-------
6.0 RESULTS FOR THE 90 DEGREE ROTATED SCENARIO
The 90 degree rotated scenario is the measurement program of
the base case rectangle rotated 90 degrees clockwise. This
corresponds to having the short dimension of the area source
oriented perpendicular to the direction of wind flow. Results
for this case are only presented for two measurement planes, the
ground-level horizontal (XY) plane, and the centerline vertical
(XZ) plane. There were no measurements made for the crosswind
vertical (YZ) plane.
6.1 Results Of The Physical Analysis
Figure 6-1 shows the comparison of the wind tunnel
experiment data and ISCST2 results for ground-level receptors
located at the downwind edge of the 90 degree rotated rectangle
(X = 360 meters). The downwind edge of the area source deserves
significant attention, since the highest concentration values for
area sources are expected to occur at this location. As with the
base case and the 45 degree rotated scenarios described in
previous sections, the figure shows very good agreement between
the wind tunnel and the ISCST2 results, both in terms of
magnitude of the results and in terms of the overall shape of the
plume. Appendix C provides a collection of all the point-to-
point comparison results for the 90 degree rotated scenario. The
overall trends are similar to those observed for the base case,
with the ISCST2 results matching the wind tunnel results inside
and nearby the area source, but tending to overpredict the area
source impact at ground-level locations farther downwind.
Figure 6-2 shows the comparison of the wind tunnel and
ISCST2 centerline vertical concentration distributions at the
downwind edge of the area source. The ISCST2 results match the
wind tunnel data very well in lower levels (<50 meters), but tend
to underpredict the concentration-values for the upper levels.
The centerline vertical distributions at other downwind distances
are presented in Appendix C. These figures show "the same trend
as observed for the base case with the discrepancies for the
elevated receptors increasing as the downwind distance increases.
6.2 Results Of The Statistical Analysis
Figure 6-3 shows the mean fractional bias and the standard
deviation of the fractional bias as a function of downwind
distance for the ground-level horizontal (XY) plane for the 90
iecr^ss rotstsci "**2ct3.no'Is. """he seals of the vertical i£> zCJT
fractional bias, which varies from -2 for extreme overprediction
to +2 for extreme underprediction. A fractional bias of zero (0)
indicates agreement between the observed (wind tunnel') and
predicted (I3CST2) values. A fractional bias of +/- 0.57
indicates agreement within a factor of 2.
40
-------
The mean fractional bias (MFB) for the ground-level
horizontal (XY) plane varies from a maximum of about -0.2 at a
downwind distance of -180 meters to its minimum value of less
than about 0.01 over the center of the area, and then increases
in magnitude to about -0.3 at a downwind distance of 1800 meters.
These comparison results are quite promising, with the ratio of
the results showing differences of less than 5 percent for the
important receptor locations at the downwind edge of the area.
There were no vertical crosswind measurements made for this
scenario, but the centerline vertical results are consistent with
the results seen for the other rectangular cases.
The results of the statistical analysis are also presented
in tabular form in Appendix E.
41
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2)
1QOQp
100
10
0 1
0 011
ISCST2
Wind TunneI
-500 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure 6-1.
Comparison of lateral profile of normalized
concentration for the 90 Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 360 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
42
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne!
01 1 10 100
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q,
1000
Figure 6-2.
Comparison of vertical profile of normalized
concentration for the 90 Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 360 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
43
-------
Fract i onaI Bi as
2
MFB+SD MFB
MFB-SD ¥
J_
-180
180 360 480
Downwind Distance
600
843
Figure 6-3
Fractional. Bias of normalized concentration as a
function of downwind distance for the 90-Degree
Rotated Case using dispersion parameters fitted to
wind tunnel data. Overbar is fractional bias plus
(+) and underbar is minus (-) one standard
deviation (SD); symbol (*) shows mean fractional
bias (MFB).
44
-------
7.0 RESULTS FOR THE CIRCULAR SOURCE SCENARIO
The circular area source scenario includes measurements for
a circular source with a diameter of 470 meters, which
corresponds to the same total area as the rectangular source
discussed in previous sections. As described in Section 3, the
circular area was modeled as a 20-sided polygon by making a minor
modification to the ISCST2 model code. Results for the circular
source are presented for three measurement planes, the ground-
level horizontal (XY) plane, the centerline vertical (XZ) plane,
and the crosswind vertical (YZ) plane.
