Turner Workbook

D.
BRUCE TURNER
Air Resources Field Research Office, Environmental Science Services Administration
U.
S.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Public Health Service
Environmental Health Service

National Air Pollution, Control Administration
Cincinnati,
Ohio
Revised 1970
The ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERIES of reports was established to report the results of scientific and engineering studies of man's environment: The community, whether urban, suburban, or rural, where he lives, works, and plays; the air, water, and earth he uses and re-uses; and the wastes he produces and must dispose of in a way that preserves these natural resources. This SERIES of reports provides for professional users a central source of information on the intramural research activities of the Centers in the Bureau of Disease Prevention and Environmental Control, and on their cooperative activities with state and local research agencies, and
institutions,
industrial organizations.
letters that
The general subject area of each report appear in the publication number; the indicators are
is
indicated
by the
AP
Air Pollution
Radiological Health
RH
UIH
facilitate
Urban and Industrial Health
Triplicate tear-out abstract cards are provided with reports in the
SERIES
to
information retrieval. Space number and additional key words.

in the
is
provided on the cards for the user's accession
Reports SERIES will be distributed to requesters, as supplies permit. quests should be directed to the Center identified on the title page.
Re-
3rd printing
May 1970
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-26
PREFACE
This workbook presents some computational techniques currently used by scienworking with atmospheric dispersion problems. Because the basic working equations are general, their application to specific problems usually requires special care and judgment; such considerations are illustrated by 26 example problems. This workbook is intended as an aid to meteorologists and air pollution scientists who are required to estimate atmospheric concentrations of contaminants from various types of sources. It is not intended as a complete do-it-yourself manual for atmospheric dispersion estimates; all of the numerous complications that arise in making best estimates of dispersion cannot be so easily resolved. Awareness of the possible complexities can enable the user to appreciate the validity of his "first approximations" and
tists
to realize
when
the services of a professional air pollution meteorologist are required.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express his appreciation to Robert A. McCormick Paul A. Humphrey, and other members of the Field Research Office for their helpful disand review; to Jean J. Schueneman, Chief, Criteria and Standards Development, National Center for Air Pollution Control, who suggested this workbook; to Phyllis Holland and Prank Schiermeier, who checked the problem solutions; to Ruth Umfleet 1 for their aid; and to the Nati n al Center for Air Pollution Control, w- Health 7fn y Service, and Air Resources Laboratory, Environmental Science Services public Administration, for their support.
cussions
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter Chapter
2. 3.
vii 1
BACKGROUND
ESTIMATES OF ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION
Coordinate System
Diffusion Equations
Effects of Stability Estimation of Vertical
5 5
5
and Horizontal Dispersion Evaluation of Wind Speed Plots of Concentrations against Distance Accuracy of Estimates Graphs for Estimates of Diffusion Plotting Ground-Level Concentration Isopleths Areas Within Isopleths Calculation of Maximum Ground-Level Concentrations
Review
Chapter
4.
6 7
7 7
7 10 10 17
17 17 31 31
of
Assumptions
EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF EMISSION

General Considerations
Effective Height of Emission
Estimates
Effect of
of
and Maximum Concentration Required Stack Heights

,
Effect of Evaporative Cooling
Aerodynamic Downwash
31 31 32 32 35 35 36
Chapter
5.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Concentrations in an Inversion Break-up Fumigation
Plume Trapping
Concentrations at Ground Level Compared to Concentrations at the Level of Effective Stack Height from Elevated Continuous Sources Total Dosage from a Finite Release Cross wind-Integra ted Concentration Estimation of Concentrations for Sampling Times Longer than a Few Minutes Estimation of Seasonal or Annual Average Concentrations at a Receptor from a Single Pollutant Source Meteorological Conditions Associated with Maximum Ground-Level Concentrations Concentrations at a Receptor Point from Several Sources Area Sources ,
,
36 37 37
37
38
38 39 39
Topography
Line Sources Instantaneous Sources
...
.,
40 40 41
43
Chapter Chapter
6. 7.
RELATION TO OTHER DIFFUSION EQUATIONS EXAMPLE PROBLEMS

, ,
Appendices:
1
45 57
59 61 65 69
2 3
Abbreviations and Symbols Characteristics of the Gaussian Distribution Solutions to Exponentials Constants, Conversion Equations, Conversion Tables
ABSTRACT
This workbook presents methods of practical application of the binormal continuous plume dispersion model to estimate concentrations of air pollutants. Estimates of dispersion are those of Pasquill as restated by Gifford. Emphasis is on the estimation of concentrations from continuous sources for sampling times up:, to 1 hour.. Some of the topics discussed are determination of effective height of emission, extension of concentration estimates to longer sampling intervals, inversion break-up fumigation concentrations, and concentrations from area, line, and multiple sources. Twenty-six
example problems and

are included.
their solutions are given.
Some
graphical aids to computation
Vll
Chapter 1
During recent years methods of estimating atmospheric dispersion have undergone considerable revision, primarily due to results of experimental measurements. In most dispersion problems the relevant atmospheric layer is that nearest the ground, varying in thickness from several hundred to a few thousand meters. Variations in both thermal and mechanical turbulence and in wind velocity are greatest in the layer in contact with the surface. Turbulence induced by buoyancy forces in the atmosphere is closely related to the vertical
INTRODUCTION
temperature structure. When temperature decreases with height at a rate higher than 5.4F per 1000 ft
per 100 meters), the atmosphere is in unstable equilibrium and vertical motions are enWhen temperature decreases at a lower rate or increases with height (inversion), vertical
(1C
hanced.
motions are
damped
ical variations in
or reduced. Examples of typtemperature and wind speed with
height for daytime and nighttime conditions are

illustrated in Figure 1-1.
600
500
400
300
DAY
200
100
-10
234567
TEMPERATURE,
C
J
10
11
k
1
12
34567
WIND SPEED,
in/set
10
11
Figure 1-1.
Examples
of variation of
temperature and wind speed with height (after Smith, 1963).
The transfer of momentum upward or downward in the atmosphere is also related to stability; when the atmosphere is unstable, usually in the daytime, upward motions transfer the momentum "deficiency" due to eddy friction losses near the earth's surface through a relatively deep layer, causing the wind speed to increase more slowly
with height than at night (except in the lowest few meters). In addition to thermal turbulence, roughness elements on the ground engender mechanical turbulence, which affects both the dispersion of material in the atmosphere and the wind profile (variation of wind with height). Examples of these effects on the resulting wind profile are shown in
Figure 1-2.
As wind speed increases, the effluent from a continuous source is introduced into a greater volume of air per unit time interval. In addition to this dilution by wind speed, the spreading of the material (normal to the mean direction of transport) by turbulence is a major factor in the dispersion process.
The procedures presented here to estimate atmospheric dispersion are applicable when mean wind speed and direction can be determined, but measurements of turbulence, such as the standard deviation of wind direction fluctuations, are not available. If such measurements are at hand, techniques such as those outlined by Pasquill (1961) are likely to give more accurate results. The diffusion param-
eters presented here are most applicable to groundlevel or low-level releases (from the surface to about
REFERENCES
Davenport, A. G., 1963:
20 meters), although they are commonly applied at higher elevations without full experimental validaIt is assumed that stability is the same
tion.
throughout the diffusing layer, and no turbulent transfer occurs through layers of dissimilar stability characteristics. Because mean values for wind directions and speeds are required, neither the variation
The relationship of wind structure to wind loading. Presented at Int. Conf. on The Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures, 26-28 June 63, Natl. Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex, Eng.
The estimation of the dispersion wind borne material. Meteorol. Mag. 90,
Pasquill, P., 1961:

of
wind speed nor the variation of wind direction with height in the mixing layer are taken into account. This usually is not a problem in neutral or
of
1063, 33-49.
unstable
(e.g.,
over-estimations of stable conditions.
daytime) situations, but can cause downwind concentrations in
Smith, M. E., 1963: The use and misuse of the atmosphere, 15 pp., Brookhaven Lecture Series, No. 24, 13 Feb 63, BNL 784 (T-298) Brookhaven National Laboratory.
600r
URBAN AREA
GRADIENT WIND
SUBURBS
LEVEL COUNTRY
GRADIENT WIND
&amples
of variation of
ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION ESTIMATES
Chapter 2
For a number of years estimates
of
BACKGROUND
than those suggested in this workbook, the parameter values can be used with the equations given
here.
concentra-
tions were calculated either from the equations of
Sutton (1932) with the atmospheric dispersion parameters C y C, and n, or from the equations of Bosanquet (1936) with the dispersion parameters
,
p and
REFERENCES
Bosanquet, C. H., and J. L. Pearson, 1936: The spread of smoke and gases from chimneys. Trans. Faraday Soc., 32, 1249-1263.
Cramer, H. E., 1957: A practical method for estimating the dispersion of atmospheric contaminants. Proc. 1st Natl. Conf. on Appl. Meteorol. Amer. Meterol. Soc.
q.
Hay and Pasquill (1957) have presented experimental evidence that the vertical distribution of spreading particles from an elevated point is related to the standard deviation of the wind elevation angle, at the point of release. Cramer ( 1957) derived a diffusion equation incorporating standard deviations of Gaussian distributions: for the
<r,.;
,
_,-
distribution of material in the

in the horizontal,
plume across wind

distribution
and
^ for the vertical
Cramer, H, E.,
of material in the plume. (See Appendix 2 for properties of Gaussian distributions.) These statistics were related to the standard deviations of azimuth calculated from angle, <r A and elevation angle, wind measurements made with a bi-directional wind vane (bivane). Values for diffusion parameters based on field diffusion tests were suggested by Cramer, et al. (1958) (and also in Cramer 1959a
,
F. A. Record, and H. C. Vaughan, 1958: The study of the diffusion of gases or aerosols in the lower atmosphere. Final Report
<r,. ; ,
Contract AF 19(604)-1058 Mass. Inst. of Tech., Dept. of Meteorol.
Cramer, H. E., 1959a:
orological aspects of atmospheric pollution. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 40, 4, 165-171.
brief survey of the meteBull,
and 1959b). Hay and Pasquill (1959) also presented a method for deriving the spread of pollutants from records of wind fluctuation. Pasquill (1961) has further proposed a method for estimating diffusion when such detailed wind data are not available. This method expresses the height and angular spread of a diffusing plume in terms of more commonly observed weather parameters. Suggested curves of height and angular spread as a function of distance downwind were given for several "stability" classes. Gifford (1961) converted Pasquill's values of angular spread and height into standard deviations of plume concentration distribution, ffy and (T K Pasquill's method, with Giflord's conversion incorporated, is used in this workbook (see Chapter 3) for diffusion estimates.
.
Cramer, H. E., 1959b: Engineering estimates of atmospheric dispersal capacity. Amer. Ind. Hyg.
Assoc. J., 20, 3, 183-189.
Gifford, F. A., 1961; Uses of routine meteorological observations for estimating atmospheric dispersion.
Nuclear Safety,
2, 4, 47-51.
Hay,
J. S., and F, Pasquill, 1957: Diffusion from a fixed source at a height of a few hundred feet in the atmosphere. J. Fluid Mech., 2, 299-310.
Hay,
J. S., and F. Pasquill, 1959: Diffusion from a in relation to the spectrum and scale of turbulence, pp 345-365 in Atmospheric Diffusion and Air Pollution, edited by F. N. Frenkiel and P. A. Sheppard, Advances
continuous source
Advantages of this system are that (1) only two dispersion parameters are required and (2) results most diffusion experiments are now being reported in terms of the standard deviations of plume spread. More field dispersion experiments are being conducted and will be conducted under conditions of varying surface roughness and atmospheric stability. If the dispersion parameters from a specific experiment are considered to be more representative
of
in Geophysics, 6, 471 pp.
New
York, Academic Press,
Pasquill, F., 1961: The estimation of the dispersion of windborne material. Meteorol. Mag., 90, 1063, 33-49.
Sutton, 0. G,, 1932: A theory of eddy diffusion in the atmosphere. Proc. Roy. Soc., A, 135, 143165.
Background
Chapter 3
is
ESTIMATES OF ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION

becomes essentially level, and is the sum AH. physical stack height, h, and the plume rise, following assumptions are made: the plume spread has a Gaussian distribution (see Appendix with 2) in both the horizontal and vertical planes,
of
chapter outlines the basic procedures to

in
the
sd
by
dispersion estimates as sugPaaquill (1961) and modified by Gifford
making
The
DINATE SYSTEM
the system considered here the origin is at level at or beneath the point of emission, ie x-axis extending horizontally in the directhe mean wind. The y-axis is in the horiplane perpendicular to the x-axis, and the
I
1
extends
illel to
vertically.
The plume
travels along
standard deviations of plume concentration distribution in the horizontal and vertical of o-y ând a zs respectively; the mean wind speed affecting the plume is u; the uniform emission rate of pollutants is Q; and total reflection of the plume takes place at the earth's surface, i.e., there is no deposition or reaction at the surface (see problem 9).
X (x,y,z;H)
the x-axis. Figure 3-1 illustrates the late system.
Q
z-H
exp'
a
SIGN EQUATIONS
3
exp
concentration, x, of gas or aerosols (partiis than about 20 microns diameter) at x,y,z continuous source with an effective emission H, is given by equation 3.1. The notation o depict this concentration is x (x,y,z;H). he height of the plume centerline when it
1+
=
exp
2
1*
z+H
'Note: exp
(3.1)
a/b
is
e-n />> where
Is
the base of natural logarithms
and
approximately equal to 2.7183.
x,-y,Z)
(x,-y,o)
Figure 3-1.
Coordinate system showing Gaussian distributions
in
the horizontal and vertical.
tcs
Any consistent common is;

\ (g
set of units
may
be used.
The most
m"
)
l
or, for radioactivity (curies

)
!
m~
Q
u
IT,,
(gsec~
(
or (curies sec'
m sec~
sented, and the effect of distance from the soums IH considered in the graphs determining the parameter Values for y and <r B are estimated from the stability of the atmosphere, which is in turn estimated from the wind speed at a height of about 10 meters and, during the day, the incoming solar
values.
<r
a tt H,x,y,
and
(m)
This equation is the same as equation (8.35) p. 293 of Sutton (1953) when u's are substituted for Button's parameters through equations like (8.27) p. 286. For evaluations of the exponentials found in
Eq. (3.1) and those that follow, see Appendix 3. x is a mean over the same time interval as the time interval for which the a's and u are representative. The values of both ay and tr t are evaluated in terms
of the
radiation or, during the night, the cloud cover (Panquill, 1961). Stability categories (in six classen) are given in Table 3-1. Class is the most unstable, class F the most stable class considered horo. Night refers to the period from 1 hour before aunHot to 1 hour after sunrise. Note that the neutral
class,
D, can be assumed for overcast condition** during day or night, regardless of wind speed.
Table 3-1
downwind
is
KEY TO STABILITY CATEGORIES
distance, x.
where tion of the plume travel can be neglected, that no diffusion in the x direction.
Eq. (3.1)
valid
diffusion in the direcis,
This
may be assumed if the release is continuous or if the duration of release is equal to or greater than the travel time (x/u) from the source to the
location of interest.
i.e.,
For concentrations calculated at ground level, z 0, (see problem 3) the equation simplifies
to:
X (x,y,0;H)
The neutral
class,
D,
should be assumed for overcast conditions durlnfi
exp
day or night.
(3.2)
Where the concentration is to be calculated along the centerline of the plume (y 0), (see
"Strong" incoming solar radiation corresponds to a solar altitude greater than 60 with clear skies; "slight" insolation corresponds to a solar altitude; from 15 to 35 with clear sides. Table 170, Solar Altitude and Azimuth, in the Smithsonian Meteorological Tables (List, 1951) can be used in determining the solar altitude. Cloudiness will decrease! incoming solar radiation and should be considered along with solar altitude in determining solar radiaIncoming radiation that would be strong with clear skies can be expected to be reduced to moderate with broken (% to % cloud cover) middle clouds and to slight with broken low
tion.
problem 2) further simplification results:

X <x,0,0;H)
LJJ'JLVI
I
UJ
](3.3)
For a ground-level source with no effective plume rise (H 0), (see problem 1):
_
X (x,0,0;0)
Q
U
(3.4)
EFFECTS OF STABILITY
The values of <ry and CTZ vary with the turbulent structure of the atmosphere, height above the sursurface roughness, sampling time over which face, the concentration is to be estimated, wind speed and distance from the source. For the parameter values given here, the sampling time is assumed to be about 10 minutes, the height to be the lowest several hundred meters of the atmosphere, and the surface to be relatively open country. The turbulent structure of the atmosphere and wind speed are considered in the
stability classes pre-
cloudH An objective system of classifying stability from hourly meteorological observations based on the above method has been suggested (Turner, 1961).
methods will give representative indications of stability over open country or rural areas but are less reliable for urban areas. This difference is due primarily to the influence of the city's larger surface roughness and heat island effects S tabiHty over urban areas .Tte ff greatest difference occurs on calm dear nights- on S C tS C ndit g 8 Ver mral areas are s ta ble h \ over stab e, but urban areas they are slightly unstable or near neutral to a height several times the average building height, with a stable
These
Zl ^
m
^y
lajwTboro (Duckworth and Sandberg, 1954; DeMarrais'igeT)
Some preliminary results of a dispersion experiment in St. Louis (Pooler, 1965) showed that the
dispersion over the city during the daytime behaved somewhat like types B and C; for one night, experiment varied with distance between types D and E.
o-j.
(see problem 6). Note that Eq. (3.5) assumes normal or Gaussian distribution of the plume only in the horizontal plane. The same result can be obtained from the following equation where tr zlj is an effective dispersion parameter because V^TT L
2.5066
L and
0.8 TrL
2.51 L.
ESTIMATION OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL DISPERSION

