Abstract
In this work, we compare two different parameterisations for the wind velocity–component standard deviations. The first one is the (Hanna 1982) parameterisation, while the second is the (Scire et al. 2000) parameterisation, which provide the proper values and vertical structure for the wind standard deviations in the convective, neutral and stable layers, needed as input the Lagrangian stochastic model SPRAYWEB. The results of the model simulations carried out using the two parameterisations are compared, in terms of both mean concentration and concentration standard deviation, by evaluating some statistical indexes and trough scatter- and qq-plots.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Concentration variance–field simulation model’s development began around the late 1950s (Hinze 1959), and different approaches have been tried since then. The most relevant are the Fluctuating Plume (Gifford 1959; Franzese and Borgas 2002; Franzese 2003; Yee et al. 2003; Gailis et al. 2007; Mortarini et al. 2009; Ferrero et al. 2013) and the Two-Particle models (Durbin 1980; Thomson 1990; Ferrero and Mortarini 2005; Mortarini and Ferrero 2005). However, both models have their drawbacks. Fluctuating Plume models provide a good approximation close to the source, but they fail at larger distances, while Two-Particle models are able to simulate concentration fields only in idealized atmosphere conditions, and they have some limitations in real atmosphere. For a complete review, see (Ferrero et al. 2020).
We follow the approach of Manor (2009) that proposed a single-particle Lagrangian stochastic model, that analyses the dispersion phenomena following a large number of particles from their source along their Lagrangian trajectory, with every particle motion being independent from the others. Despite being a Lagrangian model, concentrations are evaluated on fixed grid points in a computational domain, like Eulerian models.
We applied a simplified version of the model for simulating the FFT-07 tracer experiment (Storwald 2007; Platt et al. 2008), and later on, we tested the SPRAYWEB model (Tinarelli et al. 1994; Alessandrini and Ferrero 2009; Bisignano et al. 2016; Tomasi et al. 2019) against the same data set. In that work, we use the Hanna parameterisation. In the present work, we compare this parameterisation with those due to Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000).
The model and the field experiment used for the inter-comparison are described in “The numerical model”. “Results” is devoted to the results. In “Discussion and conclusions”, the main conclusions are discussed.
The numerical model
SPRAYWEB
The SPRAYWEB model is a 3D purely Lagrangian stochastic particle model which is designed to take into account the spatial and temporal variability of both the meteorological mean flow and turbulence. The model can simulate time-varying emissions from point, area and line sources. SPRAYWEB is particularly suitable for applications over complex terrain, where the meteorological fields are characterized by local phenomena, which introduce great spatial (and temporal) inhomogeneity. Indeed, the model simulates the emitted plume with a great number of virtual particles characterized by a (small) pollutant mass, which passively follows the turbulent motion of the input meteorological field. The mean trajectory of each particle is driven by the local mean wind field (given as input to the model), while its dispersion is determined by turbulent velocities obtained by solving the Langevin stochastic differential equations (Thomson 1987), using the statistical characteristics of the atmospheric turbulence.
An expression for the source \({Q}_{v}\left({\text{r}}\right)\) of the concentration variance \(\overline{{c}^{2}}\), where \(c\) is the concentration fluctuation, can be prescribed by observing the Reynolds-averaged equation (RAE) for concentration variance, in which a source term appears (Manor 2009):
where \({\sigma }_{i}={\sigma }_{u},{\sigma }_{v},{\sigma }_{w}\); \({T}_{{L}_{i}}={T}_{{L}_{u}},{T}_{{L}_{v}},{T}_{{L}_{w}}\) are the three components of the Lagrangian time scale, \(\overline{C}\left(x,y,z,t\right)\) is the mean concentration and the Einstein notation is assumed.
Following (Manor 2009; Ferrero et al. 2017), the concentration variance dissipation can be expressed with an exponential decay formula:
where the term \({t}_{d}\left(z\right)\) is the decay time scale. As far as velocity standard deviations and Lagrangian time scale are concerned, the widely used parameterisations (Hanna 1982) are tested; while as for the decay time parameterisation, we follow (Ferrero et al. 2017).
