the
v(z) = ug e-az sin az (1.28) scaling speed and the height (z) is the scaling length,
i.e.,
where a = (f/2Kmz) w.
This solution is shown in Fig. 1.3, which shows K=kkz (1.30)
that the predicted angle between the surface wind
von Klirmans constant (k) is measured to be 0.35
and the geostrophic wind is 45. The predicted angle
over very smooth terrain and 0.4 over most other
is higher than is usually observed because of the
terrain.
restricting assumptions made to get a solution.
If k is assumed to equal 0.4, then Eqf1.29
Typical observed angles between the surface wind and
becomes
the geostrophic or free stream wind are 5 to 10 in
unstable conditions, 15 to 20 in neutral conditions, aU= 0.4 U* z -
K- au- 2
and 30 to 50 in stable conditions. Wind-direction aZ aZ
- U*
shear is very important for diffusion at large dis-
tances, where the bottom and t o p of the plume can a--U - U+ (1.31)
move in directions differing as much as 40 or 50 and aZ Ti&
thus yield a much larger plume spread than that
possible as a result of turbulent diffusion alone.
The real atmosphere usually does not agree with u = %In
0.4
(6)
the Ekman spiral at the top of the mixed layer (zi)
because of the development of an inversion at that This is the well-known logarithmic wind profile,
-
height. On most days this capping inversion at zi where the integration constant (zo) is called the
results in strong discontinuities in such parameters as roughness length. In general, zo h/10, where h is
water vapor mixing ratio and eddy dissipation rate. the height of the roughness elements, such as build-
Holzworth (1972) has analyzed observed temperature ings or plant cover.
profiles and published maps and tables of zi for most During diabatic conditions [(aO/a_zlfO] we de-
regions of the United States. Typical afternoon fine a scaling temperature [T, = (wT/u,)] and
mixing depths (zi) are about 1000 to 2000 m. another scaling length
3
\
Fii. 1.3 Ekman wind spiral. The \
windvelocity vectors at increasing
heights (z, , z2, and z3) approach the 2,
I
geostrophic wind-velocity vector at +,J d
(1 k)] 2 tan-'
for neutral and stable conditions were obtained by
1 --}
fitting analytical formulas to curves presented by
-
(e$r
- In[: + + n (1.37)
Wyngaard e t al. (1975) and Wyngaard (1974).
@m 2
(1.38)
= 0.763 (t)0.1 7 5
(2< -< 0.4)
z
zi
(1.43)
where q / z , is the height at which the first and second conditions, however, the data show that E = u:/O.4 z
formulas give equal values of uW/w*. up to heights of several hundred meters.
aw
u, = 1.3 exp (-2:) (neutral) (1.46)
1-5 USE OF SPECTRA TO ESTIMATE
TURBULENCE PARAMETERS
= 1.3 (1-+) (stable) (1.47)
The eddy energy spectrum [ S(n)] gives informa-
2=
u,
(12 - 0.5 z) k
(unstable) (1.48)
tion on the amount of energy carried by eddies of
different sizes; i t involves a Fourier transform of the
correlation coefficient R(T) :
= 1.3 exp (- 2 k) U*
(neutral) (1.49)
= 2.0 exp (- 3 k) U*
(neutral) (1.52) The larger the eddies, the slower R drops off with
time and the larger the time scale T.
Energy spectra have been found to follow simi-
= 2.0 (1)-; (stable) (1.53) larity theory also, and universal equations for their
form can be written. (These equations will not be
reproduced here but can be found in Kaimal et al.,
In the daytime zi is usually marked by an inversion 1977). One importantscaling parameter is the wave-
capping the unstable well-mixed layer above the length A)(, at which the eddies are carrying the
ground surface. At night an inversion is present to maximum energy. Kaimal e t al. (1977) deduce the
some degree at all levels, and zi marks the height at following form for ,A during convective daytime
which surface-induced mechanical turbulence dies off conditions:
to zero. Turbulent intensity in the surface layer can
be estimated by dividing the appropriate values in the w , :,A =
Z
(2 < -L)
set of Eqs. 1.42 to 1.53 by the appropriate values in (0.55 + 0.38 z/L)
the set of Eqs. 1.37 and 1.38. The turbulence
intensities u,/u and ou/u decrease with height for all = 5.9 z (-L < z < 0.1 zi) (1.57)
stabilities, whereas uW/u increases with height in
unstable conditions and decreases with height in
neutral and stable conditions.
The eddy dissipation rate (E) gives the rate at U, v : ,A =, ,A = 1.5 zi (1.58)
which turbulence is being dissipated into heat at small
scales. This rate will be important in the calculation For neutral conditions, the wavelength A, of peak
of plume rise. In the surface layer, E is given by the energy is assumed to be equal for all three compo-
formula (from the energy equation). nents of turbulence. Several researchers have proved
the validity of the assumption that A
, is proportional
to height in the surface layer but asymptotically
approaches a constant at great heights:
Z
(1.54) ,A =5 (neutral) (1.59)
(1 + 15 fzlu,)
Experiments indicate that E e 0.5 H a t heights Caughey, Wyngaard, and Kaimal (1979) give observa-
above the surface layer at midday. During neutral tions of the variation with height of the wavelength
METEOROLOGY 9
h, for the three turbulence components during on a meteorological tower (see Fig. 1.4). The wind
stable conditions. The observed points can be fit by and turbulence are measured by an anemometer as
the following simple power laws: the air flows past. Another type of Eulerian measure-
ment is made by an aircraft, which flies through the
A,,=1.5 (/-)
z 0.5
(1.60)
turbulence along a nearly straight line. Also, the
measurement made by an anemometer moving with
zi
the mean wind speed through the flow is called a
-
zi - 0.7 (E)
hmv-
0 .s
(1.61) Eulerian measurement. In none of these cases does
the measuring instrument move with the air.
Measurements of an air molecule (1 or 2 in
Fig. 1.4) that has been tagged and followed as it
--
Amw - 1.0 (;)o-8 (1.62) moves through the turbulent field are called La-
zi
grangian measurements. Clearly the diffusion of
The values of, ,A given above can be used to pollutants is a Lagrangian process, which unfortu-
estimate K, by using the formula suggested by nately must usually be estimated by using Eulerian
Hanna (1968) : measurements, and some relationship between the
two systems should be established.
K m = A uw hmw (1.63) An air molecule will generally think a given
turbulent eddy has a lower frequency than that
where Pasquill (1974) has determined that the best measured by a fixed anemometer. This is crudely
value for the constant A is 0.15. The parameter uW illustrated by Fig. 1.5, in which a circular eddy with
can be estimated by using the suggestions in Sec. tangential speed (w) is immersed in a mean wind (ii).
1-4.4. The molecule travels once around the eddy in time
2nR/w, whereas the fixed anemometer sees the eddy
pass in time 2R/u. Therefore the ratio of Lagrangian
1-6 LAGRANGIAN TURBULENCE to Eulerian time scales (0) in this figure is given by
PARTICLE 1
PARTICLE 2
Fig. 1.4 Eulerian and Lagrangian windmeasuring systems. True Lagrangian wind measurements are
given by tagged air particles 1 and 2
10 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
Fig. 1.5 Large eddy of radius R approaches an anemometer on a tower. The eddy moves with mean
speed (ti) and has a mean tangential velocity (9.
where i is the turbulence intensity, usually called 2. Suppose that the 500-mb surface is 1000 m
u,/u. As turbulence intensity increases (stability higher over New Orleans, La., than it is over Chicago,
decreases), the ratio p decreases. Pasquill (1974) 111. What is the eastward component of the geo-
suggests that a good average value for 0 is 4. Reid strophic wind at that level?
(1979) finds that more accurate diffusion calculations 3. On a windy day the following wind observa-
can be made if tions are made:
. -
0.5 z, m 0.5 - 1.0 2.0 4.0 8.0
p =- (1.65)
u, m/sec 1.6 2.3 3.0 3.7 4.4
which indicates that the relation p a l / i is correct but Estimate the roughness length (zo) and the
that the crude model in Fig. 1.5 overestimates the friction velocity (u+).
proportionality constant.
4. Assume that zi = 1000 m, L = -50 m, and =
0.3 m/sec. At what height does uW reach a maxi-
Problems mum? What is its value? What is the value of u, at
that height? If u = 5 m/sec a t that height, what is the
1. Calculate the mass of the atmosphere. (The ratio of Lagrangian to Eulerian time scales (0)for the
easiest derivation will take less than one-half page.) y and z components?
Plume Rise
2-2 TOP-HAT-MODELEQUATIONS
11
12 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
BENT-OVER PLUME
VERTICAL PLUME VOLUME FLUX: V = uR2
VOLUME FLUX: V = wR2
U-
I N I T I A L BUOYANCY FLUX
9
Fo = -U p 0 - T ~ owORg
)
TPO
Fig. 2.1 Schematic diagram of vertical and bent-over plumes which illustrates some of the parameters
and variables important for plumerise calculations.
flux (F) and momentum flux (M) can change with independent variables. -An additional relationship,
height, where they are defined by the relations: called the closure assumption, is needed to solve
the equations. The closure used most often is the
Taylor entrainment assumption
F= (TP - T,) V (2.5)
TP
M=wV -_ - 2 Rv,
dz
.>"
or, if u equals a constant,
(2.13)
z= ;( gx .t $7
Fo x- (2.14)
where P is equal to 0.6 for a "Joyant p a m e and This equation is compared with observations in
0 = 0.4+ 1.2 (u/wo) for a jet. Fg.2;2, where plume rise and downwind distance
R EFFLUX V E L O C I T Y / W I N D S P E E D
Fig. 2.2 Ohserved plume lr&ctories as a function of downwind distance (both nondirmensionalized),
showing transition from jet "% law" to buoyant plume law.""x
14 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
have been suitably nondimensionalized, and different For buoyant plumes, Briggs (1981) finds that
curves are plotted for values of wo/u equal to 4, 8,
and 16. Consistent with the recommendations, zeq = 5.3 Fis-i - 6 Ro (2.18)
flz0.6 is used with the Fo term in Eq. 2.14 and
fl = 0.4 + 1.2 (u/wo) is used with the M term. The correction term 6 & says that a virtual source
For buoyancy-dominated plumes, Eq. 2.14 be- exists a distance of six stack radii below the actual
comes stack height.
z = 1.6 F t u- xs (2.15)
2-4.2 Bent-Over Plumes
This is the famous g law, which has been shown to
agree with a great bulk of field and laboratory data. When the plume is bent over, the ratio of
The coefficient 1.6 can be expected to be accurate
maximum plume height to equilibrium plume height
within *40/0 with variations due to downwash or
is predicted to be 1.5 and 1.2 for a jet and a strongly
local terrain effects (Fay, Escudier, and Hoult, 1969;
buoyant plume, respectively. Formulas for the final
Briggs, 1981).
rise of bent-over jets in a stable environment are not
satisfactorily developed because of the lack of data.
However, the formula for the final rise of a buoyant
2-4 PLUME RISE LIMITED BY
plume is well known:
AMBIENT STABILITY
/
/
/-- --. /
\ -
-------
e---
e-==- ---
'* -
/#- 4). e
=
--
/
.
a
//----
/ ///
4-
,
0
/ 0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 . 6
NON D I M ENSIONA L DISTANCE DOWNWIND ( X/US-'~)
Fig. 2.3 Observed plume t ~ + ~ t o r i eass a function of downwind distance (both nondimensiodid),
showing maximum rise achieved by buoyant plumes.
respectively. Thus penetration of the inversion is This formula provided fair agreement with data from
forecast if the following conditions are met: the .Ravenswood power plant in New York City
Vertical buoyant plume reported by Simon and Proudfit (1967). If the final
plume rise (Ah) is within a factor of 2 of the
inversion height (q) above the stack, only a fraction
(P) of the plume can penetrate the inversion. In this
case Briggs (1975) suggests the (untested) formula
Vertical jet
Zel
P = 1.5 -- (2.23)
Ah
{
I
16 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
the lowest 500 to 2000 m. If the plume reaches no dissipation rate. For a buoyant, bent-over plume, z =
stable layers, i t may find its rise limited by ambient h, + 1.6 F3u-l X~ (Eq. 2-15), and, by definition,
turbulence, which eventually dilutes the remaining w = dzldt. With the use of dx = udt and E =u2/0.4 z
plume buoyancy. Prior to that time the internal evaluated a t z = h, + Ah (valid during nearly neutral
turbulence of the plume is significantly greater than conditions), it is possible to arrive at the following
the ambient turbulence. Briggs (1981) has developed simplified formula for plume rise Ah:
the breakup model for the cases when rise is
limited by ambient turbulence. In the breakup
model the plume rise is assumed to terminate when Ah = 1.54(3) h: (2.25)
uu2,
the internal plume eddy dissipation rate just equals
the ambient eddy dissipation rate. For a jet, n o verifying data exist, but a theoretical
The results in this section are highly dependent estimate of plume rise at breakup in neutral
on Chap. 1, which gives methods of estimating conditions is
boundary-layer profdes of eddy dissipation rate,
turbulent energy, and wind speed.
Ah = 3D ($ - 1) (2.26)
2-6.1 Nearly Neutral Conditions
where D is the stack diameter and wo is the initial
Final plume rise in the breakup model rise is plume speed.
assumed to occur when the following condition is
met:
w3 2-6.2 Convective Conditions
1.5 7= E (2.24)
5
.
tive downdrafts, E = 0.25H, where H is the surface If there is some question about whether to use the
buoyancy flux (see Chap. 1, Sec. 1-4.4). The resulting neutral or unstable formulas, use those which give the
prediction for buoyant plume rise is highest (most conservative) MGC. In quantitative
comparisons of MGC data measured near power
plants by Moore (1974), Briggs (1974)finds that the
(2.27)
dividing line for the neutral and bnstable formulas is
u = 7 m/sec.
Please note that this is a tentative formula. Plume-rise
observations in unstable conditions are the least
satisfactory owing t o rapid dilution. 2-8 MULTIPLE SOURCES
ture gradient is O.Ol'K/m. Calculate VO,Mo , Fo , and rises into a calm, dry atmosphere with Teo = 280K
s. Calculate final plume rise Ah. and aT/az = 0. How high will the plume rise above
2. For the plume in Problem 1: (1) At what the ground?
downwind distance does the buoyant rise term equal 4. Surface friction velocity (u*) is 0.3 m/sec,
the momentum rise term? (2) At what downwind ambient temperature is 270"K, aT/az = 0, and wind
distance does the 'Y3 law" give a plume rise equal to speed at stack height is 3 m/sec. Initial plume
that calculated in problem l? parameters are Tpo = 400"K, wo = 10 m/sec, Ro =
3. A cooling-tower plume with an initial height of 0.5 m, and the stack is 50 m tall. Calculate the final
100 m, Ro = 10 m, wo = 5 m/sec, and Tpo = 300K plume rise Ah.
Source Effects
3-1 OVERVIEW
The reviews by Hosker (1980, 1981) provide back- 3-3 STRUCTURE OF FLOW AROUND
ground information on the relevant phenomena and BUILDINGS
methods of calculation.
We have a fairly good idea of the flow around a
simple building, as drawn schematically in Fig. 3.2, as
3-2 STACK AERODYNAMIC EFFECT
a result of many wind-tunnel and field experiments
that have been done. The upstream boundary layer is
Low pressure in the wake of the stack may cause assumed to be a turbulent shear flow. The face of the
the plume to be drawn downward behind the stack. upstream building is not shown in this figure, but we
Downwash can be effectively prevented by maintain- know that there is a stagnation point about two-
ing the efflux velocity (wo) a t a magnitude greater thirds the way up the face; downward-moving air is
than the crosswind velocity (u). The fact that beneaththis point. The important features of this
downwash will not occur for wo/u greater than 1.5 diagram are the separated recirculation zones on the
has been generally recognized. For w o / u less than 1.5, roof and sides, the turbulent wake cavity zone, and
Brigs (1973) suggests that the distance (hd) that the the turbulent wake.
plume downwashes below the top of the stack can be Let the building height be H, the crosswind width
obtained by the following formula: W, and the alongwind length L. The wind is assumed
19
20 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
INCIDENT WIND
PROFILE
Fig. 3.2 Model of flow near a sharp-edged building in a deep boundary layer (Hosker, 1979).
height
In Eqs. 3.4, x is measured from the upwind roof edge
H, zz 0.22 a (3.3a) and is greater than x,. Wilson suggests that, if a
roof-mounted stack is tall enough that the lower
at a distance from the upwind edge of plume edge remains above zone 11, contamination of
SOURCE EFFECTS 21
YL-I
Fig. 3.3 Flow over Center of a long flat building roof for wind perpendicular to the upwind face.
[From D. J. Wilson, Flow Patterns Over Flat-Roofed Buildings and Application to Exhaust Stack
Design, ASHRAE Trans., 85(Part 2): 284-295 (1979).]
(3.5)
3-4 DIFFUSION CALCULATIONS
AROUND BUILDINGS
where, for L/H I1 or so,
The literature on diffusion around buildings is full
\a
of rules of thumb that are based on practical
experience and wind-tunnel observations. In some
A = - 2.0 + 3.7 -
- cases these rules of thumb can be verified by physical
22 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
reasoning and theoretical derivations. The following sides, close to the ground, whereas a vent located
sections are arbitrarily split into sources upwind of a higher up will emit into flow streaming over the
building and sources near a building. building. If roof-vented vents are located in the
separated areas near the leading edge of the roof and
sides, as discussed above, ineffective ventilation can
3-4.1 Isolated Sources Upwind of lead to high concentrations and recirculations.
Buildings Halitsky (1963) and Wilson (1976) present wind-
tunnel observations of concentration patterns result-
If the source is a distance greater than 2 H ing from various types of vent positions, building
upstream of the building and its height (h,) is greater shapes, and efflux-to-wind-speed ratios (wo/u). An
than two-thirds the building height (n, > 2 H/3), the example is given in Fig. 3.4, where the plotted
plume will rise over the building face. Parts of the concentration K is made dimensionless in the follow-
plume at heights less than 2 H/3 will be caught in the ing way:
downwash in the frontal eddy over the lower part of
the building. Some of this material will be caught in CAu
Dimensionless K = - (3.7)
the horseshoe vortex trailing off along the edge of the Q
wake. If the flow reattaches to the building roof and
sides, high concentrations may result a t these points. where C = concentration (pg/m3)
If the building length (L) is small, the flow will not u = wind speed (m/sec)
reattach, and the plume is deflected above the cavity. Q = source strength (pg/sec)
Any pollution caught in the wake cavity will mix A = convenient characteristic area (e.g., WH)
thoroughly to the ground. The overall effect of the for the building being studied (m)
building is to increase the dispersion of the plume, The wind-tunnel experiments suggest that flush,
although locally high ground-level concentrations low-velocity, roof vents give maximum values of K
may result owing to aerodynamic effects of the ranging from 10 t o 100 a t the roof surfaces. In the
building. design of vent exhaust and intake systems, it may be
Wilson and Netterville (1978) conclude that in wise to use a conservative value of 100 for K.
this situation the most important effect of a building The effects of variations in efflux speed (wo) and
is to mix the plume concentrations between the vent stack height (ho) are shown in the experiments
ground and the roof. Thus the roof-level concentra- by Halitsky (1963) and Wilson (1976). Roof concen-
tion should be held within limits. In design studies trations can be dramatically decreased by increasing
the stack height in a model can be varied so that the
the upward efflux speed and by installing relatively
height of the maximum tolerable concentration iso-
small stacks. If the ratio wo/u is increased from 0.5 to
pleth, as calculated by a flat-terrain diffusion model,
1.0, maximum roof concentration is reduced by a
is higher than the maximum downwind building
factor of 2 to 3. Wilson (1976) found that the upper
height.
bound on the ratio of concentration at distance x
For building clusters or out-of-the-ordinary build-
from the vent to the vent exit concentration was a
ing shapes, wind-tunnel and/or field tests are neces- function of wind speed (u), distance (x), effluent
sary for a realistic assessment of a site. Cagnetti speed (wo), and vent area (AY):
(1975) shows how results for diffusion around a
reactor complex vary strongly when there is a minor
change in wind direction.
bound
3-4.2 Sources Close to Buildings (b) Stack Effective Height. A major concern is
to keep the plume away from the wake cavity, where
In most cases vents and stacks are located on or it would be brought to the ground and recirculated in
near the building. Primary concerns are whether a region with low ventilation rates. This problem
pollution is emitted directly into a cavity o r recircula- results if the plume is released too close to the
tion zone, the magnitude of the concentration in building and/or at too low a speed W O - The familiar
these zones; and the deflection of streamlines and c c21
/2 times rule is often applied because experience
increase in dispersion for plumes outside these zones.
has shown that there are few downwash problems if a
As mentioned earlier, a vent located
( a ) Vents. stack whose height is at least 2.5 times as great as the
on the lower two-thirds of the upwind face w
ill emit height of the building is built. From the previous
into the upwind eddy and be transported around the diagrams and discussion, it is clear that the wake
SOURCE EFFECTS 23
I\
Fig. 3.4 Dimensionless concentration (K = C A d Q ) contours for centered flush roof vent on building
where L/H= W/H= 3.0 and w,/u 1.0. [From J. Halitsky, Gas Diffusion Near Buildings, ASHRAE
Trans., 69: 476477 (1%3). J
25
26 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
SECTION A-A'
I I /
/
\ I /
Fig.41 Diagram of typical plume, illustrating concepts important in the Gaussian plume formula
Symbols: u is wind speed; h is effective source height; and ay and a, are standard deviations of
crosswind concentration distributions.