Having determined the stability class from Table 3-1, one can evaluate the estimates of and <r K as a function of downwind distance from the source, x, using Figures 3-2 and 3-3. These values of CTV and are representative for a sampling time of about 10 minutes. For estimation of concentrations for longer time periods see Chapter 5. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 apply strictly only to open level country and probably underestimate the plume dispersion potential from low-level sources in built-up areas. Although the vertical spread may be less than the values for class F with very light winds on a clear
o-,.
try.
X (x,y,z;H)
71-
Q
<r v
0-j.L
exp
(3.6)
The value
any z from to L for x > 2.v r.; x is where of <r K] 0.8

for
[:
,
u- y.
=- 0.47
EVALUATION OF WIND SPEED

For the wind speed, u, a mean through the verextent of the plume should be used. This 2 v z through H -fwould be from the height H 2 CT K Of course, if 2 o- K is greater than H then the wind can be averaged from the ground to H -f- 2 a x However, the "surface wind" value may be all that is available. The surface wind is most applicable to surface or low-level emissions, especially under
tical
.
night, quantitative estimates of concentrations are nearly impossible for this condition. With very light winds on a clear night for ground-level sources free
of topographic influences, frequent shifts in wind direction usually occur which serve to spread the
For elevated sources under horizontally. these extremely stable situations, significant concentrations usually do not reach ground level until the stability changes.
plume
stable conditions.
PLOTS OF CONCENTRATIONS AGAINST DISTANCE

lem
A
will sion.
stable layer existing above an unstable layer have the effect of restricting the vertical diffuThe dispersion computation can be modified
for this situation by considering the height of the base of the stable layer, L. At a height 2.15 above the plume centerline the concentration is onetenth the plume centerline concentration at the same distance. When one-tenth the plume centerline concentration extends to the stable layer, at height L, it is reasonable to assume that the distribution starts being affected by the "lid." The following method is suggested to take care of this situation. Allow (r z to increase with distance to a value of L/2.15 or 0.47 L. At this distance x r the plume is assumed to have a Gaussian distribution in the vertical. Assume that by the time the plume travels twice this far, 2 XL, the plume has become uniformly distributed between the earth's surface and the height L, i.e., concentration does not vary with
,,
To gain maximum insight into a diffusion probit is often desirable to plot centerline concenconvenient trations against distance downwind. procedure is to determine the ground-level centerline concentrations for a number of downwind dis-
tances and plot these values on log-log graph paper. By connecting the points, one may estimate concentrations for intermediate downwind distances
(see
problem 6).
ACCURACY OF ESTIMATES
Because of a multitude
cal limitations
of scientific
and techni-
the diffusion computation
method
height (see Figure 3-4). For the distances greater than 2 xi,, the concentration for any height between the ground and L can be calculated from:
X (x,y,z;H)
presented in this manual may provide best estimates but not infallible predictions. In the unstable and stable cases, severalfold errors in estimate of <T K can occur for the longer travel distances. In some cases the a* may be expected to be correct within a
factor of 2, however. These are: (1) all stabilities for distance of travel out to a few hundred meters; (2) neutral to moderately unstable conditions for distances out to a few kilometers; and (3) unstable conditions in the lower 1000 meters of the atmosphere with a marked inversion above for distances out to 10 or more. Uncertainties in the estimates of try are in general less than those of <r z The ground-level centerline concentrations for these
Q
V2rr
o-y
Lu
exp
(3.5)
km
to L for any z from for x >2 XT,; x r, is where
o- K
0.47
Estimates
0'
DISTANCE DOWNWIND, km
Figure 3-2.
Horizontal dispersion coefficient as a function of
downwind distance from the source.
1,000
10
100
DISTANCE DOWNWIND, km
Figure 3-3.
Vertical dispersion
coefficient as a
function of downwind distance from the source.
Estimates
338-901
BO
12345
CONC.
6*10~ 5
580meters
Figure 3-4.
Variations in
concentration
in
the vertical beneath a more stable layer.
heavy
three cases (where ^ can be expected to be within a factor of 2) should be correct within a factor of 3 including errors in Vy and u. The relative confidence in the ,s (m decreasing order) is indicated by the
lines
PLOTTING GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATION ISOPLETHS

Often one wishes to determine the locatioiiH where concentrations equal or exceed a
given
nitude. First, the axial position of the plume must be determined by the mean wind direction For plotting isopleths of ground-level concentrations the relationship between ground-level centorlino
and dashed
lines in Figures 3-2
and
3-3.
mag-
may
the plume rise. Also, for problems that require estimates of concentration at a specific point the difficulty of
mation of
Estimates of H, the effective height of the plume, he in error because of uncertainties in the esti-
AH
" time interval

X ' aXiS Can
determining the mean" wind
d consequently the
un-
tions can be used:

.x
concentrations and ground-level off-axis concentra(*,y,0;H) x (x,0,0;H)
GRAPHS FOR ESTIMATES OF DIFFUSION *'

avo id
(A
.
oor ina e f a particular isopleth f A-axis can ? be dprpvmmoi-i ^v- nn i. .i_.
J! J
from the
p * titious com P u tations,

'
Figure 3-5
times wind speed (v u/Q) aeainst down wind distances for various effective heifhts of * ml" sion and limits to the vertical mixing foi eachT4 bihty class (1 figure for each Com pu a stability) tions were made from Eq. (3.3), (3.4) andTa Estimates of actual concentrat ons may be dete mined by multiplying ordinate values u
-evconcen2.9 x 10~
:1
m-
concentration at this
.
ex P
~
1
'
'
__JLfeyiiH)
by Q/
= S^TlO ^
345
10
CISTAKCE.km
Figure 3-5A.
xu/Q
with distance for various heights of emission (H) and limits to vertical dispersion
(L),
stability.
Estimates
11
10
DISTANCE, km
Figure 3-5B.
,vu/Q with distance for various heights of emission (H) and limits to vertical dispersion
(L),
stability.
12
DISTANCE, km
Figure 3-5C.
xu/Q
(L),
stability.
Estimates
13
DISTANCE, km
Figure 3-5D.
xu/Q
(L),
stability.
14
10
10
DISTANCE, km
Figure 3-5E.
xii/Q with distance for various heights of emission (H) and limits to vertical dispersion (U, E stability.
Estimates
15
100
DISTANCE, km
igure 3-5F.
xu/Q
with distance for various heights of emission
(H)
and
limits to vertical dispersion
(L),
F stabifity.
L6
From Table A-l (Appendix
3)
when exp
1.46
"= 0-346, y/<ry
From Figure
3-2, for stability
92.
is
This
Therefore y the distance
of
x-axis at a
downwind
B and x 600 m, <r y 134 meters. (1.46) (92) the 10~ isopleth from the distance of 600 meters.
;|
u a y az will not change appreciThe greater the effective height, the more it is that the stability may not be the same from the ground to this height. With the longer such as the points of maximum concentrations for stable conditions (Types E or F), the stability may change before the plume
height, the product
likely
ably.
travel distances
travels the entire distance.
This can also be determined from:
REVIEW OF ASSUMPTIONS
(3.8)
2 In* x (x,y,0;H)
The preceding has been based on these assumptions, which should be clearly understood:
(i) Continuous emission from the source or emission times equal to or greater than travel times to the downwind position under consideration, so that diffusion in the direction of transport may be
The
position corresponding to the
downwind
dis-
tance and off-axis distance can then be plotted. After a number of points have been plotted, the concentration isopleth may be drawn (see problems 8 and 26). Figures 3-6 and 3-7 give ground-level isopleths of xu/Q for various stabilities for sources 100 meters. For example, to at and s 3 locate the 10~ g m~ isopleth resulting from a 1 ground-level source of 20 g sec" under B stability conditions with wind speed 2 sec" 1 one must first determine the corresponding value of x u /Q since this is the quantity graphed in Figure 3-6. x u /Q 10-" x 2/20 10-'. Therefore the x u/Q isopleth 3 in Figure 3-6B having a value of 10"' m~ corresponds to a x isopleth with a value of 10~ g m~
neglected.
(ii)
H =
H=
The material
diffused
is
a stable gas or
aerosol (less than 20 microns diameter) which remains suspended in the air over long periods of time.
(iii)
The equation
of continuity:
=
fl
cly
dz
(3.9)
:)
AREAS WITHIN ISOPLETHS

Figure 3-8 gives areas within isopleths of ground-
none of moved from the plume

is fulfilled, i.e.,
the material emitted is reas it moves downwind and
there
is
complete reflection at the ground.
terms of x u/Q for a groundlevel source for various stability categories (Gifford,
level concentration in
x-axis,
1962; Hilsmeier and Gifford, 1962). For the exama ple just given, the area of the 10~ g m" isopleth 2 4 " (10~ n u/Q isopleth) is about 5 x 10 meter
13
The mean wind direction specifies the ( iv) and a mean wind speed representative of the diffusing layer is chosen.
(v) Except where specifically mentioned, the plume constituents are distributed normally in both the cross-wind and vertical directions.
(vi) The (r's given in Figures 3-2 and 3-3 represent time periods of about 10 minutes.
CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM
GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS
maximum concentration,
Figure 3-9 gives the distance to the point of x limj; and the relative maximum concentration, x u/Q milx as a function of effective height of emission and stability class
, ,
REFERENCES
DeMarrais, G. A., 1961: Vertical temperature difference observed over an urban area. Bull. Amer,
Meteorol. Soc., 42,
8,
(Martin, 1966). This figure was prepared from graphs of concentration versus distance, as in Figure 3-5. The maximum concentration can be determined by finding x u/Q as a function of effective emission height and stability and multiplying by Q/u. In using Figure 3-9, the user must keep in mind that the dispersion at higher levels may differ considerably from that determined by the o-/s and ffa 's used here. As noted, however, since ay generally decreases with height and u increases with
'In"
548-554.
S. Sandberg, 1954: The horizontal and vertical
Bull.
Duckworth, F.
effect
S.,
of
cities
and J. upon
temperature gradients.
Soc., 35, 5, 198-207.
Amer. Meteorol.
Gifford, F. A., 1961: Use of routine meteorological observations for estimating atmospheric dispersion.
Nuclear Safety,
2, 4,
47-51.
Gifford, F. A., 1962:

denotes natural logarithms,
i.e.,
The
area within ground-level

4,
to
the base
e,
dosage isopleths.
Nuclear Safety >
2,
91-92.
Estimates
17
CL>
gj
m...
C-O
CO
OJ
"I
'(*)
33NV1SIO flN!MSSO3
18
CO
o
c/>
"oi
txO
Q.
DQ CO
tao
3DNV1SIO
Estimates
19
ro
-4_j c/i
C-3
i
=3
-c
X
jOi
CZIu
to CO
OJ
33NV1SIQ
20
Q
a
o o
l/>
~o>
>
"O
o
TO
O
X
H
o
OL
O
CO
a
up oo
CD
i
,
3'3HV1S1Q
Estimates
21
03
o
CO
33HV1SIQ
22
<c
j=r
E
en
o
ra
X.
C*
M
unj
'(M 3DNV1SIQ
23
Estimates
ca
CQ
a> CJ
ca r^TO
QJ
'1
'(
CJ3
_cf
CD
-4
'
CD
CD CD
q>
o. o
CJ
I
CO
CD
33NV1SIQ
25
Estimates
339-001
69
CO to
X
to
-!=:
OJ
CL>
So
3DNV1SIQ
QNIMSSO3
_op
Ic:
CD
*-'
OJ
CO
oo
CD
'(*}
27
Estimates
Xu
m"
Figure 3-8.
Area within isopleths for a ground-level source (from Hilsmeier and
Gifford).
Jilsmeier, W. F., and F, A. Gifford, 1962: Graphs for estimating atmospheric diffusion. ORO-545,
of
windborne material.
Meteorol.
Mag
00
Oak
1063, 33-49.
Ridge, Tenn. Atomic Energy Commission, 10 pp.

List,
Pooler, F., 1965:
Personal communication.
R, J., 1951: Smithsonian Meteorological Tables, Sixth Revised Edition, 497-505, Washington, D. C., Smithsonian Institution, 527 pp.
Button, 0. G., 1953:
Micrometeorology, McGraw-Hill. 333 pp.
New York
Martin, D, 0., 1965:

Pasquill, F., 1961:
Personal communication.
estimation of the dispersion
Turner, D. B., 1961: Relationships between 24hour mean air quality measurements and meteorological factors in
The
Nashville, Tennessee.
J.
Air Poll. Cont. Assoc., 77, 483-489.
E
QJ
(/O
Oi
,I_J
OJ
E
OJ
_d
tD
"-4'
5
O
(D
E E
r= cr ca
o
'*_j
TO
'x
O
CD
^4.
= JO
CO =1
ca -B
CTJ
CO
CD
=3
KxO
iatcs
Chapter 4
EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF EMISSION

VH d
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
In most problems one must estimate the effective stack height, H, at which the plume becomes essentially level. Rarely will this height correspond to the physical height of the stack, h. If the plume is caught in the turbulent wake of the stack or of buildings in the vicinity of the stack, the effluent will be mixed rapidly downward toward the ground (aerodynamic downwash). If the plume is emitted free of these turbulent zones, a number of emission
factors and meteorological factors influence the rise of the plume. The emission factors are: velocity of the effluent at the top of the stack, V H temperature of the effluent at the top of the stack, T H and diameter of the stack opening, d. The meteorolog;
= stack gas exit velocity, m sec = the inside stack diameter, m = wind speed, m sec' p = atmospheric pressure, mb T = stack gas temperature, K
u
1
H a
T
and
= air temperature, K
!
2.68 x 10~.
is
a constant having units of
mb" J
m-
Holland (1953) suggests that a value between 1.1 and 1.2 times the AH from the equation should be used for unstable conditions; a value between 0.8 and 0.9 times the AH from the equation should
be used for stable conditions.
Since the plume rise from a stack occurs over some distance downwind, Eq. (4.1) should not be applied within the first few hundred meters of the
stack.
ical factors influencing plume rise are wind speed, u; temperature of the air, T,,; shear of the wind with height, du/dz; and atmospheric sta-
speed
bility.
No
all of these variables;
theory on plume even

available.
rise takes into

if
account such a theory were

of the
EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF EMISSION AND
available,
measurements
of all of the parameters
would seldom be
equations that have been formulated for computing the effective height of emission are semi- empirical. For a recent review of equations for effective height of emission see Moses, Strom, and Carson (1964).
Most
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION
same under
If the effective heights of emission were the all atmospheric conditions, the highest ground-level concentrations from a given source would occur with the lightest winds. Generally, however, emission conditions are such that the effective stack height is an inverse function of wind
Moses and Strom (1961), having compared actual and calculated plume heights by means of six plume rise equations, report "There is no one for-
The is outstanding in all respects." formulas of Davidson-Bryant (1949), Holland Bo(1953), Bosanquet-Carey-Halton (1950), and resaiiquet (1957) all give generally satisfactory
mula which
The experiments conducted by Moses and Strom involved plume rise from a stack of less than 0.5 meter diameter, stack
sults in the test situations.
1
effluent gas exit velocities less than 15 m sec" and than that temperature not more than 35C higher of the ambient air.
,
Holland was developed with than those experimental data from larger sources of Moses and Strom (stack diameters from 1.7 to 4,3 meters and stack temperatures from 82 to 204 C); Holland's equation is used in the solution of the problems given in this workbook. This equation frequently underestimates the effective height of emission; therefore its use often provides a slight
The equation
of
speed as indicated in Eq. (4.1). The maximum ground-level concentration occurs at some intermediate wind speed, at which a balance is reached between the dilution due to wind speed and the effect of height of emission. This critical wind speed will vary with stability. In order to determine the critical wind speed, the effective stack height as a function of wind speed should first be determined. The maximum concentration for each wind speed and stability can then be calculated from Figure 3-9 as a function of effective height of emission and stability. When the maximum concentration as a function of wind speed is plotted on log-log for each stability graph paper, curves can be drawn to the class; the critical wind speed corresponds concentration on the point of highest maximum curve (see problem 14).
ESTIMATES OF REQUIRED STACK HEIGHTS

