Evaluation of eight short-term long-range transport models using field data

R.A. Carhart, A.J. Policastro, M. Wastag, L. Coke
{"title":"Evaluation of eight short-term long-range transport models using field data","authors":"R.A. Carhart,&nbsp;A.J. Policastro,&nbsp;M. Wastag,&nbsp;L. Coke","doi":"10.1016/0004-6981(89)90101-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Eight short-term long-range transport models (MESOPUFF, MESOPLUME, MSPUFF, MESOPUFF II, MTDDIS, ARRPA, RADM and RTM-II) have been tested with field data from two data bases involving tracer releases. The Oklahoma data base involved two separate experiments with measurements taken at 100 and 600 km arcs downwind of a 3-h perfluorocarbon release. The Savannah River Plant data base encompassed 15 experiments with measurements taken over 2–5 days at distances of 28–144 km downwind from a 62 m stack release of Kr-85 gas.</p><p>Application of the American Meteorological Society statistics to the model/data comparisons showed that six of the eight models predicted within a factor of two of the observed concentrations for all of the following: points paired in space and time, points paired in space only, and for points unpaired in space and time. However, the ratio of the standard deviation of residuals to the average observed value showed improvement as more unpairing was done in the comparison of the models with the data. The statistical comparisons reveal a definite tendency of the models to overpredict plume concentrations. Supplemental graphical comparisons showed that plume concentration overprediction is accompanied with an underprediction of plume spreading, and that a definite time lag is often observed between the time of arrival of the observed plume and the time of arrival of the predicted plume.</p><p>The causes of model/data discrepancies can be largely traced to inadequate wind field modeling that leads to an incorrect temporal and spatial positioning of the plume, and the use of the Turner [Workbook of atmospheric dispersion estimates. U.S. Dept of H.E.W. Publication 999-AP-26 (1970)] curves to downwind distances beyond which they can accurately represent the scales of atmospheric turbulence. The use of multilayer wind field models and the use of the Heffter [<em>J. appl. Met.</em><strong>4</strong>, 153–156 (1965)] formula for lateral plume dispersion close to the source appear to improve model accuracies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100138,"journal":{"name":"Atmospheric Environment (1967)","volume":"23 1","pages":"Pages 85-105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0004-6981(89)90101-7","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Atmospheric Environment (1967)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698189901017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Eight short-term long-range transport models (MESOPUFF, MESOPLUME, MSPUFF, MESOPUFF II, MTDDIS, ARRPA, RADM and RTM-II) have been tested with field data from two data bases involving tracer releases. The Oklahoma data base involved two separate experiments with measurements taken at 100 and 600 km arcs downwind of a 3-h perfluorocarbon release. The Savannah River Plant data base encompassed 15 experiments with measurements taken over 2–5 days at distances of 28–144 km downwind from a 62 m stack release of Kr-85 gas.

Application of the American Meteorological Society statistics to the model/data comparisons showed that six of the eight models predicted within a factor of two of the observed concentrations for all of the following: points paired in space and time, points paired in space only, and for points unpaired in space and time. However, the ratio of the standard deviation of residuals to the average observed value showed improvement as more unpairing was done in the comparison of the models with the data. The statistical comparisons reveal a definite tendency of the models to overpredict plume concentrations. Supplemental graphical comparisons showed that plume concentration overprediction is accompanied with an underprediction of plume spreading, and that a definite time lag is often observed between the time of arrival of the observed plume and the time of arrival of the predicted plume.

The causes of model/data discrepancies can be largely traced to inadequate wind field modeling that leads to an incorrect temporal and spatial positioning of the plume, and the use of the Turner [Workbook of atmospheric dispersion estimates. U.S. Dept of H.E.W. Publication 999-AP-26 (1970)] curves to downwind distances beyond which they can accurately represent the scales of atmospheric turbulence. The use of multilayer wind field models and the use of the Heffter [J. appl. Met.4, 153–156 (1965)] formula for lateral plume dispersion close to the source appear to improve model accuracies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用野外资料评价8种长短期输运模式
八个长短期输运模型(MESOPUFF、MESOPLUME、MSPUFF、MESOPUFF II、MTDDIS、ARRPA、RADM和RTM-II)已经用两个涉及示踪剂释放的数据库的现场数据进行了测试。俄克拉何马州的数据库涉及两个独立的实验,分别在3小时全氟碳化合物释放的顺风处100公里和600公里处进行测量。萨凡纳河电厂数据库包括15项实验,测量时间为2-5天,距离下游28-144公里,距离62米的Kr-85气体堆释放。将美国气象学会的统计数据应用于模式/数据比较表明,在8个模式中,有6个模式对下列所有观测浓度的预测在两个因子范围内:空间和时间上成对的点、空间上仅成对的点以及空间和时间上未成对的点。然而,残差标准差与平均观测值之比在模型与数据的比较中,随着更多的解配对,出现了改善。统计比较表明,这些模型有明显的高估羽流浓度的趋势。补充的图形比较表明,羽流浓度的高估伴随着羽流扩展的低估,并且在观测到的羽流到达时间和预测的羽流到达时间之间经常观察到一定的时间滞后。模式/数据差异的原因很大程度上可以追溯到风场建模不充分,导致羽流的时间和空间定位不正确,以及使用特纳[工作手册]估算大气扩散。U.S. department of H.E.W. Publication 999-AP-26(1970)]曲线到下风距离,超过这个距离,它们可以准确地表示大气湍流的尺度。多层风场模型的应用和Heffter的应用[J]。达成。在靠近震源处的羽流横向弥散公式似乎提高了模型的精度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Calendar Introduction Errata Calendar Introduction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1