40 I 1 I I I I I I I 1
-40 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 O 10 20 30 40 50 D
Y. m
Fg.4.2 Cross section through Gaussian plume with u y = a m , u z = lorn, and centerline
concentration of 1.0.
GAUSSIAN PLUME MODEL FOR CONTINUOUS SOURCES 27
functions of downwind distance and stability and are classes. This method does not explicitly consider the
based on a combination of experimental results and effects of wind speed on diffusion and consequently
theory. is not a sufficient method for all situations. It would
be better to use Richardson's number (Ri) or the
Monin-Obukhov length L to characterize stability
4-3 STABILITY CLASSIFICATION
since they are direct measures of atmospheric stabil-
SCHEMES
ity, which accounts for the effects of both mechan-
ical mixing and buoyancy forces. Golder (1972)
For an estimate of uy or uZ in the absence of analyzed diffusion data to determine the graphical
research-grade turbulence measurements, the stability relation among roughness 20, the Monin-Obukhov
class must first be determined, preferably by a simple length L, and the Pasquill class shown in Fig. 4.3. If
scheme based on inexpensive and easy measurements. two of these parameters are known, the other can be
The most widely used scheme was developed by estimated from the figure.
Pasquill (1961) and was modified slightly by Turner The following recommendation was made by the
(1967). Table 4.1 contains the criteria for Pasquill's American Meteorological Society Workshop on Sta-
six stability classes, which are based on five classes of bility Classification Schemes and Sigma Curves
surface wind speeds, three classes of daytime insola- (Hanna et al., 1977):
tion, and two classes of nighttime cloudiness. In . . . The following quantities are required to char-
general, stability classes A through C represent acterize uy and uz in the boundary layer:
unstable conditions, class D represents nearly neutral 1. Roughness length, zo, and friction velocity,
conditions, and classes E and F represent stable u,, as measures of the mechanical turbulence.
conditions. Some users have filled in the blank in 2.Mixing depth, zi, and Monin-Obukhov
length, L, or the heat flux H, as measures of the
Table 4.1 with a so-called "G" class, which they convective turbulence daytime.
assert applies during light wind, stable conditions. 3. Wind speed, u, and standard deviation of
If turbulence measurements are available, it is wind direction fluctuations, u,g (the wind vector is
preferable to estimate uY and U, by using 0 0 and Ue, needed to specify the transport wind, and u,g is
standard deviations of wind direction fluctuations in required to estimate uy, especially in stable condi-
tions).
the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively.
Early advocates of stability classification schemes On a 61-m tower, all quantities but mixing depth (zi)
based on 00 or ue were M. E. Smith (1951) and can be measured by standard instruments required by
Cramer (1957). The Brookhaven National Laboratory the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and remote
(BNL) classes are defined by M. E. Smith (1951), sounders that can measure zi are available. Methods in
using wind direction 6 recorded over a 1-hr period, in Chap. 1 (Eqs. 1.37 to 1.53) can be used to extrapo-
the following manner: late U,g U,/U to plume height from a height of
A: Fluctuations (peak to peak) of 8 exceed 90". 10 m.
B1: Fluctuations of 6 from 40 to 90". Despite the strong recommendation to use turbu-
Bz : Fluctuations of 8 from 15 to 40". lence measurements to estimate diffusion, most
C: Fluctuations of 6 greater than 15" with strip people today still use the Pasquill letter classes
chart showing an unbroken solid core in the because they have produced satisfactory results in
trace. most cases and because they are easy to use.
D: Trace in a line, short-term fluctuations in 6 However, the user must beware if he applies letter
less than 15". classes to problems outside the area of their deriva-
Cramer's (1957) classes, which are based on observa- tion (eg., complex terrain, distances greater than
tions of wind fluctuations at a height of 10 m, are 10 km, effective release heights of above 100 m, and
defined in Table 4.2. Note that he distinguishes many other problems). For these problems, direct
between two roughness types in the neutral class. The turbulence measurements or theoretical extrapola-
basic turbulence typing methods are compared in tions are necessary.
Table 4.3, as reproduced from a review article by
Gifford (1976). The fact that these divisions and
4-4 CHOICE OF ay AND uz
comparisons are arbitrary is important, and this
system should not be considered perfect.
To further confuse the reader, the Tennessee 44.1 Stability Class Method
Valley Authority (TVA) (Carpenter et al., 1971) and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) use verti- Most published uY and uz curves as a function of
cal temperature gradient (DT/Dz) to define stability downwind distance and stability are based on a few
28 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
Nigbttime conditions$
Daytime insolation
Surface wind Thin overcast or <YE
speed, m/sec Strong Moderate Slight >YE low cloud cloudiness
<2 A A-B B
2 A-B B C E F
4 B B-C C D E
6 C C-D D D D
>6 C D D D ' D
o.2k \
0.5 \ I /
20 - A
-
-
50- I I I I I
-0.12 -0.10-0.08 -0.06 -0.04-0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
I I L . rn-'
l , 11111, , ,, il,ll, l
E
I-
-
---
----
-
- -
18. I I I.ililll I I I111111 I 1 I l l l ~
10-1 100 10 102 lo- 100 101 102
DISTANCE DOWNWIND. krn DISTANCE DOWNWIND, km
(a) (b)
Fig. 4 4 Curves of uy and uz for turbulence typea based on those reported by Pasquill (1961). [From
F. A. Gifford, Turbulent Diffusion-Typing Schemes: A Review, N w L Sac., 17(1): 71 (1976).]
Because calculators and computers are in such formulas given in Table 4.5. Initial plume spread a t all
widespread use a t present, most people would rather stabilities is proportional to x, the proportionality
have a formula than a graph or table. Several factor being 0 0 (in radians). At large distances, uy is
researchers have worked out analytical power-law proportional to xu, as predicted by the Fickian and
formulas for uY and uz. One of the early suggestions Taylor theories of diffusion. Note that uy and U, are
was by M. E. Smith (1968). He summarized the BNL independent of release height and roughness in these
formulas, which are based on hourly average measure- formulas. There are too few experimental data to
ments out to about 10 km of diffusion of a nonbuoy- support more complex formulations including these
ant plume released from a height of 108 m: two variables.
The Prairie Grass experiments were camed out
uy = axb u, = cxd (x in meters) (4.2) over terrain with roughness zo of 3 cm. F. B. Smith
(1972) and Pasquill (1975, p. 19) have found that U,
Values of the parameters a, b, c, and d are given in varies as zi,where p lies in the range 0.10 to 0.25. A
Table-4.4. technique for incorporating Smiths (1972) recom-
Briggs (1973) combined the Pasquill, BNL, and mendations into analytical forms for U, in each of the
TVA curves (observations out to x = 10 km), using P-G categories was given by Hosker (1973). The
theoretical concepts regarding asymptotic limits of larger values of the exponent p are applicable to
the formulas, to produce the widely used set of shorter distances and rougher surfaces. Over rough
30 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
urban surfaces, especially under the influence of the 44.2 The ag and O e Method
nighttime urban heat island, the increased roughness
should be taken into account. McElroy and Pooler's Much research concerning the best way to relate
(1968) diffusion experiment in St. Louis was used by uY and u, to 08 and 0, is being done. In perhaps 5
Briggs (1973) to develop the formulas given in Table years the subject will reach a stage where definitive
4.5. Other people make the assumption that urban uY conclusions can be drawn. The recommendations in
and u, should be moved up one stability class (e.g., C this section are based on the latest available research.
to B) to account for increased dispersion over urban The idea behind this research is to remove a layer of
areas. empiricism (the Pasquill-Gifford curves) from diffu-
Pasquill
type 0,. m
Open-Country Conditions
A 0.22x(1 t 0 . 0 0 0 1 x ) - ~ 0.20x
I3 0.16x(1 + O.OOOlx)-w 0.12~
C O.llx(1 t O.OOOlx)-% O.O8x(1 t O.O002x)-~
D O.O8x(1 + O.OOOlx)-% O.O6x(1 + O . O O l S x ) - ~
E O.O6x(l t O.OOOlx)-% O.O3x(1 t O.O003x)-'
F O.O4x(l t 0.0001~)-% O.O16x(l + O.O003x)-'
Urban Conditions
A-B 0.32x(l + O.O004x)-$ 0.24x(l + 0 . 0 0 1 ~ ) ~
C 0.22x(l + 0.0004x)-% 0.20~
D 0.16x(1 + 0.0004x)-% 0.14x(1 + 0 . 0 0 0 3 ~ ) - ~
E-F O.llx(1 + 0.0004x)-% O.O8x(l + O.O0015x)-~
Recent diffusion experiments under clear, nearly sion calculations by developing a technique that
calm nighttime conditions (so-called category G) sug- relates diffusion directly to turbulence. Taylor's
gest that horizontal diffusion is actually greater (1921) work suggests the formulas:
during these conditions than under conditions asso-
ciated with category F (Sagendorf and Dickson, 1974)
because the plume often meanders during G condi- uy = u,tf (L) (4.3)
TY
tions, which results in 08 equal to 20" or more and
relatively low hourly average ground concentrations
at a given point. Van der Hoven (1976) analyzed (4.4)
several category G diffusion experiments and found
that observed U, values corresponded to anything
where fy and f, are universal functions and T, and T,
between categories A and F. Thus diffusion in terms
are turbulence time scales in the y and z directions.
of tabulated dispersion parameters is indeterminate
The fact that averaging times for all variables are
when category G stability is found. Of course,
equal and that turbulence parameters are measured or
diffusion can still be estimated on the basis of actual
estimated near the release height is implicit. Since
measurements of ~ 8 .
diffusion calculations are generally made in practice
With the use of stability classes in complex terrain
for downwind distances (x) rather than times (t), the
situations, u s are also difficult to determine. The
following forms of writing Eqs. 4.3 and 4.4 are
diffusion experiments summarized in Chap. 12 gen-
desirable:
erally show that uy and u, in complex terrain are a
factor of 2 to 10 greater than that predicted from the
Pasquill curves. Again, measurements of Ue and Ue are
(4.5)
the best solution to this uncertainty.
GAUSSIAN PLUME MODEL FOR CONTINUOUS SOURCES 31
0.2 -
I I I I
01 I I I I11l11 I I 1 Ill1 1 i I ~ I I J
4 5 WIND-SPEED VARIATION WITH
Id 103 104 105
x. m
HEIGHT
Fq 4.5 fy = oy/(oex) according to Eq. 4.7, which is The fact that the wind speed (u) appearing in the
Irwins (197%) attempt to fit Pasquills (1979) table. basic Gaussian plume formula (Eq. 4.1) should be an
32 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
ON OFF
If we assume that h2 = 2 U: at the maximum point,
then Eq. 4.12 becomes
CLM h
- X 2.4- (4.13) C
CHW zi
-
time T,, of about 10 min. Thus uy for a sampling
time of 1 hr equals 6.2, or 1.43, times the uy found
P
-=-
L
v2 + D 2
,
f 7
in Fig. 4.4. This is very close to an increase of one y2 ex IS(++ D2)
1
stability class interval.
An air-pollution concentration observation (Ca) (z - h)
involves an average over a period Ta. If the concentra-
tion record (as in Fig. 4 . 8 ~ has
) significant energy
+ 2(y2- +D2) (4.17)
5 - 1 INTRODUCTION
36
STATISTICAL MODELS O F DIFFUSION FROM CONTINUOUS-POINT SOURCES 37
typical particle due to eddy speed vr after a time t. initial motions, the problem reduces to a Monte Carlo
The symbol 7 (equal to u;) indicates the mean problem, and uy 0: tk
square of a large number of values of y. Particles have A simple exponential form
(-3
been assumed to be released from a single point and
travel paths illustrated in Fig. 5.2. Each particle is
R(t) = exp (5.7)
inertialess and follows the airflow exactly. Then the
rate of change with time of 4
is given by
has often proved to be a useful approximation to the
autocorrelogram. The integration of Eq. 5.4 with the
lt
use of this form for R(t) results in the solution
=2 vr(t) v(t + t) dt (5.3)
\
PARTICLE 2
J; Yt) dt = T
L
where T is a constant known as the time scale, and t I I
1
Thus, as travel time for a continuous plume increases,
the rate of diffusion decreases. Particle motions are a t
Fig. 5.3 Analytical solution (Eq. 5.8) to Taylors
first linear because the particles remember their equation with the assumption that R(t) = exp (-t/T).
initial velocity. However, when such travel times are Asymptotic solutions for andl and large times are also
reached that the particles no longer remember their ShOWn.
38 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
(5.11)
(5.12)
This formula for fy (in which it is assumed that t = x/u
and u = 5 m/sec and T = 50 sec) is compared with
Pasquill's (1976) curve in Fig. 5.4. There is good This method was used extensively in the 1950's but
agreement in the midrange, where f y is approximately eventually got so complicated by empirical factors
0.5 and x is approximately 1 km, but formula 5.9 that i t was replaced by the simpler Pasquill-Gifford
slightly overpredicts at small x and slightly under- method.
predicts at large x when compared with Pasquill's
curve.
5-3 INFLUENCE OF EDDY SIZE ON 0
(nnTs)/(nnTs)2] (see Eq. 4.14). We can conclude that to calculate RL(t) and RE(t) by using concurrent
continuous-source diffusion is influenced only by observations from free-floating balloons and fixed
eddies with periods ranging roughly between the anemometers. Gifford (1955) and Hay and Pasquill
travel time and the sampling time. Pasquill (1974) (1959) suggested that Lagrangian and Eulerian
points out that these results are equivalent to the spectra and autocorrelograms were similar in shape
simple equation: but displaced from each other by a factorp.
Figure 5.5 illustrates this similarity concept, which
can be written analytically;
\
5 4 LAGRANGIAN-EULERIAN 0 I I I I
RELATIONS
stability increases, and -+ 1 as stability decreases. comes from the fact that the spectrum for an
There is much scatter in observations of 0. assumed autocorrelogram of the form exp (-At/TE)
has peak energy a t a period of about ~ T EThen,
. if we
substitute Eq. 1.65 (with i = uUr/u) in Eq. 5.22, the
5-5 MONTE CARLO PARTICLE time scale (TL) becomes
TRAJECTORY MODELS OF
DIFFUSION
(5.23)
s, [w]
0
2
dx = 2Pi2 - dn (6.2)
41
42 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
continuous plumes. This filter function tells us that 6-3 SIMILARITY APPROACH
eddies with sizes roughly equal to the size of the puff
or cluster are most important for the growth of the Batchelor (1952) isolated the basic physical
pulf. In contrast, eddies with sizes much less or much parameters involved in puff diffusion and used them
greater than the size of the puff contribute little to t o derive similarity formulas. For example, he rea-
the puff diffusion. The filter can be thought of as a soned that at short times, when the puff dimensions
window that passes eddy sizes between roughly 012 were a t scales within the inertial subrange, the rate of
and 50. The argument for the lack of contribution diffusion of the puff (dc?/dt) was a function of the
from small eddies is the same for plume and puff eddy dissipation rate (E), the time after release (t),
diffusion: small eddies move particles inside the and the initial size of the puff (uo):
plume or puff with little influence on diffusion. Large
eddies merely transport a puff bodily. On the other
hand, large eddies can contribute to the diffusion of a
plume from a fixed axis. This situation is simply
summarized in Table 6.1. or
where K has units of square meters per second and u Short times Long times
has units of meters.
Puff oat (veryshortt) u a tH (t>TL)
The main result of the difference between plume
and puff diffusion is that there is a region in which o a t' (intermediate)
puff growth is greater than plume growth. This occurs
Plume oat (t<TL) oatH (t>TL)
when the puff is growing through sizes within the
inertial subrange of the energy spectrum, where the
spectral energy is rapidly increasing as eddy size The u a ts regime does show up in puff diffusion
increases. A' precise formulation of this effect is observations, as shown in Figs. 6.2 and 6.3 (Gifford,
better given by similarity theory. 1977). These data include radioactive clouds, tetroon
PUFF DIFFUSION 43
-
E
-
D
lot
I
:
I-
s
3
100
Fx
10-2 100 io1 io2 lo3 io4 105 106
100 io1 102 103 io4 io5 io6 TRAVEL TIME (t), sec
TRAVEL TIME (t), sec
Data Key
Data Key
0 Angel1 et al. (1971) X Edinger (1952)
CI Frenkiel and Katz (1956) + Crozier and Seely (1955)
Q Peterson (1968) Outbound 2 Kao and Wendell (1968)
Q Seneca (1955) Z Braham, Seely, and Crozier (1952) A Peterson (1968) Inbound I Roberts (1923)
*
A Smith and Hay (1961) X Machta et al. (1957) + Byzova et al. (1970) X Kazanski and Monin (1957)
+ Hogstrom ( 1964)- e Randerson (1972)
*
k Heffter (1965) Smith and Hefferman (1956)
e Pack and Angel1 (1963) Crzwford (1966) + Davies (1959) 8 Hanna (1975)
Fig.6.2 Ten tropospheric experiments on relative Fig. 6.3 Twelve tropospheric experiments on relative
diffusion. [From F. A. Gifford, Tropospheric Relative diffusion. [From F. A. Gifford, Tropospheric Relative
Diffusion Observations, J. Appl. MeteoroL, 16: 312 Diffusion Observations, J. Appl. MeteoroL, 16: 312
(1977).] (1977).]
-?)
the range of most experiments, although a t. law
seems to give the best agreement over the largest part
of the figure. The figures show that the o 0: t H region -0.5 (1 (1 - e-t/TLv)2 (6.11)
is not often present at large times owing to the
presence of mesoscale and synoptic scale eddies (high where the eddy diffusivity (Ky) applies to the entire
and low pressure systems). flow, i.e., it is strictly a large-scale quantity, and vo is
In an attempt to develop a theory for uy that fits the initial velocity at the source. If Eq. 6.11 is
both puff and plume observations, Gifford (1981) averaged over all possible initial velocities (vo), then
began with the statistical equation (5.20), v(t)= Taylors solution (Eq. 5.8) for diffusion from a
v(t - At) R(At) + v. Here the lateral component (v) continuous source is obtained. For fixed vo, however,
is used instead of the component u. He recognized the above solution applies to instantaneous (puff)
that this is a form of Langevins equation: diffusion at small times. As time increases, the
solution approaches the. Fickian equation,
dv
-+ pv(t) = v(t) (6.10)
$y = 2 K,t.
dt Equation 6.11 was compared by Gifford (1981)
with the field observations in Figs. 6.2 and 6.3,
where is a random acceleration and P- equals the assuming that K = 5 x lo4 m2/sec, vo = 0.15 m/sec,
Lagrangian turbulence time scale T L ~ .A solution to and TL = lo4 sec. The resulting curve provided a
Eq. 6.10 is as follows: good fit to the observations for all travel times.
44 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
104 50
N L km
E
N0
, --+ i = 5 rn/sec
the boxes write either puff or plume, depending 4. Assume you are conducting a field experiment
on which kind of diffusion analysis is appropriate. in which a long power-plant plume is being sampied
2. With the use of Fig. 6.2 and Richardsons by lidar on an aircraft. You take only a 5-sec traverse
formula, plot a graph of K, vs. travel time over the at each downwind distance, with distances greater
range of travel times from 1 sec t o io7 sec. than 1 km from the power plant. Wind speed is
3. Suppose a puff of 100 dandelion seeds is 3 m/sec. .4re you measuring plume or puff diffusion?
suddenly released from the top of a 100-m-high Suppose you take several traverses over a time period
tower. Assume that E = u%/O.4z and us = 0.2 m/sec. of 20 min a t each downwind distance and average the
Calculate the density of dandelion seeds in the center results. At what distance from the power plant does
of the puff after a travel time of 100sec. Assume the meaning of your measurement change from
c2 = 1.0. plume t o puff?
Similaritv Models of Diffusion
7-1 INTRODUCTION In Chap. 6 we showed how similarity theory
could be satisfactorily applied to the diffusion of a
puff in the inertial subrange, where the important
Useful models of diffusion are often possible to
derive if the important variables and governing variables and parameters are u, e, and t.
In this chapter the discussion is restricted to the
parameters for a problem are known. Such models are
diffusion of continuous plumes released near the
called similarity models because they imply similar
ground in the surface boundary layer. Detailed
behavior of the atmosphere from one place or time to
derivations of this theory are given by Gifford (1968,
another if we assume that certain parameters, such as
pp. 88-90), Pasquill (1974, pp. 116-123), Monin and
zi/L or z/zo, are held constant. The techniques that
Yaglom (1971, Chap. 5), and Horst (1979).
lead to similarity models are sometimes called dimen-
sional analysis.
The first step in developing a similarity model is
to isolate all the variables and parameters that apply
7-2 DIFFUSION OF CONTINUOUS
to a problem. In general, if there are n variables and
parameters (al , a z , . . . a,) of m different units (e.g., PLUMES IN THE SURFACE LAYER
grams and seconds), then n - m dimensionless inde-
pendent numbers can be formed. For example, 7-2.1 Neutral Conditions
consider the wind speed in an unstable surface layer.
We have the parameters u (in meters per second), u*
In the first example neutral conditions are as-
(in meters per second), z (in meters), zo (in meters),
sumed. As a result, the stability parameter z/L does
and L (in meters) and can conclude that 5 - 2 = 3
not enter the problem. In our search for important
independent dimensionless numbers can be formed:
governing parameters, we look for parameters that are
constant in the surface layer (0 < z 6 5 0 m). The
-U
= f(z/zo ,z/L) friction velocity u* is one such parameter, and i t is
C u*
known to be an important scaling velocity for the
which we know from Chap. 1 is a solution to the wind profile. Several people independently postulated
problem. the equation
If n - m equals 1, then we know the solution to
the problem to within a constant factor. This is how
Briggs arrived a t some of his plume-rise predictions in
Chap. 2. For example, plume rise Ah(m) in a calm,
stable environment is a function of initial plume where is the mean height at time t after release of
buoyancy flux F0(m4/see3) and environmental stabil- particles released continuously from some point near
ity s (see-). Therefore n - m = 3 - 2 = 1, and we the ground. This equation can be converted from
can write the universal similarity formula Ah = C1 F? dT,,dt to dZ/djl by dividing by the wind speed.
s-%. The powers and -% are necessary to make However, the wind speed transporting the plume is
the units correct, and the constant C1 can be effective at height .:a Pasquill recommended, on
determined by plotting observations of Ah vs. Fo b
theoretical grounds, that c = 0.4 and a = 0.56. Horst
s - ~ . This formula is found to be valid for plume rise9 (1979) recommends a = 0.63 in neutral conditions,
Ah ranging from centimeters to kilometers. with a between 0.5 and 0.6 in unstable conditions
SIMILARITY MODELS O F DIFFUSION 47
and 0.8 to 0.9 in stable conditions. With the use of is less than 1.5 for unstable conditions. The concen-
u = (u,/0.4) In (z/zo), Eq. 7.1 can be written in the tration is not very sensitive to the value of a used in
fo m Eq. 7.2.
One final equation is needed to obtain concentra-
tion predictions with this technique. We are dealing
here with crosswind-integrated concentrations:
C(x:z) = JY- C(x,y,z) dy. Then the mass continuity
which can be integrated, by using T = zo a t T = 0, condition is given by the equation
with a = 0.56, to give the solution
j i u(z) C(x,z) dz = Q
(-z - (7.5)
- -
X z z
-= 6.25 In- - 1 . 5 8 5t 1.58) (7.3)
ZO ZO ZO
where Q is the continuous-source strength. By substi-
tuting Eq. 7.4 into Eq. 7.5, we get the solution under
This solution is plotted in Fig. 7.1.
neutral conditions for the variation of crosswind-
integrated ground-level concentration with downwind
distance,
.
which must be solved numerically. (An analytical
0
IN
solution for the integral is available if r = 2.) Horst
(1979) gives a graphical solution that can be approxi-
2kL.d-J
mated by the simple power-law formula:
--
C(?,Z)
C(X,O)
- exp [43] (7.4)
In nonneutral or adiabatic conditions, Eq. 7.1
must be rewritten to include a dependence on the
stability parameter (z/L):
where r$h is the dimensionless temperature gradient vertical distribution parameter (r) equaled 1.5 for all
given by Eq. 1.36: stabilities. The following simple empirical formulas
provide a satisfactory fit (ffactor of 2) to the most
-w stable and unstable curves:
@h(z/L)= 0.74 (1 - 9 3 (unstable)
At zO/L = lo-
z
= 0.74 + 5 (stable)
(-)
-0.69
u*zo C(x,O)
0.4Q = 0.75 (7.11)
This result follows from their assumptions that f(z/L)
is similar to the stability-dependent term in the eddy At zO/L = -lo-
diffusivity formula (K = 0.4u,z/@) and that the eddy
diffusivity for pollutant equals the eddy conductivity
for heat.
As in Sec. 7-2.1, the dependence on time in
u*zo C(X,O)
0.4Q
= 35 );( -1.54
(7.12)
normalized C given in Fig. 7.2. He assumed that the The dispersion parameter (uy) can be obtained
through standard techniques outlined in Chap. 4. In
fact, the published Pasquill-Gifford uy curves were
based on concentration measurements taken at
ground level for emissions at ground level.
zi
TL" = 0.15 - (7.15)
Problems
UV
1. With the use of the same coefficient C1 as that
where uV is a function of zi/L and w,. In general, we derived on Earth, pould you expect the plume-rise
find that any distance variable ( I ) and speed variable equation Ah = C1 F!S-~~ to be valid on Mars? Why?
(s) in the daytime planetary boundary layer are 2. What is the ground-level crosswind-integrated
described by the similarity formulas concentration during neutral conditions a t a distance
of 200 m from the source for roughness (zo) equal to
1 cm, friction velocity (u*) equal to 0.5 m/sec, and
surface source strength (Q) equal to 10 g/sec? Calcu-
-late the concentration on the plume axis assuming
uo = 0.1 radian.
3. Assume that the roughness length equals 0.3
cm. There is a continuous source of strength of 5
where f and g are universal functions. g/sec. What is the ratio of the ground-level crosswind-
Lamb (1979) has used the turbulence fields from integrated concentration for L equal to 10 m to the
Deardorff's (1974) numerical model of the daytime ground-level crosswind-integrated concentration for L
planetary boundary layer to calculate the maximum equal to -10 m a t a downwind distance of 300 m?
concentration expected from effective release heights How d o plume axis concentrations compare with
(q) greater than about 0.025zi. The calculated those made by using the standard Gaussian formula?
maximum ground-level concentration (&ax) and the (Assume same uy for both methods.)
distance (xmax) a t which it occurs are given by the 4. The mean height 0 can b e calculated for the
formulas standard Pasquill-Gifford-Turner Gaussian plume
model (half of area of Gaussian curve is within 0.670)
Q
cm,,(x,o,o) = 1.2-Z,ZiU (7.18)
for a surface-level source with full reflection. Calcu-
late the variation with x of Z for neutral conditions
for the Gaussian model and compare it with Fig. 7.1
for zo = 1 cm. How far apart are the two i estimates
(7.19)
a t x = 100 m?
Gradient Transport (K) Models
8-1 THE BASIC GRADIENT TRANSPORT sure to have scales less than the thickness of the
MODEL plume. For greater point release heights (e.g., tall
stacks), the diffusion equation should not be used
until the pollutant of interest is spread out over
Chapter 1, Sec. 1-4, gives a derivation of the
several hundred meters.
continuity equation for a substance (C), where
turbulent fluxes of C are assumed to be proportional
to the mean gradient of C:
8-2 ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS
-wC =KZ-
ac
aZ Equation 8.2 is impossible to solve analytically
for completely general functional forms for the
The basic gradient transport model can be written: diffusivities K and wind speeds u, v, and w. Before
the days of computers, it was a popular exercise to
ac t u -
- - t w -ac
ac t v ac = a
S t -K, ac
- solve this equation for specific forms for K and u.
at ax ay aZ ax ax Carslaw and Jaeger (1959), Pasquill (1974, pp. 108-
116), and Sutton (1953) give further details. Many of
+-Ka -ac
t - K , a- ac (8.2) these cases are highly instructive.
ay y ay aZ aZ
So-called cross-diagonal terms, such as a/ax (Kxy 8-2.1 One-Dimensional Equation, Time-
aC/ay), are not included here, because they are Dependent, Constant K, No Wind,
usually insignificant. Instantaneous Area Source
It is important to point out that certain time and
space scales are implicit in the diffusion equation. Consider a simplified form of Eq. 8.2:
The mean wind components (u, v, and w) and mean
concentration (C) represent averages over a time scale ac
-= K-
a2c
(T,) and space scale (xa). Velocity 5uctuations with at ax2 (8.3)
time and space scales less than these values are
considered turbulence and are implicitly included in That concentration (C) varies only with time and
the K coefficients. However, as shown in Chap. 5, the distance (x) and that diffusivity (K) is a constant are
rate of diffusion of a plume depends on the plume assumed. Boundary conditions are
size. This statement contradicts the diffusion equa-
tion, which uses constant Ks. We can conclude that C + 0 as t + 00, all x
the diffusion equation is valid only if the size of the
plume is greater than the size of the dominant C + 0 as t + 0, all x except x = 0
turbulent eddies so that all of the turbulence implicit
in K is taking part in the diffusion. 1
: C dx = Q
Point sources and the diffusion equation are
therefore compatible for vertical diffusion when the where Q is the instantaneous area source strength
source is near the ground, where turbulent eddies are (mass per unit area). Thus this problem simulates an
50
GRADIENT TRANSPORT (K) MODELS 51
instantaneous emission from a very large plane The solution is
surface. The solution is
Qip
C=
(47rt)%(KxKyKz)%
u = u1 );( (8.12)
52 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
The generalized solution is Pasquill (1974) gives references for further ana-
3'
lytical solutions under the conditions u = constant
Qlz?Ym - n + 2 ) [( U1 and
C(x,z) = 2u 1 r(s) m-n+2) 2
z1m-n K l x K a (h- z)" (0 < z < h)
1
u1 Zm-n+2 K az(h - z) (0 < z < h)
(8.13)
exp[ z t - " (m - n + 2)2 K l x
Kaz (0 < z < h/2)
where s = (m + l)/(m - n + 2) and l' is the gamma Ka(h-z) (h/2< z < h)
function (e.g., Abramowitz and Stegun, 1964,
Chap. 6). Representative values of m, n, s, and r(s)
are listed in Table 8.1. The first nine values of r(s) in 8-2.4 Three-Dimensional, Time-Independent,
Constant u and K, Continuous:Point
Source at Ground Level
Table 8.1 Gamma Function for Typical Values of s*
For continuous-point sources at ground level, we
m n 6 I'(4 can assume that u aC/ax P a(K, aC/ax)/ax; i.e.,
0.9 0.1 0.679 1.33 advection dominates diffusion in the downwind
0.8 0.2 0.692 1.31 direction. The basic equation is then
0.7 0.3 0.708 1.29
0.6 0.4 0.727 1.26
0.5 0.5 0.750 1.23
0.4 0.6 0.778 1.19
0.3 0.7 0.813 1.15 C-+ 0 as x, y, z + 00
0.2 0.8 0.857 1.11
0.1 0.9 0.917 1.06
0 0 0.5 1.77 C+masx,y,z+O
(Fr
Note that, if we assume t E x x / u l , the standard
deviation of the distribution is described above are accurate are a continuous
ground-level line source and a continuous or instan-
taneous ground-level area source. Here the diffusion
u= = (2Kt)' (8.16)
scale is always greater than the turbulence scale.
These methods are also valid a t times or distances
which is the same result as that obtained for the downwind beyond which the diffusion scale is larger
instantaneous area source in Sec. 8-2.1. than the Lagrangian time or distance scale. However,
. . . .
GRADIENT TRANSPORT (K) MODELS 53
.
effluent from a tall smokestack.
n - 1 n n + l
a a a
i
17
8-3 NUMERICAL SOLUTIONS OF THE m+l m + l m+l
.
DIFFUSION EQUATION
E n-1 n n + l
Analytical solutions t o the diffusion equation are 0 0 a
a
E
m m m
interesting but are limited in applicability by restric- UI
.
a
.
V
tions on K and u. Furthermore, because of physical 0
v)
. .
contrast to computer solutions of this equation,
which are very common. Time and space variability in
.-At-
K and u can be handled by carrying a large number of 0
ac
-t u -ac
tv ac
-=o (8.21)
at ax ay
The solutions for six different finite difference
techniques studied by Long and Pepper (1976) are
where i is the current time position and j is the plotted in Fig. 8.2. In each case the hill is advected
current space position (see Fig. 8.1). By writing C in once around the circle. The second moment, cubic
complex form, it can be shown that this solution is spline, and Chapeau function do not distort the hill
numerically stable only if the following condition is too much. However, numerical diffusion significantly
met: distorts the hill in the donor cell, fully implicit, and
At 1 Crank-Nicolson schemes. If these schemes were used
K-<- (8.20)
Ax2 2 to solve the diffusion equahon, it would be difficult
to know if the calculated diffusion was real or
Thus, if the diffusivity (K) is 10 m2/sec (typical numerical.
daytime boundary layer) and the grid distance (Ax) is Other techniques can be used to get around the
100111, then the time step (At) must be less than problem of numerical diffusion. The second-moment
500 sec, or about 8 min. If a time step of 1 hr were scheme devised by Egan and Mahoney (1972) belongs
54 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION ,
DONOR CELL FULLY CRANK- SECOND CUBIC SPLINE CHAPEAU
(Upwind Differencing) IMPLICIT NICOLSON MOMENT (Quasi-Lagrangian)
. . FUNCTION
INITIAL
DISTRIBUTION
ALMOST
1 REVOLUTION
THREE-DIMENSIONAL CONTOURS
Fig. 8.2 Application of six types of numerical schemes to solve the advection equation (8.21). The
initial cosine hill is at the top of each series. The next three figures are the distributions resulting from
applications of the numerical schemes to advection in a circle around the plane. (Adapted from Long
and Pepper, 1976.)
to this class and was evaluated in the paper by Long heights above about 0 . l Z i . The old adage that you
and Pepper (1976). Spectral approximations sug- cannot get something for nothing applies to the
gested by Prahm and Christensen (1977) are useful diffusion modeling business also. The gradient trans-
but are too complicated to describe here. The port model may be physically attractive, but it
Particle-in-Cell (PIC) method (Lange, 1978) is some- encounters problems when the time comes to specify
times used, where an effective velocity equal to the K,.
actual velocity minus (K/C) aC/ay is used to trans- The eddy diffusivity coefficient can be assumed
port particles. to equal the eddy conductivity coefficient (Kh). In
It is sobering to think that none of the very the lowest 50 to 100 m of the atmosphere (z sO.lzj),
extensive work described in this section has anything formulas by Businger et al. (1971) (Eqs. 1.36 and
to do with the physics of the diffusion problem. The 1.39) can be used:
purpose of this work is solely to speed up the
computer calculations and to make them more true
to the physical equation.
8-3.2 Specifying the Vertical Diffusivity %(z/L) = 0.74 (1- 9 $)- (unstable)
K, = 0.150, ,A
= 6+? (8.24)
9-1 IMPORTANCE OF EMISSIONS from one edge of the urban area to the other, is often
useful. The pollutant is then assumed to be uniformly
mixed in a layer of depth zi between the ground and
An urban area contains thousands, or even mil-
the mixing height. The wind speed (u) is assumed
lions, of individual sources that range from small
constant within the layer (see Fig. 9.2). An additional
sources, such as incinerators, to large sources, such as
assumption can be made that the mixing depth is
power plants The application of a diffusion model to
increasing with time (azilat), as it does in t h e
each of these sources is impractical, even if the
morning. The concentrations upwind of the city and
assumption can usually be made that the contribu-
above the mixing height are Cb and &, respectively.
tions of individual sources to the total concentration
Then the continuity equation for this volume is:
at a point are additive. Consequently we combine
most of the small sources into larger area sources of ac
AX zi - = AX Qa f UZj (Cb - C) f AX
azi (Ca - C)
at
strength, Qa (mass per unit time per unit area), and at
assume that emissions from t h e ground surface are
uniform over that particular area. An example of (9-1)
average annual area source emissions for SOz in Change in = source + change due + &awe due to
C with to horizontal mixing layer
Frankfurt, West Germany, is given in Fig. 9.1, where time advection growth and
a square grid (4 by 4 km) is used. Most area vertical
source-emission inventories are given on square grids, advection
although often the grid size may vary over the urban
area. Some simplifications are possible. If conditions are
Diffusion from the largest point sources can be steady state (aC/at = azi/at = 0) and the background
calculated individually, and the resulting concentra- concentration ( c b ) is zero, then the solution is simply
tions a t a receptor point can be added to the
contribution from area sources. The number of point
sources treated this way is usually between 10' and
100. Some pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, have
very few point sources, whereas others, such as SOZ, This is the well-known box model solution.
are. mostly emitted from point sources. An accurate Lettau (1970) defines the equilibrium box model
emissions inventory is essential for successful urban concentration given by Eq. 9.2 as C" and defines a
diffusion modeling. This inventory includes a knowl- scalirg time Ax/u as the flushing time required for
edge of the seasonal, weekly, and diurnal variations of the air to pass completely over the urban area. Define
emissions. If emissions are not known within a factor a nondimensional time t" = tu/Ax. Then, if Cb and
of 2, then the diffusion model has that error imposed Ca can be neglected, Lettau's (1970) simplification of
on it even before it starts working. Eq. 9.1 can be written:
ac - C"
-- - c (9.3)
9-2 BOXMODEL at*
57
58 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
45
0 0 0 0
41
37
33
E
Y
z
29
1.99
25
21
1
17
13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49
x, km
Fig. 9.1 Average annual SO, area source emissions (in milligrams per square meter per second) for
Frankfurt, W. Germany (Hanna and Gifford, 1977). Emissions are printed in the center of the 4-by
4-km grid squares, and isopleths based on these values are drawn. Monitoring station locations are
circled.
. .
C,(CONCENTRATION ABOVE MIXING DEPTH) and resulting uniform concentration in the box
az,/at (CHANGE OF MIXING DEPTH WITH TIME) model. Realistically, however, as clean air enters the
t
urban area, the pollutant is swept out; so, after Ax/u,
-b u (wind speed) there should be virtually no pollutant material left in
I F the box. Venkatram suggests instead a slug model
Cb
(UPWIND
C (UNIFORM CONCENTRATION) Ib
.- 0
I-
that gives the following solution for the situation
where emissions are suddenly shut off:
BACKGROUND (3
CONCENTRATION)
C = (1 - t) (9.5)
Q,(AREA SOURCE)
\ \
L X P , T
night and is mixed down to the surface by the V \
\ \
growing mixing layer the nextmorning. Their applica-
tion requires a 3 2 k m grid size. The most complicated .:
part of the model is the 36-step chemical kinetic
mechanism. They find that predicted hourly concen- RECEPTOR
:\ I\
trations of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, NO,, \ \ \
and ozone are within a factor of 2 of observed \ \ \
\ Qa3
concentrations. They had an advantage here that \
might not be available at other locations in that Qa2
Qa1
detailed emission estimates were made as part of an
Environmental Protection Agency study in Houston. ----- a,w
APPROXIMATION SO THAT
Qa IS A FUNCTION ONLY OF x
9-3 THE ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE --- Qalx,V)
AND DIFFUSION LABORATORY ISOPLETHS OF AREA
SOURCE EMISSIONS
MODEL
Fig. 9.3 Illustration of MRDW plume hypothesis For
The Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Labo- most purposes, emissions can be considezed a function
ratory (ATDL) urban diffusion model described by only of distance x.
Hanna (1971,1973) and Gifford and Hanna (1973) is
essentially a box model with the height of the top lid Next, the solution must be written in a form
proportional to the vertical dispersion parameter consistent with the typical square grid that is used to
[o,(Ax)] rather than to the mixing depth (q). For present urban emissions data. Consider Fig. 9.4, in
grid distances (Ax) less than about 10 km, u,(Ax) is which the receptor point is located in the center of
significantly less than zi, which is typically 500 to grid square 0 and upwind grid squares are denoted
1OOOm. This model uses the integral form of the by subscripts 1, 2 , 3, . . . N. The grid size is Ax. The
Gaussian plume model and treats an area source as an solution is obtained by piecewise integration:
infinite array of infinitesimal point sources of
strength Qa(x,y). The concentration C a t point x = 0,
y = 0, z = 0 is given by an integration over the upwind
half plane (Gifford, 1970):
(9.?>
-=0
c =(2/n)%Ax
u (Jz
which is equivalent to the equilibrium solution Ftg.9.4 Area source grid pattern asumed in the
(Eq.9.2) to the box model. derivation of Eq. 9.11.