Estimates of the stack height required to pro-
"safety" factor.
Holland's equation
is;
be duce concentrations below a given value may made through the use of Figure 3-9 by obtaining this figure solutions for various wind speeds. Use of distance considers maximum concentrations at any
from the source.
the In some situations high concentrations upon are of little concern, but property of the emitter
31
u
where;
AH
= the rise of the plume above the stack, m
Effective Height
maximum
concentrations beyond the property line are of the utmost importance. For first approximations it can be assumed that the maximum concentration occurs where \/Tcr B and that at this distance the IT'S are related to the maximum concentration by:
=H
and extends downwind 5 to 10 times its height. Building the stack 2.5 times the height of the highest building adjacent to the stack usually overcomes the effects of building turbulence (Hawkins and Nonhebel, 1955). Ensuring that the exit velocity of the stack gas is more than 1.5 times
least twice its height
(r
v a., ---=
Q
ue
0.117
Q
(4.2)
Knowing the source
strength, Q, and the concen-
tration not to be exceeded xmnw one can determine the necessary a- y <rz for a given wind speed. Figure shows a-y a z as a function of distance for the various stability classes. The value of v y crx and a design distance, x,i (the distance beyond which x is less than some pre-determined value) , will determine a point on this graph yielding a stability class or point between classes. The CTK for this stability
4-1
the wind speed will usually prevent downwash in the wake of the stack. Most of the knowledge about the turbulent wakes around stacks and buildings has been gained through wind tunnel studies (Sherlock and Lesher, 1954; Strom, 1955-1956; Strom, et al, 1957; and Halitsky, 1962). By use of models of building shapes and stacks, one may determine the wind speeds required to cause downwash for various wind directions. With a wind tunnel the
meteorological variables most easily accounted for are wind speed and wind direction (by rotation of the model within the tunnel) The emission factors that may be considered are the size and shape of the plant building; the shape, height, and diameter of the stack; the amount of emission; and the stack.
between stabilities) can then be determined from Figure 3-3. The required effective stack height for this wind speed can then be approximated by H \/2 7 (see problem 15). Since Eq. (4.2) is an approximation, the resulting height should be used with Eq. (3.3) to ensure that the
(or point
<7
gas velocity.
maximum
is
concentration
is
sufficiently
low.
If
to enough allow use of an equation for effective height of and u can be emission, the relation between
known about the proposed source
AH
determined. The physical stack height required at the wind speed for which H was determined is H AH. The same procedure, starting with the determination of a-y a z must be used with other wind speeds to determine the maximum required physical stack height (see problem 16).
,
Through wind tunnel studies, the critical wind speeds that will cause downwash from various directions can be determined for a given set of plant factors. The average number of hours of downwash per year can then be calculated' by determining the frequency of wind speeds greater than the critical speeds for each direction (Sherlock and Lesher, 1954) if climatological data representative of the site are available.
EFFECT OF EVAPORATIVE COOLING

When
effluent gases are
Maximum downwash about a rectangular structure occurs when the direction of the wind is at an angle of 45 degrees from the major axis of the structure; minimum downwash occurs with wind flow parallel to the major axis of the structure (Sherlock
and Lesher, 1954).
Halitsky (1961, 1963) has shown that the effluent from flush openings on flat roofs frequently flows in a direction opposite to that of the free
washed
to
absorb
cer-
tain constituents prior to emission, the gases are cooled and become saturated with water vapor. Upon release of the gases from the absorption tower, further cooling due to contact with cold surfaces
of ductwork or stack is likely. This cooling causes condensation of water droplets in the gas stream. Upon release of the gases from the stack, the water droplets evaporate, withdrawing the latent heat of vaporization from the air and cooling" the plume. The resulting negative buoyancy reduces the effective stack height (Scorer, 1959).
atmospheric wind, owing to counter-flow along the roof in the turbulent wake above the building. In addition to the effect of aerodynamic downwash upon the release of air pollutants from stacks and buildings, one must also consider the effects of aerodynamic downwash when exposing meteorological instruments near or upon buildings.
EFFECT OF AERODYNAMIC
The
DOWNWASH
Where the pollution is emitted from a vent or opening on a building and is immediately influenced by the turbulent wake of the building, the pollution is rapidly distributed within this turbulent wake. To account for mixing in the turbulent
wake, one may assume binomial distributions of concentrations at the source, with horizontal and vertical standard deviations of <ryo and am The standard deviations are related to the width and height of the building, for example, letting 4.3 uyf equal the width of the building and 2.15 a.M equal
.
>
influence of mechanical turbulence around a building or stack can significantly alter the effective stack height. This is especially true with high winds, when the beneficial effect of high stackgas velocity is at a minimum and the plume is emitted nearly horizontally. The region of disturbed flow surrounds an isolated building, generally to at
Diilanca Downwind, km
Figure 4-1.
The product of
<vr. as a function of
downwind distance from the source.
33
Effective Height
the height. Values other than 4.3 and 2.15 can be of the disused. When these values are used 97 tribution is included within these limits. Virtual distances x y and X can be found such that at x ff and at x a a x == fr 7n These x's will differ y with stability. Equations applicable to point sources can then he used, determining <r v as a function of x -f~ x,. and T Z as a function of x -f x
Hawkins, J. E., and G. Nonhebel, 1955; Chimneys and the dispersal of smoke. J. Inst. Fuel, 28,
530-546.
-v
Holland, J.
the
Z.,
1953:
meteorological survey of
IT.,.,,
Oak Ridge area. 554-559 Atomic Energy Comm., Report ORO-99, Washington, D.C.,
584 pp.
?p
REFERENCES
Bosanquet, C. H., W. F. Carey, and E. M. Halton, 1950: Dust from chimney stacks. Proc. Inst,
Moses, H., and G. H. Strom, 1961: A comparison of observed plume rises with values obtained from well-known formulas. J. Air Poll. Cont.
Assoc., 11, 10, 455-466.
Mech. Eng., 162, 355-367.

Bosaiiquet, C. H., 1957:
a hot waste gas plume. J. Inst. Fuel, 30, 197, 322-328.
rise of
Moses, H., G. H. Strom, and

Effects of meteorological
tors
J. E.
Carson, 1964:
fac1,
and engineering
The
on stack plume
rise.
Nuclear Safety, 6,
1-19.
Davidson,
W.
F.,
1949:
The
dispersion
and spread-
ing of gases and dust from chimneys. Trans. Conf. on Ind. Wastes, 14th Ann. Meeting, Ind.
Scorer, R. S., 1959: The behavior of plumes. J. Air Poll., 1, 198-220.
Int.
Hygiene Found. Amer., 38-55.

Halitsky, J., 1961: Wind tunnel model test of exhaust gas recirculation at the NIH Clinical Center, Tech. Rep. No. 785. 1, New York Univ. Halitsky,
J., 1962: Diffusion of vented gas around buildings. J. Air Poll. Cont. Assoc., 12, 2, 74-80.
Sherlock, R. H., and E. J. Lesher, 1954: Role of chimney design in dispersion of waste gases. Air Repair, 4, 2, 1-10.
Strom, G. H., 1955-1956:
Wind tunnel scale model studies of air pollution from industrial plants. Ind. Wastes, Sept. - Oct. 1955, Nov. - Dec. 1955, Feb.
and Jan.
-
1956.
Halitsky, J., 1963: Gas diffusion near buildings, theoretical concepts and wind tunnel model ex-
Strom, G. H., M. Hackman, and E.
J. Kaplin,
1957:
periments with prismatic building shapes. Geophysical Sciences Lab. Rep. No. 63-3. New York Univ.
Atmospheric dispersal of industrial stack gases determined by concentration measurements in scale model wind tunnel experiments. J. Air
Poll.
Cont. Assoc.,
7,
3, 198-203.
Chapter 5
SPECIAL TOPICS
A difficulty is encountered in estimating a reasonable value for the horizontal dispersion since in mixing the stable plume through a vertical depth some additional horizontal spreading occurs (see problem 12). If this spreading is ignored and the for stable conditions used, the probable result would be estimated concentrations higher than aco-j-
CONCENTRATIONS IN AN INVERSION BREAK-UP FUMIGATION

be eliminated by the upward transfer of sensible heat from the ground surface when that surface is warmer than the overlying air. This situation occurs when the solar radiation or when ground is being warmed by air flows from a cold to a relatively warm surface. In either situation pollutants previously emitted
surface-based inversion
may
above the surface into the stable layer will be mixed thermal vertically when they are reached by the
increase. eddies, and ground-level concentrations can This process, called "fumigation" was described by Hewson and Gill (1944) and Hewson (1945). Equations for estimating concentrations with these conditions have been given by Holland (1953), Hewson (1955), Gilford (1960a), Bierly and Hewson (1962), and Pooler (1965).
Or, using an approximation suggested by Bierly and Hewson (1962) that the edge of the plume spreads outward with an angle of 15, the cfyit for the inversion break-up fumigation equals the a y for stable conditions plus one-eighth the effective height of emission. The origin of this concept can be seen in Figure 5-1 and the following equation, where the edge of the plume is the point at which the concentration falls to 1/10 that at the
tual concentrations.
centerline (at a distance of 2.15 * y from the plume center)

,
2.15
" rff
ffs
(stable)
+H
tan 15
estimate ground-level concentrations under inversion break-up fumigations, one assumes that the plume was initially emitted into a stable layer. Therefore, <r y and cr K characteristic of stable conditions must be selected for the particular distance of concern. An equation for the ground-level concentration when the inversion has been eliminated
To
2.15
<r
-=
(stable) -f
H/8
in
(5.4)
Gaussian distribution sumed.
the horizontal
is
as-
BOUNDARY OF
STABLE PLUME
tr,
to a height hi
is:
(x,y,0;H)
=
exp
(
.1
Q
STT
ffyif
0.5
a )
dp
U
y
hf
-IS*
exp
(5.1)
h, "z
where p
2.15
~y+ H ton 15"
and
(TyF is
discussed below.
2.15
Values for the integral in brackets can be found in most statistical tables. For example, see pages 273for 276, Burington (1963). This factor accounts
the portion of the plume that is mixed downward. If the inversion is eliminated up to the effective stack height, half of the plume is presumed to be mixed downward, the other half remaining in the stable air above. Eq. (5.1) can be approximated when the fumigation concentration is near its
(FUMIGATION)
Figure 5-1.
Diagram showing during fumigation, for use
assumed
in
height, hi and *?
(5.2).
equation
maximum
by:
Q
(x,y,0;H)
(5.2) (5.3)
near the stack, Eq. (6.4) should not be applied for if the inversion has been eliminated to a height emission sufficient to include the entire plume, the conditions. is taking place under unstable not stable distance to be Therefore, the nearest downwind considered for an estimate of fumigation concenmust be enough, based on the time
trations
great that this porrequired to eliminate the inversion, into stable tion of the plume was initially emitted =- ut m where u is the mean air. This distance is x
,
35
Special Topics
wind in the stable layer and t is the time required to eliminate the inversion from h, the physical height of the stack to h (Eq. 5.3).
rii f
inversion
both the strength of the t,,, is dependent upon and the rate of heating at the surface. Pooler (1965) has derived an expression for estithis time:
p:i
(1962) gested the use of an equation that accounts for the multiple eddy reflections from both the ground and the stable layer:
layer aloft.
/
Bierly and
Hewson
have sug-
n _.TT\
2?r
^t
mating
SO
(hi
H
h,
R
where
tm
h)
exp
(5.5)
pa Cp
= ambient air density, g m~ = specific heat of air at constant pressure,

3
time required for the mixing layer to develop from the top of the stack to the top of the plume, sec
-f
exp
cal g- 1
"K-
R
so
=--
net rate of sensible heating of an air
column by
2 1 solar radiation, cal rn~ sec"
vertical potential
temperature gradient,
"Kmrate)
Sz
h r (the adiabatic lapse
hi = height of base of the inversion sufficient
to be above the plume,
= physical height
hi
f
of the stack,
m
where
tions.
Note that
is
the thickness of the layer to be

-1
1
heated and
layer.
is
the average height of the
Although R depends on season, and cloud cover and varies continuously with time, Pooler has used a value of 67 cal m~ 2 sec" 1 as an average for
fumigation.
3 is the height of the stable layer and J or 4 is sufficient to include the important reflec-
Hewson (1945) also suggested a method of estimating the time required to eliminate an inversion to a height z by use of an equation of Taylor's
(1915, p. 8):
u
A good approximation of this lengthy equacan be made by assuming no effect of the stable 0.47 L (see Chapter 3). It is aslayer until a sumed that at this distance, XL, the stable layer begins to affect the vertical distribution so that at the downwind distance, 2 XL, uniform vertical mixing has taken place and the following equation can
tion
<r
be used:
=zr-^
'27T tTv
4
t
where:
= time
LU
exp
(5.9)
required to eliminate the inversion to height z, sec
= height to which the inversion has been

eliminated,
K = eddy
diffusivity for heat,
sec"
For distances between XL and 2 X L the best approximation to the ground-level centerline concentration is that read from a straight line drawn between the concentrations for points XL and 2 XL on a log-log
plot of ground-level centerline concentration as function of distance.
Rewriting to compare with Eq. (5.5),
V
4
for K.
h2
K
a value of 3
(5.7)
Hewson (1945) has suggested
sec"
CONCENTRATIONS AT GROUND LEVEL COMPARED TO CONCENTRATIONS AT THE LEVEL OF EFFECTIVE STACK HEIGHT FROM ELEVATED CONTINUOUS SOURCES
There are
several interesting relationships be-
PLUME TRAPPING
Plume trapping occurs when the plume is trapped between the ground surface and a stable
tween ground-level concentrations and concentrations at the level of the plume centerline. One of
these is at the distance of maximum concentration at the ground. As a rough approximation the maxiground-level concentration occurs at the dis-
mum
accurately. The estimate of this path is usually inT creasingly difficult with shorter release times. can also be given in curie sec m~ 3 if QT is in curies.
tance where
H.
This approximation
is
CROSSWIND-INTEGRATED CONCENTRATION
The ground-level cross wind-in teg rated concentration is often of interest. For a continuous elevated source this concentration is determined from ~x to Eq. (3.2) integrated with respect to y from + (Gifford 1960a) giving:
"
better for unstable conditions than for stable With this approximation, the ratio of concentration at plume centerline to that at the
much
conditions.
ground
is:
0,H)
Q
U
/H
exp
.
x(x,0,0)
^ a.
(5.11)
In
=
of
QQ l.ou
the ground-level crosswind-integrated concentration is often determined at particular downwind distances from a crosswind line or arc of sampling measurements made at this distance. When the source strength, Q, and average wind speed, u, are known, ox can be estimated indirectly even though no measurements were made in the vertical. If any of the tracer is lost through reaction or deposition, the resulting a z from such estimates will not represent the vertical dispersion
diffusion experiments
maximum
This calculation indicates that at the distance ground-level concentration the concen-
(see problem IS).
tration at one- third.
plume centerline
is
greater
by about
It is also of interest to determine the relationsuch that the concentration ship between <rK and at ground-level at a given distance from the source is the same as the concentration at plume level. This condition should occur where:
ESTIMATION OF CONCENTRATIONS FOR SAMPLING TIMES LONGER THAN A FEW MINUTES

Concentrations directly downwind from a source decrease with sampling time mainly because of a <r y due to increased meander of wind direction. Stewart, Gale, and Crooks (1958) reported that this decrease in concentration follows a one-fifth power law with the sampling time for sampling periods from about 3 minutes to about half an hour. Cramer (1959) indicates that this same power law applies for sampling times from 3 seconds to 10 minutes. Both of these studies were based on observations taken near the height of release. Gifford (1960b) indicates that ratios of peak to mean concentrations are much higher than those given by the above power law where observations of concentrations are made at heights considerably different from the height of release or considerably removed
larger
1.0
exp
The
10).
value
HA =
K
which can be written as
1.10 satisfies this expression, <r z 0.91 (see problem
TOTAL DOSAGE FROM A FINITE RELEASE

The total dosage, which is the integration of concentration over the time of passage of a plume or puff, can be obtained from;
D*
(x,y,0;H)
1
=
7T
Q.J
fTy tT
U exp
(5.10)
H
*
where D v total dosage, g sec and Q T total release, g
from the plume axis. He also indicates that for increasing distances from an elevated source, the ratios of peak to average concentrations observed at ground level approach unity. Singer (1961) and to Singer, et al. (1963) show that ratios of peak mean concentrations depend also- on the stability of the atmosphere and the type of terrain that the Nonhebel (I960) reports is passing over. that Meade deduced a relation between calculated concentrations at ground level and the sampling time from "a study of published data on lateral and vertical diffusion coefficients in steady winds." These relations are shown in Table 5-1,
plume
The ff's should be representative of the time period over which the release takes place, and care should be taken to consider the x-axis along the trajectory or path of the plume or puff travel. Large
errors
can easily occur
if
the path
is
not known
Special Topics
37
Table 5-1
VARIATION OF CALCULATED CONCENTRATION
2
\/27T
CTjs
H
exp
WITH SAMPLING TIME

