Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Geochemistry
G
Volume 9, Number 3
Geophysics 5 March 2008
Q03002, doi:10.1029/2007GC001762
Geosystems
AN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE EARTH SCIENCES ISSN: 1525-2027
Published by AGU and the Geochemical Society
Click
Here
for
Full
Article
R. K. S. Hankin
National Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK
C. Cardellini
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università di Perugia, Piazza dell’Università, I-06100 Perugia, Italy
[1] Several nonvolcanic sources in central Italy emit a large amount of carbon dioxide (CO2). Under stable
atmospheric conditions and/or in the presence of topographic depressions, the concentration of CO2, which
has a molecular mass greater than that of air, can reach high values that are lethal to humans or animals.
Several episodes of this phenomenon were recorded in central Italy and elsewhere. In order to validate a
model for the dispersion of a heavy gas and to assess the consequent hazard, we applied and tested the code
TWODEE-2, an improved version of the established TWODEE model, which is based on a shallow-layer
approach that uses depth-averaged variables to describe the flow behavior of dense gas over complex
topography. We present results for a vented CO2 release at Caldara di Manziana in central Italy. We find
that the model gives reliable results when the input quantity can be properly defined. Moreover, we show
that the model can be a useful tool for gas hazard assessment by evaluating where and when lethal
concentrations for humans and animals are reached.
Costa, A., G. Chiodini, D. Granieri, A. Folch, R. K. S. Hankin, S. Caliro, R. Avino, and C. Cardellini (2008), A shallow-layer
model for heavy gas dispersion from natural sources: Application and hazard assessment at Caldara di Manziana, Italy,
Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 9, Q03002, doi:10.1029/2007GC001762.
2 of 13
Geochemistry 3
Geophysics
Geosystems G costa et al.: model for heavy gas dispersion 10.1029/2007GC001762
Figure 1. Map of Earth degassing in central and southern Italy based on the CO2 dissolved in the groundwater of
regional aquifers (modified after Chiodini et al. [2004]). CO2 fluxes above 0.4 t d1 km2 are related to the presence
of deeply derived CO2 [Collettini et al., 2008]. Locations of CO2 rich gas emissions and main geothermal wells are
also reported.
[7] In this study we used a FORTRAN 90 code in order to collect meteorological data and CO2
[Folch et al., 2008], named TWODEE-2, which concentration on air (see auxiliary material1 Table
has been derived from the improvement and opti- S1). These parameters are needed by the gas
mization of the original shallow-layer model dispersion model. Finally, we discuss some impli-
TWODEE developed by Hankin and Britter
[1999a, 1999b, 1999c]. TWODEE has been ap-
plied to risk assessment of industrially realistic Table 1. Threshold Values for CO2 Concentration in
problems for both continuous [Hankin, 2004a] the Air
and instantaneous [Hankin, 2004b] releases over
CO2 Thresholds for Human Health Principal Effect
complex topography; the model is able to simulate
heavy gas flow in a calm ambient and has been 5,000 ppm (0.5%) slight increase in
validated against experiments [Hankin, 2003b, TWA (Time Weighted breathing rate
2003c]. Average — 8 h/d for 5
days per week)a
[8] The paper is organized into two main sections. 30,000 ppm (3%) breathing increases to
First we describe the heavy gas transport model STEL (Short Term twice normal rate,
Exposure Limit — weak narcotic effect,
adopted. Then we discuss the results obtained by 15 min max time headache for long
the application of the model to a real case. For this exposure four time exposure
purpose the area of Caldara di Manziana (CdM, times a day)a
Italy), one of the biggest manifestation of central 100,000 ppm (10%)b respiratory distress
Italy, was selected (Figure 2). The CO2 soil source with loss of
consciousness
fluxes were evaluated during a field campaign in 10 – 15 min
performed in June 2006. An automatic station 120,000 – 150,000 ppm lethal concentration;
was operative at CdM from 5 to 6 February 2007 (12 – 15%)b,c exposure to levels
above this is intolerable
a
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [1997].
1 b
Auxiliary materials are available at ftp://ftp.agu.org/apend/gc/ Le Guern et al. [1982].
c
2007gc001762. Baxter et al. [1999].