60 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
Table 9.2 Values of Summation Term [ (2i + 1)' -b - Hanna (1973). The Gaussian plume model is used for
(2i - l)'-b]in Eq. 9.11 for Various Stabilities point sources in this program.
and i Values After this technique had been applied to several
urban areas, it was noticed that the calculated
Stability concentration (C) at any receptor was usually propor-
Very . Pasquill's tional to the emissions Qao in the grid square in
i unstable Unstable Neutral D Stable which the receptor was located. The reason for this is
that the distribution of emissions is usually quite
1 0.10 0.17 0.2 5 0.32 ' 0.38 smooth and the coefficients of the upwind Qai terms
2 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.22
3 0.04 0.06 0.10
in Eq. 9.11 are quite small. For most applications, it
0.13 0.16
4 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.1 1 0.13 is sufficient to use the simple ATDL model, which is
5 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.1 1 obtained by approximating the various source
6 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.1 0 strengths Qai by Qao in Eq. 9.11:
C = A -Qa o
U
Generally, N is the number of grid blocks necessary
to reach the upwind edge of the urban area. Equation
9.11 is most valid for time periods of about 1 hr, for
which the uz values in Table 9.1 apply, and the wind
direction and speed are fairly uniform (-+20", -+30%)). The dimensionless parameter A is evaluated in
Extension to longer averaging times is made by Table 9.3 for several values of Ax(2N + 1)/2 (distance
solving Eq. 9.11 for a variety of wind directions and to edge of city) and stabilities. Approximate values
then weighting each result by the frequency with for A for unstable, average annual (class D), and
which the wind blows from that direction. When the stable conditions are 60, 200, and 600, respectively.
wind direction croses emissions grid squares Shghtly different estimates of A might be made if
obliquely, as in Fig. 9.5, an arbitrary scheme must be Briggs's proposed formulas for uy and uz in an urban
devised for including the squares in Eq. 9.11. Also, region (Table 4.8) were used in the derivation follow-
Ax must be multiplied by l/cos At9, where .At9 is the ing Eq. 9.9. Gifford and Hanna (1973) verified the
departure of the wind direction from north to south annual value of 200, using suspended particle data
or east to-west directions (0 < At9 < 45'). A com- from several U. S. cities, and Hanna (1978) verified
puter program for these computations, which includes the variation with stability, using carbon monoxide
provisions for point sources, is given in a report by data from several cities. SO2 observations are best
URBAN DIFFUSION MODELS 61
Table 9.3 Evaluation of A in Eq. 9.12 for Various City where AC = carbon monoxide concentration (ppm)
Sizes and Stabilities N = traffic flow (vehicles/hr)
Stability
S = average vehicle speed (miles/hr)
Cityradius Very
u = wind speed at roof level (m/sec)
W = street width (m)
PasqUiUs
&(2N+ 1)/2,m unstable Unstable Neutral D Stable
x and y = horizontal distance and height (both m)
5000 48 57 100 180 545
10000 51 63 115 213 667 of the receptor point relative to the
20000 54 69 132 258 814 traffic lane, respectively
K = dimensionless best fit constant
simulated if the parameter .4 predicted above is The data suggest that I<-7. For wind directions
divided by four, presumably to account for the fact nearly parallel to the street,
that most SO2 sources are elevated. On the other
hand, carbon monoxide observations in most cities 1
AC, = [AC1 (windward) + ACl (lee)] (9.16)
are best simulated if the parameter A is multiplied by
three, presumably to account for the placement of
carbon monoxide monitors near busy streets. How- Equations 9.14 and 9.15 are subject to some revision
ever, A is calculated to equal about 200 (its value in since the average emission rate (e.g., grams of carbon
Table 9.3) from data from the St. Louis Regional Air monoxide per vehicle mile) changes with the vehicle
Pollution Study where monitoring stations are placed vintage and type of mixture, which would thus
away from busy streets in schoolyards and parks. In modify the numerator (source term) of both expres-
any case, the model described in this section ideally sions.
predicts concentrations over a broad area. The excess concentration AC1 contributed by a
major highway in an urban area is important for
perhaps 200 or 3001x1 downwind of the highway.
Many highway diffusion models are referenced by
9-4 STREET CANYON AND HIGHWAY Johnson et al. (1976), but most are based on the
SUBMODELS Gaussian model for an infinite line source:
The box modeland the ATDL model can give the (9.17)
average carbon monoxide concentration over a broad
area (say 10 by 10 km). In a street canyon or
adjacent to a highway in an urban area, there is an where Ql is line source strength (in mass per unit time
additional contribution to the concentration from per unit length), H is the effective height of emissions
local sources In this case the total concentration C is (probably 2 or 3 m), and 4 is the angle between the
the sum of a spatially averaged Ca and a local AC1
component:
MEAN BACKGROUND
C = C, + AC1 (9.13)
Lee side,
AC1 =
0.1 KNS- . (9.14)
LANE
(u + 0.5)[(x2 + z2)$ -t 21 -l -w
Fe.9.6 Schematic of crossstreet air circulation in a
Windward side, street canyon. [From W. B. Johnson, R. C. Sklarew,
and D.B. Turner, Urban Air Quality Simulation
Modeling, in Air Pollution, Vol. 1, 3rd ed., Chap. 10,
0 . 1 ~ ~ s - 05 - 7 p. 530, A. G. Stern (Ed.),Academic Press, New York,
(9.15)
AC1 = W(u + 0.5) 1977.1
62 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
wind direction and the highway. An initial value of U, which picks up pollutants emitted by the areas it
(e.g., 2 or 3 m) is assumed to account for the passes over. Vertical diffusion takes place by means
turbulent wake behind moving vehicles. If d is the of a vertical K, coefficient. Eschenroeder, Martinez,
perpendicular distance from the highway, then the and Nordsieck (1972) developed a model of this type
distance x to be used in evaluating uZ is d/sin @. for application to photochemical pollution in Los
krgeles. The advantage of the trajectory model is
that calculations must be made for only those few
9-5 COMPUTERIZED K MODELS FOR trajectories which end at the monitoring stations.
URBAN DIFFUSION
9-5.3 Grid Models with Winds Prescribed
In Chap. 8, K diffusion models were discussed.
The basic equation was given as well as various Several models use a fixed grid and assume that
techniques for estimating K. Most of the applications all meteorological parameters are known. Generally
of K models to urban diffusion described below took observed wind speeds at specific stations are inter-
place in the mid-1970s. Anyone interested in using polated to the grid points by means of a l / r 2
any of these models should consult the original weighting scheme. Only a few models (e.g.,
reference since the models and their input and output MacCracken and Grant, 1976) adjust the wind field
are too complex to cover fully in this brief summary. so that mass continuity is preserved.
Vertical K, profiles are usually linear up to a
height of about 100 m in these models. Above this
9-5.1 An Urban Diffusion Model That Also height KZ is assumed constant and sometimes de-
Predicts Winds and Temperatures creases near the top of the mixed layer (see Fig. 8.3).
Models by Reynolds and Roth (1973) and by Shir
Pandolfo and Jacobs (1973) applied their K and Shieh (1974) are typical of this group. Horizontal
model to estimate carbon monoxide concentrations diffusion can often be neglected for area sources, but
in Los Angeles. The model was originally developed in some models it is handled by specifying a constant
for studying the dynamics of the three-dimensional KY -
planetary boundary layer and includes radiative ex- Plumes from point sources cannot be resolved at
change processes. Basic dependent variables are wind scales less than the ghd distance and are usually
velocity and temperature. The diffusion equation was arbitrarily assigned to various grid squares on the
easy to add to the list of governing equations since basis of the length of the trajectory over the grid
the pollutant concentration has little feedback to the square. Pollutants whose major source is tall stacks
other equations. The model accounts for sloping cannot be accurately modeled at small scales by grid
terrain through the continuity equation. models.
With all the sophistication of this model, it is
surprising that the carbon monoxide predictions 9-6 ENVIR ONMENTAL PR 0TECTI0N
made by this model are no better correlated with AGENCY MODELS
observations (R = 0.6 to 0.8) than predictions made
by other models that did not include weather
A set of diffusion models recommended by the
variables. The explanation is apparently that the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is available
other models used the most recent observed winds on magnetic tape from the National Technical Infor-
and temperatures a t each stage, which are more mation Service, U. S. Department of Commerce,
accurate than the weather predictions of the Pandolfo Springfield, VA 22161. Eleven models are in this
and Jacobs (1973) model. There seems to be a UNAMAP system; all are based on the Gaussian
paradox: to run a complex model, we need good formula described in Chap. 4. The latest urban model
observations of initial and boundary data from a (RAM) uses the ATDL formulations for area sources
network of instruments. However, if these instru- derived in Sec. 9-3. The cast of models in this system
ments are in place and operating, there is often no is continually being updated as new models are
longer a need for the complex model. developed and evaluated. For example, plans have
been made to include a model for urban reactive
9-5.2 Trajectory Models pollutants in the near future. Turner (1979) gives a
detailed review of the status of the UNAMAP models
In a trajectory model, a box with dimensions of 1 as of May 1979. The appendix to his paper is
to 5 km is allowed to move with the observed wind, reproduced in this chapter as Table 9.4, which very
URBAN DIFFUSION MODELS 63
. .
depend mainly on good knowledge of emissions and
.
wind velocities.
i
Hayes (1979) and Nappo (1974) discussed several
X
..
and predicted concentration distributions with time
at a given station.
Space correlation: Correlation between observed
and predicted concentration distributions across a
monitoring network at a given time.
>
15
. . 4
4
Peak analysis: Comparisons of magnitudes and 13
0
locations of peak observed and predicted concentra- 0 1 2 3 4 5
tions from point sources are made. X
0, Urban area monitoring stations.
Distribution functions: Observed and predicted Number above is Observed C,
and number below is predicted C.
cumulative distribution functions are compared to see The space correlation R i s 0.76,
if they are significantly different. and bias i s 0
s
3
8
-3
3
E
n
E!
-
-
Table 9.4 Abstracts of Models i n UNAMAP (Version 3) C
z
APRAC: Stanford Research Institutes urban carbon monoxide model. Computes hourly averages for any urban location. Requires an extensive traffic inventory for the city of
interest. Requirements and technical details are documented in:
Users Manual for the APRAC-1A Urban Diffusion Model Computer Program (NTISP accession number PB-213-091).
Additional information is available on APRAC from:
A Practical, Multipurpose Urban Diffusion Model for Carbon Monoxide (NTIS accession number PB-196-003).
Field Study for Initial Eualuation of an Urban Diffusion Model for Carbon Monoxide (NTIS accession number PB-203469).
Evaluation o f the APRAC-1A Urban Diffusion Model for Carbon Monoxide (NTIS accession number PB-210-813).
Dabberdt, Walter F., F. L. Ludwig, and Warren B. Johnson, Jr., 1973, Validation and Applications of A n Urban Diffusion Model f o r Vehicular Pollutants,
Atmos. Enuiron., 7: 603-618.
Johnson, W. B., F. L. Ludwig, W. F. Dabberdt, and R. J. Allen, 1973, A n Urban Diffusion Simulation Model for Carbon Monoxide, J. Air Pollut. Control
Assoc., 2 3 (6): 490-498.
CDM: The Climatological Dispersion Model determines long-term (seasonal or annual) quasi-stable pollutant Concentrations at any ground-level receptor using average
emission rates from point and area SOUIC~Sand a joint frequency distribution of wind direction, wind speed, and stability for the same period.
Busse, A. D., and J. R. Zimmerman, 1973, Users Guide for the Climatological Dispersion Model, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, Environmental Monitoring Series, EPA-R4-73-024, 131 pp. (NTIS accession number PB-227-346).
HIWAY: Computes the hourly concentrations of non-reactive pollutants downwind of roadways. It is applicable for uniform wind conditions and level terrain. Although best
suited for at-grade highways, it can also be applied t o depressed highways (cut sections).
Zimmerman, J. R., and R. S. Thompson, 1975, Users Guide for HIWAY: A Highway Air Pollution Model, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, Environmental Monitoring Series, EPA-650/4-74-008, 5 9 pp. (NTIS accession number PB-239-944).
Three Point
Source Models: The three following point source models use Briggs plume rise methods and Pasquill-Gifford dispersion methods as given in EPAs AP-26, Workbook of Atmospheric
Dispersion Estimates, t o estimate hourly concentrations for stable pollutants.
PTMAX: Performs an analysis of the maximum short-term concentrations from a single point source as a function of stability and wind speed. The final plume height is used
for each computation.
PTDIS: Estimates short-term concentrations directly downwind of a point Source at distances specified by the user. The effect of limiting vertical dispersion by a mixing
height can be included, and gradual plume rise to the point of f i a l rise is also considered. An option allows thr calculation of isopleth half-widths for specific
concentrations a t each downwind distance.
PTMTP: Estimates for a number of arbitrarily located receptor points at or above ground level, the concentration from a number of point s o ~ r c e s .Plume rise is determined
for each source. Downwind and crosswind distances are determined for each source-receptor pair. Concentratiotls at a receptor from various sources are assumed
additive. Hourly meteorological data are used; both hourly concentrations and averages over any averaging time from 1 to 24 hours can be obtained.
Turner, D. B., and A. D. Busse, 1973, Users Guide to the Interactive Versions of Three Point Source Dispersion Programs: PTMAX, PTDIS, and PTMTP,
Preliminary Draft, Meteorology Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
CDMQC: This algorithm is the Climatological Dispersion Model (CDM) altered t o provide implementation: of calibration, of individual point and area source contribution lists,
and of averaging time transformations. The basic algorithms t o calculate pollutant concentrations used in the CDM have. not been modified, and results obtained using
CDM may be reproduced using the CDMQC.
Brubaker, Kenneth L, Polly Brown, and Richard R. Cirillo, 1977, Addendum t o Users Guide for Climatological Dispersion Model, prepared by Argonnc National
Laboratory for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-450/3-77-015 (NTIS accession number PB-274-040).
CRSTER: This algorithm estimates ground-level concentrations resulting from u p t o 19 colocated elevated stack emissions for an entire year and prints out the highest and
second-highest 1-hour, 3-hour, and 24-hour concentrations as well as the annual mean concentrations at a set of 180 receptors ( 5 distances by 36 azimuths). The
algorithm is based o n a modified form of the steady-state Gaussian plumeequation which uses empirical dispersion coefficients and includes adjustments for plume rise
and limited mixing. Terrain adjustments are made as long as the surrounding terrain is physically lower than the lowest stack height input. Pollutant concentrations for
each averaging time arc computed for discrete, non-overlapping time periods ( n o running averages arc computed) using measured hourly values of wind speed and
direction, and estimated hourly values of atmospheric stability and mixing height.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, Monitoring and Data Analysis Division, 1977, Users Manual for Single-Source (CRSTER)
Model, EPA-450/2-77-013 (NTIS accession number PB-271-360).
PAL: Point, Area, Line source algorithm. This short-term Gaussian steady-state algorithm estimates concentrations of stable pollutants from point, area, and line sources.
Computations from area sources include effects of the edge of the source. Line source computations can include effects from a variable emission rate along the source.
The algorithm is not intended for application t o entire urban areas but for smaller scale analysis of such sources as shopping centers, airports, and single plants. Hourly
concentrations are estimated, and average concentrations from 1hour to 2 4 hours can be obtained.
Petersen, William B., 1978, Users G&de for PAL-A Gaussian-Plume Algorithm for Point, Area, and Line Sources, U. S. Environmental Protection Agcncy,
Research Triangle Park, NC, Environmental Monitoring Series EPA-600/4-78-013 (NTIS accession number PB-281-306).
VALLEY: This algorithm is a steady-state, univariate Gaussian plume dispersion algorithm designed f o r estimating either 24-hour or annual concentrations resulting from
emissions from up t o 50 (total) point and area sources. Calculations of ground-level pollutant concentrations are made for each frequency designed in an array defined
by six stabilities, 16 wind directions, and six wind speeds for 1 1 2 programdesigned receptor sites o n a radial grid of variable scale. Empirical dispersion coefficients are
used and includes adjustments for plume rise and limited mixing. Plume height is adjusted according t o terrain elevations and stability classes.
Burt, Edward W., 1977, VALLEY Model Users Guide, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-450/2-77-018 (NTIS accession
number PB-274-054).
RAM: Gaussian-Plume Multiple-Source Air Quality Algorithm. This short-term Gaussian steady-state algorithm estimates concentrations of stable pollutants from urban point
and area sourcea. Hourly meteorological data are used. Hourly concentrations and averages over a number o f hours can be estimated. Biiggs plume rise is u s e d
Pasquill-Gifford dispersion equations with dispersion parameters thought t o be valid for urban areas are used. Concentrations from area sources are determined using
the method of Hanna; that is, sources directly upwind are considered representative of area source emissions affecting the receptor. Special features include
determination of receptor locations downwind of significant sources and determination of locations of uniformly spaced receptors t o ensure good area covcragc with a
minimum number of receptors.
Turner, D. Bruce, and Joan Hrenko Novak, 1978, Users Guidefor RAM. Vol. I, Algorithm Description and Use, EPA-60018-78-016a (NTIS accession number
PB-294-791). Vol. 11, Data Preparation and Listings, EPA600/8-78-016b (NTIS accession number PB-294-792), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
~ ~~
*From D. B. Turner, Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling: A Critical Review, J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 29: 518-519(1979).
t NTIS, National Technical Information Service, U. S. Department of Commerce, SpringTield, VA 22161. 0
Z
66 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
Problems
1. If the initial concentration in an urban area is (3) Compare the solutions in (1) with the
zero and the sources are suddenly turned on, how answers you get from Eq. 9.12. Assume
many flushing times will pass before the concentra- that there are no sources beyond square 3.
tion equals 95% of its equilibrium value. 3. What is the concentration at receptor 5 in
2. What is the concentration in the receptor block Fig. 9.1 for east winds with a speed of 3 m/sec and D
of Fig. 9.4 if Pasquills D stability class is valid, wind stability class?
speed (u) is 2 m/sec, and grid size (Ax)is 5 km? 4. Motown, USA, has a street 20 m wide with 500
vehicles/hr driving on it at a speed of 20 miles/hr.
Wind speed at roof top is 5 m/sec and wind direction
is perpendicular t o the street. Background or area
source concentration of carbon monoxide is 4 ppm.
What is the added concentration on the windward
side of the street?
Removal Mechanisms
10-1 INTRODUCTION by Van der Hoven (1968) for spherical particles with
densities of 5 g/cm3 is plotted for sea-level situations
in Fig. 10.1. Settling speeds for particles with dif-
Most air pollution is eventually removed from the ferent densities (p,) can be approximated by multi-
atmosphere, either by transport to vegetation, soil, or plying the speed in the figure by [pp/(5 g/cm3)]. The
water or by chemical transformation to another settling speed of nonspherical particles can be calcu-
compound. For example, SO2 is removed by all these lated by dividing the speed of the equivalent spherical
mechanisms and has a half-life in the atmosphere of a particle [equivalent radius re = (3Vp/4n)%,V, = par-
few hours or days, depending on rain intensity and ticle volume] by a dynamical shape factor a. Typical
relative humidity, other chemicals in the air, and shape factors are shown in Table 10.1 (Chamberlain,
surface characteristics. On the other hand, about half 1975).
of all the COz we put into the atmosphere remains Van der Hoven (1968) suggests that, when v t is
there. The difference between the atmospheric half- greater than 100 cm/sec (radius r 7 100pm), the
lives of SO2 and COz is due to their reactivity with particles are falling through the turbulence so fast
substances in the air and at the ground surface. that diffusion is no longer important. In this case
Methods of transport to vegetation, soil, or water particle trajectories are calculated by a straight-
inc!ude dry deposition and precipitation scavenging.
Despite extensive field and laboratory experiments
and detailed theoretical calculations, there is much
uncertainty connected with fundamental parameters,
such as the dry deposition velocity.
T /
/
Particles with radii greater than about 5 pm have
significant gravitational settling speeds. Stokes' law
for the terminal settling speed (vt) is valid for ' 5O E
particles with radii less than 10 to 30 Pm, depending
on particle density:
(10.1)
67
68 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
Table 10.1 Dynamical Shape Factor 01 ground. Thus, for h equal to l o o m , u equal to
5 m/sec, and 20-pm-diameter particles with densities
of 5 g/cm3 (vt = 6 cm/sec), about half of the material
is deposited within a distance of 8.3 km.
Ellipsoid 1.28
Cylinder 1.06
Cylinder 1.14
10-2.2 Deposition of Gases and of Particles
Cylinder 1.24
Cylinder 1.32 with Radii Less Than About 10 pm
Two spheres touching 1.10
Two spheres touching 1.17 Very small particles and gases are also deposited
Three spheres touching on surfaces as a result of turbulent diffusion and
As triangle 1.20 Brownian motion. Chemical absorption, impaction,
In line 3 1.34 photosynthesis, and other biological, chemical, and
In line 3 1.40 physical processes cause the material to be retained at
Four spheres touching
In line 4 1.58 the surface. In this case a deposition velocity (vd) can
In line 4 1.56 be defined as an empirical function of the observed
deposition rate (0) and concentration near the
From A. C. Chamberlain, The Movement of surface (Co):
Particles in Plmt Communities, in Vegetation and
the Atmosphere, Vol. 1, Chap. 5, p. 157, J. L. w
Monteith (Ed.), Academic Press, London, 1975. Vd = - (10.3)
t I n all cases preferential motion is perpen- co
dicular to long axes.