Ratio of Calculated Concentration
2.03Q *
aK
UX
OVV\ exp
I I
H
(5.13)
or
2.55
Q
(5.14)
is af-
Lu
Lux
16
depending upon whether a stable layer aloft

fecting the distribution.
This table indicates a power relation with time: <x t~ 1T Note that these estimates were based
ft .
The estimation
of x for a particular direction
dispersion coefficients rather than results. Information in the references cited indicates that effects of sampling time are exceedingly complex. If it is necessary to estimate concentrations from a single source for the time intervals greater than a few minutes, the best estimate apparently can be obtained from;
and downwind distance can be accomplished by

choosing a representative wind speed for each speed class and solving the appropriate equation (5.13 or 5.14) for all wind speed classes and stabilities. Noto that a SSW wind affects a receptor to the of a source. One obtains the average concentration for a given direction and distance by summing all the concentrations and weighting each one according to its frequency for the particular stability and wind speed class. If desired, a different effectivo height of emission can be used for various wind speeds. The average concentration can be expressed
upon published upon sampling
NNE
=
;
(5.12)
vhere
;he
,\
is
the desired concentration estimate for
sampling time, ts x* is the concentration estinate for the shorter sampling time, t k> (probably ibout 10 minutes); and p should be between 0.17 md 0.2. Eq. (5.12) probably would be applied nost appropriately to sampling times less than 2 lours (see problem 19).
by: 2
(x,G)
(G,S,N)
<**$
N
H,,
Us
16
exp
(5.15)
ESTIMATION OF SEASONAL OR ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS AT A RECEPTOR FROM A SINGLE POLLUTANT SOURCE
For a source that emits at a constant rate from lour to hour and day to day, estimates of seasonal annual average concentrations can be made for any distance in any direction if stability wind "rose" data are available for the period under study. A wind rose gives the frequency of occurrence for each wind direction (usually to 16 points) and wind speed class (9 classes in standard Weather Bureau use) for the period under consideration (from 1 month to 10 years) stability wind rose gives the
jr
.
where
f (0, S,
the frequency during the period of interest that the wind is from the direction G, for the stability condition, S, and
is
N)
wind speed
o- zS
class
N.
is
the vertical dispersion parameter evaluated at the distance x for the stability condition S. the representative wind speed for class N,
UN
is
H,, is
the effective height of release for the wind speed UN.
same type
of information for each stability class.
If the wind directions are taken to 16 points and it is assumed that the wind directions within each sector are distributed randomly over a period of a season, it can further be assumed that the effluent is uniformly distributed in the horizontal within the sector (Holland, 1953, p. 540). The appropriate equation for average concentration
stability wind rose information cannot bo obtained, a first-order approximation may be made of seasonal or annual average concentrations by using the appropriate wind rose in the same manner, and assuming the neutral stability class, D,
Where
only.
month or a
METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH MAXIMUM GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS

1,
For ground-level sources
maximum
concentra-
is
then either:
tions occur with stable conditions.
2.
maximum "instantaneous" concentrations occur with unstable conditions when portions of the plume that have undergone little dispersion are brought to the ground. These occur close to the point of emission (on the order of 1 to 3 stack heights) These concentrations are usually of little general interest because of their very short duration; they cannot be estimated from the material presented in
For elevated sources
.
this
3.
workbook.
For elevated sources maximum concentrations for time periods of a few minutes occur with
unstable conditions; although the concentrations fluctuate considerably under these conditions, the concentrations averaged over a few minutes are still high compared to those found under other conditions. The distance of this maximum concentration occurs near the stack (from 1 to 5 stack heights downwind) and the concentration drops off rapidly downwind with
increasing distance,
be worked source-receptor geometry can then merely by drawing or visualizing an x-axis oriented the upwind from the receptor and determining crosswind distances of each source in relation to this x-axis. As pointed out by GifEord (1959), the concentration at (0, 0, 0) from a source at (x, y, H) on a coordinate system with the x-axis oriented upwind is the same as the concentration at (x, y, 0) from a source at (0, 0, H) on a coordinate system with the x-axis downwind (Figure 5-2), The total concentration is then given by summing the individual contributions from each source {see problem
20).
SOURCE
UPWIND
out
RECEPTOR
(0,0,0)
4.
For elevated sources maximum concentrations for time periods of about half an hour can occur with fumigation conditions when an unstable layer increases vertically to mix downward a plume previously discharged within a stable layer. With small AH, the fumigation can occur close to the source but will be of relatively short duration. For large AH, the fumigation will occur some distance from the stack (perhaps 30 to 40 km), but can persist for a longer time interval. Concentrations considerably lower than those associated with fumigations, but of significance can occur with neutral or unstable
when the dispersion upward is severely limited by the existence of a more stable layer above the plume, for example, an inversion.
conditions
5.
Under
stable conditions the maximum concentrations at ground-level from elevated sources are less than those occurring under unstable conditions and occur at greater distances from the source. However, the difference between maximum ground-level concentrations for stable
DOWNWEND
Figure 5-2.
Comparison of source-oriented and receptororiented coordinate systems.
and unstable conditions

for effective heights of of 6 for of 75 m.
is only a 25 meters and a factor Because the maximum H occurs at greater distances, concentrations that are below the maximum but still significant can occur over large areas. This becomes increasingly significant if emissions are coming from more than one source.
factor of
often difficult to determine the atmospheric conditions of wind direction, wind speed, and It
is
stability that will result in the maximum combined concentrations from two or more sources; drawing isopleths of concentration for various wind speeds and stabilities and orienting these according to wind direction is one approach.
CONCENTRATIONS AT A RECEPTOR POINT FROM SEVERAL SOURCES

Sometimes, especially for multiple sources, it is convenient to consider the receptor as being at the The origin of the diffusion coordinate system.
AREA SOURCES
In dealing with diffusion of air pollutants in areas having large numbers of sources, e.g., as in may be too many sources of most atmospheric contaminants to consider each source
urban areas, there
Special Topics
39
individually. Often an approximation can be made by combining all of the emissions in a given area and treating this area as a source having an initial horizontal standard deviation, tr voi virtual distance, x y can then be found that will give this standard deviation. This is just the distance that will yield the appropriate value for a y from Figure
x <x,y,0;H)
TT
Q
tr v
ov
exp
-F,
-f
exp
B-y
exp
3-2. Values of x, will vary with stability. Then equations for point sources may be used, determining ff y as a function of x -{- x y a slight variation of the suggestion by Holland {1953). This procedure treats the area source as a cross-wind line source with a normal distribution, a fairly good approximation for the distribution across an area source. The initial standard deviation for a square area source can be approximated by <ryo s/4.3, where s is the length of a Bide of the area (see problem
, ,
(5.16)
the distance from the x-axis to the restricting bluff, and the positive y axis is defined to be in the direction of the bluff.
is
22).
If the emissions within an area are from varying stack heights, the variation may be apwould be the by using a a. Thus mean effective height of release and o zo the standard deviation of the initial vertical distribution of sources, virtual distance, x z can be found, and point source equations used for estimating concenxz trations, determining <jy as a function of x
effective
proximated
The restriction of horizontal dispersion by valley sides is somewhat analogous to restriction of the vertical dispersion by a stable layer aloft. When the fr y becomes great enough, the concentrations can be assumed to be uniform across the width of the valley and the concentration calculated according to the following equation, where in this case
is
the width of the valley.
2Q
Yu
LINE SOURCES
exp
(G.17)
TOPOGRAPHY
Under conditions of irregular topography the direct application of a standard dispersion equation
is
In some situations the best one may be able to do without the benefit of in situ experiments is to estimate the upper limit of the concentrations likely to occur.
often invalid.
Concentrations downwind of a continuously emitting infinite line source, when the wind direction is normal to the line, can be expressed by rewriting equation (12) p. 154 of Sutton (1932):
X (x,y,0;H)
q
.
VSwr
cra
exp
For example, to calculate concentrations on a hillside downwind from and facing the source and at about the effective source height, the equation for concentrations at ground-level from a groundlevel source (Eq* 3,4) will yield the highest expected concentrations. This would closely approximate the situation under stable conditions, when the pollutant plume would be most likely to encounter the hillside. Under unstable conditions the flow is more likely to rise over the hill (see problem
21).
(5.18)
Here q
the source strength per unit distance, for example, g sec" 1 m -1 Note that the horizontal dispersion parameter, a y does not appear in this equation, since it is assumed that lateral dispersion
is
.
from one segment of the line is compensated by dispersion in the opposite direction from adjacent segments. Also y does not appear, since concentration at a given x is the same for any value of y
(see
problem 23).
the receptor is at a lower elevation than the source, a likely assumption is that the flow parallels the slope; i.e., no allowance is made for the difference between groundlevel elevations at the source and at the receptor.
With downslope
flow
when
Concentrations from infinite line sources when the wind is not perpendicular to the line can be approximated. If the angle between the wind direction and line source is 0, the equation for concentration downwind of the line source is:
Where a steep
ridge or bluff restricts the hori-
X (x,y,0;H)
zontal dispersion, the flow is likely to be parallel to such a bluff. assumption of complete reflection at the bluff, similar to eddy reflection at the ground from an elevated source, is in order. This
sin0
An
i/JLVl 2
UJ
(5,19)
may
be accomplished by using:
This equation should not be used where than 45.
is les*
When estimating concentrations from finite line sources, one must account for "edge effects" caused by the end of the line source. These effects will of course extend to greater cross-wind distances as the distance from the source increases. For concentrations from a finite line source oriented crosswind, define the x-axis in the direction of the mean wind and passing through the receptor of interest. The limits of the line source can be defined as extending from y, to y, where y, is less than y a The equation for concentration (from Button's (1932)
.
The symbols have the usual meaning, with the important exceptions that Q T represents the total mass of the release and the u's are not those evaluated with respect to the dispersion of a continuous source at a fixed point in space.
tistics following the
The
In Eq. (5.21) the </s refer to dispersion stamotion of the expanding puff. v x is the standard deviation of the concentra-
tion distribution in the puff in the

tion,
downwind
direc-
equation (11),
(x,0,0;H)
p.
154),
is:
and t is the time after release. Note that is no dilution in the downwind direction by wind speed. The speed of the wind mainly serves to give the downwind position of the center of the of the exponential puff, as shown by examination
there
involving
CT XJ
cr s
.
Wind speed may
influence the dis-
(5.20)
persion indirectly because the dispersion parameters and <JB may be functions of wind speed. The try, source are less ^'s and ff,'s for an instantaneous and for a few minutes given in Figure 3-2
than those
3-3.
and a z
The value
of the integral can be determined from

(for exalso see
tabulations given in most statistical tables ample, see Burrington (1953), pp. 273-276; problem 24).
INSTANTANEOUS SOURCES
Thus far we have considered only sources that were emitting continuously or for time periods equal source to or greater than the travel times from the reto the point of interest. Cases of instantaneous releases lease, as from an explosion, or short-term on the order of seconds, are often of practical concern. To determine concentrations at any position the time interval downwind, one must consider downafter the time of release and diffusion in the wind direction as well as lateral and vertical diffusion.
is
for quasi-instantaneous sources. remains to make given in Table 5-2. The problem known of diffubest estimates of a x Much less is is known oE sion in the downwind direction than In general one should lateral and vertical dispersion. as o f . value to be about the same expect the an explodimensions of the puff, i.e., from Initial
.
a a, Slade (1965) has suggested values for These are
sion,
initial standard distance to give the appropriate Then * y will be deterdeviation for each direction. * * as a function of as a function of x
may be
a virtual approximated by finding
mined
x
X H and
as a function of x
x*.
Table 5-2
PARAMETERS ESTIMATION OF DISPERSION SOURCES (FROM SLADE. 1965) QUASI-INSTANTANEOUS
FOR
Of considerable importance, but very ot the determination of the path or trajectory concentrathe "puff." This is most important if Detertions are to be determined at specific points. if knowlmining tbe trajectory is of less importance tor edge of the magnitude of the concentrations
difficult,
Unstable
Neutral
Very Stable
particular downwind distances know exactly at what required without the need to Rewriting toutpoints these concentrations occur. results in an ton's (1932) equation (13), p. 155, be used for estimates of concenequation that may n. from a release from height, tration downwind 1 r 2 QT .
.
or travel times
is
REFERENCES
P i , ana E. and i> Bierly, E. W., e
. L
W. Hewson,
1962: Some recon ditions to be conJ.
1dered
in th^
desiS
of stacks.
Appl Mete-
orotVs, B
book
383-390.
1953-
Handbook
of
Mathematical
6XP
\ I
Ohio, Formulas. Sandusky, ..ap.,' and 296 pp. Publishers,

-
Hand-
Engineering
estimates of
exp
o-l-r- ' ^ \ y J
Yl
J
"
(5.21)
Assoc,
is
(The numerical
value of
(M***
l5 75 ->
-
41
Special Topics
333-001
60 - 4
Gifford,
F. A., 1959: Computation from several sources. Int. J, Air
of
pollution
Nonhebel, G. f 1960: Recommendations on heights

for
Poll., 2, 109-
new
industrial chimneys.
J. Inst. Fuel, 33,
110. Gifford, F. A,, 1960a: Atmospheric dispersion calculations using the generalized Gaussian plume model. Nuclear Safety, 2, 2, 56-59, 67-68.
479-513.
Pooler, F., 1965: Potential dispersion of plumes from large power plants. PHS Publ. No. 999AP-16, 1965. 13 pp. Singer,
I.
Gifford, F. A., 196Qb: Peak to average concentration ratios according to a fluctuating plume dispersion model Int. J. Air Poll., 3, 4, 253-260.
mean
Singer,
I.
A., 1961: The relation between peak and concentrations. J. Air Poll. Cont. Assoc.,
11, 336-341.
Hewson, E. W., and G. C.

ical
Gill, 1944:
Meteorolog-
investigations
in
Columbia River Valley
near
Trail, B. C., pp 23-223 in Report submitted to the Trail Smelter Arbitral Tribunal by R. S.
A., K. Imai, and R. G. Del Campos, 1963: Peak to mean pollutant concentration ratios for various terrain and vegetation cover. J. Air Poll. Cont. Assoc., 13, 40-42.
Dean and R. E. Swain, Bur. of Mines Bull 453, Washington, Govt. Print. Off., 304 pp.
Hewson, E. W., 1945: The meteorological control of atmospheric pollution by heavy industry. Quart. J. R. MeteoroL Soc., 71, 266-282.
Slade, D. H., 1965: Dispersion estimates from pollutant releases of a few seconds to 8 hours in duration. Unpublished Weather Bureau Report. Aug. 1965.
Hewson, E. W., 1955: Stack heights required to minimize ground concentrations. Trans. ASME
77, 1163-1172.
Stewart, N. G., H. J. Gale, and R. N. Crooks, 1958: The atmospheric diffusion of gases discharged from the chimney of the Harwell Reactor BEPG.
Int. J.
Air
Poll., 1,
87-102.
Holland, J. Z,, 1953: A meteorological survey of the Oak Ridge area, p. 540. Atomic Energy Comm., Report ORO-99, Washington, D. C.,
Sutton, O. G., 1932: A theory of eddy diffusion in the atmosphere. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, A, 135, 143-165.
Taylor, G. I., 1915: Eddy motion in the atmosphere. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., A, 215, 1-26,
584 pp.
42
Chapter 6
Most other widely used
variant forms
RELATION TO OTHER DIFFUSION EQUATIONS

diffusion equations are
of the ones presented here.
With
re-
concentrations from an elespect to ground-level vated source (Eq. 3.2):
NOTE: Calder wrote the equation for the concentration at (x, y, z) from a ground-level source. For Eq. (6.3) it is assumed that the concentration
ground-level source.
at ground level from an elevated source is the same as the concentraton at an elevated point from a
(x,y,0;H)
=
H
Q
IT <Jy (t z
U exp
JL\
tfy
exp
(3.2)
Table 6-1 lists the expressions used in these <T equations that are equivalent to <r y and K (continuous source) in this paper.
EXPRESSIONS EQUIVALENT TO
Other well-known equations can be compared:
Bosanquet and Pearson (1936):
Table 6-1 r i
AND
IN
VARIOUS DIFFUSION EQUATIONS.
Q
<x,y,0;H)
2 \/27r pq x u
exp
y ( _ji_ \
V
1 1
I
exp *
f
I
H
PX
1 1
qx
(6.1)
coeffi-
where p and q are dimensionless diffusion

cients.
Sutton (1947):
2
exp
(6.2)
where n
is
are diffusion coefficients in
a dimensionless constant and m"' 2

.
C y and C a
REFERENCES
Bosanquet, C. H., and J. L. Pearson, spread of smoke and gases from chimneys. Trans. Faraday Soc., 32, 1249-1263.
1936:
The
Calder (1952):
x <x, yj O;H)
Q
2
u
v,
2
k8 a
x2
exp
4-
H
,
(6.3)
where a
= -^7 w'
is
the ratio of horizontal eddy velocity

velocity,
British work on Calder, K. L., 1952: Some recent the problem of diffusion in the lower atmosProc. U. S. phere, 787-792 in Air Pollution, Tech. Conf. Air Poll, New York, McGraw-Hill,
to vertical
eddy
is
von Karman's con-
847 pp.
of diffusion in Sutton, 0. G., 1947: The problem the lower atmosphere. Quart. J. Roy. Met Soc.,
stant approximately equal to 0.4,
and v x
=
In
(
g
z
)
where z u
a roughness parameter, m.
73, 257-281.
Other Equations
Chapter 7
EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
All but the exponential involving y has been found in the preceding problem. Therefore: x (500, 50,0; 60)
The following 26 example problems and their most of the techniques and equations presented in this worksolutions illustrate the application of
=3.3x10-'
book.
exp
1
[0.5
B
fi
(50/36)*]
PROBLEM
dump What
It is estimated that a burning 1: emits 3 g sec" of oxides of nitrogen. is the concentration of oxides of nitrogen, averaged over approximately 10 minutes, from this source directly downwind at a distance of 3 km on an overcast night with wind speed of 7 sec" 1 ? Assume this dump to be a point ground-level source with no effective rise.
= 3.3 xlQ~
'=
(0,381)
1.3 x 10- g
4:
m~
of
S0
PROBLEM
hour
effluent
power plant burns 10 tons per

percent sulfur; the On a
of coal containing 3
is
released from a single stack.