3 of 13
Geochemistry 3
Geophysics
Geosystems G costa et al.: model for heavy gas dispersion 10.1029/2007GC001762
Figure 2. View from above photo of Caldara di Manziana showing the position of the meteorological station (red
dot) and the main CO2 vent. In the top right corner inset the geographical position of CdM is indicated. In the bottom
right corner inset a zoom of the area around the main CO2 vent is shown; the CO2 expulsion from the vent
continuously sustains a 0.5-m-high water column.
cations of the model application and its potential [10] In theory, gas dispersion can be studied by
use for hazard assessment. solving the transport equations for mass, momen-
tum and energy. However, in practice, because the
2. Shallow-Layer Dense Gas Transport demanding computational requests, different sim-
plified models that only partially describe the
Model physics are commonly used. These models range
from simpler analytical or similarity approaches to
[9] The cloud dispersion of gas denser than air
more complex Computational Fluid Dynamics
released from a given source is governed by
(CFD) models. A common approach is given by
gravity and by lateral eddies, the latter increase
the Box (or Similarity) models [Hankin, 2003a]
the mixing with surrounding air at the edges of the
which describe the integral properties of a plume.
cloud, decreasing its density. During the initial
A set of differential equations for averaged mass,
dispersion phase, negative buoyancy controls the
momentum and energy balance is solved along the
gas movement and the cloud simply follows the
plume using different simplifying similarity
ground (gravitational phase). In contrast, when
assumptions [e.g., Blackmore et al., 1982]. DEGA-
the density difference becomes less important,
DIS [Spicer and Havens, 1989], SLAB [Ermak,
gasdynamics is basically controlled by the wind
1990] and HEGADAS [Witlox, 1994] are popular
and the atmospheric turbulence (passive dispersion
examples of these kind of models. The most
phase). In the last case, simulations can be carried
complete but computationally most expensive
out using simplified approaches [e.g., Costa et al.,
models are the three-dimensional CFD models
2005].
based on the transport theory of mass, momentum,
4 of 13
Geochemistry 3
Geophysics
Geosystems G costa et al.: model for heavy gas dispersion 10.1029/2007GC001762
energy and species [e.g., Macedonio and Costa, [15] We consider the cloud depth as that height
2002]. This approach is able to simulate dispersion below which some fraction a of the buoyancy
of heavy gases accounting for obstacles and topo- g(r ra) is located:
graphic effects, variation of atmospheric conditions
and wind direction. Unfortunately, its computational Z h Z1
requirements constrain its use in many practical gðrð zÞ ra Þdz a gðrð zÞ ra Þdz ð1Þ
z¼0
cases. z¼0
[11] A compromise between the complexity of where a a value of 0.95 has been adopted [Hankin
CFD models and the simpler integral models is and Britter, 1999a], g stands for gravity accelera-
given by the shallow-layer approach which uses tion and ra is the air density. Concerning the depth-
depth-averaged variables to describe the flow be- averaged density we have
havior [Hankin and Britter, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c;
Venetsanos et al., 2003]. As we will show, these Z1
models are able to describe gravity driven flows of hðr ra Þ ðrð zÞ ra Þdz ð2Þ
dense gas over a complex topography. z¼0
[12] At present, applications of Shallow Water In a similar way, the depth-averaged velocities (u,
Equations (SWE) cover a wide range of problems v) are given by the relationships
which have important implications for hazard as-
sessment, from flood simulation [e.g., Burguete et Z1
al., 2002] to propagation of tsunamis [Heinrich et hðr ra Þu ðrð zÞ ra Þuð zÞdz ð3Þ
al., 2001]. SWE are valid in the limit H2*/L2* 1, z¼0
where H* is the undisturbed fluid height and L* is
the characteristic wavelength scale in the flow
direction. This means that we are dealing with very Z1
long waves. hðr ra Þv ðrð zÞ ra Þvð zÞdz ð4Þ
z¼0
[13] The TWODEE-2 model is based on depth-
averaged equations obtained by integrating mass, Concerning the vertical concentration profile,
density and momentum balance equations over the Hankin and Britter [1999b] showed how it can
fluid depth, from the bottom up to the free surface. be calculated in terms of the depth average density
This approach is able to describe the cloud as a r and an empirical parameter S1 as
function of time and of the two-dimensional
ground positions in terms of four variables: cloud 2 2 z
rð zÞ ra ¼ ðr ra Þ exp ð5Þ
depth, two depth-averaged horizontal velocities, S1 S1 h
and depth-averaged cloud concentration. Thermo-
dynamic effects such as condensation are not From (5) we can directly evaluate the gas
included at present but further development could concentration c as
account for them by introducing an additional
equation for gas enthalpy. rð zÞ ra
cð zÞ ¼ cb þ 106 cb
ð6Þ
rg ra
2.1. Depth-Averaged Variables
where c is expressed in parts per million (ppm) and
[14] Differently from fluids commonly described cb is the background concentration (see Folch et al.