The turbulence parameterisations
In this work, we compare two different parameterisations for the wind velocity component standard deviations. The first one is the Hanna (Hanna 1982) parameterisation, while the second is the Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) parameterisation, which provide the proper values and vertical structure for the wind standard deviations in the convective, neutral and stable layers and for intermediate conditions, without physically unrealistic discontinuities. Standard deviations of the wind velocity components are calculated on the basis of the surface-layer (SL) scales. For the SPRAYWEB model, a dedicated WRF/SPRAYWEB Interface [here- after WSI: 21, 22] was developed and implemented to allow the transfer of the WRF output onto the dispersion model. As a matter of fact, the Weather Research Forecast (WRF, (Skamarock and Klemp 2008)) model is used to drive the SPRAYWEB. It is worth mentioning that among the available option for the planetary boundary layer (PBL) model in WRF, we use the YSU scheme. In WSI, two alternative parameterisations for the calculation of the wind standard deviations are implemented. The well-known Hanna (Hanna 1982) parameterisation calculates the values of wind standard deviations and Lagrangian time scales as functions of the SL scales. These relations are based on the analysis of data from field experiments (Hanna 1968, 1981; Kaimal et al. 1976; Caughey et al. 1979), theoretical considerations (Panofsky et al. 1977; Irwin 1979) and a second-order closure model (Wyngaard and Cot ́e 1974).
-
Convective boundary layer \(\left(L\hspace{0.17em}<\hspace{0.17em}0\right)\):
$$\sigma_{u,\;v}=u_\ast\hspace{0.17em}\left(12+0.5\frac{H_{\mathrm{mix}}}{\mid L\mid}\right)^\frac13$$(3)$$T_{L_{u,\;v}}=0.15\hspace{0.17em}\frac{H_{mix}}{\sigma_u}$$(4) -
Surface layer \(\left(z\hspace{0.17em}\le \hspace{0.17em}0.03\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\right)\)
$${\sigma }_{w}=0.96\hspace{0.17em}{w}_{*}\hspace{0.17em}{\left(3\hspace{0.17em}\frac{z}{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}-\frac{L}{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}\right)}^\frac{1}{3}$$(5) -
Mixed layer \(\left(0.03\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\hspace{0.17em}<\hspace{0.17em}z\hspace{0.17em}<\hspace{0.17em}0.4\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\right)\)
$$\sigma_w=\min\;\left[0.96\hspace{0.17em}w_\ast\hspace{0.17em}\left(3\hspace{0.17em}\frac z{H_{mix}}-\frac L{H_{mix}}\right)^\frac13,0.763\hspace{0.17em}w_\ast\hspace{0.17em}\left(\frac z{H_{\mathrm{mix}}}\right)^{0.175}\right]$$(6) -
Entrainment layer \(\left(0.4\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\hspace{0.17em}<\hspace{0.17em}z\hspace{0.17em}<\hspace{0.17em}0.96\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\right)\)
$${\sigma }_{w}=0.722\hspace{0.17em}{w}_{*}\hspace{0.17em}{\left(1-\frac{z}{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}\right)}^{0.207}$$(7) -
Entrainment layer \(\left(0.96\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\hspace{0.17em}<\hspace{0.17em}z\hspace{0.17em}<\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\right)\)
$${\sigma }_{w}=0.37\hspace{0.17em}{w}_{*}$$(8)For the Lagrangian time scales on the vertical direction:
-
\(\left(z\hspace{0.17em}<\hspace{0.17em}0.1\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\right)\) and \(\left(z\hspace{0.17em}<\hspace{0.17em}-L\right)\)
$${T}_{{L}_{w}}=0.1\hspace{0.17em}\frac{z}{{\sigma }_{w}}\frac{1}{0.55+0.38\frac{z}{L}}$$(9) -
\(\left(z\hspace{0.17em}<\hspace{0.17em}0.1\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\right)\) and \(\left(z\hspace{0.17em}>\hspace{0.17em}-L\right)\)
$${T}_{{L}_{w}}=0.59\hspace{0.17em}\frac{z}{{\sigma }_{w}}$$(10) -
\(\left(z\hspace{0.17em}>\hspace{0.17em}0.1\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\right)\)
$${T}_{{L}_{w}}=0.15\hspace{0.17em}\frac{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}{{\sigma }_{w}}\hspace{0.17em}\left(1-\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{-5\hspace{0.17em}z}{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}\right]\right)$$(11) -
Stable boundary layer \(\left(L\hspace{0.17em}>\hspace{0.17em}0\right)\):
$${\sigma }_{u}=2\hspace{0.17em}{u}_{*}\left(1-\frac{z}{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}\right)$$(12)$${\sigma }_{v,w}=1.3\hspace{0.17em}{u}_{*}\left(1-\frac{z}{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}\right)$$(13)$${T}_{{L}_{u}}=0.15\hspace{0.17em}\frac{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}{{\sigma }_{u}}{\left(\frac{z}{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}\right)}^{0.5}$$(14)$${T}_{{L}_{v}}=0.07\hspace{0.17em}\frac{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}{{\sigma }_{v}}{\left(\frac{z}{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}\right)}^{0.5}$$(15)$${T}_{{L}_{w}}=0.10\hspace{0.17em}\frac{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}{{\sigma }_{W}}{\left(\frac{z}{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}\right)}^{0.8}$$(16) -
Neutral boundary layer \(\left(L\hspace{0.17em}\to \hspace{0.17em}\infty \right)\):
$${\sigma }_{u}=2\hspace{0.17em}{u}_{*}\hspace{0.17em}\mathrm{exp}\left[-\frac{3{f}_{z}}{{u}_{*}}\right]$$(17)$${\sigma }_{v,w}=1.3\hspace{0.17em}{u}_{*}\hspace{0.17em}\mathrm{exp}\left[-\frac{2{f}_{z}}{{u}_{*}}\right]$$(18)$${T}_{{L}_{u,v,w}}=\frac{0.5\hspace{0.17em}\frac{z}{{\sigma }_{w}}}{1+15\frac{{f}_{z}}{{u}_{*}}},$$(19)
where L is the Obukhov length, \({H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\) is the PBL height, \({f}_{z}\) is the Coriolis parameter, \({u}_{*}\) is the friction velocity and \({w}_{*}\) is the convective velocity scale.
The Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) formulation results from a combination of different empirical relations and theoretical reasonings from Panofsky et al. (1977); Hicks 1985; Arya 1984; Blackadar and Tennekes 1968; Nieuwstadt 1984; Hanna et al. 1986). Standard deviations of the flow field are calculated on the basis of the surface-layer scales as follows:
-
Convective boundary layer \(\left(L<0\right)\):
$${\sigma }_{u,v}={\left[4\hspace{0.17em}{u}_{*}^{2}\hspace{0.17em}{a}_{n}^{2}+0.35\hspace{0.17em}{w}_{*}^{2}\right]}^\frac{1}{2}$$(20) -
Surface layer ( \(z\hspace{0.17em}\le \hspace{0.17em}0.1\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\))
$${\sigma }_{w}={\left[1.6\hspace{0.17em}{u}_{*}^{2}\hspace{0.17em}{a}_{n}^{2}+2.9\hspace{0.17em}{u}_{*}^{2}\hspace{0.17em}{\left(-\frac{z}{L}\right)}^\frac{2}{3}\right]}^\frac{1}{2}$$(21)$${a}_{n}=\mathrm{exp}\left[-0.9\hspace{0.17em}\left(\frac{z}{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}\right)\right]$$(22) -
Mixed layer (\(0.1\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\hspace{0.17em}<\hspace{0.17em}z\hspace{0.17em}\le \hspace{0.17em}0.8\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\))
$${\sigma }_{w}={\left[1.15\hspace{0.17em}{u}_{*}^{2}\hspace{0.17em}{a}_{n}^{2}+0.35\hspace{0.17em}{w}_{*}^{2}\hspace{0.17em}\right]}^\frac{1}{2}$$(23) -
Entrainment layer (\(0.8\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\hspace{0.17em}<\hspace{0.17em}z\hspace{0.17em}\le \hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\))
$${\sigma }_{w}={\left[1.15\hspace{0.17em}{u}_{*}^{2}\hspace{0.17em}{a}_{n}^{2}+{a}_{cl}\hspace{0.17em}0.35\hspace{0.17em}{w}_{*}^{2}\hspace{0.17em}\right]}^\frac{1}{2}$$(24)$${a}_{cl}=\left[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}-z}{0.4\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}\right]$$(25) -
Entrainment layer (\({H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\hspace{0.17em}<\hspace{0.17em}z\hspace{0.17em}\le \hspace{0.17em}1.2\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\))
$${\sigma }_{w}={\left[1.15\hspace{0.17em}{u}_{*}^{2}\hspace{0.17em}{a}_{n}^{2}+{a}_{c2}\hspace{0.17em}0.35\hspace{0.17em}{w}_{*}^{2}\hspace{0.17em}\right]}^\frac{1}{2}$$(26)$${a}_{c2}=\left[\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1.2\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}-z}{1.2\hspace{0.17em}{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}\right]$$(27) -
Neutral-stable boundary layer \(\left(L\hspace{0.17em}\to \hspace{0.17em}\infty \right)\), \(\left(L\hspace{0.17em}>\hspace{0.17em}0\right)\):
$${\sigma }_{u,v}={u}_{*}\hspace{0.17em}\left[\frac{1.6\hspace{0.17em}{C}_{s}\frac{z}{L}+1.8\hspace{0.17em}{a}_{n}}{1+\frac{z}{L}}\right]$$(28)$${\sigma }_{w}=1.3\hspace{0.17em}{u}_{*}\hspace{0.17em}\left[\frac{{C}_{s}\hspace{0.17em}\frac{z}{L}+{a}_{n}}{1+\frac{z}{L}}\right]$$(29)$${C}_{s}={\left(1-\frac{z}{{H}_{\mathrm{mix}}}\right)}^\frac{3}{4}$$(30)
Comparing the two parameterisations, it can be observed that in the case of unstable conditions, for the vertical component of the velocity standard deviation, both of them divide the PBL into different sub-layers and use the surface-layer parameters and the PBL height. Concerning the horizontal components, the Hanna (Hanna 1982) parameterisation uses L and \({H}_{\mathrm{mix}}\), while the Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) parameterisation uses \({w}_{*}\). Also, Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) prescribe the same parameterisation for neutral and stable conditions while the Hanna (Hanna 1982) parameterisation suggests different formulation for each of the stability conditions. Furthermore, it includes the effect of rotation (say the Ekman layer) for the neutral conditions.
WSI extracts the SL scales needed for these parameterisations directly from WRF results. The Hanna (Hanna 1982) and Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) parameterizations are quite similar in their structures and mainly differ in the empirical curves used to calculate the wind velocity standard deviations. The Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) parameterisation used in WSI uses the SL scales extracted from the WRF simulation. To complete the turbulence parameterisation for SPRAYWEB, we need the Lagrangian time scales. Since the Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) parameterisation does not provide these quantities, being designed for Gaussian models, we take into account those given by the Hanna (Hanna 1982) parameterisations, also with the wind velocity standard deviation prescribed by Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000).
The FFT-07 experiment
In September 2007, experimental release trials called “FUsing Sensor Information from Observing Networks (FUSION) Field Trial -2007” were performed at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, USA (Storwald 2007; Platt et al. 2008). This short-range experiment (about 500 m) was meant to compare Source Term Estimation (STE) algorithms. It is also meant to use the collected information to point out the strength and weakness of different parameterisation (Singh and Sharan 2013).
In this work, we consider among the other three experiments characterised by different stability conditions, which are stable for Trial 07, unstable for Trial 45 and neutral for Trial 46, on the basis of the Obukhov length L whose values are 40, − 3 and 149 respectively. In all trials, the emission is continuous from a single source. The source height is 2 m, and its diameter is 3 mm. In the FFT-07 experiment, other trials were performed, but not all were available. Out of the total 80 trials, only 52 trials are conducted for continuous releases in which 21 trials correspond to single releases. Out of these 21 trials of single releases, data was available only for 10 trials. Unfortunately, we got only 7 trials. Accordingly, out of 7 trials of a single release in the FFT-07 diffusion experiment, 4 trials correspond to stable conditions, two trials to neutral conditions and only one to unstable conditions. Thus, we prefer to compare the same number of trials for each stability condition. In addition, we remark that the number of measurement stations in a single trial is 100, which guarantees sufficient statistics for analysis. It is also worth mentioning that we are interested in simulating plume and not puff at least in this work.
Observations were taken by a set of 100 digital PID (Photo-Ionisation Detector) samplers, arranged in a rectangular staggered grid/array of area \(475 \mathrm{m}\times 450 \mathrm{m}\) in 10 rows and 10 columns as shown in Fig. 1.
Sampler’s height is the same as the one of the source. and the probe’s grid was set to \(-{25}^{^\circ }\) from the North direction in order to take advantage of the prevailing wind flow (Pandey and Sharan 2018). PIDs were set in the flattest, most uniform and most homogeneous terrain in order to reduce the effect of the ground level mechanical turbulence. For each receptor, we have a series of data lasting about 10 min and measured at 50 Hz frequency, so we calculate the mean and variance from these series.