The height at which CO is measured is typically about
$Ratio of terminal velocity of equivalent
sphere to that of particle. 1 m. Once vd is known for a given set of conditions,
the formula o = v d C o can be used to predict dry
deposition of gases and small particles, where Co
forward ballistics approach that is based on the wind would be obtained from some appropriate diffusion
speed and the gravitational settling speed. model.
For a vt of less than 100 cm/sec (radius Many methods of incorporating dry deposition
r? l o o p m ) ; the particles are assumed to be dis- into existing effluent dispersion models are available
persed by turbulence in the same way as particles hav- [see Hosker (1980) for a survey]. Even the relatively
ing no inertia. A plume model is used, but h, = xvg/u is simple Gaussian plume model has been adjusted for
substituted for effective plume height (h) to account dry removal by at least four techniques. The most
for gravitational settling. This model, called the tilted common, and one of the easiest to use, is the
plume model, is illustrated in Fig. 10.2. Deposition scwxdled source depletion model, in which the
of particles with 5 cm/sec 5 vt 5 100 cm/sec at the apparent strength of the source is allowed to vary
ground at any position x, y is given by the expression with downwind distance to account for the diminish-
ing amount oi material remaining aloft. The rate of
change of Q with distance is
which leads to
10
0 Laboratory measurements 10
0 Field measurements
Y 1oc
5
>- \- .
I
0
t E 1
\ -
s -P
0
. A
.--
W
> 10-1 0 t
z
0
\ -
I-
0
0
k
v) 0
i>i 10-1
P
W z
0 0
10-2 Terminal
settling
t
v)
velocity 2
w
n
10-2
10-2
10-2 lo- 100 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, pm
Table 10.3 SO2 Deposition Rates vary with position to account for changes in precipi-
tation (and hence in scavenging rate) over the region
Surface V d , Cm/seC Comment of interest. The scavenging coefficient method cannot
Short grass 0.5 0.1 m in height be applied directly to aerosols with a range of
Medium crop 0.7 1.0 m in height diameters (polydisperse) unless an empirical value of
Calcareous soil 0.8 Wet or dry A is available for particles of that type and size. In
Acid soil 0.4 Dry particular, a scavenging coefficient cannot be applied
Acid soil 0.6 Wet
for an average particle whose size is equal to the
Dry snow 0.1 If wet, behaves like water
Water 0.7 geometric mean of the particle size range; the
Countryside I 0.8 scavenging rate will be too small by more than an
Cities 0.7 Based o n London data only order of magnitude. Methods of estimating scavenging
From T. A. McMahon and P. J. Denison, Empirical coefficients for polydisperse aerosols have been sum-
Atmospheric Deposition Parameters-A Survey, Atmos. marized by Dana and Hales (1976). The scavenging
Enuiron., 13: 575 (1979); by permission of Pergamon Press, coefficient method is also not applicable to gases
Ltd. which are not highly reactive or which are merely
soluble in water since it is essential in such cases to
permit any quantitative conclusions regarding these account for the possible desorption of gases from
factors. droplets as they fall from regions of high effluent
concentration (e.,.., an elevated plume) toward the
ground (Hales, 1972). Soluble gases are discussed in
10-3 WET DEPOSITION
reports by Hales et al. (1973) and Slinn (1974). Slinn
has found that close to the source the shape of a
The theoretical treatment of wet deposition is
Gaussian plume is unaltered by the wet removal
often divided into rainout (within cloud scavenging)
process but the concentration diminishes exponen-
and washout (below cloud scavenging). In practical
tially with distance. Far from the source, the plume is
applications the two processes are generally lumped
washed down or tilted from its initial height by
together since they can be modeled similarly [see the
an amount dependent on the precipitation rate,
reviews by Hosker (1980) or Slinn (198l)l.
droplet size, gas chemistry, wind speed, and distance
There are also. two methods of modeling this
downwind. The vertical dispersion parameter is also
problem. In the first the concentration (C) is assumed
enhanced by an amount strongly dependent on
to decrease exponentially with time:
droplet size.
Other methods of modeling wet removal use the
C(t) = C(O) e-*t (10.9) so-called washouts ratio (Wr). Let ko and Co be the
concentration of effluent in the precipitation (e.g.,
where A is the so-called scavenging coefficient raindrops) and in the air, respectively, at some
(time-) and t is time since precipitation began. The reference height; both quantities are measured in unit
precipitation-induced flux of effluent to the ground is of mass per volume. Then
given-by
(10.11b)
The method is, strictly speaking, applicable only to
particles of a single size (monodisperse) and to
highly reactive gases, which are irreversibly captured where pa is the density of air (-1.2 x g/cm3).
by the precipitation. Furthermore, the derivation of The dimensionless ratios are related by
Eq. 10.9 involves the assumption that the scavenging
coefficient is independent of both space and time. In
modeling practice, however, A is often allowed to
w =-w,
I Pa
Pw (10.11c)
72 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
where pw is the density of water (1 g/cm3). Thus Wr theoretical estimates of A must be used. The pro-
is almost 1000 times as large as W; since both cedure is most useful for single episodic events, where
definitions (Eqs. 10.11a and 10.11b) are common in the available theory does permit some adjustment for
the literature, the user must be careful. In the the peculiarities of individual storms.
following discussion, W, is used for convenience. There are many field observations of washout
The flux of effluent to the surface as a result of ratio (W,) which can be determined by measuring
the precipitation is just pollutant concentrations in air and in rainwater. The
washout ratio has been observed to decrease with
Fwet = ~OJO (10.12) precipitation amount during any given experiment,
presumably because the pollutant cloud becomes
where Jo is the equivalent rainfall rate in, for
more dilute. On the average, W, decreases by a factor
example, millimeters per hour. If W, is known and
of 2 for each order-of-magnitude increase in rainfall.
the concentration in air (C,) can be measured or
Over half of the washout ratios (W,) reported by
estimated from a plume model, then
McMahon and Denison (1979) are in the range Gom
(10.13) 3 x 10 to lo6 with a median of about 6 x 10.
There may be some variation with pollutant type,
The washout ratio can also be used to define a wet de- although the ranges in observed W, for different
position velocity by analogy to the dry: pollutants generally overlap each other and no statis-
tically significant differences can be proven. Washout
(10.14) ratios are probably best suited to long-term estimates,
in which the variability induced by single storm
This can then be used like Vd to develop models for events is integrated out.
the wet scavenging process. An analysis (summarized
by Hosker, 1980) of the microphysics of the wet
scavenging process yields an approximate relation 10-4 CHEMICAL REMOVAL
between the scavenging rate and the washout ratio:
Primary pollutants are those which are emitted
A x -W J o (10.15) directly into the atmosphere, such as SO?, CO, and
ZW NOZ. Secondary pollutants are those which are
where Zw is the depth of the wetted plume layer. created through chemical reactions involving the
Hence the washout ratio can also be used in ex- primary pollutants. For example, sulfates form when
ponential decay models of wet plume depletion SO2 is oxidized, or ozone is formed when a mixture
(Eq. 10.9). consisting of NO2, NO, and reactive hydrocarbons is
subjected to sunlight.
The scavenging coefficient (A) is theoretically a
Often an exponential chemical decay rate is
function of droplet size spectrum, physical and
assumed with time constant T,:
chemical characteristics of the particle or gas, and
precipitation rate. McMahon and Denison (1979)
report 20 field experiments in which A was measured (10.16)
for particles which gave A a median value of 1.5 x
sec- and a range from 0.4 x lo- sec- to
3x sec-. They found washout and rainout The conversion from SO2 to sulfate is often treated
coefficients to be nearly equal but did not find as an exponential process, but there is much debate
systematic differences in A as particie size or rain over the proper value for the time constant (T,). The
characteristics changed. Their median value of A for reaction rate depends on humidity and the presence
SO2 is about 2 x lo- sec-, and one laboratory of catalysts, and thus T, has been measured to range
experiment showed that A = 17 x lo- JOOS6, where from an hour to several days. A typical value of T,
Jo is rainfall (in millimeters per hour). A value of A used in long-range transport models is about 4 days.
ranging from lo- to sec- implies a half-life Chemical removal can also be studied by using the
for wet removal processes ranging from about 2 hr to kinetic equations. For example, assume that the
1 day. The use of scavenging coefficients for wet following two chemical kinetic equations are valid:
removal modeling is probably best regarded as an
kl
order-of-magnitude estimation procedure. This is A+B-D (10.17)
particularly true if empirical values of A are unavail-
k*
able or inappropriate for the conditions a t hand; thus D+E- A (10.18)
REMOVAL MECHANISMS 73
where k l and kz are rate constants (concentration-' If a steady state and no upwind background are
time-'). Then the rate of change of concentration of assumed, the continuity equation for this box be-
substance D due to chemical reactions is given by the comes
equation
AX Q, - U Z ~-
C V d c AX
Source Advec- Dry de-
tion position
loss loss
Problems
1. Particles with radii of 50 p n and densities of 5
g/crn3 are released at a rate of 1 g/sec in a
nonbuoyant plume from a stack 100 m high. What is
the deposition rate on the plume axis at a distance of
100 m from the stack for D stability and wind speed
of 5 m/sec?
2. For the situation in problem 1, what fraction
of the original effluent is still remaining airborne?
3. The area source strength of SO2 in an urban
region of width 30 km is 10 mg m-? sec-' . Mixing
depth is 1 km, and wind speed is 3 ni/sec. What
would the concentration be (a) in the absence of any
removal process, (b) assuming only dry deposition,
Fq.10.5 Simplified d i q a m of photochemical smog (c) assuming only wet deposition, (d) assuming only
reactions. hu is the energy of a photon (from sunlight), chemical removal, and (e) assuming that all three
and R is a free radical. removal mechanisms are acting?
Cooling Tower Plumes
and Drift Deposition
11-1 INTRODUCTION only if water vapor is condensed. The important
parameters are listed in Fig. 11.3, which is a sche-
More and more cooling towers are being con- matic drawing of a cooling tower plume. The in-
structed today to conserve water and prevent the fluence of latent heat on plume rise is shown by the
discharge of heated water to streams, lakes, and psychrometric chart of Fig. 11.4. The curved line is a
estuaries. Hot water from the industrial process plot of saturated specific humidity (qs) vs. tempera-
drips over wooden or plastic barriers in a cooling ture. Initial plume and environmental temperature
tower and evaporates into the air that passes through (T) and specific humidity (9) are indicated by points
the tower. As a result, about a 0 calories of heat are p and e, respectively. By simple mixing of plume and
lost for each gram of water evaporated. Cooling environmental air, the mixture T and q would follow
towers can be tall (-150 m tall and 30 m in radius) the straight line to any point 1. However, the plume
natural-draft towers (Fig. l l . l ) , in which vertical would then be supersaturated and would have to
motions are induced by density differences, or short condense water and warm itself to point 1'. At this
(-20 m tall and 5 m in radius) mechanical-draft point the amount of latent heat released is propor-
towers (Fig. 11.2), in which vertical motions are tional to the liquid water in the plume (qL), or the
forced by large fans. Vertical velocities of about 5 difference on the diagram between ql and qll (about
m/sec are observed in natural-draft towers and about 0.002 g/g in this case).
10 m/sec in mechanical-draft towers. Temperature
~
74
COOLING TOWER PLUMES AND DRIFT DEPOSITION 75
fig. 11.1 Typical natural-draft cooling towers. (Photograph courtesy of M. Kramer, Meteorological
Evaluation Services, Inc.)
Fig. 11.2 Typical mechanicaldraftcooling tower. (Photograph courtesy of J. Holmberg, The Marley
coding Tower Company.)
76 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
I
within the errors of measurement, the formulas for
dry plume rise in Chap. 2 are recommended for
calculating cooling tower plume rise. At any rate the
dry formulas would always predict less plume rise and
therefore would be conservative. As shown by
experience, the bent-over plume-rise formula should
be used for wind speeds greater than 1m/sec, and the
calm plume-rise formula should be used for wind
speeds less than 1 m/sec.
Chapter 2, Sec. 22.1, shows that the effective radius Entrainment assump tions :
(R,) of the momentum plume is about 1.5 times the
effective radius (R,) of the thermal plume. Nleyer et aR/az = . . . (11.9)
al. (1974) have found that observed visible plume
lengths are best simulated if the effective moisture Equation of motion (w, f possibly u):
plume radius (R,) is assumed to be about 0.71 times
the effecrive thermal plume radius. Thus the m e
_-
a w - buoyancy'force - entrainment
mentum flux ratio (V/Vo) at height z can be esti- aZ
mated by the formulas (Hanna, 1976): - drag due to water drops (11.10)
-=
VO
[ito.28- io
- (:TI2 (windy) (11.4)
aTP
--
First law of thermodynamics:
For calm plumes, Eqs. 11.3 and 11.5 can be Equation for saturated qps as a function of
combined to give the height (q)of the visible plume: temperature and pressure:
For bent-over plumes, E q s 11.3 and 11.4 and the Equation for variation in water vapor:
equation z = 1.6F&-'xKcan be used to predict the
height (2)) and length (xl) of the visible plume : --
%P - - entrainment (if unsaturated)
aZ
- 1'
(windy) (11.7)
---a ' ~(if ~saturate$)
aZ
(11.13)
-1 r aqc - condensation
-- - conversion and
aZ
coalescence to rainwater - entrainment (11.14)
(windy) (11.8)
Since ambient variables, such as qe, qs, and u, are Equation for rainwater qh change:
assumed to be constant with height in this method,
use of the method is limited to visible plume heights %h
-- - conversion and coalescence from
less than about 100 m aZ
cloud water - rainout - entrainment (11.15)
11-2.2 Numerical Approach for
Deep Visible Plumes The cloud-physics parameterizations of Kessler
(1969) can be used in the last two equations for
When the variables qe, q,, and u change with cloud water and rainwater.
height, models that use differential equations must be An interesting problem that can be studied with
used to follow the plume. Visible plume dimensions, the above model is the question of whether dry
cloud-water concentration, cloud formation, and rain- cooling towers are more likely to cause cloud
o u t can be predicted. Several models are available to formation than wet cooling towers. In a dry tower,
the interested reader (e.g, Wigley and Slawson, 1971; heat exchange is accomplished in a manner similar to
Hanna, 1976, 1981; We& 1974; Koenig, Murray, and that in an automobile radiator. Koenig, Murray, and
Tag, 1978). In general, these models are a marriage of Tag (1978) found that the plumes and clouds from
plume-rise and cloud-growth models and include the dry towers were much larger than those from wet
following equations, expressed in words. towers for the same total (latent t sensible) heat flux.
78 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
The reason for the difference is that the latent heat diameters [D (cm)] can be estimated by using the
from the wet towers is not all available, whereas the following equations (after Engelmann, 1968):
sensible heat from the dry towers is immediately
available. The model by Koenig (1979) has also been vt = 3.02 x lo5 D2 (D < 0.0093 cm)
used to simulate snowfall from wet cooling tower
plumes, a phenomenon that has been observed on = 6816 x D'. '" (0.0093 < D < 0.068 cm)
isolated occasions (e.g., Otts, 1976).
= 2155 x Do*746 (0.068 < D < 0.26 cm)
11-3 DRIFT DEPOSITION = 1077 x Do-224 (0.26 cm < D) (11.17)
/I
~~~ ~
Drop diameter Percent of Drop diameter Percent of Drop diameter Percent of Drop diameter Percent of
range,.um totalmass range,pm total mass range, wn total mass range, r m total maw
~~ ~~
*From Environmental System Corporation, Cooling Tower Drift Dye Tracer Experiment, PPSP-CPCTP,1977.
COOLING TOWER PLUMES AND DRIFT DEPOSITION 79
'
i = van't Hoffs factor (-2 for sea salt)
Nu = 2 + 0.552 Re (v/kt)'
-c---
kt = thermal diffusivity of air = 0.24 cm2
sec-' at 0C
Zb = ZC - R, (1 1.20)
TOWER
R, = Ro i.0.282, (11.21)
Fq.11.6 Sector m d k h drops in a given size range,
Consider drift drops of diameter D settling with speed
breaking away from &e plume at a certain distance,
vg in the plume. Since the interior of the plume is w i l l be deposited on the ground
probably saturated, evaporation need not be con-
sidered. A scheme' for calculating the fraction fi of
or from Pasquill-Gifford uy values. A typical value
drops that "break away" or settle out of the plume in
of O is 10" to 20". Then the drift deposition flux
distance interval Ax is shown in Fig. 11.5. The
( q j ) for the mass (Mj) of drops in that size range
fraction f i is estimated by using the equation
leaving the plume in the interval (Axi) is given by
(11-22) Mj fi
wij = e(.; - .,') (11.23)
models that are roughly equal. Accuracies are 2. Environmental temperature is 25OC and relative
probably within a factor of 2 to 5. With all the humidity is 70%. Calculate the saturation deficit. A
possibilities for error, such as the breakaway and natural-draft cooling tower has a radius of 40 m and
evaporation calculations, it is easy to see why drift an initial temperature of 45C. The plume is
deposition models can never be highly accurate. saturated but contains no liquid water. What will be
the visible plume height in a calm environment?
Problems 3. A drift drop has a diameter of 50 pm. The
difference between the specific humidity at the drop
1. A single typical natural-draft cooling tower is surface and the environmental specific humidity is
located in a valley. Environmental temperature, wind 0.002 g/g. What is the rate of change of mass (m) of
speed, and relative humidity are 20C, 5 m/sec, and the drop as a result of evaporation?
SO%, respectively. What is the flux of water from this
tower (in g/sec)? Assuming that the tower effluent 4. Calculate the gravitational settling speed for
fills up the valley, which is 10 km wide and 1km water drops with diameters of 40,200, and 1400pm.
deep, what would be the flux of water from the Suppose these drops were released from a plume a t a
tower necessary to saturate the environment? What is height of 300 m in a wind speed of 5 m/sec. At what
the ratio of the actual tower flux to the flux distance from the release point would each drop
necessary to saturate the environment? strike the ground?
Air-Pollution Meteorology
in Complex Terrain
12-1 INTRODUCTION channeled up or down the valley, which reduces the
probability of plume impingement on the mountain-
In the past decade air-pollution meteorology in side.
complex terrain has emerged as a top issue. Part of Another favorable meteorological effect in com-
the reason for this is that many new power plants and plex terrain is the enhancement of turbulence due to
other industries are being built in the mountainous eddies that are set up by air passing over and around
western part of the United States. Furthermore, terrain obstacles. Panofsky. Egolf, and Lipschutz
many eastern industries are located near hills and (1978) found that, for a meteorological tower 500 m
ridges, and recent regulations require that pollutant downwind of a ridge, the standard deviation of
concentrations be calculated at the surface of these wind-direction fluctuations (00) was increased by a
terrain obstacles. Interest is also inspired by the factor of 2.5. Hanna (1980b) found that 0 0 was
requirement to calculate the impact of sources on increased by a factor of 1.6 during neutral conditions
distant national parks and forest preserves. when the wind direction was perpendicular to the
Complex terrain influences the trajectory and the valley (Fig. 12.1). The tower was located 2 to 10 km
diffusion of a plume. Does the plume strike a ridge, from the ridges to the northwest and southwest in
or is it deflected above the ridge? What methods
Fig. 12.1. More detailed observations of 00 were
should be used to estimate diffusion? Field data made at a network of eleven towers in the Geysers,
necessary to answer these questions are seriously Calif., geothermal area. The terrain consists of ran-
lacking. A few good field programs are now under way domly oriented 1000-m mountains and ridges. For
by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U. S. the eleven stations, Hanna ( 1 9 8 0 ~ )calculated the
Department of Energy, and the Electric Power median hourly 0 0 values from 5 days of observations
Research Institute. The techniques described in this at a height of 10 m. These 0 0 values are plotted
chapter provide guidance for estimating diffusion in against the hour of the day in Fig. 12.3, which shows
complex terrain. that nighttime 0 6 values are about 20" to 26" and
daytime values are about 30" to 35".Over flat terrain
12-2 METEOROLOGY nighttime 0 6 values are predicted to be only 5" or less
Even though it is possible that high-pollutant (see Tables 4.2 and 4.3). With extreme stabilities,
concentrations may occur in complex terrain (e.g., meandering may cause occasional high values of 00.
where plumes intercept hillsides), several physical However, in the Geysers, 0 0 is consistently high for
processes are acting that tend to lower concentra- all stable conditions, which leads us to the conclusion
tions. The first of these is the tendency of wind to that terrain obstacles cause an enhancement of 00.
favor the "grain" of the terrain; it rarely goes across This conclusion is further confirmed by the data in
it. Many field studies show the validity of this Fig. 12.4, in which 0 6 is plotted against wind speed
statement. Figure 12.1 i s a topographic map of the ' for nighttime runs at a given station. At low wind
Widows Creek Steam Plant area in northeastern speeds, corresponding to the largest static stability
Alabama, where the major terrain obstacle is a linear [(g/T) M / d z ] at night, 00 is a maximum as a result of
250-m terrain step. Figure 12.2 is a wind-rose diagram these terrain effects.
for meteorological stations in the valley and on the Of course, complex terrain also causes changes in
mountain (Hanna, 1980b). The wind on the moun- surface-layer wind speed and direction which ad-
tain blows with nearly the same frequency from all versely affect pollutant concentrations. Pollutants
directions, but the wind in the valley is strongly emitted near the ground into the nighttime drainage
81
82 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
.OGICAL
Fig.12.1 Topographic map of area within 1Okm of Widows Creek Steam Plant. Meteorological
station locations ar2 given.