1
SOLUTION:
speed of 7
is
m sec"
Overcast conditions with a wind 1 indicate that stability class D
sunny summer afternoon the wind at 10 meters above ground is 4 m sec" from the northeast.
The morning
most applicable (Statement, bottom of Table 190 3 km and stability D, o> 3-1). For x 65 from Figure 3-3. from Figure 3-2 and <ra Eq. (3.4) for estimation of concentrations di0) from a ground-level rectly downwind (y
= =
U
source
is
applicable:
radiosonde taken at a nearby station has indicated that a frontal inversion aloft will limit the vertical mixing to 1500 meters, The 1200-meter wind is sec" 1 The effective height of from 30 at 5 emission is 150 meters. From Figure 3-9, what is the distance to the maximum ground-level concentration and what is the concentration at
Weather Bureau
X <x,0,G;0)
m~
Q
TT
this point?
= 1.1
190 (65) 7
SOLUTION:
the
1
10"* g
2:
:t
of oxides of nitrogen.
PROBLEM
80 g sec" of sulfur dioxide is being emitted from a petroleum refinery from an average effective height of 60
It is estimated that
meters. At 0800 on an overcast winter morning what is the sec" with the surface wind 6 ground-level concentration directly downwind from the refinery at a distance of 500 meters?
To determine the source strength, amount of sulfur burned is; 10 tons hr" x 1 600 Ib sulfur hr Ib ton-' x 0.03 sulfur Sulfur has a molecular weight of 32 and combines with 3 with a molecular weight of 32; therefore for every mass unit of sulfur burned, there result two mass units of S0 2
1
2000
64 (molecular weight of
S0
1
SOLUTION: For overcast conditions, D class sta= 600 m, bility applies. With D stability at x
ffy
32 (molecular weight of sulfur)
36 m,
ffi
18.5 m. Using Eq. (3.3):
eOQlbhr" (453.6 gib"

3600 sec hr"1
X (x,0,0;H)
=
80
Q
U
"
exp
ISlgsec-'ofSO,
7r36 (18.5)
-= 6.37
<
x 10" 3 exp
is
[0.5
(3.24)
3
]
On a sunny summer afternoon the insolation should be strong. From Table 3-1, strong inso1 lation and 4m sec" winds yield class-B stability.
From
bility
The exponential
pendix 3).
solved using Table A-l (Ap3
maximum
of Figure 3-9, the distance to the point concentration is 1 km for class-B sta-
==6.37xlO"
X
3.3 x 10~ 6 g
3:
(5.25 xlO" m" a of S0 2
PROBLEM
conditions of problem the same dis2, what is the concentration at tance downwind but at a distance 50 meters from the x-axis? That is: x (500, 50, 0; 60) =- ?
Under the
and effective height of 150 meters. From 110 m. This is Figure 3-3 at this distance <ra much less than 0.47 L. Therefore, at this dismeters will tance, the limit of mixing of 1500 not affect the ground-level concentration. From B stability Figure 3-9, the maximum *u/Q for and this effective height of 150 m is 7.5 x 10
SOLUTION:
(x,y,0;H)
Q
u
7.5
x 10" x 151
Using Eq.
(3.2):
.....
U exp
= 2.8 x 10"* g m"

PROBLEM
at
5:
of
S0
H
exp
what
For the power plant in problem 4, distance does the maximum ground-
45
Example Problems
level concentration occur
and what is this concentration on an overcast day with wind speed
Table 7-1
CALCULATION OF CONCENTRATIONS FOR
VARIOUS DISTANCES (PROBLEM
6)
sec" 1 ?
SOLUTION:
stability staclass would be D. From Figure 3-9 for of 150 m, the distance to the point bility and concentration is 5.6 of maximum
On an
overcast
day the
D
.
ground-level
km, and
the
3.0
maximum xu/Q
is
3.0
x 1Q~
x lET* x 151
1
= 1.1 x IDPROBLEM
lem
m"
6: For the conditions given in probcenterline 4, draw a graph of ground-level sulfur dioxide concentration with distance from 100 meters to 100 km. Use log-log graph paper.
SOLUTION: The frontal inversion limits the mixing to L = 1500 meters. The distance at which = 705 m is XL = 5.6 km. At disa, = Q.47 L
tances less than
this,
Eq. (3.3)
is
used to calcu-
late concentrations:
PROBLEM
x (x,0,0;H)
exp
For the conditions given in prob7: lem 4, draw a graph of ground-level concentration versus crosswind distance at a downwind distance of 1 km.
At
is
distance equal to or greater than 2 XL, which 11 km, Eq, (3.5) is used:
SOLUTION:
.
From problem 4 the ground-lovcl
(x,0,0;H)
Q
2?r CTV
LU
is 2.8 x 10'"* centerline concentration at 1 3 To determine the concentrations at disg m~ tances y from the x-axis, the ground-level conterline concentration must be multiplied by tho
km
Solutions for the equations are given in Table 7-1. The values of concentration are plotted against distance in Figure 7-1.
factor exp
1 km. Values 157 meters at x o-y computation are given in Table 7-2.
for this
Table 7-2
DETERMINATION OF CROSSWIND
7)
CONCENTRATIONS (PROBLEM
These concentrations are plotted
in Figure 7-2.
PROBLEM
DOWNWIND DISTANCI, km
8:
For the conditions given in probfl
Figure 7-1.
Concentration as a lunction of downwind

distance (Problem
6).
m"* lem 4, determine the position of the 10" ground level isopleth, and determine its urea, SOLUTION: From the solution to problem 6, the B 3 graph (Figure 7-1) shows that the 1Q- g irr at approximately isopleth intersects the x-axis x 350 meters and x =- 8.6 kilometers.
46
SOUftCE
-400
-200
CROSSWIND DISTANCE
+200
ly),
400
Figure 7-2.
Concentration as a function
distance (Problem
7).
of
crosswind
The values
necessary to determine the isopleth half widths, y, are given in Table 7-3.
Table 7-3
DETERMINATION OF ISOPLETH WIDTHS
(PROBLEM
8)
Figure 7-3.
Location of the 10"
m"
8).
ground-level iso-
pleth (Problem
PROBLEM
4,
the conditions determine the profile of concentration with 450 meters at height from ground level to z 1 km, y x meters, and draw a graph of concentration against height above ground.
9:
For
given in problem
SOLUTION:
lem.
Eq, (3.1)
tr
is
used to solve
1 km, At x problem 4)
.
The exponential
y
involving y
157 m,
151
^=
this probis equal to 1. 110 m. (From
Q
The
orientation of the x~axis will be toward 225 close to the 'source, curving more toward 210 to 215 azimuth at greater distances because of the change of wind direction with
3.5
x 10" g n
(110) 4
in Values for the estimation of x(z) are given Table 7-4.
height.
The
isopleth is
shown
in Figure 7-3.
PROBLEM
lem
Since the isopleth approximates an ellipse, the the area may be estimated by * ab where a is axis. semimajor axis and b is the semiminor
For the conditions given in prob10: distance at which the 4, determine the concentration equals the ground-level centerline above centerline concentration at 150 meters
ground.
of x Verify by computation
(x>0 3 0)
86QO-350_
2
_ 4125 m
and* (x,0,150). SOLUTION: The

tions at the
A (m = (4125) -=11.7xlOm
2 )
TT
11
(902)
or
A=
11.7
km-
distance at which concentraare ground and at plume height = 0.91 H (bee equal should occur where <r, 150 m, and H Chapter 5). For B stability 1.2 km. 136 m occurs at x 0.91 (150) ff, 181 m. At this distance a y
Example Problems
Table 7-4
DETERMINATION OF CONCENTRATIONS FOR VARIOUS HEIGHTS (PROBLEM 9)

d.
f.
4.88 x 10-* exp [ 4.88 x 10- (0.546)

2.7 x
10- g
m-
]z+H
"M
f
1
/ z+H
Vl
) j
<
161
2.181(136)4
-
-f
exp
lob
,,, -2.44 xIO-
1.0
p
[
_ 2A4 x (1 Q + ... J = 2.44 x 10 (1.087) _ ^./xiu gm 9 7 v m~U

v
_
g-(2.21)|
.
2)
x 1Q
fl~4
tr
PROBLEM
what
These values are plotted
11:
For the power plant in problem
4,
will the
maximum
ground-level concentra-
tion
in
Figure 7-4.
500
what distance wind speed 4
be beneath the plume centerline and at will it occur on a clear night with
sec" ?
SOLUTION: A
400
clear night with wind speed 4 in sec indicates E stability conditions. From Figure 3-9, the maximum concentration should occur at a distance of 13 km, and the maximum
XU/Qis 1.7x10-
300
XHUIX
1.7
'
Q
12:
x 10- x 151 4
2
= 6.4 x 10- g m- of S0
200
PROBLEM
For the situation in problem 11,
100
what would the fumigation concentration be the next morning at this point (x 13 km) when
superadiabatic lapse rates extend to include most of the plume and it is assumed that wind
speed and direction remain unchanged?
SOLUTION:
010
CONCENTRATION,
Figure 74.
9
The concentration during fumigais given by Eq. (5.2) with the exponential involving y equal to 1. in this probtion conditions lem.
Concentration as a function of height (Problem

9).
(x,0,0;H)
_, Q
U
Verifying:
Q
x (x,0,0)
TT (TV
ov
exp
151 181 (136) 4
exp f
J^
2
For the stable conditions, which were assumed to be class E, at x 13 km, ay 520 m., and 90 m. Using Eq. (5.3) to solve for hj: (7* H 2 a. -= 150 2 (90) 330 m. hi From the horizontal spreading suggested by Eq.
= =
[~~
1SQ
ATMOSPHEKIC DISPERSION ESTIMATES
ff
,r
XP
= ~ _
a y (stable)
+ H/8 = 520 +
19
= 539
151
J
(539) 330
Note that the fumigation concentrations under maxithese conditions are about 1.3 times the
concentration as a function of wind speeu or Determine the critstability classes B and D. ical wind speed for these stabilities, i.e., the wind speed that results in the highest concentrations. Assume that the design atmospheric air pressure is 970 mb and the design ambient
temperature
is
20C
(293K).
effective
mum
ground-level concentrations that occurred
SOLUTION:
d u
Using
Holland's
stack
during the night (problem 11).
height equation:
1.5
PROBLEM
13:
An
of
air
at an azimuth distance of 1500 meters. The cement plant releases fine particulates (less than 15 microns hour diameter) at the rate of 750 pounds per
203
sampling station is located from a cement plant at a
3 2.68 x 10~
Ta -T
p
3
13 (1.6)
u
394 - 293 394
19.5
1.6
+ 2.68 x 10-
(970)
I
(1.5)
from a 30-meter stack. What is the contribution from the cement plant to the total suspended staparticulate concentration at the sampling 1 sec" on tion when the wind is from 30 at 3 a clear day in the late fall at 1600?
u
19.5
1.5
+ 2.6
(-
101 394
1.5
SOLUTION:
For this season and time of day the C class stability should apply. Since the samthe x and y pling station is off the plume axis, distances can be calculated:
u
19.5
[1.5
+ 2.6
+
(0.256) 1.5]
u u
[1.5
1.0]
= 1500 cos T 1489 y = 1500 sin 7 = 183

x
The source strength
is:
'
1
19.5 (2.5)
_
fj? Ib hr
1
48.8
u
heights for various
Q n
= 750 Ib hr
x 0.126
= 94.5 g sec"
The
7-5.
effective stack
wind
Table
At this distance, 1489 m, for stability C, ay 150 m, cr, 87. The contribution to the concentration
speeds and
stabilities are
summarized
in
can be calculated from Eq.

*r
(3.2):
Table 7-5
EFFECTIVE STACK HEIGHTS (PROBLEM
14)
f\vr\
1.23x10"
exp
[0.5
(0.345)
2
]
= 7,68x10-*
PROBLEM
sec-1 of
a
(0.475) (0.943)
A proposed source is to emit 72 g 14: S0 a from a stack 30 meters high with diameter of 1.5 meters. The effluent gases are emitted at a temperature of 250F (394K) 1 Plot on logsec"with an exit velocity of 13 log paper a graph of maximum ground-level
mum
By
stability can be determined
use of the appropriate height, H, the maxiconcentration for each wind speed and by obtaining the
49
Example Problems
maximum *u/Q
priate Q/u.
in
as a function of
and
stability
from Figure 3-9 and multiplying by the approThe computations are summarized Table 7-6, and plotted in Figure 7-5.
T T
10"
is a small town of 500 inhabitants 1700 meters northeast of the plant. Plant managers have decided that it is desirable to maintain concentrations below 20 ppb (parts per billion B 3 by volume), or approximately 2.9 x 10~ g m" for any period greater than 30 minutes. Wind direction frequencies indicate that winds blow from the proposed location toward this town between 10 and 15 per cent of the time. "What height stack should be erected? It is assumed that a design wind speed of 2 sec" 1 will he sufficient, since the effective stack rise will be sec" quite great with winds less than 2 Other than this stipulation, assume that the physical stack height and effective stack height are the same, to incorporate a slight safety
,
factor.
SOLUTION:
0.5
1
The source strength

Ib
1 86,400 sec day-
is:
2345
WIND SPEED, m
se
10
20
n ^
of
1000
1 1 day" x 453.6 gib-
5.25 g see"
FromEq.
as a function
14).
(4.2):
Figure 7-5.
Maximum
concentration
0.117
Q
2
0.117 (5.25)
wind speed (Problem
(2.9x10-") 2
Tabla 7-6
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION AS A FUNCTION OF

WIND SPEED (PROBLEM
14)
= 1.06 x 10* m
At
a design distance of 1500 meters (the limit of company property), <ry tr x 1,06 x 10* gives
a point from Figure 4-1 about 0.2 from Class C to Class 1500 m. From along the line x 80 for this stability. Figure 3-3, <ra H3 meters /2~
H=
s!
= =
= =
PROBLEM
16: In problem 15 assume that the stack diameter is to be 8 ft, the temperature oi the effluent 250 F, and the stack gas velocity 45 ft sec" 1 From Holland's equation for effective stack height and the method used in problem 15, determine the physical stack height required to satisfy the conditions in problem 16. In estimating AH, use T n 68 F and p 920
.
mb.
SOLUTION:
First determine the relation between
AH and u
VH
from Holland's equation.

1
= 45 ft sec" = 13.7 m sec"

=
8 ft
2.44
T T
The wind speeds that give the highest maximum concentrations for each stability are, from Figure 7-5; B 1.5, 2.0.
ft
250F = 121C = 394K = 68F - 20C = 293K

920
mb
1.5
v d
+ 2.68 x
1.5
10~ 3 p
T AH
PROBLEM
proposed pulp processing plant is expected to emit ton per day of hydrogen sulfide from a single stack. The company property extends a minimum of 1500 meters from the proposed location. The nearest receptor
15:
13.7 (2.44)
u
394-293 394
2.68 x 10-" (920)
(2.44)
33 4
-
60 sec min"
[1.5
u
33.4
(2.46) 0.256 (2.44)]
x 10~ 3
1200
u
102
16.2 x 1Q 7
DT
cry o- z
7.41
10- g sec
is
nr
u
The relation between
'
ffz
The total
and u
is:
4 2.12 x 1Q
dosage
;
given in g sec
m~ from
3
D
u
4-1 are
0)
17
QT ^ U
OV 0%
exp
f
I I
&
FT
0.117
y,i
0.117 (5.26) _ 5 2.9 x 10~ u
where
mi
Q-r is the total release in grams.
The required computations using Figure summarized in Table 7-7:
Therefore
QT = f\
7T
<Ty
<TZ
DT
y
j
h J-f1;Vl
\
Table 7-7
REQUIRED PHYSICAL STACK HEIGHT AS A FUNCTION OF WIND SPEED (PROBLEM 16)
For
x
= 8 km, = 690 m, = 310 m; y u = 5 m sec"

<r
slightly unstable conditions

y
(Class C) at
a*
2000 m,
TT
5 (690) 310
(7.41x10-)
2000 690
2 ]
exp
x
ri
24.9
exp
1.49
[0.5
24.9
(2.90)
x 10~
QT =
No
1670 g
correction has been made for the facts that the release Is for 1 hour and the standard Deviations represent time periods of 3 to 15 minutes,
PROBLEM
The required physical height
is
68 meters.
release of 2 kg of fluorescent 18: on the results of the particles is made based are computation in problem 17. The conditions The class C stability and wind speed 5 rn sec *.
PROBLEM
over
particles
17:
dispersion study
size yields 1.8
is
being
made
relatively
open terrain with fluorescent

x 10 10 particles
is
whose
crosswind-integrated ground-level dosage along the 8-km arc is determined from the samplers 1 m" 2 What along this arc to be 8.2 x 10' g sec
.
per
gram
filters
Sampling 3 8 through which 9 x 10~ m
of tracer.
by membrane
of air is
is
the effective * for this run?
drawn
SOLUTION:
given by:
The crosswind-integrated dosage
is
each minute.
A study involving a 1-hour release,
which can be considered from ground-level, is to take place during conditions forecast to be It is seer 1 slightly unstable with winds 5 desirable to obtain a particle count of at least 20 particles upon membrane filters located at ground-level 2.0 km from the plume centerline What on the sampling arc 8 km from the source. should the total release be, in grams, for this
2QT
a,
exp
Since the source is at ground-level, the exponential has a value of 1. Solving for a t
\
run?
Y2TT DOWI
2 (20QQ)
SOLUTION:
The total dosage at the sampler is determined by the total sample in grama divided by the sampling rate: 20 particles 3
4000
10.28
D T (gsecnr
1.8
x 10 10
particles g~
389m
Example Problems
PROBLEM
19: At a point directly downwind from a ground-level source the 3- to 15-minute 3 concentration Is estimated to be 3.4 x 10~ g m"'. "What would you estimate the 2-hour concentration to be at this point, assuming no change in stability or wind velocity?
SOURCE A
x=!4.6 km
y= 8,*
SOLUTION:
min,
X
s
= 2 hours, and p = 0.2;
Using Eq. (5.12)
and
letting k
=3
2 llullr
RECEPTOR
2.09
SCALE, km
Letting
k 15 min,
2 hours,
and p
= 0,17
Figure 7-6.
Uonr
"' T
(-^-)
3.4X10-"
3
Locations of sources and receptor (Problem