7.1 Results Of The Physical Analysis
Figure 7-1 shows the comparison of the wind tunnel
experiment data and ISCST2 results for ground-level receptors
located at a downwind distance of 204 meters, relative to the
center of the area. This distance is about 30 meters upwind of
the furthest downwind point on the circular area. As with the
rectangular scenarios described in previous sections, the figure
shows very good agreement between the wind tunnel and the ISCST2
results, both in terms of magnitude of the results and in terms
of the overall shape of the plume. The ISCST2 results match the
wind tunnel results inside and nearby the area source, but tend
to overpredict the area source impact at ground-level locations
farther downwind. Appendix D provides a collection of all the
point-to-point comparison results for the circular source
scenario.
Figure 7-2 shows the comparison of the wind tunnel and
ISCST2 centerline vertical concentration distributions at the
same distance downwind (X = 204 meters). The ISCST2 results
match the wind tunnel data very well in the lower levels (<30
meters), but tend to underpredict the concentration values for
the upper levels. The centerline vertical distributions at other
downwind distances are presented in Appendix D. These figures
show the same trend as observed for the base case, with the
discrepancies for the elevated receptors increasing as the
downwind distance increases.
Figure 7-3 shows the comparison of the wind tunnel and
ISCST2 lateral concentration distributions at a downwind distance
of 840 meters and a receptor height of 55.8 meters above ground.
This figure shows very good agreement in magnitude and shape for
the elevated plume at this downwind distance. The lateral
distributions at other receptor heights for this downwind
distance are shown in Appendix D. These figures show that while
the lateral plume shape is matched well by the model results at
all levels, the model tends to overpredict the magnitude of the
normalized concentrations for receptor elevations below about 60
meters and to underpredict for receptor elevations above 60
meters. This is similar to the Base Case, and is consistent with
the vertical profiles of the plume discussed above.
45
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
100
10
0 1
SCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswmd Distance
Figure 7-1.
Comparison of lateral profile of normalized
concentration for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 204 meters from the center of the
area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
46
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
0
0 01
SCST2
Wi nd TunneI
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2;)
Figure 7-2.
Comparison of vertical profile of normalized
concentration for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 204 meters from the center of the
area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
47
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2;i
1000p
100
0 1
0 OT
5CST2
Wind Tunne
-6QO -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure 7-3.
Comparison of lateral profile of normalized
concentration for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 840 meters from the center of the area
and a receptor elevation of 55.8 meters above
ground. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
48
-------
7.2 Results Of The Statistical Analysis
Figure 7-4 shows the mean fractional bias and the standard
deviation of the fractional bias as a function of downwind
distance for the ground-level horizontal (XY) plane for the
circular source scenario. The scale the vertical axis is for
fractional bias, which varies from -2 for extreme overprediction
to +2 for extreme underprediction. A fractional bias of zero (0)
indicates perfect agreement between the observed (wind tunnel)
and predicted (ISCST2) values. A fractional bias of +/- 0.67
indicates agreement within a factor of 2.
The mean fractional bias (MFB) for the ground-level
horizontal (XY) plane varies from about 0.2 inside the area
source to its minimum value of about 0.01 near the downwind edge
of the area (X = 240 meters), and then increases in magnitude to
about -0.3 at a downwind distance of 1800 meters. These
comparison results are quite promising, with the ratio of the
results showing differences of less than 5 percent for the
important receptor locations near the downwind edge of the area.
Unlike the rectangular source scenarios described in previous
sections, the ISCST2 model is slightly underpredicting
concentrations over the circular source area, while still
overpredicting at distances farther downwind. The reason for
this slight difference is not clear from this analysis.
Figure 7-5 shows the mean fractional bias and the standard
deviation of the fractional bias as a function of receptor height
for the vertical crosswind (YZ) plane at a downwind distance of
840 meters for the circular source scenario. This figure shows a
similar trend to that observed for the rectangular source for the
model to overpredict near the ground-level and to underpredict
for elevated receptors.
The mean fractional bias varies with .height from about -0.3
near the surface to about 1.1 or greater for receptors located
above 100 meters above ground. This means that the ISCST2
overpredicts slightly in the lower levels (less than about 60
meters), and underpredicts in the upper levels. This result is
also shown by the physical analysis. Again, the results are very
encouraging for ground-level receptors, which are important for
regulatory applications.
The results,of the statistical analysis are also presented
in tabular form in Appendix' E.
49
-------
Fractional Bias
2
i ir-r-> r- r-,
IVll O^OU
k 4i~ n T\
MFB
* -
-1
-2
I
-102
102 204 240 360
Downwind Distance
480
840
Figure 7-4
Fractional Bias as a function of downwind distance
for the Circular Case using dispersion parameters
fitted to wind tunnel data. Overbar is fractional
bias plus (+) and underbar is minus (-) one
standard deviation (SD) ,- symbol (*) is mean
fractional bias (MFB).