60
I 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 11 I ~ I ) 1 ) I ~ I ~ I
-
2 5 o L 7-
Fig. 12.3 Diurnal variation of ue at a height of 10 m for 11 meteorological towers in complex terrain
at the Geysers geothermal area. Hourly ue d u e s for 5 days were averaged together for each of 11
stations. The highest, median, and lowest of the 11 ug values at each hour are plotted.
phenomena that have been observed. The stability displaced slightly in a stable atmosphere. For FH < 1,
parameter most often used to classify this work is the motions tend to be limited to horizontal planes; i.e.,
internal Froude number: plumes will impact the surface and try to go around
FH
U (12.5)
hills rather than over them (Hunt, Snyder, and
Lawson, 1978). For FH > 1, the airflow is likely to
be over the top of the hill.
where U is the free-stream wind speed, H is the hill
height, and N is the Brunt-Vakiila frequency (in
rads/sec) :
12-3 DIFFUSION CALCULATIONS
(12.6)
As Pasquill (1974) suggests, observations of wind
where 8 is the potential temperature and N is the flow and turbulence parameters, if available, should
natural frequency of oscillation of an air parcel be used t o calculate diffusion. However, in most real
50
-50
E
i
2
t-
a
>
w
-I
w
-1 00
-1 50
-200
300 600 900 1200 IO
DOWNWIND DISTANCE, m
Fz.12.5 Composite view of nighttime neutral pilot balloon trajectories down Anderson Creek
canyon in the Geysers geothermal area. The solid line beneath all the trajectories is the underiying
terrain elevation. Presumably the top of the drainage flow is marked by the pojnt a t which the
trajectories pop u p o u t of the flow. (From C.J. Nappo, S. R. Hanna, and H. F. Snodgrass, Drainage
Wind Observations Using Neutral-Lift Balloons, in Second Joint Conference on Applications of Air
Pollutwn Meteorology, p. 496, American Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass., 1980.)
AIR-POLLUTION METEOROLOGY IN COMPLEX TERRAIN 85
,,-,,d
\ + h/2AND BRIGGS)
(EGAN
h,
Fig. 12.6 Illustration of plume height assumptions in Briggs (1973) (-) and Egan (1975) (- - -)
models for neutral and unstable conditions. The line ht + h is also shown.
PLUME AXIS
Fig. 12.7 Effect of upwind terrain on plume trajectories for gentle slopes and abrupt ridges.
situations we do not have the luxury of such detailed stable conditions (Pasquill-Gifford classes E-F; or
observations. In this case the empirical methods, F H < l), both modelers assume that the plume
which are based on models developed by Briggs maintains a constant elevation; thus the effective
(1973) and Egan (1975, 1979), described in the plume height (h) is reduced by terrain height (ht). If
following paragraphs can be used to estimate diffu- the terrain height is greater than the effective plume
sion from elevated point sources. height, the plume may impinge on it in E or F
First, will a plume impact on a terrain obstacle, or conditions.
will it ride up over the obstacle? If a terrain rise is If there is a terrain rise upwind of the source and
downwind of a source in neutral and unstable the average slope of the rise above the source exceeds
conditions (Pasquill-Gifford classes A-B-C-D; or 2%, downwash may be induced by the air flowing
FH > l), the plume tends t o ride up the slope while down over the terrain drop. For steep hills, it is
losing part of its effective stack height (h) relative to possible to get a cavity effect, i.e., a counter-
the ground. In this case Briggs (1973) suggests that h rotating eddy. The cavity would extend three to ten
should be reduced by the terrain height (h,) or h/2, hill heights downwind, which would possibly cause
whichever is the smallest reduction. Terrain height downwash and fumigation of a plume in this region.
(ht) is measured from the base of the source stack. Figure 12.7 illustrates these effects. For more precise
This concept is illustrated in Fig. 12.6. The hi2 estimates of concentration distributions in this case,
correction for high terrain is based on potential flow wind-tunnel or waterchannel modeling of the situa-
theory and wind-tunnel experiments, as mentioned in tion should be done since the trajectories depend
Sec. 12-2. Egans (1975) model is the same as that of heavily on details of the topography.
Briggs except that Egan suggests a reduction of ht/2 Chapter 4 shows that an image source can be used
rather than ht for terrain heights less than half the in the Gaussian plume model to account for reflec-
effective plume height. Thus the assumption by Egan tion from the ground surface. However, Egan et al.
would give slightly lower ground-level concentrations (1979) point out that this assumption leads t o an
at the surface of small hills than that by Briggs. In abrupt factor of 2 increase in axial plume concentra-
.
86 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
h Model with
reflection
Model wtihout/
reflect ion
87
88 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
series of puffs. Puff release frequency is adjusted so K = lo4 m2 sec-. It is found that uy is not too
that there is roughly the amount of puff overlap crucial for the calculation of pollutant concentrations
shown on the figure. A wind field is needed, which averaged over a day or longer since total diffusion is
I would be based on radiosonde stations (spacing, dominated by meander for large averaging times. For
-300 km), surface stations (spacing, -50 km), or a these large averaging times, it is sufficient to know
mesoscale research grid (spacing, -20 km) of meteo- the wind-direction frequency distribution in 22 y2 -
rological towers. In models such as Shermans (1978), degree sectors. Sheih (1977) and Draxler (1979a)
the continuity equation is used to adjust the wind specify K, profiles to handle vertical diffusion. At
field so that it is mass consistent. The mixing depth short distances this is important for elevated sources;
must also be known since all models confine the however, at long distances ( > l o 0 km) the plume can
pollutants to the mixed layer. Transport wind veloc- be assumed to fill up the mixed layer uniformly
ity seems to be defined differently by each model; (Johnson, Wolf, and Mancuso, 1978). Draxlers
e.g., it equals 0.75 times the 850-mb wind in the (1979a) K, assumptions are listed in Table 13.1.
model by Johnson, Wolf, and Mancuso (1978) and
equals the concentration-weighted wind in the model Table 13.1 Draxlers Suggested Relation
by Heffter (1980). The observed winds must be Between K, and Stability Class
interpolated into other regions, generally using a
l/(distance) weighting, although some models use an [Below 100 rn, K,(z) = (z/lOO m)K,(100 m)]
additional weighting factor involving wind direction.
This situation is depicted schematically in Fig. 13.2. Stability class K,, m 2/see
Diffusion of the puff is handled quite crudely. .4 160
The first tenuous assumption is that puff diffusion is B 100
similar to plume diffusion, which is known to be C 70
wrong theoretically (see Chap. 6) but is still useful in D 15
applied models. Nevertheless, there is no information E 5.0
F 1.5
available on the spread of puffs at long range in the G 0.13
mixed layer, and it is necessary to fall back on plume
0s. Wendell et al. (1976) have extrapolated the
Pasquill-Gifford curves for uY and u, (Fig. 4.4) to On the other hand; removal is quite important
great distances-a procedure not recommended by since the half-lives for dry deposition, wet deposition,
Pasquill or Gifford. The Heffter (1980) model uses and chemical transformations of chemicals, such as
the simple expression uy = 0.5t (uy in meters and t in SO2, are typically on the order of a few days. Here
seconds) for all situations. Fay and Rosenzweig again, however, crude assumptions, such as vd = 1
(1980) and Johnson, Wolf, and Mancuso (1978) cm/sec for so2 a.id vd = 0.1 cm/sec for sulfates, are
a m m e that the Fickian law, U; = 2Kt, is valid, with made by most investigators. The conversion of SO2
to sulfate is generally assumed to take place at a rate
/
of about l%/hr. Wet removal rate is assumed to be
proportional to rainfall rate raised to some power;
e.g., Smith and Hunt (1978) use h (fraction removed
per second) = RH, where R is rainfall rate (in
mm/hr). For a moderate rain of 4 mm/hr, wet
I
removal takes place at a rate of 72%/hr. A slightly
?
1 i P f different formula is used by Johnson, Wolf, and
Mancuso (1978), with h = 0.6 x ~ O - R.~ When it is
raining, wet removal is quite effective; however, over
t a long time period, wet and dry removal are equally
effective.
U
v) X X Speed, Direction,
U
0 Station (east), km (north), km m/sec degrees
z 10
0 1 -3.0 -1.0 8.0 190
+
a
a 2 -5.0 2.0 10.0 180
5.0 3 -2.0 5.0 11.0 230
V 4 0.5 2.0 9.0 200
z 5 2.0 9.0 3.0 280
8 Model predictions with
w various wind aswmDtions 6 6.0 6.0 2.0 300
$ 2.0
-Observed ........Standard .----Pibal 7 6.0 2.0 5.0 330
--- Surface ---
[r
w 8 3.0 -1.0 6.0 320
9 Tower
< 9 1.0 -2.0 5.0 270
1.a 10 -4.0 4.0 290
2.0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
NORTH SOUTH
CROSSWIND DISTANCE, km
Calculate the interpolated speed a t the segment
Fig. 13.4 Observed and predicted SF, concentration starting point by using
on the 9Wkm sampling arc at Savannah River. [From 1. l / d z weighting.
R R. Draxler, Modeling the Results of Two Recent 2. l / d 2 and direction weighting.
Mesoscale Dispersion Experiments, Atmos. Enuiron.,
1 3 1528 (1979).]
Abramowirz, M., and I. A. Stegan (Eds.), 1964, -, 1974, Plume Rise from Multiple Sources, in
Handbook of Mathematical Functions, National Cooling Tower Environment-19?4, ERDA
Bureau of Standards Applied Math Ser. #55, Symposium Series, College Park, Md., Mar. 4-6,
GPO. 1974, Steven R. Hanna and Jerry Pel1 (Coordina-
Angeli, J. K., P. W. Allen, and E. A. Jessup, 1971, tors), pp. 161-179, CONF-740302,NTIS.
Mesoscale Relative Diffusion Estimates from -, 1975, Plume Rise Predictions, in Lectures on Air
Tetroon Flights, J. Appl. Meteorol., 10: 43-46. Pollution and Environmental Impact Analyses,
Barad, M. L. (Ed.), 1958, Project Prairie Grass: A W o r k s h o p F r o c e e d i n g s , B o s t o n , Mass.,
Field Program in Diffusion, Geophysical Research Sept. 29-Oct. 3, 1975, pp. 59-111, American
Papers, No. 59, Vols. I and II, Report AFCRC- Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass.
TR-58-235, Air Force Cambridge Research -, 1979, Analytic Modeling of Drainage Flows,
Center. ATDL Report 79/22, Atmospheric Turbulence
Barry, P. J., 1964, Estimation of Downwind Concen- and Diffusion Laboratory.
tration of Airborne Effluents Discharged in the -, 1981, Plume Rise and Buoyancy Effects, in
Neighborhood of Buildings, Report AECL-2043, Atmospheric Science and Power Production,
Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., Chalk River, Darryl Randerson (Ed.), DOE Report DOE/TIC-
0n tari 0. 27601, in press.
Bass, A., 1980; Modeling Long Range Transport and Businger, J. A., J. C. Wyngaard, Y. Izumi, and E. F.
Diffusion, in Proceedings of 2nd Joint Conference Bradley, 1971, Flux-Profile Relationships in the
on Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology, Atmosphere Surface Layer, J . Atmos. Sci., 28:
New Orleans, La., Mar. 24-27, 1980, American 181-189.
Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass. Byzova, N. L., Ye. K. Garger, and V. N. Ivanov, 1970,
-, C. W. Benkley, J. S. Scire, and C. S. Morns, Experimental Estimation of the Lagrangian Time
1979, Development of Mesoscale Air Quulity Scale of Turbulence, Izv. Atmos. Oceanic Phys.,
Simulation Models. Vol. I. Comparative Sensi- 6: 315-320.
Cagnetti, P., 1975, Downwind Concentrations of an
tivity Studies of Puff, Plume and Grid Models for Airborne Tracer Released in the Neighborhood of
Long-Distance Dispersion Modeling, Report EPA- a Building, Atmos. Environ., 9(8): 739-747.
600/7-79-XX, Environmental Protection Agency. Carpenter, S. B., F. W. Thomas, and F. E. Gartrell,
Batchelor, G. K., 1950, Application of the Similarity 1968, Full-Scale Study of Plume Rise at Large
Theory of Turbulence to Atmospheric Diffusion, Electric Generating Stations, Tennessee Valley
Q. J. R Meteorol. Soc., 76(328): 133-146. Authority, Muscle Shoals, Ala.
-, 1952, Diffusion in a Field of Homogeneous -, T. L. Montgomery, J. M. Leavitt, W. C.
Turbulence. 11. The Relative Motion of Particles, Colbaugh, and F.W. Thomas, 1971, Principal
Roc.cambridge Philos. Soc., 48: 345362. Plume Dispersion Models, TVA Power Plants, J.
Braham, R. B., B. K. Seely, and W. D. Crozier, 1952, Air Pollut. Control ASSOC.,21 : 491495.
A Technique for Tagging and Tracing Air Parcels, Carslaw, H. S., and J. C. Jaeger, 1959, Conduction of
Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 33: 825833. ' Heat in Solids, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press,
Briggs, G. A., 1973, Diffuion Estimation for Small London.
Emissions, ATDL Contribution File NO. 79, Caughey, S. J., J. C. Wyngaard, and J. C. Kaimal,
Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Labora- 1979, Turbulence in the Evolving Stable Layer, J.
tory. Atmos. S c i , 36: 1041-1052.
91
92 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
Chamberlain, A. C., 1975, The Movement of Particles 313-390, D. A. Haugen (Ed.), Science Press,
in Plant Communities, in Vegetation and the Princeton, N. J.
Atmosphere, Vol. 1, Chap. 5, pp. 155-203, J. L. Doran, J. C., T. W. Horst, and P. W. Nickola, 1978,
Monteith (Ed.), Academic Press, London. Variations in Measured Values of Lateral Diffu-
Chaudhry, F. H., and R. N. Meroney, 1973, Simi- sion Parameters, J. Appl. Meteorol., 17(6):
larity Theory of Diffusion and the Observed 825831.
Vertical Spread in the Diabatic Surface Layer, Draxler, R. R., 1976, Determination of Atmospheric
Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 3: 405-415. Diffusion Parameters, Atmos. Environ., 10:
Cramer, H. E., 1957, A Practical Method for Estimat- 99-105.
ing the Dispersal of Atmospheric Contaminants, -, 1979a, Estimating Vertical Diffusion from
in Proceedings of the First National Conference Routine Meteorological Tower Measurements,
on Applied Meteorology, Sec. C, pp. C-33-C-35, Atmos. Environ., 13: 1559-1564.
American Meteorological Society, Hartford, -, 1979b, Modeling the Results of Two Recent
Conn. Mesoscale Dispersion Experiments, Atmos.
Crane, G., H. A. Panofsky, and 0. Zeman, 1977, A Enuiron., 13: 1523-1533.
Model for Dispersion from Area Sources in Edinger, J. G., 1952, A Technique for Measuring the
Convective Turbulence, Atmos. Environ., 11: Detailed Structure of Atmospheric Flow, Geo-
893-900. physics Research Papers, No. 19, Air Force Cam-
Crawford, T. V., 1966, Predicting and Sampling bridge Research Laboratories, Geophysics Re-
Nuclear Clouds from the Viewpoint of Diffusion search Directorate, Cambridge, Mass.
Theory, USAEC Report UCRL-14983, University Egan, B. A., 1975, Turbulent Diffusion in Complex
of California, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory. Terrain, in Lectures on Air Pollution and Environ-
Crozier, W. D., and B. K. Seely, 1955, Concentration mental Impact Analyses, pp. 112-135,D. Haugen
Distributions in Aerosol Plumes Three t o Twenty- (Ed.), American Meteorological Society, Boston,
Two Miles from a Point Source, Trans. Am. Mass.
Geophys. Union, 36: 42-52. -, R. DErrico, and C. Vaudo, 1979, Estimating Air
Dana, M. T., and J. M. Hales, 1976, Statistical Quality Levels in Regions of High Terrain Under
Aspects of the Washout of Polydisperse Aerosols, Stable Atmospheric Conditions, Preprints, Fourth
Atmos. Environ., 10: 45-50. Symposium on Turbulence, Diffusion, and Air
Davies, R. W., 1959, Large-Scale Diffusion from an Pollution, Am. Meteorol. Society, Boston, Mass.
Oil Fire, in Advances in Geophysics, Vol. 6, pp. -, and J. Mahoney, 1972, Numerical Modeling of
413-414, F.N. Frenkiel and P. A. Sheppard Advection and Diffusion of Urban Area Source
(Eds.), Academic Press, New York. Pollutants, J. Appl. Meteorol., 11: 312-322.
Deardorff, J. W., 1970, A Three Dimensional Numeri- Ekman, V. W., 1902, On jordrotationens inverkan p i
cal Investigation of the Idealized Planetary vindstrommar i nafvet, Nytt. Mag. For Naturv.,
Boundary Layer, J. Geophys. Fluid Dyn., 1: 40: 37-63.
377410. Eliassen, A., 1980, A Review of Long-Range Trans-
-, 1974, A Three Dimensional Numerical Study of port Modeling, J. Appl. Meteorol., 19: 231-240.
the Height and Mean Structure of a Heated Engelmann, R. J-, 1968, The Calculation of Precipita-
Planetary Boundary Layer, Boundary-Layer tion Scavenging, in Meteorology and Atomic
Meteorol., 1 : 81-106. Energy-1 968, pp. 208-221, D. H. Slade (Ed.),
Demerjian, K. L., and K. L. Schere, 1979, Applica- USAEC Report TID-24190, U. S. Atomic Energy
tions of a Photochemical Box Model for 0 3 Air Commission, NTIS.
Quality in Houston, Texas, in Proceedings of Environmental Protection Agency, 1978, Guideline
Specialty Conference on OzonelOxidants: Inter- on Air Quality Models, OAQPS Guideline Series
actions with the Total Environment, Environ- No. 1.2-080, Report EPA-45012-78-027, Office
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Park, N. C. Triangle Park, N. C.
Dickson, C. R., G. E. Start, and E. H. Markee, Jr., Environmental Systems Corporation, 1977, Cooling
1969, Aerodynamic Effects of the EBR-II Reac- Tower Drift Dye Tracer Experiment, Report
tor Complex on Effluent Concentration, Nucl. PPSP-CPCTP, Environmental Systems Corpora-
&f., 10: 228-242. tion, Knoxville, Tenn.
Donaldson, C. DuP., 1973, Atmospheric Turbulence Eschenroeder, A. Q., J. R. Martinez, and R.A.
and the Dispersal of Atmospheric Pollutants, in Nordsieck, 1972, Evaluation of a Diffision Model
AMS Workshop on Micrometeorology, pp. f o r Photochemical Smog Simulation, Final Re-
REFERENCES 93
port, Contract No. 68-02-0336 by General Re- -,and S. R. Hanna, 1973, Modeling Urban Air
search Corporation, Santa Barbara, Calif., for Pollution, Atrnos. Enuiron., 7: 131-136.
Environmental Protection Agency. Golder, D., 1912, Relations Among Stability Parame-
Falls, A. H., and J. H. Seinfeld, 1978, Continued ters in the Surface Layer, Boundary-Layer
Development of a Kinetic Mechanism for Photo- .kIeteorol., 3: 47-58.
chemical Smog, Enuiron. Sci. Technol., 12: Halitsky, J., 1963, Gas Diffusion near Buildings,
1398-1405. ASHRAE Trans., 69: 464-485.
Fay, J.. A., M. Escudier, and D. P. Hoult, 1969, A Hanna, S. R., 1968, A Method of Estimating Vertical
Correlation of Field Observations of Plume Rise, Eddy Transport in the Planetary Boundary Layer
Fluid Mechanics Laboratory Publication No. Using Characteristics of the Vertical Velocity
69-4, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Spectrum, J. A trnos. Scz., 25: 1026.
and 5. J. Rosenzweig, 1980, An Andytical
1971, A Simple Method of Calculating Disper-
-, -:
Diffusion Model for Long Distance Transport of sion from Urban -4rea Sources, J. ilir PoZZut.
Air Pollutants, Atmos. Environ., 14: 355-366. Control ASSOC., 21 : 774-777.
-, 1973, Description of ATDL Computer Model
Frenkiel, F. N., and I. Katz, 1956, Studies of for Dispersion from Multiple Sources, in Indus-
Small-Scale Turbulent Diffusion in the Atmo- trial Air Pollution Control, pp. 23-32, Ann Arbor
sphere, J. Meteorol., 13: 388-394. Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Gifford, F. A., Jr., 1955, A Simultaneous -, 1974, Meteorological Effects of the Mechanical
Lagrangian-Eulerian Turbulence Experiment, Draft Cooling Towers of the Oak Ridge Gaseous
Monthly Weather Rev., 83: 293-301. Diffusion Plant, in Cooling Tower Enuiron-
-, 1959a, Statistical Properties of a Fluctuating ment-Z974, ERDA Symposium Series, College
Plume Dispersion Model, in Advances in Geo- Park, Md., Mar. 4-6, 1974, Steven R. Hanna and
physics, Vol. 6 , pp. 117-138, F. N. Frenkiel and Jerry Pel1 (Coordinators), pp. 291-306, CONF-
P. A. Sheppard (Eds.), Academic Press, New 740302, NTIS.
York. -, 1975, Relative Diffusion of Tetroon Pairs Dur-
-, 195933, Computation of Pollution from Several ing Convective Conditions, paper presented at
Sources, Int. J. Air Water Pollut., 2 : 109-110. First Conference on Regional and Mesoscale
-, 1 9 6 1 , Use- of Routine Meteorological Modeling, Analysis and -Prediction, Las Vegas,
Observations for Estimating Atmospheric Disper- Nev., American Meteorological Society, Boston,
sion, Nucl. Saf., 2(4): 47-57. Mass.
-, 1968, An Outline of Theories of Diffusion in the -, 1976, Predicted and Observed Cooling Tower
Lower Layers of the Atmosphere, in Meteorology Plume Rise and Visible Plume Length at the
and Atomic Energy--1968, pp. 66-116, D. H. John E. Amos Power Plant, Atrnos. Enuiron., 10:
Slade (Ed.), USAEC Report TID-24190, U. S. 1043-1052.
Atomic Energy Commission, NTIS. -, 1978, Diurnal Variations of the Stability Factor
-, 1970, Atmospheric Diffusion in an Urban Area, in the Simple ATDL Urban Dispersion Model, J .
in- Proceedings of 2nd Congress o f the. Interna- Air Pollut. Control ASSOC.,28: 147-150.
tional Radiation Protection Association, -, 1980a, Users Guide for ATCOOL Cooling
Brighton, England, May 3-8, 1970, W. Englund Tower Plume Model, Report ERLTM-ARL-80,
(Ed.), Air Pollution Control Association. Environmental Science Services Administration,
-, 1975, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Air Resources Laboratory.
Environmental Pollution Applications, in Lecy -, 1980b, Measured u,, and 06 in Complex Terrain
tures on Air Pollution and Environment Impact near the TVA Widows Creek, Alabama, Steam
Analyses, Boston, Mass., Sepf. 29-Oct. 3, 1975, Plant, Atmos. Environ., 14: 401.
pp. 35-58, American Meteorological Society, -, 1980c, Diurnal Variation of Horizontal Wind
Boston, Mass. Direction Fluctuations 06 in Complex Terrain at
-, 1976, Turbulent Diffusion Typing Schemes-A Geysers, Calif., Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 58:
Review, NUCLSa$, 17: 68-86. 1305-1309.
-, 1977, Tropospheric Relative Diffusion Observa- -, 1981, Atmospheric Effects of Energy Produc-
tion, J. Appl. Meteorol., 16: 311-313. tion, in Atmospheric Science and Power Produc-
-, 1981, Horizontal Diffusion in the Atmosphere: tion, Darryl Randerson (Ed.), DOE Report
A Lagrangian-Dynamical Theory, DOE Report DOE/TIC-27601, in press.
LA-8667-MS, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, -,and F. A. Gifford, 1977, Application of the
NTIS. ATDL Sample Urban Dispersion Model to Frank-
94 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
furt, West Germany, in Proceedings of Seventh of the International Conference on Air Pollutants
NA TOICCMS Meeting, Louvaine le Neuf, and Their Effects on the Terrestrial Ecosystem,
Belgium, ATDL Contribution No. 77/17, Atmo- Banff, Alberta, Canada, May 10-17, 1980, S. V.
spheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory. Krupa and A. H. Legge (Eds.), John Wiley &
-, G. A. Briggs, J. Deardorff, B. A. Egan, F. A. Sons, New York.
Gifford, and F. Pasquill, 1977, Summary of Rec- -, 1981, Flow and Diffusion Near Obstacles, in
ommendations made by the AMs Workshop on Atmospheric Science and Power Production,
Stability Classification Schemes and Sigma Darryl Randerson, (Ed.), DOE Report DOE/TIC-
Curves, Bull. Am. Meteorol. SOC.,58: 1305-1309. 27601, in press.
Haugen, D. A. (Ed.), 1959, Project Prairie Grass: A Huber, A. H., and W. H. Snyder, 1976, Building Wake
Field Program in Diffusion, Geophysical Research Effects on Short Stack Effluents, in preprints of
Papers, No. 59, Vol. 111, Report AFCRC-TR- Third Symposium on Atmospheric Turbulence,
58-2.35, Air Force Cambridge Research Center.
Diffusion, and Air Quality, Raleigh, N. C.,
Hay, J. S., and F. Pasquill, 1959, Diffusion from a Oct. 19-22, 1976, pp- 235-242, American
Continuous Source in Relation to the Spectrum Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass.
and Scale of Turbulence, in Advances in Geo-
Hunt, J. C. R., W. H. Snyder, and R. E. Lawson, Jr.,
physics, Vol. 6, pp. 345-365, F. N. Frenkiel and
1978, Flow Structure and Turbulent Diffusion
P. A. Sheppard (Eds.), Academic Press, New
Around a Three-Dimensional Hill, Fluid Modeling
York.
Study on Effects of Stratification. Part I. Flow
Hayes, S. R., 1979, Performance Measures and Structure, DOE Report EPA-600/4-78-041,
Standard for Air Qunlity Simulation Models, Environmental Protection Agency.
Report EF78-93R2, Environmental Protection
Agency. Irwin, J. S., 1979a, Estimating Plume Dispersion-A
Recommended Generalized Scheme, in preprints
Heffter, J. L., 1965, The Variation of Horizontal
of Fourth Symposium on Turbulence, Diffusion,
Diffusion Parameters with Time for Travel
Periods of One Hour or Longer, J. Appl. and Air Pollution, Reno, Nev., Jan. 15-18, 1979,
pp. 62-69, American Meteorological Society,
MeteoroL, 4(1): 153-156.
Boston, Mass.
-, 1980, Air Resources Laboratories Atmospheric
Transport and Dispersion Model (ARL-A TAD), -, 1979b, A Theoretical Variation of the Wind
Report ERLTM-ARL-81, National Oceanic and Profile Power Law Exponent as a Function of
Atmospheric Administration, Air Resources S u r f a c e Roughness, and Stability, Atmos.
Laboratory. Enuiron., 13: 191-194.
Hogstrom, U., 1964, An Experimental Study on Islitzer, N. F., and R. K. Dumbauld, 1963, Atmo-
Atmospheric Diffusion, Tellus, 16(2): 205-251. spheric Diffusion-Deposition Studies over Flat
Terrain, Int. J. Air Water Pollut., 7(11-12):
Holzworth, G., 1972, Mixing Depths, Wind Speed,
and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout
999-1022.
the Contiguous United States, Environmental Johnson, W. B., E. Shelar, R. E. Ruff, H. B. Singh,
Protection Agency Publication NO. AP-101. and L. Salas, 1975, Gas Tracer Study of Roof-
Horst, T. W., 1977, A Surface Depletion Model for Vent Effluent DiffLlsion at Millstone Nuclear
Deposition from a Gaussian Plume, Atmos. Power Station, Atomic Industrial Forum Report
Environ., 11: 41-46. AIF/NESP-O07b, Stanford Research Institute,
Palo Alto, Calif.
-, 1979, Lagrangian Similarity Modeling of Verti-
cal Diffusion from a Ground Level Source, J. -, R. C. SMarew, and D. B. Turner, 1976, Urban
AppL MeteoroL, 18: 733-740. Air Quality Simulation Modeling, in Air P o l b -
tion, 3rd ed., Vol. 1, Chap. 10, pp. 503-562, A. C.
Hosker, R. P., Jr., 1979, Empirical Estimation of
Stern (Ed.), Academic Press, New York.
Wake Cavity Size Behind Block-Type Structures,
in preprints of Fourth Symposium on Turbu- -,D. E. Wolf, and R. L. Mancuso, 1978, Long
lence, Diffusion, and Air Pollution, Reno, Nev., Term Regional Patterns and Transfrontier Ex-
Jan. 15-18, 1979, pp. 603-609, American Meteo- changes of Airborne Sulfur Pollution in Europe,
rological Society, Boston, Mass. Atmos. Enuiron., 12: 511-527.
-, 1980, Practical Application of Air Pollution Kaimal, J. S., et al., 1977, Turbulence Structure in
Deposition Models-Current Status, Data Re- the Convective Boundary Layer, J. Atmos. Sci.,
quirements, and Research Needs, in Proceedings 33: 2152-2169.
REFERENCES 95
Kao, S. K., and L. L. Wendell, 1968, Some Charac- Machta, L., H. L. Hamilton, Jr., L. F. Hubert, R. J.
teristics of Relative Particle Dispersion in the List, and K. M. Nagler, 1957, Airborne Measure-
A-tmospheres Boundary Layer, Atmos. Environ, ments of Atomic Debris, J. Meteorol., 14(2):
2: 397-407. 165-175.
Kazanski, A. B., and A. S. Monin, 1957, The Form of Mason, B. J., 1971, The Physics of Clouds, Clarendon
Smoke Jets, Izv. Atmos. Oceanic Phys., 8: Press, Oxford, England.
1020-1033. Meroney, R. N., 1979, Turbulent Diffusion near
Kessler, E., 1969, On the Distribution and Continuity Buildings, in Engineering Meteorology, E. J. Plate
of Water Substance in Atmospheric Circulations, (Ed.) (to be published).
Meteorol. Monogr., 10. -,and B. T. Yang, 1971, Wind-Tunnel Study on
Koenig, L. R., 1979, Anomalous Cloudiness and Gaseous Mixing Due to Various Stack Heights and
Precipitation Caused by Industrial Heat Rejec- Injection Rates Above an Isolated Structure,
tion, Report R-2465-DOE, The Rand Corpora- Report CER71-72RNM-BTY16, Colorado State
tion. University, Fluid Dynamics and Diffusion Labo-
-, F. W. Murray, and P. M. Tag, 1978, Differences ratory.
in Atmospheric Convection Caused by Waste Meyer, J. H., T. W. Eagles, L. C. Kohlenstein, J. A.
Energy Rejected in the Forms of Sensible and Kagan, and W. D. Stanbro, 1974, Mechanical
Latent Heats, Atmos. Environ., 12: 1013-1020. Draft Cooling Tower Plume Behavior: Measure-
Lamb, R. G., 1979, The Effects of Release Height on ments, Models, Predictions, in Cooling Tower
Material Dispersion in the Convective Planetary Environment- 1974, ERDA Symposium Series,
Boundary Layer, in Fourth Symposium on College Park, Md., Mar. 4-6, 1974, Steven R.
Turbulence, Diffusion, and Air Pollution, Reno, H a n n a a n d J e r r y Pel1 (Coordinators),
Nev., Jan. 15-19, 1979, pp. 27-33, American pp. 307-352, CONF-740302,NTIS.
Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass. Monin, A. S., and A. M. Obukhov, 1953, Dimen-
Lange, R., 1978, ADPIC-A Three Dimensional sionless Characteristics of Turbulence in the
Particle-In-Cell Model for the Dispersal of Atmo- Layer of Atmosphere near the Ground, Dokl.
spheric Pollutants and Its Comparison t o Regional Akad. Nauk SSSR, 93: 257-267.
Tracer Studies, J. AppL Meteorol., 17: 320-329. -, and A. M. Yaglom,. 1971, Statistical Fluid
Lettau, H., 1970, Physical and Meteorological Basis Mechanics, Mechanics of Turbulence, Vol. I,
for Mathematical Models of Urban Diffusion, in J. Lumley (Ed.), The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Roceedings of Symposium on Multiple Source Moore, D. J., 1974, Observed and Calculated Magni-
Urban Diffusion Models, Air Pollution Control tudes and Distances of Maximum Ground Level
Official Publication No. AP 86, Environmental Concentration of Gaseous Effluent Material
Protection Agency. Downwind of a Tall Stack, Adv. Geophys., 18B:
Long, P. E., and D. W. Pepper, 1976, A Comparison 201-221.
of Six Numerical Schemes for Calculating the
Advection of Atmospheric Pollution, in Proceed- Nappo, C. J., 1974, A Method for Evaluating the
ings of the Third Symposium on Atmospheric Accuracy of Air Pollution Prediction Models, in
Roceedings of the Symposium on Atmospheric
Turbulence, Diffusion, and Air Quality, Raleigh,
Diffusion and Air Pollution, Santa Barbara, Calif.,
N. C., Oct. 19-22, 1976, pp. 181-186, American
Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass. Sept. 9-13, 1974, pp. 325-329, American Meteo-
rological Society, Boston, Mass.
MacCacken, M. C., and K. E. Grant, 1975, Livermore -, 1979, Relative and Single Particle Diffusion
Regional Air Quality Model (LJRAQ-I),in Ameri- Estimates Determined from Smoke Plume Photo-
can Meteorological Society Conference on Re- graphs, in Fourth Symposium on Turbulence,
gional and Mesoscale Modeling, Analysis, and Diffusion, and Air Pollution, Reno, Nev.,
Rediction, Las Vegas, May 6-9, 1975, American Jan. 15-19, 1979, pp. 4547, American Meteo-
Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass. rological Society, Boston, Mass.
McElroy, J. L., and F. Pooler, 1968, St. Louis -,S. R Hanna, and H. F. Snodgrass, 1980,
Dispersion Study, Report AP-53, U. S. Public Drainage Wind Observations Using Neutral-Lift
Health Service, National Air Pollution Control Balloons, in Proceedings of 2nd Joint Conference
Administration. on Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology,
McMahon, T. A., and P. J. Denison, 1979, Empirical New O r l e a n s , La., Mar. 24-27, 1980,
Atmospheric Deposition Parameters-A Survey, pp. 495498, American Meteorological Society,
Atmos. Environ., 13: 571-585. Boston, Mass.
96 ATMOSPHERIC DIFFUSION
Otts, R. E., 1976, Locally Heavy Snow Downwind American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-
from Cooling Tower, NOAA Tech. Memo. NWS nautics, New York.
ER-72, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Prahm, L. P., and 0. Christensen, 1977, Long Range
Administration. Transport of Pollutants Simulated by a 2D
Overcamp, T. J., 1976, A General Gaussian Ps eudospectral Dispersion Model, J. Appl.
Diffusion-Deposition Model for Elevated Point Meteorol., 16: 896-910.
Sources, J. Appl. Meteorol., 15: 1167-1171. Randerson, D., 1972, Temporal Changes in Hor-
Pack, D. H., and J. K. Angell, 1963, A Preliminary izontal Diffusion Parameters of a Single Nuclear
Study of Air Trajectories in the Los Angeles Basin Debris Cloud, J. Appl. Meteorol., 11 : 670-673.
Derived from Tetroon Flights, Mon. Weather Reid, J. D., 1979, Markov Chain Simulations of
Rev., 91: 583-604. Vertical Dispersion in the Neutral Surface Layer
Pandolfo, J. P., and C. A. Jacobs, 1973, Tests of an for Surface and Elevated Releases, Boundary-
Urban Meteorological Pollutant Model Using CO Layer Meteorol., 16: 3-22.
Validation Data in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Reynolds, S. D., and P. M. Roth, 1973, Mathematical
Area Vol. I. CEM Report 490a, Contribution Modeling of Photochemical Air Pollution. Pt. 1.
68-02-0223, prepared by The Center for the Formulation of the Model, Atmos. Environ., 7:
Environment and Man, Inc., for the Environ- 1022-1061.
mental Protection Agency. Richardson, L. F., 1926, Atmospheric Diffusion
Panofsky, H. A., H. Tennekes, D. H. Lenschow, and Shown on a Distance-Neighbour Graph, Proc. R.
J. C. Wyngaard, 1977, The Characteristics of SOC.(London), Ser. A , 110: 709.
Turbulent Velocity Components in the Surface Roberts, 0. F. T., 1923, The Theoretical Scattering
Layer Under Convective Conditions, Boundary- of Smoke in a Turbulent Atmosphere, Proc. R.
Layer Meteorol., 11: 355-361. SOC.(London), Ser. A , 104: 640-654.
-,C. A. Egolf, and R. Lipschutz, 1978, On Sagendorf, J., and C. R. Dickson, 1974, Diffusion
Characteristics of Wind Direction Fluctuations in Under Low Wind Speed and Inversion Conditions,
the Surface Layer, Boundary-Layer Meteorol., Technical Memorandum 52, National Oceanic and
15: 439-446. Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Re-
Pasquill, F., 1961, The Estimation of the Dispersion search Laboratories, &r Resources Laboratory.
of Windborne Material, Meteorol. Mag., 90: Sehmel, G. A., 1980, Particle and Gas Dry Deposi-
33-49. tion: A Review, Atmos. Environ., 14: 983-1012.
-,1974, Atmospheric Diffusion, 2nd ed., John Seneca, J., 1955, Measures de diffusivite turbulent6
Wiley & Sons, New York. sur des flocons de fume&, J. Sci Meteorol., 7:
-, 1975, The Dispersion of Materials in the Atmo- 221 -225.
spheric Boundary Layer. The Basis for Generaliza-
Sheih, C. M., 1974, Application for a Statistical
tion, in Lectures on Air Pollution and Environ- Trajectory Model t o the Simulation of Sulfur
mental Impact Analyses, pp. 1-34, American Pollution over Northeastern United States,
Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass. Atrnos. Enuiron., 11: 173-178.
-, 1976, Atmospheric Dispersion Parameters in
Sherman, C. A., 1978, A Mass Consistent Model for
Gaussian Plume Modeling: Part II. Possible Re-
Wind Fields over Complex Terrain, J. Appl.
quirements for Change in the Turner Workbook
Meteorol., 17: 312-319.
Values, Report EPA-600/4-760306, U. S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. Shir, C. C., 1973, A Preliminary Numerical Study of
Paulson, C. A., 1970, The Mathematical Representa- Atmospheric Turbulent Flows in the Idealized
tion on Wind Speed and Temperature Profiles in Planetary Boundary Layer, J. Atmos. Sci., 30:
the Unstable Atmospheric Surface Layer, J. Appl. 1327-1339.
Meteorol., 9: 857-861. -, and L. J. Shieh, 1974, A Generalized Urban Air
Peterson, K. R., 1968, Continuous Point-Source Pollution Model and Its Application to the Study
Plume Behavior out to 160 Miles, J. Appl. of SO2 Distributions in the St. Louis Metro-
Meteorol., 7: 217-226. politan Area, J. Appl. MeteoroL, 13: 185-204.
Policastro, A. J., W. E. Dunn, and M. Breig, 1978, Simon, C., and W. Proudfit, 1967, Some Observations
Evaluation of Theory and Performance of Salt of Plume Rise and Plume Concentration Distrib-
Drift Deposition Models for Natural Draft Cool- uted over N.Y.C., Paper 67-83 of the 60th Annual
ing Towers, in Proceedings of the 2nd AIAAI Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
ASME Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Confer- Cleveland, Ohio, June 11-16, 1967, Air Pollution
ence, Palo Alto, Calif., May24-28, 1978, Control Association.
REFERENCES 97
Slinn, W. G. N., 1974, The Redistribution of a Gas U. S. Department of Commerce, 1968, Environ-
Plume Caused by Reversible Washout, Atmos. mental Data Service, Climate Atlas of the United
Environ., 8: 233-239. States.
Smith, E. J., and K. J. Hefferman, 1956, The Decay Van der Hoven, I., 1968, Deposition of Particles and
of the Ice-Nucleating Properties of Silver Iodide Gases, in Meteorology and Atomic Energy-
Released from a Mountain Top, Q. J. R 1968, pp. 202-207, D. Slade (Ed.), USAEC Re-
Meteorol. Soc., 8 2 : 301-309. port TID-24190, U. S. Atomic Energy Commis-
Smith, F. B., 1967, The Eulerian-Lagrangian Time
sion! NTIS.
Scale Relationship in One-Dimensional Turbu-
lence, in Proceedings of the U. S. Atomic Energy -, 1976, A Survey of Field Measurements of
Commission Meteorological Information Meeting, Atmospheric Diffusion Under Low Wind Speed,
Chalk River, Ontario, Canada, Sept. 11-15, Inversion Conditions, Nucl. Saf., 17(2): 223-230.
