Advertisement

Performance of Hazard Prediction and Assessment Capability Urban Models for the UDINEE Project

  • Sean Miner
  • Thomas Mazzola
  • Steven Herring
  • Richard Fry
  • Ronald Meris
Research Article
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

The Urban Dispersion International Evaluation Exercise (UDINEE) was designed to assess model capability in predicting the effects of a release from a radiological-dispersal device. Here, the dispersion of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) releases performed during the Joint Urban 2003 field experiment, which took place in Oklahoma City, was simulated using urban-dispersion and urban-canopy models, with model performance evaluated by comparing modelled peak concentrations with measured concentrations over the course of nine intensive operating periods. Other metrics compared include the exposure duration, which is defined as the duration that the concentration exceeds 10% of the maximum concentration, and the SF6 cloud speed. Model performance varies widely across releases, with the urban-dispersion model having a higher percentage (43%) of maximum concentrations falling within a factor of two of the observed maximum concentration, compared with 30% for the urban-canopy model. With respect to the cloud speed, the results of the urban-canopy model are generally within a factor of two, but the urban-dispersion model typically overestimates cloud speeds by factors of two to six.

Keywords

Hazard assessment Instantaneous release Model performance Urban dispersion Urban transport 

References

  1. Allwine KJ, Flaherty JE (2006) Joint urban 2003: study overview and instrumentation locations. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA. Technical report PNNL-15967Google Scholar
  2. Bass A (1980) Modelling long range transport and diffusion. In: Second joint conference on applications of air pollution meteorology, 24–27 March 1980, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  3. Britter RE, Hanna SR (2003) Flow and dispersion in urban areas. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 35:469–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang JC, Franzese P, Chayantrakom K, Hanna SR (2003) Evaluations of CALPUFF, HPAC, and VLSTRACK with two mesoscale field datasets. J Appl Meteorol 42:453–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chatwin PC (1968) The dispersion of a puff of passive containment in the constant stress region. Q J R Meteorol Soc 94:350–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cimorelli AJ, Perry SG, Venkatram A, Weil JC, Paine RJ, Wilson RB, Lee RF, Peters WD, Brode RW (2004) AERMOD: a dispersion model for industrial source applications. Part I: general model formulation and boundary layer characterization. J Appl Meteorol 44:682–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cionco RM (1972) A wind-profile index for canopy flow. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 3:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clawson KL, Carter RG, Lacroix DJ, Biltoff CJ, Hukari NF, Johnson RC, Rich JD, Beard SA, Stong T (2005) Joint urban 2003 (JU2003) SF6 atmospheric tracer field tests. Air Resources Lab., Silver Spring, MD. NOAA technical report OAR ARL-254Google Scholar
  9. Donaldson CduP (1973) Atmospheric turbulence and the dispersal of atmospheric pollutants. In: Haugen DA (ed) AMS workshop on micrometeorology. Science Press, Boston, pp 313–390Google Scholar
  10. 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. Presented at HARMO17 Conference, Budapest Hungary, pp 28Google Scholar
  11. Hanna S, Chang J (2012) Acceptance criteria for urban dispersion model evaluation. Meteorol Atmos Phys 116:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanna S, Chang J (2015) Skyscraper rooftop tracer concentration observations in Manhattan and comparisons with urban dispersion models. Atmos Environ 106:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanna SR, Franzese P (2000) Alongside dispersion: a simple similarity formula compared with observations at 11 field sites and in one wind tunnel. J Appl Meteorol 39(10):1700–1714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herring S (2015) Meteorological data inputs, wind speed profile and advection velocity calculations in the urban dispersion model (UDM). Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, SalisburyGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewellen WS (1977) Use of invariant modelling. In: Frost W, Moulden TH (eds) Handbook of turbulence. Plenum Press, New York, pp 237–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nachamkin JE, Cook J, Frost M, Martinez D, Sprung G (2007) evaluation of dispersion forecasts driven by atmospheric model output at a coarse and fine resolution. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46:1967–1980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ratcliffe K, England J, Hood N (2009) The urban dispersion model (UDM) v2.18 Software Technical Documentation Dstl/TR32228 v1.1Google Scholar
  18. Sykes RI, Parker SF, Henn DS, Chowdhury B (2016) SCIPUFF version 3.0 technical documentation. Sage Management. Contract No. DTRA01-03-D-0013Google Scholar
  19. Thykier-Nielsen S, Deme S, Mikkelsen T (1999) RIMPUFF atmospheric dispersion model user’s guide. Technical report, RISØ National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, Draft 16Google Scholar
  20. Van Ulden AP (1992) A surface-layer similarity model for the dispersion of a skewed passive puff near the ground. Atmos Environ 26(A):681–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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(7):1910–1928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. White JM, Bowers JF, Hanna SR, Lundquist JK (2008) Importance of using observations of mixing depths in order to avoid large prediction errors by a transport and dispersion model. J Atmos Ocean Technol 26:22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhou Y, Hanna SR (2007) Along-wind dispersion of puffs released in a built-up urban area. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 125:469–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Applied Research AssociatesKirtland AFBUSA
  2. 2.EngilityLortonUSA
  3. 3.Dstl Porton DownSalisburyUK
  4. 4.Defense Threat Reduction AgencyFort BelvoirUSA

Personalised recommendations