Results
Plot analysis
In Figs. 2–7, the scatter and qq-plots are shown for mean and standard deviation concentration and the two parameterisations. The same plots for the concentration intensity (the ratio between standard deviation and mean) are also reported. Comparing Fig. 2 with Fig. 3, the performances of the two parameterisations can be analysed. It can be observed that the scatter plots are different in the two cases. Those obtained using the Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) parameterisation shows a larger scatter of the point around the line indicating “perfect agreement”, both for mean and standard deviation concentration. The scatter plots also indicate that the results obtained using the Hanna (Hanna 1982) parameterisation vary in a smaller range with respect to those obtained with the Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) parameterisation. However, the qq-plot shows similar behaviour for the two parameterisations meaning that the distribution of the values (both mean and standard deviation) does not change in the two cases. In Figs. 4 and 5, the results obtained with the two parameterisations in the case of the Trial 45 can be observed. The results are similar in the two cases except for an underestimation of the concentration standard deviation and concentration intensity when the Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) parameterisation is taken into account. The model seems to perform better in neutral conditions (Trial 46). As can be observed in Figs. 6 and 7 both for mean and standard deviation concentration, the number of point in the plots is larger than for the cases of Trial 07 and Trial 45, which indicates less zeros in the calculated values. Highest values of the mean concentrations are better reproduced. The Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) parameterisation underestimates the concentration standard deviation’s highest values.
Statistical analysis
For the statistical analysis, we considered the metrics suggested by Chang and Hanna (2004): mean value, Fractional Bias (FB), Normalised Mean Square Error (NMSE), factor of two (FAC2) and factor of five (FAC5).
The results of the statistical analysis in terms of the indexes are shown in Table 1 for the Trial 07, in Table 2 for the Trial 45 and in Table 3 for the Trial 46 respectively. The tables show the values of the indexes both for mean and standard deviation concentration and for the two parameterisations.
Concerning the Trial 07 (Table 1), both the parameterisations overestimate the observed mean concentrations but the Scire et al. parameterisation to a lesser extent. On the contrary, the Hanna parameterisation better performs as NMSE, FA2 and FA5. As far as the concentration standard deviations are concerned, both the parameterisations underestimate the observations, but the Scire et al. parameterisation shows a much larger NMSE and very low FA2 and FA5. This indicates an underestimation of the measurements according to the value of FB and NMSE. This trial refers to stable conditions which are the most difficult to simulate. Looking at the parameterisation, it can be observed that the one suggested by Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) does not distinguish between neutral and stable conditions which instead can influence the dispersion in different ways. This limit can be the reason for such an unsatisfactory result.
Looking at Table 2, it can be observed that the performance of the Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) parameterisation is better than that of the Hanna (Hanna 1982) parameterisation for all indexes of the mean concentration. On the contrary, the concentration standard deviation seems to be better reproduced by the Hanna parameterisation, which overestimates whereas the Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) parameterisation underestimates.
Considering the results of the statistical analysis of the results obtained in the Trial 45 (Table 3), it can be observed that, for the mean concentration, the performance of the two parameterisations are very similar except for FB which shows underestimation in the case of Hanna (Hanna 1982) parameterisation and overestimation in the case of Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) parameterisation. Also, the indexes relating to the concentration standard deviation are similar, but the Hanna parameterisation gives a lower NMSE and worse values for FA2 and FA5.
Generally speaking, it can be observed that the values of NMSE for the concentration standard deviation are very height, while the values of FB are lower. This demonstrates that the NMSE values at extreme heights are due to some single point, whereas the predicted mean values are closer to the observed ones.
Discussion and conclusions
In stable conditions, the horizontal velocity standard deviation in the Hanna (Hanna 1982) parameterisation does not depend on the Obukhov length, L, while in Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000), it slightly increases for a higher value of L. As observed in “Plot analysis”, the calculated mean and standard deviation concentrations vary in a wider range with the Scire et al. parameterisation with respect to those obtained using the Hanna (Hanna 1982) parameterisation which is due to the larger horizontal standard deviation. In fact, L = 40 for the Trial 7. However, the overall results obtained using the Hanna parameterisation show a better performance (except for FB).