50
-------
Fractional Bias
2
MFB+SD MFB
MFB-SD *
-2
I
19 8 37 8 55 8 73 8
Receptor Height
91 8
109 3
Figure 7-5
Fractional Bias as a function of receptor height
for the Circular Case using dispersion parameters
fitted to wind tunnel data. Overbar is fractional
bias plus (+) and underbar is minus (-) one
standard deviation (SD)/ symbol (*) shows mean
fractional bias (MFB).
51
-------
8.0 THE WIND TUNNEL DISPERSION PARAMETERS
The differences between the Pasquill-Gifford (PG) sigmas and
the lateral dispersion parameter (cry) and vertical dispersion
parameter (crz) observed in the wind tunnel were shown in Figures
2-4 and 2-5. It was shown that the dispersive behavior of the
simulated atmospheric boundary layer in the wind tunnel is near
the PG-C stability class (slightly unstable) close to the source
and tends toward the PG-D stability class (neutral) farther
downwind.
In order to focus the evaluation study on the performance of
the numerical integration algorithm, rather than on the
representativeness of PG dispersion parameters to the wind tunnel
boundary layer, the ISCST2 model results were generated using
dispersion parameters based on the wind tunnel point source data.
The ISCST2 model was modified to use a power-law fit of the wind
tunnel data, given by the following formulas:
o = 0.73547 x°-64931 (8-1)
O =0.28565x°'71285 (8-2)
z
where x is the downwind distance in meters. Figures 8-1 and 8-2
provide comparisons of the wind-tunnel derived values and the
power-law fit for ay and az, respectively. Linear axes are used
in these figures in order to make the slight differences more
distinguishable .
In order to evaluate the effects of using the wind-tunnel
derived dispersion parameters, two cases were examined using PG
class C and PG class D dispersion parameters for comparison to
the results using wind tunnel data. These comparisons are
presented for ground-level receptors for the base case scenario
and for the circular source case. Point-to-point comparisons of
normalized concentration are presented for a downwind distance of
240 meters for both cases, using a linear concentration axis to
make the differences more visible. This distance corresponds to
the first distance downwind of the source, and is where the
modeled versus wind tunnel result? showed the best agreement .
es 3-1 and 3-4 shew che ccrnpaTiscn. results fcr zhe -;a
case. Figure 8-3 shows that the ISCST2 results based on PG-C
stability class slightly underpredict the concentration values
near the rectangular source, while the PG-D stability class
resulcs overpredict the centerline concentration values at che
same distance. The C stability results match the wind tunnel
concentrations better than the D stability results, which is
consistent with the comparison of sigma values shown in Section
52
-------
2. Figure 8-4 compares the mean fractional bias for ground-level
crosswind profiles as a function of downwind distance for the PG-
C, PG-D and wind tunnel dispersion parameters.
Figures 8-5 and 8-6 show the comparison results for the
circular source case. These figures show a similar pattern to
that seen for the base case scenario, with PG-C stability
matching the wind tunnel data better close to the source, but
tending to underpredict for receptors located farther downwind.
The PG-D stability results match the wind tunnel sigmas better
farther downwind, but tend toward a larger overprediction of
concentrations.
53
-------
Sigma Y
100
500
1000
Downwind Distance
1500
Raw Data
Power- I aw Fit
2000
Figure 8-1.
Comparison of the wind tunnel data and power-law
fit for
y'
54
-------
S i gma Z £ rrf)
100
50
500
1000
Downwind Distance
1500
Raw Data
Power-I aw F11
2000
Figure 8-2. Comparison of the wind tunnel data and power-law
fit for crz.
55
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q., 1/m**2}
140
120 -
100 -
Fitted Parameters
Wind Tunnel Data
PG Class C
PG Class D
-BOO -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance Cm!)
Figure 8-3.
Comparison of the wind tunnel data and ISCST2
results at a downwind distance of 240 meters for
the Base Case with various dispersion parameters
56
-------
Fractional Bias
2
-2
-60
F i t ted
PG Class C
PG Class D
120 240 360 840
Downwind Distance
1800
2580
Figure 8-4
The mean fractional bias (MFB) of normalized
concentration as a function of downwind distance
for the Base Case with various dispersion
parameters.