20).
4^
1.42
(3.4xlO2.4
x (x,y,0;H)
TT
Q
try o- a
3.4xlQ- 3
exp
exp
is
;t ;t .
The 2-hour
between
1.6
concentration
10~'
estimated to be and 2.4 x 10~ g m~
For Source A, x
ffy
PROBLEM
points
20:
and
1
.
Two sources of S0 2 are shown as B in Figure 7-6. On a sunny
=_ 1810 m,
<7 K
= 24.6 km, y = 8.4 km = 1120 m, u = 8.5 m sec"

exp
I
1450
XA
the surface wind is from 60 at 6 sec" Source A is a power plant emitting 1450 g sec" 1 S0 a from two stacks whose physical height is 120 meters and whose AH, from Holland's equation, is AH (m) 538 (m 2 sec^J/u (m sec" 1 )- Source B is a refinery emitting 126 g sec"1 S0 2 from an effective height of 60 meters. The wind measured at 160 meters on a nearby tower is from 70 at 8.5 sec" 1 Assuming that the mean direction of travel of both plumes is 245, and there are no other sources of S0 2) what is the concentration of SO 2 at the receptor shown in the figure?
summer afternoon
0.5
5.42
exp
TV
[0.5
(0.164)
2
]
= 2.67x10")
For Source B, x
o>
(2.11
xlO" 5 ) (0,987)
4.0
7.0
SOLUTION:
Source
meters.
1050 m,
CTK
= 13.0 km, y = 640 m, u =

f
km.
sec" 1
~
"\
Calculate the effective height of using the observed wind speed at 160
x"
_
TT
126
n K f 400(>
1050 (640) 7
n
0. ^ /
AH
538
63.3
exp
f
I
60
HA
QA
120
= 1450 g sec~'
= 126gsec"
,
+ 63 -= 183 m
1
- lJ 2Ao'
exp
XK
exp [-0,5 (3,81)^]

2 ]
H B = 60 m
Q
Il
= 8.5 x 10"
XA
[0.5
(0.0938)
(7.04 x 10"*)
(0.996)
For a sunny summer afternoon with wind speed 6 sec a the stability class to be expected is C. The equation to be used is Eq. (3.2)
6,0 x 10" g
m"
XB
0.56
x 103
+ 6.0 x 10-
6.6 x 10" g
m~
PROBLEM
sec- 1 of
rounding terrain is relatively flat except rounded hill about 3 km to the northeast whose crest extends 15 meters above the stack top.
A stack 15 meters high emits 3 g 21: a particular air pollutant. The surfor a
since this is (It may actually be more unstable, in a built-up area. ) To allow for the area source, the vir1524/4.3 =- 354. For class let (T,o
tual distance, x y 28.5. For x as
8.5 km.
xy
[
=10,024 m,
1
s-
For x =- 1524 m, a y =- 410 m.
What
15-minute concentraon tion of this pollutant that can be expected the facing slope of the hill on a clear night when the wind is blowing directly from the stack sec" ? Assume that AH toward the hill at 4 How much does the wind is less than 15 m. have to shift so that concentrations at this point
is
the highest
3- to
^ Q
7T (Tj.
/H
exp
(28.5) 2.5~
5
:i
6XP
s 7 drop below 10" g rrr ?
= 6.:54xlO" (0.783) = 5.1x10" gmr

23:
SOLUTION:
cates class stability. Eq. (3.4) for groundlevel concentrations from a ground-level source 3 is most applicable (See Chapter 5). At
for class
A E
<r
clear night
with 4
sec' 1 indi-
PROBLEM
total
An
estimate
is
km
E,
=- 140 m,
"
<r a
=- 43 m.
Q
X
~
TT
downwind of an expressway at 1730 on an overThe excast day with wind speed 4 m seethe wind is from pressway runs north-south and is 8000 the west. The measured traffic flow hour during this rush hour, and the vehicles
1 .
300 hydrocarbon concentration
required of the meters
140 (43) 4
= 3.97 x 10m"
3
nr
per is 40 miles per average speed of the vehicles is exhour. At this speed the average vehicle 1 secof total hydropected to emit 2 x 10-' g
carbons.
To determine the crosswind distance from the of plume centerline to produce a concentration
10~ 7 g
SOLUTION:
Eq. (3.8)
is
used:
1/2
y-
2 In
(x,0,0)
x (x,y,o)
To obtain as a continuous infinite line source.^ l 1 the numa source strength q in grams sec be ber of vehicles per meter of highway must and multiplied by the emission per calculated
The expressway may
be considered
3.97 x 10"
vehicle.
2 In
io- 7
(140)
Vehicles/meter
=
1
2 (21n397)^ 140
(2x5.98)^140
3.4G x 140
Flow (vehicles hour"') 1 ) Average speed (miles hour ) 1600 (mmile~~
8QOQ
= 1.25 x 1Q1 )
= 484 m. 484 = 0.1614 tan0 = 3000 = 9.2

A wind
shift of 9.2
is
40x1600
l (vehicles irr )
1.25 x 10-' (vehicles m" 1 1 (g sec" vehicle" )
2 x 2 x 1Q-
Under
.
the required to reduce
7 concentration to 10" g
m~ B
4 overcast conditions with wind speed at x 1 applies. Under D, sec- stability class 12 m. From Eq. (5.18) 300 meters, cra
PROBLEM
An inventory of S0 2 emissions 22: has been conducted in an urban area by square a side. The areas, 5000 ft (1524 meters) on emissions from one such area are estimated to 1 be 6 g sec" for the entire area. This square is small comcomposed of residences and a few
2q
_
~~
2 (2.5x10"") 2.507 (12) 4

4.2 x 10" g
n
m~*
of total
hydrocarbons.
mercial establishments. What is the concentration resulting from this area at the center of the the wind as adjacent square to the north when overcast blowing from the south on a thinly 1 sec' ? The average night with the wind at 2.5 effective stack height of these sources is assumed
PROBLEM
to be
20 meters.
SOLUTION:
speed 2.5
thinly overcast night sec- 1 indicates stability of class E.
with wind
A line of burning agricultural 24: line source 150 waste can be considered a finite the total emission long It is estimated that 1 What is the secof orgamcs is at a rate of 90 g of orgamcs at a 3- to 16-minute concentration from the directly downwind distance of 400 wind is blowing at line when the
center of the line? sec-' perpendicular to the 3
Assume
53
Example Problems
end
that it is 1600 on a sunny fall afternoon. What is the concentration directly downwind from one of the source?
SOLUTION:
Late afternoon at this time of year 1 sec"** implies slight insolation, which with 3
accident has occurred on a relatively clear sec" 1 What is the night with wind speed 2.5 concentration in the air 3 kilometers directly downwind from the source at 0400 due to all radioactive material? due to iodine-131?
The
winds yields stability class C. For at x 400 m, vy 45 m, <ra 26 m.
stability
SOLUTION:
i T Leak rate
4-
Source strength
leak rate x
ac-
tivity (corrected for decay)
Q
150
90
150
is
0.6 g sec
0.001 day- 1 4 * 86400 sec day=r~

Q/ .. nn
Eq. (5.20)
appropriate.
-= 1.157 x 10- 8 sec' 1
Source strength
X U,UU;U>
i
of all
products
a
n.r\\
^q
QA
1 (curies sec' )
t (sec)
= 1.157 x 10~
'
(1.5 x
10)
exp
0.5
2 )
dp
be,
(sec) J
D P
'
y = a = 4-1.67
y
~" 75
45
1.74 x 1Q- 2
0.2
45
To determine
life
is
decay of materials with the

[
half-
given, multiply by exp
time and
is half-life.
f ^
93t
where
X (400,0,0;0)
Source strength
)
of I 181
exp
(0.5
dp
3
= 6.14 xlO~ (0.91) = 5.6xlO~ gm3

3
1 Qi (curies sec" ) 0.693 t
1.157 x 10~ 8 (5.3 x 10*) exp
L
For
one of the ends of the
I 181
6.95 x 10
fi
sec
For a point downwind

line:
of
6.13 x 10-* exp
0.693
6.95 x 10 n
1
,
P,
0,
pa
15Q 45
For a clear night with wind speed 2.5 m sec" class F applies. Approximate the spreading at the reactor shell by 2.15 o-y0 2.15 z0 the
JI
X (400,0,0:0)
= 6.14 x 10)
radius of the shell -= 20 o<r z0 9-3 m. y0 The virtual distances to account for this are: 250 m, X K 560 m. Xy
<r
exp
0.5
dp
fl
At x
(0.4995)
It
3000 m. x
x
= 6.14xlOPROBLEM
25:
+x +X
Q
y
B
3250 m,
=- 3560 m,
<r
-= 100 m.
<ra
29 m.
-=3.1xlO- 8 gnr
X <x,0,0;0)
Q
:U
TT
TT (Ty
100 (29) 2.5
core melt-down of a
power
re-
4.4 x 10- G
actor that has heen operating for over a year occurs at 0200, releasing 1.6 x 10" curies of activity (1 second after the accident) into the of the containment vessel. This total activity can be expected to decay
For concentration at 0400, 3000 m downwind due to all radioactivity, t 7200 seconds.
atmosphere
to
-
XA
according
5.3
4.4 x 10- (1.74 x 10~ a ) (7200)~- 2 =- 7.66 x 10~ 7 (0.17)
-o- 2
.
It is estimated that
about
10*
XA
= 1.3 x 10~
I 131 is:
curies
m" 3
has a
is
curies of this activity is due to iodine- 131, which half-life of 8.04 days, The reactor building
The
Xi
concentration at 0400, 3000
downwind
ID' 6
hemispherically shaped with a radius of 20 meters. Assume the leak rate of the building is
due to
0.1% day' 1
4,4 x 10-" (6.13 x 10*) exp (7200)]
[0.997 x
54
=. 2.7 x 10~ (1.0) nificant for 2 hours

Xi
The decay
of
131
is insig-
Table 7-9
DETERMINATION OF CONCENTRATION AS A
26)
FUNCTION OF DISTANCE (PfiOBLEM
= 2.7 x 10~
26:
of
curies
m~
;i
PROBLEM
grams
spill
estimated at 2.9 x 10"
unsymmetrical
dimethyl hydrazine
occurs at 0300 on a clear night while a rocket A circular area 60 meters in is being fueled. diameter built around the launch pad is revetted into squares 20 feet on a side to confine to as small an area as possible any spilled toxic liquids. In this spill only one such 20- by 20-foot area is involved. At the current wind speed of 2 sec" it is estimated that the evaporation rate The wind direction is prewill be 1100 g sec" 15 for the next hour. dicted to be from 310 Table 7-8 gives the emergency tolerance limits
These values
in
of x are
graphed as a function of x
concentration value of 2.5 x 10~- at a
for
UDMH vapor.
Figure drops below the
7-7.
The downwind
critical
distance of 6.5 km.

Table 7-8
EMERGENCY TOLERANCE LIMITS FOR VAPOR VERSUS EXPOSURE TIME

Emergency Tolerance
Limits, g
100
Time,
minutes
m~ 3
10
1.2 x 10-'
15
8.6 x 10^-
<
>
SC
30
60
4.9 x
10- a
2.5 x ID-"
N
,IU
What
area should be evacuated?
SOLUTION: From Table 3-1, the stability class is determined to be Class F. This is not a point source but a small area source. Allowing 4.3 a y0 to equal the width of the wetted area, 6.1 meters
1.4 meters. In attempting to (20 feet), tfyit determine the virtual distance, x r it is found to be less than 100 meters, and will be approximated by 40 meters. The release will take:
,
x
0.1
1
10
2.9 x 10
1.1
:i
g
]
x 10 gsec-
2.64 x 10 sec
;t
= 44 min.
Figure
7-7.
:i
DISTANCE, Vm
Concentration of
Therefore the concentration for an exposure time of 1 hour (2.5 x 10~ a g m~ ) is of main
concern.
UDMH
as a function of down26).
wind distance (Problem
Calculated widths within a given isopleth

for calculation of
are
The equation
centrations
is
downwind con-
summarized in Table 7-10.
Eq,
(3.4)
The maximum width

where o>
is
of the area
encompassed
Q
X (x,0,0;0) Of
a function
X 4-
Xy,
'
Values of the parameters and of x al e given in Table 7-9.
by an isopleth is about 140 meters from the downwind position. Since the wind direction is expected to be from 310itl5 the sector at an azimuth of 115 to 145 plus a 140-meter rectangle on either side should be evacuated.
,
See Figure 7-8,
Example Problems
55
Table 7-10
DETERMINATION OF WIDTHS WITHIN

ISOPLETHS (PROBLEM
26)
SCALE, km
Figure 7-8.
isopleth
Possible positions of the 2.5 x 10~ g m' and the evacuation area (Problem 26).
56
APPENDICES
Appendix
1:
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
t,,,
time required for the mixing layer to develop from the top of the stack to the top of the
Abbreviations
cal
calorie
plume
a time period
T
T, u
ambient
air
temperature
gram
stack gas temperature at stack top
K
ni
degrees Kelvin
meter
millibar
Us
v'
rnb
sec
Syml)ol
wind speed a mean wind speed for the wind speed horizontal eddy velocity
stack gas velocity at the stack top a velocity used by Calder
vertical
class N.
second
v
v*
w'
a
c,,
ratio of horizontal
eddy velocity
to
vertical
distance
eddy velocity downwind in the direction
of
the
eddy
velocity
mean wind
design distance, a particular tance used for design purposes
specific heat at constant pressure
downwind
dis-
C
d
e
f
Sutton horizontal dispersion parameter Sutton vertical dispersion parameter inside stack diameter at stack top
(x,y,0;H)
DT
Total dosage
0.47L the distance at which er a virtual distance so that a* (x x ) equals the tial standard deviation, v xo a virtual distance so that o> (x r ) equals the tial standard deviation, o>
x*
ini-
(0,S,N)
2.7183, the base of natural logarithms for a given frequency of wind direction
stability
ini-
and wind speed
class
h
h,
physical stack height height of the base of an inversion

effective height of emission
effective height of emission for
a virtual distance so that a K (x a ) equals the tial standard deviation, <r 20
ini-
y
z
crosswind distance
height above ground level
a particular
z, t
roughness parameter
the rate of change of potential temperature with height centerline above the stack the rise of the
wind speed von Karman's constant, approximately equal

to 0.4
SO
Sz"
K
L
AH
of an air layer that is to the relatively stable compared layer beneath it; a lid the half-life of a radioactive
plume
eddy diffusivity two uses: 1. the height
top
two uses:
3.1416
1.
wind
direction azimuth or sector
2.
potential temperature
2.
material
Sutton's exponent
ambient
air density
an index
for
wind speed
1.
class
the standard deviation of azimuth (wind direcvane or bition) as determined from a wind
directional vane
three uses:
2.
3.
Bosanquet's horizontal dispersion parameter atmospheric pressure a dummy variable in the equation for a Gaussian distribution.
"XL
the standard deviation of wind elevation angle

as determined
from a bi-directional vane
the standard deviation in the downwind direction of a puff concentration distribution
two
uses:
1.
2.
Bosanquet's vertical dispersion parameter emission rate per length of a line source
an
initial
downwind standard deviation
the standard deviation in the crosswind direction of the plume concentration distribution
an
initial
crosswind standard deviation
emission rate of a source

total emission during
net rate of
an entire release sensible heating of an air column
of the the standard deviation in the vertical concentration distribution
plume an effective
an
^ equal
to 0.8
by solar
radiation
initial vertical
standard deviation
the length of the edge of a square area source an index for stability
a short time period
of the plume the vertical standard deviation downwind disconcentration at a particular tance for the stability, S.
Appendix
the angle between the wind direction and a

line source
XK
concentration measured over a sampling time

ta
concentration
wi crosswind-integrated concentration
~ y
y
relative concentration
a ground-level concentration for design purposes
"
relative
concentration
normalized
for
wind
y, z)
speed
X (x,y,z;H)
inversion break-up fumigation concentration concentration measured over a sampling time,

tk
(S
concentration at the point
from an elevated source with

height, H.
(x,
effective
maximum
ground-level centerline concentration with respect to downwind distance
X (x,o)
the long-term average concentration at distance x, for a direction from a source.
60
Appendix 2:
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GAUSSIAN DISTRIBUTION
This area
is
found from Eq. (A.2):
The Gaussian
by The equation
picted
or normal distribution can be dethe bellshaped curve shown in Figure A-l. for the ordinate value of this curve is:
Area
x to p)
=
(A.2)
exp
exp
(A.1)
0.5
p'
dp
distance Figure A-2 gives the ordinate value at any from the center of the distribution (which occurs This information is also given in Table A-l. at x) curve Figure A-3 gives the area under the Gaussian ^ to a particular value of p where p from
Figure A-4 gives the area under the Gaussian curve from p to -f p. This can be found from Eq. (A.3):
Area
to -}-p)
exp
0.5 p 2 )
dp
(A.3)
-3
Figure A-l.
The Gaussian
distribution curve.
61 Appendix
2
0.01 0.0 0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1,3
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.6
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.6
4.0
Figure A-2.
Ordinate values of the Gaussian distribution.
0.01
0.1
0.5
10
20
40
80
90
95
98 99
99.8
99.99
r+ --hp
J
-
BXp (-0.5
p)
dp
Figure A-3.
from Area under the Gaussian distribution curve
to
p.
Appendix
0.01
0.5
10
20 +p
P
30 40 50
60 70
2 p
)
80
dp
90
95
98 99
99.8
99.99
=-
axp (-0.5
Figure A-4.
Area under the Gaussian distribution curve between
p and
+p.
34
Appendix
3:
] the form exp [-0.5 Expressions of must be evaluated. H/a, or y/tfv frequently p of A where B Table A-T'JvesB as a function the right of the lo.5 A"]- The sign and digits to For as an exponent o 10. E are to be considered Od B is given as 2.11E example, if A is 3.51, * which means 2.11 x 10
SOLUTIONS TO EXPONENTIALS A where

8
is
Appendix
ooooo
(MIMIMMCM
(MCMIMCMM
(OflflOCl
CO
^t-J_
=1;
15
ca
cocotococc,
coojcomco
ppendix
Appendix 4:
CONSTANTS, CONVERSION EQUATIONS, CONVERSION TABLES
Constants
e
=
=
2.7183
-J_ = 0.3679
Li
2?r
TT
3.1416
= 0.3183
27r
= 6.2832
= 0.1592 = 0.3989
0.7979
57= 2.5066 -=
V27T
^r =
3
(Sir)
/'-= 15.75
Conversion Equations and Tables
T(C) =5/9 <T(F)

T(F)
32)
T(K) =T(C) +273.16 (9/6T(C) ) +32
<r
t-UJ
K
Q-
o
to
<o
*
mo
a
rIM
.-4
o
*
o -+ oo
mo a
i-
f-
en
r-
ui
in
o oo oo o UJ
*/>
t
O
at
o *o
rsi cr-
in
o
IM
O"
.-4
*O
O
t
oo
I
m^ O
DO
o>
UJ
ui
o oo o
o
Cl
oo
tsj
T*
O
i
UJ
CO
UJ
UJ
o
1
* O
CO
<M
Ô
fM
I
O OO oo o
LU
>O
--IO
in
UJ
a: UJ
a.
OO O oo
o* o
mo o
r-
00
CO
(M
00
O
I
oo oo o o
UJ
oo
<4>
rj ro in
oo
ri
Ul
LU
Z)
Z
<t
a: UJ
a.
in oo oi
o
a
f> OD
o -^ oo o
UJ
O o
OO oo
UJ
OO <o
rHI
*
in
o
UJ
O o
O LU
-
oo
UJ
CO 00
o
UJ
r<o
ft
LU
a:
E
I
10
-x X
UJ
tu
u
UJ
m
Of
01
oo 00 O (M
UJ
tn CO
tu Q.
o oo o oo
LU
I- *o> <a
o
i
-f
O
I
CO CO
rl
O O
UJ
1-H
(N
I
^1
-1 <O
O
LU
t- UJ
zo
h-
U
UJ in
l/l C
Of UJ
>
I
U1CL
oo oo o
UJ
O
sT OO I
UJ DO ~4
m oo
i
00
tn
rt~
o
i
* o ^*
r(M
r-o * t
t~
#o
t
-*
tM
O
CO
N
I
O
LU
-I
UJ
in
UJ
UJ
CLU
oca:
o K z u a UJ
a: DC
*n
m
LU ui
< LU >X
m
Ul
in
ac
*n UJ
V] ui o: o: LU
LU tn
ot
LUUJ
tOL UJ Di LU
a.
t-UJ
< n:
n
n
i-
UJCL
a.
a.
a: t- LU in a.
<
ua
ZUJ oai
>z
70
ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION ESTIMd
<*
Mj-tm
SCM
i-m
m
01
fl IM en
O o -*
o 01
O o*
O o-
O oo
-:
5 z
z1 i 5
za o Iy
S? *"
5?
4"
5?
CM'"
2? u
J
m
S?
111 r-*
5? w
-
o? w
-r
s
" K
^.nrtimooomof^tii
2m 55
S
ifl
mm :2 S
o
ao 2
-
Ki in
0*0
ow oo
o*i
.UJ
-UJ
**
fO
"
o* oo ol 'w
m
o
ru
mm wo i
oo oo
M
0<i - 111
op ^
*r
*IM
^
Is
^.uj
in
P
jfc
J 2
a
o
|s
ûj
s
^.uj
is
^-uj
Ig
N
.UJ
Is
_.UJ
Is
^-uj
Is
^.w
i
w
^.ui
^
co
^
-UJ
o
UI
a
-UJ
rt
jf-^rrjo*
nn
3
m
*U1
S SS mir>J
-01
SS SS >-l|O
-UJ -UJ
^)^*OJD>
gg O
-UJ
tn
5S |S >^BO
SS
*UJ
g J <
Z
iii
m
a.
vrn S
_i^tiMmCM
o mi
r-.
^ fO oo
fMI
^1
*
-J-
OJ
r-
-Ol
O -
mo inl
CO
.ILJ
-uj
ii
-uj
O 00 oo O
f1-
-O
-o
Ol -i-i-cto^
-O I
W o
* *
-
*O Cn
m mo
.-
<0 fn
O mo
.UJ
O1
.iu
UJ
-LJ
-ui
X i-x
x
Z * w M UJ VJ 3E O UJ a
ir
D.UJ
oro oi
uj a.
-to
a
,
oo
-to
r-i
o o
jrvl
oo
UJ
;BO
I
ui
ja UJ
oo oo o
* UJ
"-1
r-
o*
--4\f
tn
mo
*
UJ
co--*
aoo
Ul
<no i-o mi-H

Ul
"!"
B%r-*
^ ^ ^"i
Ul "*
"*
*~"
h-o
Ul
_. 5!
^ S*
zi-i
*^
o-i *O
^
UJ 3C
tt
a
x
Oi
uj
J
'.
oo o_j) UJ
m
a _,
OO
OO
o>-(
OO* oo 01 . UJ
-o
Of-oo OO oo
^tM
-**
^jO'OOOO
^-(.-4
ow
ftx
-<x
I
^^<M*t-(Ofi
r^
CMO
m~l
.1X1
. Ul
UJ
oo mi >UJ
OtM <ro coi
i-tOJ
r-o
O*fh
i
r-o
UJ
* UJ
tU
UJ.
d ui
4
K-
ininuj
<
a:
J-< Oi
U3
0*00 oo oo uia. oo
o
ô
<o *o
f-'*
oo
UJ
H
***
-<
-j-^ -J'O
0>I
trQio-oo^ no mo
mtvj
in
OX
UJ
tro
f~
"UJ
^<
UJ
UJ
" Ul
*U1
-JO -i *UJ
o*
-t
IM*
^*
-o m
Q'cvi
CT-O
ra
*o
UJ
"""t zo -J Z
*~1^
O
***
u
UJ
*" r-
tj
1/10:0 Minuj oo
ui**
3-3ro_
oo
o
|V3
a
""*
^î(xjr4r--inM-a
-ON -00
*oi
co
rô
r--*
o*
-bJ
-uj
P- i -iii
r-rj mo -l
o>o mo
IA
o--i
rj
-tij
.uj
-uj
o*m -*o (Mi
0*0 MO
OCM
-UJ
. .1
o o
^* mo
13
^t^=. -i^
m -uj
.UJ
so ouj
n
Zi
KOC
S
U
U.
!^
<
Ul rf
o"-u ^Si
ui
D O
>
|
I
S^sSS555^<
S
>
"
^S 1-
S & a
z ^
>
S "
>tt 2u,
^-3-
m^
*S
-^
^S â
SA
U S" o
71
)endix 4
X o OW o oo
lil
oo o UJ
oo
o o * o Oo
I
o om oo
UJ
oo o -* m
UJ
IM
O
CO
m-t
Ul
O
UJ
UJ
oo
UJ
mm mo CO
UJ
(M
- UJ
zo
z UJ
-.
|-
ar
z
IU
X.
UJ
o oo
oo o
Oo o fM o
UJ
o o O *c O
1
*lLl
o om O o UJ
O
<M
o
o m
<*
M
UJ CM
^4-
o
UJ
*-*
B
oo
45
cum
tft
00
UJ
UJ
UJ
OUl
of.
a.
tn
n
t-
o r\j r
u.
Of
Z
31
*-
UJ UJ
o m
r-i
z a
o Ul
o
<
tfl
Ul >x
a -<
-.
tfl
tu
tu
> Z O
*J
Z n z Ul > U
ae
=) QC
otc
<n
IU
B-
an
o
u
UJ
z; o
Z
td
IU
X U z
UJ
>z Z Ul O u 03 OQ Z
U) Ul
72
ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION ESTIMATE
<o
-* 1-
tn
to
i00
o
-
m ro
O
r-
o
1
in >* rPO
-*
i
O
UJ
rr-J
o
1
-*
<c\
o o o O
*
-*
LU
rg
c\j
tu
UJ
LU
IXJ
LU
LU
h-
LU LU
O
ao
1
f-
<a
o
t
o o o -*
**
st
O
T- ao eo in
CO
in
o
LU
co rc*4
o
i
r\j
aM m ar
oo
00
00
>
>
CM
-D in
O i
to
o oo 00 o
LU
o o
LU
tu
LU
BUI
LU
LU
m o
n. CL
O
of.
o
-t
UJ
Of.
r*-
o
1
o
r^ CM
r*-
N
<a
i
4-
o
IU
-*
r~
o
LU
-t r-
o*
o
i
E-05
2.295
-*
in
LJ
*UJ
(M
LU
1 O LU .
a# ao
.0000
00
o O * LU
O(M a
o O
CO
0>
CM
LU
OO O
o>
o sO
t>
o
-ft
O
UJ
o
B
-*
i
--to
I
ill!
O oo oo
o
UJ
ffl
oo
o LU
o o
w-t
?- *o
UJ
>LU
LU
O O u_
o
r-
m o
1
00 o
UJ
o oo
o-
o
-o
O o
*
h- raa
Ui
o UJ
oo
in
o*
t~ o
LU
tn
> DC UJ CJ 3 O a xx iX
>-H
LU
uJ
>_l
O, LU
X u
O O OO
ift
O O
O O
m
in
*-t
o
i
O o
o
UJ
o o
*
*
in
rst
UJ
LU
^r oô o LU
4-
er mO (M
in,
o
^ m
LU
in
o
O
i/l
oo o * o
a UJ
oO oo UJ
O O
c
**
10
oo o
o
o
*
o
UJ
OO
nz o LU
LU
1
in
-j-
tn -H
OC
mx
LU O
i
UJ
O m
O o <o o oo LU
t
o o
O
LU
O O O ~* O
1
r-i
O
-*
O (D
a>
o
o
n
in
in
4-
o
B
o
i
<O fD
(M
O-
t
1
0-
O
Ui
-*
mo
LU
in
-*
LU
LU
LU
LU
alU
(M
ZO =3 Z
IU tc
oo o oo
o
o -a oo
LU
Kl
tc\
o -* o
O
1
o
1
o fd
o>
r>J
(O
o
i
*
CO
-i --i
O O
o>
to *O
mo
4-
<C
1A IU
IM
z: ct
UJ
IU
CO
LU
UJ
o tu
en a: u. UJ LU
in a.
m
i-
UJ
OT Ui
o w IU a a
(J
Q U
z o
z z> Z LU >
a:
UJ
I-
LU
o o
VJ u.
LU
a ZUJ
o
in
o in
o
in
Of
tj
O
in
>Z Z LU a ca ua
LU
U-'
"
oz
73
Appendix 4
UJ
I
O c o oo
c
UJ
'
o
I
o
'
mo
ai
m o
- u
14 _J
LU
UJ
LU
oo
o
f
in
Y!
c c
C
I
m
1
rvi
in
cc.
m o
i
t)
r-
E;
Uj IT
Lu
OLU
U
U,'
u. t-
<t LU
i>
U.!
Q
LU
GL
-J
O
=J
'
o
-j
_J
u,
in
=3
O
LJ kJ
Z LU am u D
74
ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION
ESTIIVL
-o
O
<M
1
o>
I
til
O
LU
j-
o m oo
oo O
o
UJ
(M
IM (M
CM
f\l
om M
Jt
CO JJ1
N O
LU
O fM mo
J
1
D
D
o oo oo o
IU
a LU
UJ (M
*tu
LU
a a
u
z
UJ t~ CM CM in I
O
UJ
f-
IM in
O
t
f(M
1-1
MO
f-
o
fy
tn
*
LU
O
*
co
d-
in eo oo
O OO O
o
IU
oo
O -t
O
UJ
PPOS
LU
-*
o
UJ
m
*
in
in
i
in
LJ
m st * m UJ a
CM
o o O
*
D
r-
CD r>o
OO
o
D
in CM
in UJ UJ
m
LU
f~
o om oo
o
f-
LU
LU
CM r-
(M
f
to
tr-
*-*
*
00
*
t
o
1
DO 0*
no
MO
1
>-4
o oo oo
o
LU
in
r- <o
CM
r-
m
o
o
i
o
a*
r-
CO
in
o
i
J-
Hi
* LU
a*
LU
LU
LU
CM
LU
LU
>a
[U
Ift
(M -o
î
O
r-l
<M
r-i
m
t
cn CM
oo oo
o
UJ
o oo wo
to (M CO
O in in
NO
r-*
r-l
O
in
O oo
*J-
i-t
UJ
UJ
UJ
LU
LU
o X KX
LU a.
X
I
>_J
CL LU
-*-
T"
o NO oo O LU
O
I
o o
CM
o o oo o
1
o Oo o o
LU
O
O
f1
h-
rH
(T>
f^
<*
O
1
to
j- in
t*l
O
t
GO
mo
i
U)
a UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
tu <M
LU
O om oo O UJ
1
o o oO
1
O O o UJ
O o
a LU
CD
r-1
O Cl O
UJ
o-
(M LU
r~
ô o LU
o>
t~ %r
m
i
ff
<t CM
o
CO rM
o
t
mo
in
i
LU s: o:
mx
LU t
LU
UJ
UJ
aiu
oo o
-a
ao o UJ a
o O 0O o
IU
O o <v o o UJ
O
O
I\J
(71
f~
^ O
r-
(fl
O
Ul
m oo mo
a-
00
*IU
zo u z.
O oo o
o
UJ
o o O
-o
1
o om o
o o *o oo o
UJ
03
r-i
r-
o
a-
m o
UJ
O
f>
r-l
O
UJ
vd
r-
O tM o
*
1
Kl
CO
Q
UJ
oin OJ
rt
O
OLU
cc
ex.
LU
"UJ
UJ fJ
LULU
-1
< LU
Q. (3
IULJ
CONVE
s: <t ae
OGRA
CROG8AM
CL
O
t/1
z
CL V) 13
Z UJ om u D
CD
-1
>z
idix 4
75
76
Appendix 4
77
Z
Ul
o oar m
tt Ul Ul Q. CL
15J
Ul
Z M O
tn
4<a
o
I
r-l
in
o
B
4-
o o
CO
O
tn
CM fM
o
*
*-*
CD fM
ifi
*O
-i CM en
o
B
* O
4-
cr
IM Ul
oo o
o oo
UJ
Ul
LU
Ul
IU
UJ
as:
uui
CL.
m a:
LU CL
m O
Ch
CM
O
I
om o* o
(M Ot
Oo aCM
B
r-l
*
tn
m
CM
o
>
mo
aa ui
r-M *o
UJ
(M
(M
Ul
UJ
a Ul a*
UJ
o oo o oo A UI
o O
*
-*
r-l
o ra
Ul
Ul
O f
tx.
I
CO
LU
CO
LU a. LU a: CD
r-l
CM
a00
O
LU
00
CM
u
o
O
ft
r-l r-t
(M
00
o mo CM o
m
LU
in CM en
CJ
o oo oo o
LU
oo *>
o
UJ
tn
ca
CO
tr\
O
UJ
UJ -1
UJ
aar
aiiu
CL
I
z Ul
t~ t~
a m
I
LU a.
r*-
-o
r-
o
B
r- CM
r--
o
i
o
Ul
o oo oo o
*LU
m
r*i -J~
i-t
LU
10
iv
CM
CM
r-J
o
I
r- CM CM
O> fl rO
B
o
Ul
ui
O
<
|
MIL.
UJ
Ui
m
o
to
tc\
LU
a UJ
in
X -
o a X
If
rn
ao
a: a: LU LU
>-I
CLUI
tn
D-Q.
Oo in
in
*-*
o
K O
00
OD
oo oo o
Ul
O CM CM
>-
o O
CM
oo
*~t
CM mo (M
O
Ul
DO
-O
I*H
I
x:
IU
LU
Ul
Ul
o
LU a.
a.
zm
DZ
Old
u
o ar
uo:
O rH O OO O
ft
o 0-* oo
I
UJ
o o LU
OO Oo
CD
OO
in
i
Ul
in
o
Ul
O CM PJ O
U)
to Ul
o O
U13E
r-l
mo
tn
i
DC
mx
OUI
LU
B
Ul
LU
UJ CL CL
o m
O o o
Ul
o o o LU
oo
oo o * o
*M
o o rv in
mo o
o
CM
CM
^ roo
ttf-
si-
o O
t-ui
O
r-.
m o O oo o
UI
zo
Ul
t~
m o
as:
in
o:
O
o oo o o
o
ocui
UJO.
a.
a. LU
Oo
B
o om o
in
--I
oo
(Nt
III
\*r
irvo o ui
O MO
r-*
in
oo o
U) Z <n
r-l
oui
oca: u.-<
ex o
UJUl
<LU
o LU
a: LU
>X
oz
*n
o
tn a: LU
o
a
a tn
o
at
o :&
oc
*n:
a: a.
oo
LULU
OE.
tf)
o
(K
Z o
*
ui aa x
a ui
Ul a.
a:ui
iu a. a.
a
-
O H oc
UJ
O o s:
o:
ot tn
a.
o
a
UJUl
ui a,
o: a. UJ
ttUJ
iu a.
CL ei
o s:
QL
CLLU
KUJ uia
ZUJ ODD
VJ
>z
a mu
oz
78
ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION ESTIMAT
2; Ul
Ifl
Ul
or
u
Of
Ul
\f\
o m CM o
Ul
m
a\
Of
o -4
o
Ul
m
(ft
o-
m O a
ON
tn Q^ 00
O
Ul
--4
NO
CO
O O
o B
Ul
o oo
oo o
UJ
Mi
oUI
o a.
n.
o U
Ul
a:
OO O i
r-l
OCM
o
irt
OO in
HI
O O (M OO
NO Ul t-
o -* oo
in a
in CM
m-o
o o
Ul
o oo o
o o
CM
O
-
o
UJ
UJ
ui
r~
Ul
o
tt
in
O (M o
*
i
* O
mo
* o
ui
r-
O
J-
* OtfX
in
m rg
CM!
r-i
a oo o
irv
o o
fO fM
CO
0>
O
B
r-4
(J,
O
B
r-4
Ul
aUl
Ul
Ul
z
Ul
a
in
a: UJ
OL
OO I UJ
.H
O CO
r0*
-H
O
tu
fM CO
fOO
-4
o
I
oo oo o o Ul
J-
O tM
to
o
9 Ul
m o* ro mo m
B
MUI
m CM in o
NT
r
CM
V> 3C ut
ui
ut
X a. r- X
X
>- B
LUI
O
tn
ui a z ui >- a. Q
Ul o: UJ
o O 10 oo o UJ
o o -o o oo a Ul
o OO oo o
Ul
oo
tn ui
CO mO
CM (O fO
-* *c *^
00 fO
ui
Ul
O o
tr)
z
ui
IM
*O
IM
tn
O
I
O*
*-*
O
>
OO
00 o*
oo o o oo
Ul
a
OO
roo
a
r->
*f OO 00 B
CM
o
I
IM CM
CO
* m
i*>
O
i
a:
Ul
Ul
o Ul
o
o
Ul
ui
Ui
Ut
OX
B
OX o O O o Oo
I
o oo oo
Ul
ui Ui tt
O o Ul
-4
C"l
o *O o O Ul
C-1
OO
00
oI
oo
O)
B
IM fl F>
mo
fO
I
CM
CO ro I
r- Ul
zo
Ul
Ul
Ul
Ul
n
in
ui DC
a.
o oo oo
o UJ
o oo ui
o om
oO Ul
r-l
OO O UJ B
o*n
NO
O N oo
CM
o-o
00
CO fO CO
O O
no
Ul 10
Ul
*U1
O Ul at a
in o: F-
m
Ut UJ -i
<t Ul
f-
o z u z> u. a
a
m UJ a a
ui
tn
ui oc a.
VJ
M
a
tt
ui
F-tQC
ct
a
o
in
a m
ec
tu
u
Oi
a u
a: ui
bJ ui
z o
Z Ul O CO
o OZ
to a.
ma.
Appendix 4
in
r
O m
fg
Z
rgh<o
<
m
ct
UJ
>-romcoini-4>-i>-ii-4
r-
om
M
r-
*m too
*UJ
*UI
o m ~4 ry o M
.-4
t- ~*
aUJ
oo m
o
CM
>o
o>-4
-*
DO
UJ
bJ
UJ
CM "111
N NO oo
Ul
o oo oo
UJ -4
!3
ar
ui
^-*
va
O
o:
-*ooomor*-.*o
mo
me-
UJ Hi-
X
-
<
mo
(M
iDin
oo
h-
om
Ul
U1
aUJ
* -to
i~
m-* oo m
Or*
*-
r-
r*-
oo oo
o
Ul
LU
rM-t
r-
CM Ul
r-i
LU
UJ
Ul
Ul
o QABin O
Ul CL
r-l
m -*
^CMJ-r^J" UJ
x ~ z O
coo
r-
JrOO>43-iHlOfM mo oo NO oo oo
o
.* -o
o CM
^
*
coo
,
r-
o
Ul
ft
IU
*UI
Ul
,4i-4r-<00
Ul UJ
i
o o
mo
o>o
rM
M oo
o> ^00
i
Or
Ul
i
a o
u < u_
UJ
Ul
x z O Z
i
ooor-'*oflr
IM-O
m
IM
o>o
o* rgo
m
*
ora
oo
mo coo
*
FM UJ
rg
UJ
oUJ
10 c-o o
>UI
UJ
r-tr-IO-CO
a UJ
oo oo o
r-o
t~
*
a
cM!
OTJ r-o
r-
*UJ
^
00
OCM o>o
UJ
ui ID _i
Ul
<f
>
OO
M
CM
lii
3ECM-4
LU
X iz O
0*0
*
o
rg-*
o
fUJ >O
-*o
oa
i
mo
OCM rgo
*UJ
o oo oo o
i
mioa<oi>oix x X 4'r-*cj*otr-r~
r*ir-4
o oo oo o
m
Ul
mo
CM*
mo
CM r-4rg
m
i
r-o
ofM
mo
wS o
_j
LU a,
I
LU
*UJ
Ul
LU
Ul
ooooom>-ico
* ui
Ul
ELUI
r,
om <* o
o
-
oo
coo
or<j
<c ui
* n O
ui
BUI
n-l
oo oo o
r-4IMN
ui
ot oo mi
*ui
mo mi LU
m^4
CMI
CM
mo
cor-t
K*M
-
o
I\I*M
-*
_j
a^t
--I
<ri
r-t
^>o
E
I
ui
uj
uj
*o r4
ot
3 O
1C
om oo
m
', *U1
A O
n O
r-i
oo
*UI
oo oo
LU
pjm
in o*
4-
>-4
4)r-lin
00 o
OfJ 00 <oi
*
to oo **
LU
o ^> LU r-1,-1 LU
no
com
o>
^4
-* o mi UJ
iO
r-4
^
^r
1*1
*o
ui
<-*i
i-4
o î UJ ^
Q^ LUE
dLU
a: MX mx LU
I
r4
01 X:-r-4i-fO>fM*i
o
"Ul
UJ
t 2 z -
uJoor-oiMeor-io
5^J 00
Ol^
CM
000
<" UJ
UI
U1
^m MO mi UJ
.
om O
rai
-t
IM*
CM-r-4
UI
00 01 o Ul
r-o 0*0
oo
i
t-ui
Izo
-*
LU
^^ S ^ iT.^
r
w
in
. I
Mi WI
S o "^
r-t
S 2S
r,
^9 01 * M
r-l
^ ^, S2
trit t9
r~ CM
2*1 SS
lft
*
^
"
t u
01 -lu
-H
r-i
m1 mo
aoi
">>
m"* w m
* m m
*-
r-i
-UJ
(I)
'-o
t\i
<-*i
t-i
oo
.ui
co
m UJ
oui
*-
aK
JJ
ui
in
ti
0r7^^^ "C22, ^SgS"*,?***^^ uw ijôwoooujoz