On the contrary, in unstable conditions, the horizontal velocity standard deviation prescribed by the Hanna (Hanna 1982) parameterisation increases with L and remains unchanged in the case of Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000). Thus, in both cases, the two parameterisations differ the larger L is. As a matter of fact, being the values of L in the Trial 45 are very small (− 3), the two parameterisations do not differ too much.
Concerning the vertical standard deviation in the stable case, the two parameterisations show a similar profile which does not change with L.
In unstable condition, the two parameterisations show different values in the surface layer depending on the L value. For lower values of L, they show a similar profile, while for higher values of L, the Hanna (Hanna 1982) parameterisation got values about 5 times those given by the Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) parameterisation. Looking at the results of the statistical analysis in the table (Hinze 1959), Scire et al. (Scire et al. 2000) parameterisation seems to provide better results as far as the mean concentration is considered, while for the standard deviation concentration, the Hanna parameterisation gives more accurate results.
Concerning the neutral case Trial 46, the results obtained with the two parameterisations, that obviously do not depend on L, look very similar for the mean values, but better in the case of Scire et al. parameterisation as far as the standard deviation concentration is taken into account.
Generally speaking, both parameterisations provide results that are still not completely satisfactory. Some differences in the performances of the two parameterisations come out from this analysis because of the Obukhov length, L, which seems to play a role both in the simulation of the mean and the standard deviation concentrations. However, more effort must be done to improve the turbulence parameterisations as, for example, the turbulent kinetic energy or higher order moments of the velocity fluctuation probability density function. As far as we know, there are no standard models to calculate the variance concentration runtime as in our model. Standard models only simulate the mean concentrations, and this is one of the novelty of this work. On the contrary, there are some new models developed for research purposes such as SPRAYWEB.
Data availability
I do not have the rights to distribute the data.
Change history
01 September 2023
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-023-01396-z
References
Alessandrini S, Ferrero E (2009) A hybrid lagrangian-eulerian particle model for reacting pollutant dispersion in non-homogeneous non-isotropic turbulence. Physica A Stat Mech Appl 388:1375–1387
Arya SPS (1984) Parametric relations for the atmospheric boundary layer. Bound Layer Meteor 30:57–73
Bisignano A, Mortarini L, Ferrero E, Alessandrini S (2016) Model chain for buoyant plume dispersion. Int J Environ and Pollut 62(2/3/4):200–213
Blackadar AK, Tennekes H (1968) Asymptotic similarity in neutral barotropic planetary boundary layers. J Atmos Sci 25:1025–1020
Caughey SJ, Wyngaard JC, Kaimal JC (1979) Turbulence in the evolving stable boundary layer. J Atmos Sci 36(6):1041–1052
Chang JC, Hanna SR (2004) Air quality model performance evaluation. Meteorol Atmos Phys 87(1):167–196
Durbin PA (1980) A stochastic model of two particle dispersion and concentration fluctuation in homogeneous turbulence. J Fluid Mech 100:279–302
Ferrero E, Mortarini L (2005) Concentrations fluctuations and relative dispersion pdf. Atmos Environ 39:2135–2143
Ferrero E, Mortarini L, Alessandrini S, Lacagnina C (2013) Application of a bivariate gamma distribution for a chemically reacting plume in the atmosphere. Bound-Layer Meteorol 147(1):123–137
Ferrero E, Mortarini L, Purghè F (2017) A simple parametrization for the concentration variance dissipation in a lagrangian single-particle model. Boundary Layer Meteorol 163:91–101
Ferrero E, Manor A, Mortarini L, Oettl D (2020) Concentration fluctuations and odor dispersion in lagrangian models. Atmosphere 11(1)
Franzese P (2003) Lagrangian stochastic modeling of a fluctuating plume in the convective boundary layer. Atmos Environ 37:1691–1701
Franzese P, Borgas MS (2002) A simple relative dispersion model for con- centration fluctuations in clouds of contaminant. J Appl Meteorol 41:1101–1111
Gailis RM, Hill A, Yee E, Hilderman T (2007) Extension of a fluctuating plume model of tracer dispersion to a sheared boundary layer and to a large array of obstacles. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 122:577–607
Gifford FA (1959) Statistical properties of a fluctuating plume dispersion model. Adv Geophys 6:117–137
Hanna SR (1968) A method of estimating vertical eddy transport in the planetary boundary layer using characteristics of the vertical velocity spectrum. J Atmos Sci 25(6):1026–1033
Hanna SR (1981) Lagrangian and eulerian time-scale relations in the daytime boundary layer. J Appl Meteorol 20(3):242–249
Hanna SR (1982) Applications in air pollution modeling, pp. 275–310. Springer, Dordrecht
Hanna SR, Weil JC, Paine RJ (1986) Plume model development and evaluation. Technical Report Report Number D034–500, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Hicks BB (1985) Behavior of turbulence statistics in the convective boundary layer. J Clim and Appl Meteor 24:607–614
Hinze JO (1959) Turbulence. McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc, New York
Irwin JS (1979) A theoretical variation of the wind profile power-law exponent as a function of surface roughness and stability. Atmos Environ (1967) 13(1):191–194
Kaimal JC, Wyngaard JC, Haugen DA, Cot OR, Izumi Y, Caughey SJ, Readings CJ (1976) Turbulence structure in the convective boundary layer. J Atmos Sci 33(11):2152–2169
Manor A (2009) A stochastic single particle lagrangian model for the concentration fluctuation in a plume dispersing inside an urban canopy. Bound-Layer Meteorol 94:253–296
Mortarini L, Ferrero E (2005) A lagrangian stochastic model for the concentration fluctuations. Atmos Chem Phys 5:1–10
Mortarini L, Franzese P, Ferrero E (2009) A fluctuating plume model for concentration fluctuations in a plant canopy. Atmos Environ 43:921–927
Nieuwstadt FTM (1984) Some aspects of the turbulent stable boundary layer. Bound Layer Meteor 30:31–55
Pandey G, Sharan M (2018) Performance evaluation of dispersion parameterization schemes in the plume simulation of fft-07 diffusion experiment. Atmos Environ 172:32–46
Panofsky HA, Tennekes H, Lenschow DH, Wyngaard JC (1977) The characteristics of turbulent velocity components in the surface layer under convective conditions. Bound Layer Meteor 11:355–361
Platt N, Warner S, Nunez SM (2008) Evaluation plan for comparative investigation of source term estimation algorithms using fusion field trial 2007 data. Hrvatski meteoroloki asopis 43
Scire JS, Strimaitis DG, Yamartino RJ (2000) A users guide for the CALPUFF dispersion model. Technical report, Earth Tech, Inc, Concord, MA
Singh SK, Sharan M (2013) Simulation of plume dispersion from single release in fusion field trial-07 experiment. Atmos Environ 80:50–57
Skamarock W, Klemp J (2008) A time-split nonhydrostatic atmospheric model for weather research and forecasting applications. J Comput Phys 227(7):3465–3485
Storwald DP (2007) Detailed test plan for the fusing sensor information from observing networks (fusion) field trial (FFT-07). Document no. wdtc- tp-07–078, Meteorology Division, West Desert Test Center, U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground WDTC
Thomson DJ (1987) Criteria for the selection of stochastic models of particle trajectories in turbulent flows. J Fluid Mech 180:529–556
Thomson DJ (1990) A stochastic model for the motion of particle pairs in isotropic high Reynolds number, and its application to the problem of concentration variance. J Fluid Mech 210:113–153
Tinarelli G, Anfossi D, Brusasca G, Ferrero E, Giostra U, Morselli MG, Moussafir J, Tampieri F, Trombetti F (1994) Lagrangian particle simulation of tracer dispersion in the lee of a schematic twodimensional hill. J Appl Meteorol 33:744–756
Tomasi E, Giovannini L, Falocchi M, Antonacci G, Jimnez PA, Kosovic B, Alessandrini S, Zardi D, DelleMonache L, Ferrero E (2019) Turbulence parameterizations for dispersion in sub-kilometer horizontally non-homogeneous flows. Atmos Res 228:122–136
Wyngaard JC, Cot ́e OR (1974) The evolution of a convective planetary boundary layer — a higher-order-closure model study. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 7(3):289–308
Yee E, Gailis RM, Wilson DJ (2003) The interference of higher-order statistics of the concentration field produced by two point sources according to a generalized fluctuating plume model. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 106(2):297–348
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale Amedeo Avogrado within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Yes.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ferrero, E., Alessandrini, S., Meech, S. et al. Comparison of two turbulence parameterisations for the simulation of the concentration variance dispersion. Air Qual Atmos Health 16, 49–60 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-022-01268-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-022-01268-y