by SWE, real gas clouds do not have a definite [2008] for further details).
upper surface. As a consequence, it is necessary to
define the cloud depth, h, in terms of the vertical 2.2. Depth-Averaged Equations
concentration distribution r(z). In fact, we must
point out that the actual vertical concentration [16] Assuming an incompressible homogeneous
profile is not uniform as for fluids, but it is fluid and a hydrostatic pressure distribution, the
characterized by an exponential decay [Hankin SWE for a uniform or gradually varied flow are
and Britter, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c]. Depth-averaged given by [e.g., Hankin and Britter, 1999a]
values of gas density r and velocities (u; v) must
therefore be defined in terms of their vertical @h @hu @hv
þ þ ¼ uentr ð7Þ
distributions r(z) and (u(z); v(z)). @t @x @y
5 of 13
Geochemistry 3
Geophysics
Geosystems G costa et al.: model for heavy gas dispersion 10.1029/2007GC001762
6 of 13
Geochemistry 3
Geophysics
Geosystems G costa et al.: model for heavy gas dispersion 10.1029/2007GC001762
Figure 3. Map of CO2 flux at Caldara on the digital model of the topography as background. The average diffuse
degassing flux is about 7.7
106 kg m2 s1, whereas the total contribution of the CO2 vent and the water pool
(white dots) is about 0.17 kg s1.
degassing of CO2 in this area. The emission occurs 1:25000 topography map. The location and the
both as focused vents from water pools, the main of flux of the gas sources on the computational
which sustains a 0.5-m-high water column (‘‘CO2 domain have been defined by means of a specific
vent’’ in Figure 2 and Movie S1), as well as soil CO2 flux survey. The survey was performed from
diffuse degassing from the crater floor. No human 12 to 14 June 2006 when 538 CO2 flux measure-
accidents caused by gas toxicity have been reported, ments were obtained using an accumulation cham-
but dead wild animals have been found several ber. This measurement method allows a quick
times. direct measurement of the CO2 flux from soil
[Chiodini et al., 1996, 1998; Evans et al., 2001;
[21] To test the computational model we performed Welles et al., 2001]. The measured soil flux values
an experiment at CdM in a site close to the CO2 range from 2.3
108 kg m2 s1 to 2.8
104
vent area which represents the main source of CO2 kg m2 s1 with an average value of 7.7
106 kg
inside the crater (Figure 2). m2 s1 (Figure 3). On the basis of the measure-
ments, the fluxes of 11312 cells of size 8 m
8 m
3.2. Input Data: Topography and Gas Flux were simulated by the sGs algorithm (sequential
[22] The simulation of gas dispersion using the Gaussian simulations [Deutsch and Journel, 1998])
TWODEE-2 code requires the topography grid, following the method described by Cardellini et al.
gas fluxes and wind data as input parameters [2003]. The ensemble average of the total CO2
[Folch et al., 2008]. The topography of the area output from 100 sGs simulations results in 1.88 ±
was defined by assigning at each cell the corre- 0.12 kg s1, a value very similar to the result of the
spondent topographic height derived from the previous July 1996 measurement campaign
7 of 13
Geochemistry 3
Geophysics
Geosystems G costa et al.: model for heavy gas dispersion 10.1029/2007GC001762
8 of 13
Geochemistry 3
Geophysics
Geosystems G costa et al.: model for heavy gas dispersion 10.1029/2007GC001762
Figure 5. Comparison between the measured (red dots) and simulated (black lines) CO2 concentrations averaged
every 10 min. Simulated values are referred to the average concentration over a 25 m
25 m square centered at the
station.