1967, CONF-670931. Venkatram, A., 1978, An Examination of Box
-, 1972, A Scheme for Estimating the Vertical Models for Air Quality Simulation, Atmos.
Dispersion of a Plume from a Source near Ground Environ., 12: 2243-2250.
Level, in Proceedings of the Third Meeting o f the Weil, J., 1974, The Rise of Moist Buoyant Plumes,J.
Expert Panel on Air Pollution Modeling, Report Appl. Meteorol., 13: 435-443.
NATO-CCMS-14, North Atlantic Treaty Organiza-
tion, Brussels. Wendell, L. L., D. C. Powell, and R. L. Drake, 1976,
-, and J. S. Hay, 1961, The Expansion of Clusters A Regional Scale Model for Computing Deposi-
of Particles in the Atmosphere, Q. J. R . Meteorol. tion and Ground Level Air Concentration of SO2
SOC.,87(371): 82-101. and Sulfates from Elevated and Ground Sources,
-,and R. D. Hunt, 1978, Meteorological Aspects in preprint Volume, Third Symposium on Atmo-
of the Transport of Pollution over Long Dis- spheric Turbulence, Diffusion, and Air Quality,
tances, Atmos. Environ., 12: 461-477. Raleigh, N. C., Oct. 19-22, 1976, pp. 318-324,
Smith, M. E., 1951, The Forecasting of Micrometeo- -4merican Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass.
rological Variables, Meteorol. Monogr., 4: 50-55. Wigley, T. M. L., and P. R. Slawson, 1971, On the
-, 1968, Recommended Guide for the Prediction Condensation of Buoyant, Moist, Bent-Over
of the Dispersion of Airborne Effluents, 1st ed., Plumes, J. Appl. Meteorol:, 10: 259-263.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
Wilson, D. J., 1976, Contamination 0.f Building Air
York. Intakes from Nearby Vents, University of Alberta
Sutton, 0. G., 1932, A Theory of Eddy Diffusion in
the Atmosphere, R o c . R. SOC.(London), Ser. A , Department of Mechanical Engineering Report
135: 143. No. 1, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta,
-, 1953, Micrometeorology, McGraw-Hill Book Canada.
Company, New York. -, 1979, Flow Patterns over Flat-Roofed Buildings
Taylor, G . I., 1921, Diffusion by Continuous Move- and Application to Exhaust Stack Design,
ments, Proc. London Math. SOC.,20: 196. ASHRAE Trans., 85(2): 284295.
-, 1948, Dynamics of a Mass of Hot Gas Rising in -, and D. D. J. Netterville, 1978, Interaction of a
Air, USAEC Report MDDC-919 (LADC-276), Los Roof-Level Plume with a Downwind Building,
Alamos Scientific Laboratory, NTIS. Atmos. Envuon., 12(5): 1051-1059.
Turner, D. B., 1967, Workbook of Atmospheric
Dispersion Estimates, Public Health Service, Wyngaard, J. C., 1975, Modeling the Planetary
Boundary Layer. Extension to the Stable Case,
Publication 999-AP-26, Robert A. Taft Sanitary
Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. Boundary-Layer MeteoroL, 9: 441-460.
-, 1979, Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling: A -, 0. R. Cote, and K. S. Rao, 1974, Modeling the
Critical Review, J. Air Pollut. Control ASSOC.,29: Atmospheric Boundary Layer, Ado. Geophys.,
502-519. 18A: 193-211.
Abramowitz, M. (Ed.), 52 Eagles, T. W. (cited as Meyer et al.), 77 Irwin, J. S., 7, 31, 32
Allen, P. W.,43 Edinger, J. G., 43 Islitzer, N. F., 48
Angell, J. K., 43 Egan, B. A., 53,83,85 Ivanov, V. N., 43
Egan, B. A. (cited as Hanna et al.), 27 Izumi, Y. (cited as Businger et al.), 7, 54
Egolf, C. A., 81
Barad, M. L. (Ed.), 48 Ekman, V. W., 53 Jacobs, C. A., 62
Barry, P. J., 24 Eliassen, A., 87 Jaeger, J. C., 50
Bass, A., 87 Engelmann, R. J., 78
Batchelor, G. K., 41,42 Jessup, E. A., 43
EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 25 Johnson, W. B., 24,61,87
Benkley, C. W. (cited as Bass et d.), 87 EnvironmentalSystems Corporation, 78
Bradley, E. F. (cited as Businger et al.), Eschenroeder, A. Q., 62
7, 54 Kagan, J. A. (cited as Meyer e t d),77
Braham, R. B., 43 Escudier, M., 14 Kaimal, J. S., 7,8
Breig, M., 79 Kao, S. K., 43
Briggs, G. A., 11,14,16,17,19,29,30, Falls, A. H., 73 Katz, I., 43
82,85 Fay, J. A., 14, 88 Kazanslu, A. B., 43
Briggs, G. A. (cited as Hanna et al.), 27 Frenkiel, F. N., 43 Kessler, E., 77
Businger, J. A., 7,54 Koenig, L. R., 77,78
Byzova, N. L., 43 Kohlenstein, L, C. (cited as Meyer et al.),
Garger, Y e K., 43 77
Gartrell, F. E. (cited as Carpenter et al.),
Cagnetti, P., 22 17,27
Carpenter, S. B., 17,27 Gifford, F. A., 24,25,27,29,33,34, Lamb, R. G., 49
Carslaw, H. S., 50 39,42,43,46,58, 59,60 Lange, R., 54
Caughey, S. J., 8 Gifford, F. A. (cited as Hanna et d.), 27 Lawson, R. E., Jr., 84
Chamberlain, A. C., 67 Golder, D., 27 Leavitt, J.M. (cited as Carpenter et al.), 27
Chaudhry, F. H., 47 Grant, K. E., 62 Lenschow, 1). H.(cited as Panofsky
Christensen, O., 54 et al.), 7, 54
Colbaugh, W. C. (cited as Carpenter Lettau, H., 57
Hales, J. M., 71 Lipschutz, R, 81
et d),27 Halitsky, J., 22,23 List, R. J. (cited as Machta et al.), 43
Cote, 0. R. (cited as Wyngaard et al.), 7 Hamilton, H. L,J . (cited as Machta Long, P. E., 54
Cramer, H. E., 27,28 et al.), 43
Crane, G., 54 Hanna, S. R, 17,27,43, 55, 58, 59,60,
Crawford, T. V., 43 74,77,81,83,84 MacCracken, M. C., 62
Crozier, W. D., 43 Haugen, D. A. (Ed.), 29 McElroy, J. L., 30
Hay, J. S., 39,41,43 McMahon, T. A., 69,70
Dana, M. T., 71 Hayes, S. R., 63 Machta, L., 43
Davis, R W., 43 Hefferman, K. J., 43 Mahoney, J., 53
Deardorff, J. W., 7,49 Heffter, J. L., 43, 87 Mancuso, R. L., 87
Deardorff, J.W.(cited,as Hanna,etd.), 27 Hogtrom, U., 43 Markee, E. H., 24
Demerjian, K. L., 58 Holzworth, G., 6 Martinez, J. R., 62
DErrico, D.,85 Horst, T. W., 31,38,39,46,47,48,69 Mason, B. J., 78
Denison, P. J., 69,70 Hosker, R. P., Jr., 19,21,29,68,71, Meroney, R. N., 24,47
Dickson, C. R., 24, 30 72,83 Meyer, J . H., 77
Donaldson, C., 5,50 Hoult, D. P., 14 Monin, A. S., 6, 43,46
Doran, J. C., 31,38,39 Huber, A. H., 24 Montgomery, T. L. (cited as
Drake, R. L,47 Hubert, L. F. (cited as Machta et al.), Carpenter et al.), 27
Draxler, R. R,31,38,88,89 43 Moore, D. J., 17
Dumbauld, R. K., 48 Hunt, J. C. R, 84 Morris, C. S. (cited as Bass et al.), 87
Dunn, W. E., 79 Hunt, R. D., 88 Murray, F. W., 77
98
AUTHOR INDEX 99
Nagler, K. M. (cited as Machta et al.), 43 Rosenzweig,J. J., 88 Tennekes, H. (cited as Panofsky et al.),
Nappo, C. J., 44,63,83,84 Roth, P. M., 62 7, 54
Netterville, D. D. J., 22 Ruff, R. E. (cited as Johnson et al.), 24 Thomas, F. W., 17,27
Nickola, P. W., 31,38,39 Thomas, F. W. (cited as Carpenter et al.),
Nordsieck, R A., 62 27
Sagendorff, J., 30
Salas, L. (cited as Johnson et al.), 24 Turner, D. B., 27,61,62,64,65
Obukhov, A., 6 Schere, K. L.58
Otts, R. E., 78 Scire, J. S. (cited as Bass et al.), 87
U. S. Department of Commerce, 2
Overcamp, T. J., 69 Seely, B. K., 43
Sehmel, G. A., 69,70
Seinfeld, J. H., 73 Van der Hoven, I., 30,67
Pack, D. H., 43 Seneca, J., 43 Vaudo, C, 85
Pandolfo, J. P., 62 Sheih, C. M., 62,88 Venkatram, A., 58
Panofsky, H. A., 7,54,81 Shelar, E. (cited as Johnson et al.), 24
Pasquill, F., 9,10,25,27,29,31, 33, Sherman, C. A., 88
38,39,46,50, 52,84 Shir, C. C., 55,62 Weil, J., 77
Pasquill, F. (cited as Hanna et al.), 27 Simon, C., 15 Wendell, L. L., 43, 87
Paulson, C. A., 7 Singh, H. B. (cited as Johnson et al.), 24 Wigley, T. M. L., 77
Pepper, D. W., 54 Sklarew, R. C., 61 Wilson, D. J., 20, 21, 22
Peterson, K. R., 43 Slawson, P. R., 77 Wolf, D. E., 87
Policastro, A. J., 79 Slinn, W. G. N., 71 Wolf, M. A., 71
Pooler, F., 30 Smith, E. J., 43 Wyngaard, J. C., 7,8,54
Powell, D. C., 87 Smith, F. B., 29,41,52,88 Wyngaard, J. C. (cited as Businger
Prahm, L. P., 54 Smith,M. E., 27,29,59,60 et al.), 7, 54
Proudfit, W., 15 Snodgrass, H. F., 83,84 Wyngaard, J. C. (cited as Panofsky
Snyder, W. H., 24,84 et al.), 7,54
Stanbro, W. B. (cited as Meyer et d),77
Randerson, D., 43 Start, G. E., 24
Rao, K. S. (cited as Wyngaard et al.), 7 Stegan, I. A. (Ed.), 52 Yaglom, A. M., 46
Reid, J. D., 10,40 Sutton, G., 25,38,50 Yang, B. T., 24
Reynolds, S. D., 62
Richardson, L. F., 42 Tag,P. M., 77
Roberts, 0. F. T., 43, 51 Taylor, G. I., 12,30, 36 Zeman, O., 55
Acid rain, 8 7 Cloud microphysics, 77 Eddy conductivity, 7, 54
Adiabatic temperature gradient, 2, 3, 12 Complex terrain air-pollution Eddy diffusivity, 5, 7, 42, 54, 55
Air trajectories in a valley, 81-84 meteorology, 30, 81-86 Eddy dissipation rate, 8, 16, 42, 44
Airflow around obstacles, 19-24 Computers, 40, 53-54 Eddy energy spectra, 8, 9, 41, 42
APKAC model, 6 4 Concentration in cavity, 24 Eddy viscosity, 5, 6
Area sources Conjugate power law, 5 2 Effective radius of momentum,
continuous, 57-66 Continuity equation, 5 temperature, and moisture plume, 77
instantaneous, 50, 51 Continuous sources, 25-40, 46-49 Effective stack height, 11, 19, 22, 85
Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Convective scaling velocity (w.), 7, 32, 4 8 Ekman spiral, 5
Laboratory (ATDL) model for urban Conversion from SO2 to sulfate, 73, 88, 89 Emissions, importance of, 5 7
diffusion, 59-61 Cooling towers, 17, 74-80 Entrainment in rising plume, 12, 13, 77
Averaging time Coriolis force, 2, 5, 6., 55 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
effect on regional scale turbulence, 87 Correlation coefficient, 8, 36-40, 63 models, 6 2
effect on u, and uZr25, 27 Critical wind speed for maximum C, Equation of motion, 2, 77
17, 22 Equation of state, 1
Ballistic trajectory of drift drop, 79 Crosswind-integrated concentration, Error analysis, 63
Bent-over plume 47, 48 Eulerian turbulence, 9
buoyancy conservation equation, 1 3 CRSTER model, 65 Evaluation of models, 63
entrainment velocity, 1 2 Exponential chemical decay rate, 72, 7 3
Deposition rate
momentum donservation equation, 1 3
of gases, 68
rise in stable environment, 1 4 Fickian diffusion equation, 25, 51, 88
trajectory near source, 13, 1 4 of SO2 and sulfate, 88
Deposition speed (vd), 68-70 Filter function for spectrum, 6 , 38
volume flux, 11 Finite difference approximations, 53, 5 4
Diffusion
p, 9, 10, 39, 40 First law of thermodynamics, 2, 77
around obstacles, 19-24
Bias, 63 Flushing time, 5 7
calm conditions, 2 5
Box model Frankfurt, West Germany, 5 7
daytime PBL, similarity theory, 48, 4 9
diffusion from area sources, 57-59 Friction velocity, 6 , 16, 17, 46, 5 4
removal processes, 7 3 Gaussian model, 25-35
puff, 41-45, 51 Froude number, 8 4
Breakaway mechanism for drift drops, 7 9 Fumigation, 17, 32, 33, 86
similarity models, 46-49
Breakup model for plume rise, 1 7
statistical models, 36.40
Brookhaven National Laboratory, 27, 2 8 Gamma function, 5 2
surface layer, similarity theory, 46-48
Brownian diffusion, 69 Gaussian distribution of turbulent
urban, 57-66
Brunt-VaidE frequency, 4, 12, 14, 84 speeds, 4 0
Diffusion equation, 5, 50-56
Buildings, diffusion around, 19-24 Gaussian formula
analytical solutions, 50-53
Buoyancy flux of plume, 11
long range, 8 7 plume, 24-35
numerical solutions, 53-56 puff, 4 2
Carbon monoxide urban areas, 62 General circulation, 1, 2
area source model, 6 1 Diffusivity coefficient, 5-7 Geostrophic wind speed, 2, 6
deposition speed, 70 large scale (Ky), 42, 88 Geysers, Calif., 81, 8 4
street canyon model, 61-62 vertical (KJ, 51, 54, 55, 88 Gradient transport models, 50-56
Cavity, building, 19-24 Dimensional analysis, 42, 46-49 Gravitational settling, 67-68
CDM model, 6 4 Distribution functions, 63
CDMQC model, 65 Downwash, 19, 2 3 Hadley cells, 1
Chemical kinetic equations, 72-73 induced by terrain, 85 Half-life of SO*, 6 7
Chemical removal, 72-73, 88, 89 Drainage flow, 81-84 Higher order closure, 55, 56
Chemical transformation rate, Drift deposition, 78-80 Highway models, 61, 6 4
SOpulfate, 73, 88, 89 Dry cooling towers, 77-78 HIWAY model, 6 4
Closure assumption for plume rise, 1 2 Dry deposition, 67-71, 88 Hydrostatic equation, 1
100
SUBJECT INDEX 101
Inertial subrange influence on Physical models of flow over complex 0,
puff diffusion, 42 terrain, 83, 8 4 in Gaussian equation, 25-35
Instantaneous plume snapshot. 44 Planetary boundary layer, 4-6 from uc method, 28, 31
Instantaneous source. 41 -45, 5 1 Plume, bent-over (see Bent-over stability class method, 27-30
Intensity of turbulence, 41 plume) Similarity theory
Inversion. 3, 14-16 Plume impaction on terrain. 8 4 for diffusion, 46-49
Plume meander. 30: 3 4 for spectra, 8
Jet stream. 2 Plume penetration of elevated inversion, for wind and temperature
14, 15 profiles, 6. 7
Plume rise Snowfall from cooling tower plume, 78
K coefficients, 5.7, 50-56, 62, 88 from cooling towers, 74, 76 SO? deposition speeds, 7 1, 88
Krypton 85, 89. 90 determined by ambient turbulence, Source depletion model, 68
15-17 Source effects on airflow and diffusion,
Lagrangian-Eulerian relations, 9, 10, 40 general, 1 1.18, 46 19-24
Lagrangian time scale, 37-40, 43, 49, 51 limited by ambient stability, 14 Sources close to building, 22
Lagrangian turbulence, 9 multiple sources. 17 Sources upwind of building, 22
Langevins equation, 4 3 trajectory near source, 13. 14 Spectra, 8, 38, 39
Lapse rates. 3. 12 Potential temperature, 3 Split-H concept. 2 4
Latent heat, 3, 7 4 Prairie Grass experiment. 29. 40. 4 8 Stability
Line source. 51 Primary pollutants. 72 classification schemes, 27, 85, 86
Long-range transport and diffusion, 87-90 Psychrometric chart, 74. 76 general definition, 3
Los Angeles model for CO, 6 2 PTDIS model, 6 4 limits to plume rise. 1 4
PTMAX model, 6 4 . term s. 12-14
PTMTP model. 6 4 Stable lapse rate, 3
Mass change of drift drops. 78 Puff diffusion. 41-45, 51 Stable profiles of u,, uv,and
Maximum ground-level concentration. Puff models of long-range diffusion, aw,8
11, 17, 22-24, 32, 33 87, 88 Stack aerodynamic effect, 19
Mean plume height (i), 46-48 Statistical models, 36-40
Mechanical-draft cooling towers, 7 4 Stokess law, 6 7
Mesoscale eddies, 43 Rainfall effect on deposition, 71, 72
Street canyon model, 6 1
Mixing layer height (z,), 6-8, 27, 31, R.4hI model, 65
Surface buoyancy flux, 6, 16, 17
48, 55 Raveliswood power plant, 15
Mixing ratio, 3 Recirculation zones, 19-21
Model evaluation, 63 . Regional Air Pollution Study
Taylor entrainment assumption, 12, 1 3
Models, EPA, 64, 65 (St. Louis), 6 1
Taylors statistical theory, 36-38, 41, 51
Moist adiabatic temperature gradient, 3 Release time, 41
Temperature gradient
Momentum flux, turbulent, to ground, 6 Removal mechanisms, 67-73
Momentum flux of plume, 11, 1 2 Resistance analogy for deposition, 69 - as indicator of stability class, 27
in surface layer, 7
Monin-Obukhov length (L), 6, 27, Reynolds averaging, 5
Tennessee Valley Authority, 27, 2 9
47-49, 5 4 Richardson number, 4, 7, 27
Terminal speed of water drops, 78
Monte Carlo model, 36-40 Roughness length, 6, 2 9
Tilted plume model, 68
Multiple sources, plume rise, 17 Time scale of turbulence, 9, 30, 37-40
Sampling time, 33, 38, 39, 41 Top-hat model, 11, 12
Narrow plume hypothesis, 59 Saturation deficit, 76, 77 Trajectory models
National Climatic Center, 2 Savannah River Laboratory experiment, for long-range transport, 87-90
Natural-draft cooling tower, 7 4 89, 90 for urban diffusion, 6 2
Neutral lapse rate. 3 Scavenging coefficient, 7 1;73 Travel time, 36-41
Neutral plume rise, 1 6 Screening model, 58 Turbulence
Neutral profiles of uu, uv, Second-order closure, 5, 55, 56 fluxes, 4, 5 , 50, 55
and uW,8 Secondary pollutants, 7 2 influence on plume rise, 15, 1 6
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 27 Sector model, 3 4 intensity, 8
Numerical cooling tower plume ue, 30. 31 velocity fluctuations u,, u,,
models, 77 00, 8. 30, 31, 39, 81-83 and uwr8
Numerical instabilities, 53 uuprofies in PBL, 8
0 , profiles in PBL, 8
uvuse in statistical models, 36-40 UNAMAP models, 62, 64-65
PAL model, 65 u%profies in PBL, 8 Unstable lapse rate, 3
Partial reflection model, 69 by Unstable profiles of uu, uv, and
Particle-in-cell method, 5 4 from diffusion equation, 52 uW.8
Particle trajectory model, 40 in Gaussian equation, 25-33 Urban diffusion, 30, 57-66
Peak analysis for model evaluation, 63 for long-range diffusion, 88
Peak-to-mean concentration ratio, 33, 3 4 peak to mean, 33, 3 4
Performance measures, 63 puff, 41-45 Valley limited diffusion, 86
Photochemical box model, 58 frurn 00 method, 27-3 1 VALLEY model, 65
Photochemical smog, chemical stability class method, 27-30 Vents, diffusion from, 22-24
description, 7 3 statistical models, 36-40 Vertical diffusivity, 54, 55
r .. . ..
.
1 -
DISC LA1M E R