i-
y So w z a o SE aS
fi
a
-<
^^
^*T ^"^
< >
-
K
_ *
<-
*-<
UJZQUJ
S
H
z
!j!!J'
z
<l
*>
^J *"
<
80
Appendix 4
81
-J rCD
<n
CD
u
LU
o
in
to
<c
u
I
a O
13
\/
> D
LU
(Y
UJ
UJ
I
V3 CL UJ
r-
a o u
u.
r-
n m
^.
a
ui
2 ^ ÛJ. Z >
o
S ao
5
|
o
^ 3
îC t 5
U
yj
"3*-,!.^,
,T
aa
z
V
<
t-
luuJ
-1
ZUJ
>z
"
o tQ
1
^^
U 3
S
fcH
82
zr
IU
IU
Ul
o a
(L
a o
u
LU
t-
if)
U1U
3E
^-
^
in
om
~>
D: in ui
CQ CL
mo mo
r-*
mo no
<T
<
LU
mo mo --<
LU -*
f-
f-
OM oo
*o
LU
*LU
o oo oo
LU
wo 3f
ui CL
I-
X
t
^
<h
as:
x
I
3:0)
$
O
-t
fvjCNJ
z Q.
~LU
-<(
* *VIM
O
inO
H
*
-OO
fn
O OO OO
UJ
N
p- Pi
*^
h-O
* LU
oUJ
UJ
UJ
mo ooo rz -3QIJJ iu na m
to
in
'tn
m
-O
ino too
o oo oo O
-uj
o
of\i
t~
UJ
CL
v\ r*
00
I
oo
.LU
W) uj c*
E x
i 1
w X
"
-*
iu
.LU
(*i
LU
s:
3
in
^ m o
-H
<|5
z ct rjîLu
<CL au
o oo oo o
uj
-
o oo oo o
-ua
-
PI PI
a<
rj *H
ô
r-l
oo
-LU
*.*"*" N rH - uj
eoo "it
ox
-ui
TO
uJ
52 nz
.,
S
a IUJ ^W
ui
>*
o
^
iii->W 5
I
OO 00 n
.LU
_J
00 O -LU ^
OO
-...!
PI
PIM Ô iN-l
".UJ
o Nr-4
|. ^^ *
L_J
00
^J
COO ml
O>-^
-UJ
-UJ
*.U OUJ
t~i
O ^
ff.
H
k-.
^ ->
o
LU
u.
*n
^^ 3 ^^ >X ^^ T
u
"
5
s g
^,-7? > <a
tnx.
Sui
I 5 z
8
5
.
s
rv
iS
gS
en
^^ -
0-
^ a
SS
gs
SS
|| KU
o|
83
Appendix
Vl
THE
m o a. u
*-
r m
u\ <t
co
a.
o
co
t<x
^
tf
a m
o;
Of.
m
a
*
*
in
co
<t
inui
CD tX
coo
i
in CM
r-o
o<i
inrj
r-
o>i
*
* UJ
*t *o
mi
^
(M
cr-
o
I
oo
UJ
UJ
111
BUJ
o mi * UJ
i
-tin
o oo oo o
UJ
*-*
a
u
H1
u_
-<
uj l>CQ
O >m -r
o:
UJQ: txuj
m
ooo
*~4
-a--*
a.
m oo
r^
r-t
tf
h-m oo m
m
^)
mo
coo
UI
o om
*
i^
-i
H- t~
CD u_
i
UI
UJ
BUI
*UI
o oo oo
"UJ
-*
r--* oo ^
LU
f-
ui r> _j
<X
az -t
l/l
s: Q
ujoc Q.UI
a.
m
i-<tM -*
U)
r>
t
(QU.(vi a> tn <

7 a:
h-
o coo (Mi*
BUI
tn
mo
in
mo coo
.o
in
UIQi QQ.UI
LU
m_i <
4
a.
OOOOMmm
oo
-*o
'Ul
o oo inio
in Ul
o>rn
o oo
>-
m
*
> z LU o: > UJ
>-4
"UJ
o coo OÎPJwtU
UJ
-o
***
co m
ID
*~*
o
X x
*
UJ n.
CM
H-
Q.IU
i- 1-
om ^-o
^t
i
ow *to
^
-o
oo oo o
^
a Ul
r-M
oo
mî
~<o
UJ
rg
r-
(^
LU
uu
z
"
LU
GO
UJ
r4
Ul
Ul
oa
r\i
-oo
**
LU
_1
no
s:-
< U
t
U3
a
i
>
ui tt
J UJ
o
*0
z
_J
on.
<
-.
01 LU
OC1 oo
o o
^H
OO oo
UJ
OO oo
-4-
o
fO *H
fî
<(
BUI ^
0*1
vD
-*o
Ul
I^B
-HO
coo
co i
*!
m
Kt"~*
^*ILJ ^
LUX
IX UJ
I
_ Zin nz Q UU
-i
mo
>lLl (M
*U1
rH
uix
HX
az m
Of UJ Df a.
<
*H
.*
-a.uj
13
Ul
z_j <X
OU
UU
om oo or Ul
*
o
rH
oo oo
*UJ
oo oo
Ul
-t* 'to
o-i
D
Ul
fn tn **
m
-
d Ui ^ tf ^ 1 O |_ >_
i
r->
(M
-to
aUI
coi
** wo
UJ
m^ mo
i/\
^-
zo
M*-
LU
r-4
QUJ
tX.CC. UlQf
a--* <
I
5 O
O o
a.
f
SI
2S oo
LU
i-*
f~
*^ jjo *
UJ
-f
^^ *o
*
LU
P4
F-
4>*-
mo c-4
(M
>LU
w wo m
4-
* m
u,^-,
CM
-*
^-o
.*
i
OM
LU
LJ
ooo
o.*n
.fcj
-10 s;a ouj
fy
<
O w u 5 D
u-
^^
3
m
i~
<uj
a
ui
z o M
uj
-**-,
S g D z
g
5
tn
ou *n
ui
a u
LU
" a
ui
az M
>
a wa a
z M* E
to i
o
a *
>
1/1
oz M
a
o> uif
a Sa *
s:
<j
uia ^S!
uia
LUCK
*%
5,ecu.
5!*
^X uu
I
_i
^x uu
to *Z
<
SS!
S^ z5 S
S
i-
;2^
u.
<
oS 4
84

rtU.
H,
GOVERNMENT PHINTINQ OFFICE; 1970-393-962/113

Turner Workbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Turner Workbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

D.

Air Resources Field Research Office, Environmental Science Services Administration

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Environmental Health Service

Urban and Industrial Health

Triplicate tear-out abstract cards are provided with reports in the

information retrieval. Space number and additional key words.

provided on the cards for the user's accession

Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-26

the services of a professional air pollution meteorologist are required.

EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF EMISSION

and Maximum Concentration Required Stack Heights

Effect of Evaporative Cooling

RELATION TO OTHER DIFFUSION EQUATIONS EXAMPLE PROBLEMS

example problems and

their solutions are given.

graphical aids to computation

or reduced. Examples of typtemperature and wind speed with

height for daytime and nighttime conditions are

temperature and wind speed with height (after Smith, 1963).

Pasquill, P., 1961:

over-estimations of stable conditions.

daytime) situations, but can cause downwind concentrations in

ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION ESTIMATES

tions were calculated either from the equations of

distribution of material in the

plume across wind

^ for the vertical

Contract AF 19(604)-1058 Mass. Inst. of Tech., Dept. of Meteorol.

Cramer, H. E., 1959a:

orological aspects of atmospheric pollution. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 40, 4, 165-171.

brief survey of the meteBull,

in Geophysics, 6, 471 pp.

York, Academic Press,

ESTIMATES OF ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION

chapter outlines the basic procedures to

dispersion estimates as sugPaaquill (1961) and modified by Gifford

the x-axis. Figure 3-1 illustrates the late system.

e-n />> where

the base of natural logarithms

approximately equal to 2.7183.

Coordinate system showing Gaussian distributions

the horizontal and vertical.

Any consistent common is;

or, for radioactivity (curies

KEY TO STABILITY CATEGORIES

diffusion in the direcis,

should be assumed for overcast conditions durlnfi

problem 2) further simplification results:

lajwTboro (Duckworth and Sandberg, 1954; DeMarrais'igeT)

ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION ESTIMATES

ESTIMATION OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL DISPERSION

any z from to L for x > 2.v r.; x is where of <r K] 0.8

EVALUATION OF WIND SPEED

PLOTS OF CONCENTRATIONS AGAINST DISTANCE

the diffusion computation

to L for any z from for x >2 XT,; x r, is where

Horizontal dispersion coefficient as a function of

downwind distance from the source.

ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION ESTIMATES

function of downwind distance from the source.

the vertical beneath a more stable layer.

PLOTTING GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATION ISOPLETHS