on the estimation of the bulk Richardson number time evolution of both measured and computed
[Jacobson, 1999]: concentrations. Over the time span considered we
observed the effects of the daytime-nighttime tran-
g q zref qðz0 Þ zref z0
sition associated with an increase in gas concen-
Rib ð12Þ
qðz0 Þ u2a zref þ v2a zref tration as the wind intensity decreases and an
inversion in temperature. The sharp CO2 concen-
where q = T(105 Pa/p)0.286 denotes the potential tration decrease, observed in the early morning and
temperature (p in Pa). In our case we have a mainly due to the increase in wind intensity, is also
reference height zref = 3.45 m and, since most of well reproduced in the simulation.
the soil in the area between the water pools and the
station was mainly bare or covered of water (see [25] As is evident from Figure 5, modeled and
inset in Figure 2), we set a roughness height z0 = observed CO2 concentrations are very similar at
0.005 m. the beginning and at the end of the series, while in
the middle of considered time span, simulation data
are firstly higher than observations, then they are
3.4. Comparison Between Measured and lower. Probably this behavior of the model is due
Computed Concentrations to abrupt changes in wind direction, since the
[24] Using the input data described above, we model seems to response with some delay to these
applied the model to simulate the temporal evolu- rapid variations. However, predicted concentra-
tion of the gas cloud during the same time interval tions are in good agreement with the measured
as the measurements, i.e., from 1730 (LT) of values. In fact, in our case TWODEE-2 was able to
5 February 2007 to 0840 (LT) of 6 February reproduce the observed data within a factor of 2,
2007. In this way we were able to compare directly similarly to other experiments that used the same
the concentrations detected at the station (at 2.2 m model [Hankin and Britter, 1999c].
height, every 10 min) with the simulation results at
[26] A view from above of the gas plume at 2.2 m
the same position. The calculated values are aver-
height, showing the temporal evolution at different
ages of a 25 m by 25 m squares. Figure 5 shows the
time slices is plotted on Figure 6. Each frame of
9 of 13
Geochemistry 3
Geophysics
Geosystems G costa et al.: model for heavy gas dispersion 10.1029/2007GC001762
Figure 6. Time evolution of concentration at 2.2 m height. Four different time slices are plotted for illustrative
purposes. The corresponding meteorological parameters are reported in the top left corner inset. Effects of both
topography and wind are clearly evident in controlling gas accumulation. The complete evolution sequence is shown
in Movie S2.
Figure 6 also records the corresponding wind magnitude larger. In a forest canopy at night CO2
velocity components, meteorological parameters concentration decreases from typical values of
and time after the modeling start (2h, 6h, 10h 500–600 ppm near the soil to background value
and 14h corresponding to a LT of 1930, 2330, at heights of the order of 102 –103 m [e.g., Sun et
0330 and 0730, respectively). The 2h, 6h and 10h al., 2006]. In the case of CdM where near the soil
results represent the gas plume at low wind con- we observe concentration of the order of 103 ppm,
ditions (nocturnal conditions) while the last image under similar conditions, we can have CO2 con-
(14h) is representative of relatively high wind cetration of 500 –600 ppm even heights of the
values when the gas plume practically disappears order of 102 –103 m.
