Use of Wind Tunnel Measurements for Mathematical Model Comparison and Validation

  • A. Corti
  • M. Zanobini
  • E. Canepa


In this paper hourly average concentrations obtained by means of several dispersion mathematical models (DIMULA, ISC3, SAFE_AIR and ADMS2) considering their various options for the calculation of dispersion parameters are compared against measurements performed in the wind tunnel of C.R.I.A.C.I.V. (Centro di Ricerca Interuniversitario di Aerodinamica delle Costruzioni ed Ingegneria del Vento) at Prato, Italy. Measurements are referred to diffusion experiments in neutral conditions using a 1:270 small scale model above flat terrain. Different experimental conditions were considered in dependence of height and number of emitting stacks (coupled or single) and wind direction. Wind tunnel simulated emissions were referred to a buoyancy condition using a mixture based on the presence of ethylene (20% vol) and helium (80% vol) in order to have a suitable tracer. The experimental results include ground level concentration (GLC) maps and vertical profiles, covering a distance range of about 1,3 km from the stacks at full scale. A statistical validation procedure was applied using wind tunnel experimental results as data set in order to evaluate model performances.


Wind Tunnel Experimental Case Small Scale Model Ground Level Concentration Vertical Concentration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Boubel RW, Fox DL, Turner DB, Stern AC (1994) Fundamentals of air pollution. Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Canepa E, Builtjes PJH (1999) Methodology of model testing and application to dispersion simulation above complex terrain. Conference Proceedings on CD-ROM, 6th International Conference on Harmonisation within Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling for Regulatory Purposes, 11–14 October 1999, INSA de Rouen, France, 1999 (in printing on Int. J. Environ. Pollut, 2001)Google Scholar
  3. Canepa E, Modesti F, Ratto C (1998) About the present version of the dispersion code SAFE_AIR. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol 74–76, pp 305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Canepa E, Corti A, Contini D, Ratto C (2000) Comparison of the SAFE_AIR code numerical results against wind tunnel measurements on a two-stacks small scale model. ENVIROSOFT 2000, 28–30 June 2000, Bilbao, SpainGoogle Scholar
  5. Canepa E, Georgieva E, Ratto C, Zannetti P (2000a) SAFE AIR User’s Guide. Release 1.2. Department of Physics — University of Genova (Italy) and FiatLux Publications (Fremont, California) March 2000, Genova 2000Google Scholar
  6. Canepa E., Modesti F., Ratto C.F. (2000b) Evaluation of the SAFE_AIR code against air pollution field and laboratory experiments. Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 34(28): 4805–4818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CERC (1995) Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Ltd. ADMS 2 User Guide. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Cirillo MC, Clerici GC, Manzi D (1986) Manuale d’uso del codice DIMULA. ENEA RT2/STUDI/86(2)Google Scholar
  9. Contini D (1998) Studio di diffusione di inquinanti gassosi su modelli in scala ridotta in galleria del vento. Ph. D. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering, Florence University, 1998Google Scholar
  10. Corti A, Contini D, Canepa E, Ratto C (2000) Comparison of the performances of several dispersion numerical codes against wind tunnel measurements on a two-stacks small scale model. Presented paper at 6°Convegno Nazionale di Ingegneria del Vento, Genova, June 18–21 2000, ANIV Associazione Nazionale per l’Ingegneria del VentoGoogle Scholar
  11. Irwin PA (1981) The design of spires for wind simulation. Journal of Wind Eng. and Ind. Aerodyn. 7, pp 361–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manfrida G, Corti A, Contini D (1999) Comparison between different models with Wind Tunnel small scale measurements. Proceedings of “6th International Conference on Harmonization within Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling for Regulatory Purposes”, 11–14 October 1999, INSA de Rouen, FranceGoogle Scholar
  13. Obasaju ED, Robins AG (1998) Simulation of pollutant dispersion using small scale models. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 52, pp 239–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Robins AG (1980) Wind tunnel modeling of buoyant emissions. Atmospheric pollution 1980, Proceeding of the 14th International Colloquium, Studies in Environmental Science n. 8, France 1980Google Scholar
  15. Schatzmann M. and B. Leitl, 1999. Quality assurance of urban dispersion models. Proceedings of “6th International Conference on Harmonisation within Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling for Regulatory Purposes”, 11–14 October 1999, INSA de Rouen, FranceGoogle Scholar
  16. U.S. EPA (1995) U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Divisions. User’s Guide for the Industrial Source complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models. Research Triangle Park USAGoogle Scholar
  17. Zannetti P (1986) A new mixed segment-puff approach for dispersion modeling. Atmos. Environ. 20, pp 1121–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Corti
    • 1
  • M. Zanobini
    • 1
  • E. Canepa
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Energy “Sergio Stecco”University of FirenzeFirenzeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Physics, INFM (National Institute for the Physics of Matter)University of GenovaGenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations