Advertisement

Assessment of Puff-Dispersion Variability Through Lagrangian and Eulerian Modelling Based on the JU2003 Campaign

  • Spyros AndronopoulosEmail author
  • John G. Bartzis
  • George C. Efthimiou
  • Alexandros G. Venetsanos
Research Article
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

In the framework of the Urban Dispersion International Evaluation Exercise (UDINEE) project coordinated by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, a case study was conducted of the Joint Urban 2003 (JU2003) experimental campaign in the central area of Oklahoma City, USA. The UDINEE project concerned the cases of puff dispersion of the JU2003 campaign, which are of special interest to scenarios related to security studies, such as explosions of radiological dispersal devices. Starting from the fact that puff-dispersion variability is substantial, especially in complex urban areas, even for puffs released under similar meteorological conditions, a methodology is presented for assessing this variability, which is applied to the dispersion of puffs in two of the intensive operation periods of the JU2003 campaign. Lagrangian and Eulerian dispersion models are applied for the simulations. For the Lagrangian model, variability is assessed by repeating the computations a large number of times. For the Eulerian model, variability is assessed by constructing probability density functions of concentrations on the basis of the dispersion-model results. Peak concentrations, dosages, puff-arrival times and puff durations are considered. Percentiles calculated by the Lagrangian model for all the above quantities and by the Eulerian model for peak concentrations and dosages are compared with the measurements. The results are encouraging since in several cases the measured and computed ranges of values overlap.

Keywords

Eulerian model Lagrangian model Puff dispersion Dispersion variability Urban environment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The simulations were supported by the computational time granted from the Greek Research & Technology Network (GRNET) in the National HPC facility ARIS (http://hpc.grnet.gr) under project CFD-URB (pr004009). We gratefully acknowledge the European Commission Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME) for their support to the Urban Dispersion International Evaluation Exercise (UDINEE) activity. The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of various groups to the UDINEE project. The following agencies have prepared the datasets used in this study: U.S. Army Dugway Proving Group as manager of the JU2003 database; data from tracer-monitoring stations were provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratory Field Research Division; data from meteorological monitoring stations were provided by the Dugway Proving Ground. The Joint Research Centre Ispra/Institute for Environment and Sustainability provided its ENSEMBLE system for model output harmonization and analyses and evaluation.

References

  1. Allwine KJ, Flaherty J (2006) Joint Urban 2003: study overview and instrument locations. Pacific Northwest National Lab., Richland, WA. Tech Rep PNNL-15967. https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-15967.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2015
  2. Allwine KJ, Leach MJ, Stockham LW, Shinn JS, Hosker RP, Bowers JF, Pace JC (2004) Overview of Joint Urban 2003—an atmospheric dispersion study in Oklahoma City. Paper J7.1. In: 84th AMS annual meeting, symposium on planning, nowcasting, and forecasting in the urban zone, 10–16 January 2004, Seattle, WA. https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74349.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2017
  3. Andronopoulos S, Bartzis JG, Würtz J, Asimakopoulos D (1994) Modelling the effects of obstacles on the dispersion of denser-than-air gases. J Hazard Mater 37:327–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andronopoulos S, Grigoriadis G, Robins A, Venetsanos A, Rafailidis S, Bartzis JG (2002) Three-dimensional modelling of concentration fluctuations in complicated geometry. Environ Fluid Mech 1:415–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartzis JG (1991) ADREA-HF: a three dimensional finite volume code for vapour cloud dispersion in complex terrain. CEC JRC Ispra Report EUR 13580 EN, Ispra: European Commission Joint Research Centre, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartzis JG, Sfetsos A, Andronopoulos S (2008) On the individual exposure from airborne hazardous releases: the effect of atmospheric turbulence. J Hazard Mater 150:76–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartzis JG, Efthimiou GC, Andronopoulos S (2015) Modelling short term individual exposure from airborne hazardous releases in urban environments. J Hazard Mater 300:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartzis JG, Efthimiou G, Andronopoulos S, Venetsanos AG (2017) Lagrangian modeling embedded in RANS CFD codes for concentrations and concentration fluctuations predictions from airborne hazardous releases in urban environments. In: 18th international conference on harmonisation within atmospheric dispersion modelling for regulatory purposes, 9–12 October 2017, Bologna, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartzis JG, Efthimiou G, Andronopoulos S, Venetsanos AG (2018) Lagrangian modelling embedded in RANS-CFD for air puff releases in urban environments. In: 11th international conference on air quality—science & application, 12–16 March 2018, Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  10. Britter RE, Hanna SR (2003) Flow and dispersion in urban areas. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 35:469–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan ST, Leach MJ (2007) A validation of FEM3MP with Joint Urban 2003 data. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46:2127–2146.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2006JAMC1321.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clawson KL, Carter RG, Lacroix DJ, Biltoft CA, Hukari NF, Johnson RC, Rich JD, Beard SA, Strong T (2005) Joint Urban 2003 (JU2003) SF6 atmospheric tracer field tests. Air Resources Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho. NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR ARL-254. http://www.noaa.inel.gov/projects/ju03/docs/Final_JU03.pdf. Accessed 13 Feb 2018
  13. COST ES1006 (2012) Background and justification document, COST action ES1006, “Evaluation, improvement and guidance for the use of local-scale emergency prediction and response tools for airborne hazards in build environments”. Tech Rep, COST Action ES1006, ISBN: 3-00-018312-XGoogle Scholar
  14. COST ES1006 (2015) Model evaluation case studies: approach and results. Tech Rep, COST Action ES1006, ISBN: 987-3-9817334-2-6Google Scholar
  15. Doran JC, Allwine KJ, Flaherty JE, Clawson KL, Carter RG (2007) Characteristics of puff dispersion in an urban environment. Atmos Environ 41(16):3440–3452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Efthimiou GC, Bartzis JG (2011) Atmospheric dispersion and individual exposure of hazardous materials. J Hazard Mater 188(1–3):375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Efthimiou GC, Andronopoulos S, Tolias I, Venetsanos A (2016) Prediction of the upper tail of concentration distributions of a continuous point source release in urban environments. Environ Fluid Mech 16:899–921.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-016-9455-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Efthimiou GC, Andronopoulos S, Bartzis JG, Berbekar E, Harms F, Leitl B (2017a) CFD-RANS prediction of individual exposure from continuous release of hazardous airborne materials in complex urban environments. J Turbul 18(2):115–137.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14685248.2016.1246736 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Efthimiou GC, Andronopoulos S, Tavares R, Bartzis JG (2017b) CFD-RANS prediction of the dispersion of a hazardous airborne material released during a real accident in an industrial environment. J Loss Prev Proc Ind 46:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flaherty JE, Stock D, Lamb B (2007) Computational fluid dynamic simulations of plume dispersion in urban Oklahoma City. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46:2110–2126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grinstead CM, Snell JL (1997) Introduction to probability. American Mathematics Society, ProvidenceGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanna SR, Chang JC (1992) Boundary-layer parameterizations for applied dispersion modeling over urban areas. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 58:229–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanna SR, Brown MJ, Camelli FE, Chan ST, Coirier WJ, Hansen OR, Huber AH, Kim S, Reynolds RM (2006) Detailed simulations of atmospheric flow and dispersion downtown Manhattan: an application of five computational fluid dynamics models. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 87:1713–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanna S, White J, Zhou Y (2007) Observed winds, turbulence, and dispersion in built-up downtown areas of Oklahoma City and Manhattan. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 125:441–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanna SR, White JM, Troiler J, Vernot R, Brown M, Kaplan H, Alexander Y, Moussafir J, Wang Y, Williamson C, Hannan J, Hendrick E (2011) Comparisons of JU2003 observations with four diagnostic urban wind flow and Lagrangian particle dispersion models. Atmos Environ 45:4073–4081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harms F, Leitl B, Schatzmann M, Patnaik G (2011) Validating LES-based flow and dispersion models. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 99:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hendricks EA, Diehl SR, Burrows DA, Keith R (2007) Evaluation of a fast-running urban dispersion modeling system using Joint Urban 2003 field data. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46:2165–2179.  https://doi.org/10.1175/2006JAMC1289.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hernández-Ceballos MA, Galmarini S, Hanna S, Mazzola T, Chang J, Bianconi R, Bellasio R (2016) UDINEE project: international platform to evaluate urban dispersion models’ capabilities to simulate radiological dispersion device. In: 17th international conference on harmonization within atmospheric dispersion modelling for regulatory purposes, 9–12 May 2016, Budapest Hungary, pp 96–100Google Scholar
  29. Kaplan H, Dinar N (1996) A Lagrangian dispersion model for calculating concentration distribution within a built-up domain. Atmos Environ 30(24):4197–4207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Launder BE, Spalding DB (1974) The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Comput Method Appl Mech Eng 3:269–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mavroidis I, Andronopoulos S, Venetsanos A, Bartzis JG (2015) Numerical investigation of concentrations and concentration fluctuations around isolated obstacles of different shapes. Comparison with wind tunnel results. Environ Fluid Mech 15:999.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-015-9394-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Resources Council (NRC) (2003) Tracking and predicting the atmospheric dispersion of hazardous material releases: implications for homeland security. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Settles GS (2006) Fluid mechanics and homeland security. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 38:87–110.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fluid.38.050304.092111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomson DJ (1987) Criteria for the selection of stochastic models of particle trajectories in turbulent flows. J Fluid Mech 180:529–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trini Castelli S, Tinarelli G, Reisin TG (2017) Comparison of atmospheric modelling systems simulating the flow, turbulence and dispersion at the microscale within obstacles. Environ Fluid Mech 17:879–901.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-017-9520-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Venetsanos AG, Papanikolaou E, Bartzis JG (2010) The ADREA-HF CFD code for consequence assessment of hydrogen applications. Int J Hydrog Energy 35:3908–3918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warner S, Platt N, Urban JT, Heagy JF (2008) Comparisons of transport and dispersion model predictions of the Joint Urban 2003 field experiment. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 47:1910–1928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhou Y, Hanna SR (2007) Along-wind dispersion of puffs released in built-up urban areas. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 125:469–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Spyros Andronopoulos
    • 1
    Email author
  • John G. Bartzis
    • 2
  • George C. Efthimiou
    • 1
  • Alexandros G. Venetsanos
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Nuclear and Radiological Sciences and Technology, Energy and SafetyNational Centre for Scientific Research “Demokritos”Agia ParaskeviGreece
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Western MacedoniaKozaniGreece

Personalised recommendations