during the morning. This behavior is similar to the
buildup of CO2 within a forest canopy under [27] The first three images show that the shape of
nocturnal stably stratified conditions [e.g., Sun et CO2 plume during night (i.e., at low wind con-
al., 2006], although the CO2 concentration values ditions) is mainly controlled by topography. The
in anomolous areas like the CdM are few orders of plume follows the topography and is elongated
toward SW, with a maximum width at the centre
10 of 13
Geochemistry 3
Geophysics
Geosystems G costa et al.: model for heavy gas dispersion 10.1029/2007GC001762
3.5. Hazard Assessment and the Most [31] Model applications similar to those described
Dangerous Scenarios above can be helpful in studying CO2 concentra-
tion distribution under a variety of seepage scenar-
[28] The results obtained in the previous section ios and atmospheric conditions, as well as for
indicate that the model is a reliable tool for predicting environmental risks from potential leak-
forecasting gas dispersion. As a second application age and seepage related with accumulation of large
11 of 13
Geochemistry 3
Geophysics
Geosystems G costa et al.: model for heavy gas dispersion 10.1029/2007GC001762
12 of 13
Geochemistry 3
Geophysics
Geosystems G costa et al.: model for heavy gas dispersion 10.1029/2007GC001762
Evans, W. C., M. L. Sorey, B. M. Kennedy, D. A. Stonestrom, Heinrich, P., A. Piatanesi, and H. Hébert (2001), Numerical
J. D. Rogie, and D. L. Shuster (2001), High CO2 emissions modelling of tsunami generation and propagation from sub-
through porous media: Transport mechanisms and implica- marine slumps: The 1998 Papua New Guinea event, Geo-
tions for flux measurement and fractionation, Chem. Geol., phys. J. Int., 145, 97 – 111.
177(1 – 2), 15 – 29. Jacobson, M. (1999), Fundamentals of Atmospheric Model-
Folch, A., A. Costa, and R. K. S. Hankin (2008), TWODEE-2: ling, 1st ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
A shallow layer model for dense gas dispersion on complex Le Guern, F., H. Tazieff, and R. Faivre Pierret (1982), An
topography, Comput. Geosci., in press. example of health hazard: People killed by gas during a
Frondini, F., G. Chiodini, S. Caliro, C. Cardellini, D. Granieri, phreatic eruption, Dieng Plateau (Java, Indonesia), February
and G. Ventura (2004), Diffuse CO2 degassing at Vesuvio, 20th, 1979, Bull. Volcanol., 45, 153 – 156.
Italy, Bull. Volcanol., 66(7), 642 – 651, doi:10.1007/s00445- Louis, J. (1979), A parametric model of vertical eddy fluxes in
004-0346-x. the atmosphere, Boundary Layer Meteorol., 12, 187 – 202.
Gerlach, T. M., M. P. Dokas, and K. A. McGee (1998), Three- Macedonio, G., and A. Costa (2002), Finite element modeling
year decline of magmatic CO2 emissions from soils of a of gas dispersion in the atmosphere, in Proceedings of
Mammoth Mountain tree kill: Horseshoe Lake, CA, 1995 – the Arezzo Seminar in Fluids Geochemistry, edited by
1997, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25(11), 1947 – 1950. A. Buccianti et al., pp. 147 – 159, Pacini, Ospedaletto
Gianelli, G. (1985), On the origin of geothermal CO2 by me- (Pisa), Italy.
tamorphic processes, Bull. Soc. Geol. Italy, 104, 575 – 584. Minissale, A. (2004), Origin, transport and discharge of CO2 in
Giggenbach, W. F. (1990), Water and gas chemistry of Lake central Italy, Earth Sci. Rev., 66, 89 – 141.
Nyos and its bearing on the eruptive process, J. Volcanol. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1997),
Geotherm. Res., 42, 337 – 362. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazard, DHHS (NIOSH)
Giggenbach, W. F., Y. Sano, and H. U. Schminckle (1991), Publ. N.97-140, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D. C.
CO2 – rich gases from Lakes Nyos and Monoun, Camerron; Oldenburg, C. M., and J. A. Unger (2003), On leakage and
Laacher See, Germany; Dieng, Indonesia and Mt. Gambier, seepage from geological carbon sequestration sites: Unsa-
Australia—Variations on a common theme, J. Volcanol. tured zone attenuation, Vadose Zone J., 2, 287 – 296.
Geotherm. Res., 45, 311 – 323. Oldenburg, C. M., and J. A. Unger (2004), Coupled vadose
Granieri, D., M. L. Carapezza, G. Chiodini, R. Avino, S. Caliro, zone and atmospheric surface-layer transport of carbon di-
M. Ranaldi, T. Ricci, and L. Tarchini (2006), Correlated in- oxide from geologic carbon sequestration sites, Vadose Zone
crease in CO2 fumarolic content and diffuse emission from J., 3, 848 – 857.
La Fossa crater (Vulcano, Italy): Evidence of volcanic Rogie, J. D., D. M. Kerrick, G. Chiodini, M. L. Sorry, and
unrest or increasing gas release from a stationary deep mag- G. Virgili (1998), Continuous monitoring of diffuse CO2
ma body?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L13316, doi:10.1029/ degassing, Horseshoe Lake, Mammoth Mountain, CA,
2006GL026460. Eos Trans. AGU, 79(45), Fall Meet. Suppl., F941.
Hankin, R. K. S. (2003a), Heavy gas dispersion: Integral mod- Rogie, J. D., D. M. Kerrick, G. Chiodini, and F. Frondini
els and shallow layer models, J. Hazard. Mater., A103, 1 – (2000), Flux measurements of nonvolcanic CO2 emission
10. from some vents in central Italy, J. Geophys. Res.,
Hankin, R. K. S. (2003b), Shallow layer simulation of heavy 105(B4), 8435 – 8445.
gas released on a slope in calm ambient. Part 1: Continuous Sigurdsson, H., J. D. Devine, F. M. Tchoua, T. S. Presser,
releases, J. Hazard. Mater., A103, 205 – 215. M. K. W. Pringle, and W. C. Evans (1987), Origin of the
Hankin, R. K. S. (2003c), Shallow layer simulation of heavy lethal gas burst from Lake Monoun, Cameroon, J. Volcanol.
gas released on a slope in calm ambient. Part 2: instanta- Geotherm. Res., 31, 1 – 16.
neous releases, J. Hazard. Mater., A103, 217 – 229. Spicer, T., and J. Havens (1989), DEGADIS - DEnse GAs
Hankin, R. K. S. (2004a), Major hazard risk assessment over DISpersion Model, Tech. Rep. EPA-450/4-89-0019, U.S. En-
non-flat terrain. Part 1: Continuous releases, Atmos. Envir- viron. Prot. Agency, San Rafael, Calif.
on., 38, 695 – 705. Sun, H., T. L. Clark, R. B. Stull, and T. A. Black (2006), Two-
Hankin, R. K. S. (2004b), Major hazard risk assessment over dimensional simulation of airflow and carbon dioxide trans-
non-flat terrain. Part 2: Instantaneous releases, Atmos. Envir- port over a forested mountain Part II. Carbon dioxide budget
on., 38, 707 – 714. analysis and advection effects, Agric. For. Meteorol., 140,
Hankin, R. K. S., and R. E. Britter (1999a), TWODEE: The 352 – 364.
Health and Safety Laboratory’s shallow layer model for hea- Venetsanos, A., J. Bartzis, J. Wurtz, and D. Papailiou (2003),
vy gas dispersion. Part 1. Mathematical basis and physical DISPLAY-2: A two-dimensional shallow layer model for
assumptions, J. Hazard. Mater., A66, 211 – 226. dense gas dispersion including complex features, J. Hazard.
Hankin, R. K. S., and R. E. Britter (1999b), TWODEE: The Mater., A99, 111 – 144.
Health and Safety Laboratory’s shallow layer model for heavy Welles, J. M., T. H. Demetriades-Shah, and D. K. McDermitt
gas dispersion. Part 2. Outline and validation of the computa- (2001), Considerations for measuring ground CO2 effluxes
tional scheme, J. Hazard. Mater., A66, 227 – 237. with chambers, Chem. Geol., 177(1 – 2), 3 – 13.
Hankin, R. K. S., and R. E. Britter (1999c), TWODEE: The Witlox, H. (1994), The HEGADAS model for ground-level
Health and Safety Laboratory’s shallow layer model for heavy heavy-gas dispersion—I. Steady-state model, Atmos. Envir-
gas dispersion. Part 3. Experimental validation (Thorney on., 28(18), 2917 – 2932.
island), J. Hazard. Mater., A66, 239 – 261. Zalesak, S. T. (1979), Fully multidimensional flux-corrected
method transport for fluid, J. Comput. Phys., 31, 335 – 362.
13 of 13