57
-------
Normalized Concentration CCD/Q^ 1/m**23
300
Fitted Parameters
Wi nd TunneI Data
PG Class C
PG Class D
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure 8-5.
Comparison of the wind tunnel data and ISCST2
results at a downwind distance of 240 meters for
the Circular Source Case with various dispersion
parameters.
58
-------
Fractional Bias
2
- 1
-2
-102
Fitted
PG Class C
PG Class D
102 204 240 360
Downwind Distance
480
840
1800
Figure.8-6.
The mean fractional bias (MFB) of normalized
concentration as a function of downwind distance
for the Circular Source Case with various
dispersion parameters.
59
-------
9.0 CONCLUSIONS
This report documents an evaluation of the new ISCST2
numerical integration algorithm for modeling impacts from area
sources using data collected in a wind tunnel experiment. Both a
qualitative physical analysis and a quantitative statistical
analysis were performed to evaluate the performance of the
algorithm. In the physical analysis, point-to-point comparisons
were made between the ISCST2 model results and the wind tunnel
measured results for a range of source scenarios and receptor
locations. The overall magnitude of the normalized
concentrations and the shape of the plume were qualitatively
compared to determine the reasonableness of the model results.
In the statistical analysis, the mean fractional bias and the
standard deviation of the fractional bias were used as
quantitative measures of the performance of the algorithm. The
fractional bias was determined for a series of crosswind receptor
locations, and the mean fractional bias and standard deviation
were plotted for ground-level receptors as a function of downwind
distance and for elevated receptors as a function of receptor
height at a downwind distance of 840 meters.
A total of four wind tunnel experiment scenarios were
modeled by ISCST2 with the numerical integration area source
algorithm. The base case scenario provides a detailed picture of
the impacts from a rectangular area source with the long
dimension oriented perpendicular to the direction of flow. The
rectangular source has an aspect ratio of 3 to 1. The
rectangular area source was then rotated 45 degrees and 90
degrees counterclockwise to show the effects of source
orientation relative to the wind flow. Finally, a circular
source scenario was modeled by ISCST2 by approximating the circle
as a 20-sided polygon. The circular source has a diameter of 470
meters, giving it the same area as the rectangular source.
The results of the analyses show that the new ISCST2 area
source algorithm predicts the concentration distribution with
relatively good accuracy, especially for the ground-level
receptors of maximum impact located near the downwind edge of the
area source. The normalized ISCST2 modeled concentrations
generally matched the wind tunnel measured concentrations to
within 10 percent, and the lateral shape of the plume was also
matched very well. The overall trend is for the ISCST2 model to
overtjrsdict concentrations "for the ground-level recactors Iccacsd
farther downwind of the area and to underpredict concentrations
fcr =1evaded recaptcrs. These rasults suggest thac 3iie Gaussian
assumption for lateral dispersion compares well with wind tunnel
observations for a neutral boundary layer, but that the plume
does not show a Gaussian distribution in the vertical. The model
tends co underestimate che amount of vertical spread of the
plume. The integration procedure used to model the area source
appears to provide a very accurate estimate of the concentrations
60
-------
for ground-level receptors located near the source, which are of
most concern to regulatory modeling and Superfund applications.
The comparison results for the various source shapes and
orientations demonstrate the ability of the model to accurately
depict the plume shape for complex source-receptor geometries.
The performance of the model is particularly noteworthy for the
45-degree rotated rectangle because of its ability to match the
lateral asymmetry of the plume over and near the source. In
addition, for the circular source, the model was modified to
allow inputting of arbitrary vertices for a multi-sided polygon,
indicating the flexibility of the model to handle irregularly-
shaped sources. While the model algorithm is capable of handling
these irregular polygons, the user interface for defining such
sources has not been fully developed.
61
-------
10.0 REFERENCES
Cox, W.M., 1988: Protocol for Determining the Best Performing
Model. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
Press, W., B. Flannery, S. Teukolsky, and W. Vetterling, 1986:
Numerical Recipes. Cambridge University Press, New York, 797
pp.
Snyder, W. H., 1991: Wind-Tunnel Simulation of Dispersion from
Superfund Area Sources, Fluid Modeling Facility Internal
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989: Review and
Evaluation of Area Source Dispersion Algorithms for Emission
Sources at Superfund Sites. EPA-450/4-89-020. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992a: Sensitivity
Analysis of a Revised Area Source Algorithm for the
Industrial Source Complex Short Term Model. EPA-454/R-92-
015, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992b: Summary of Quality
Assurance and Equivalence Tests Performed on the Modified
Area Source Algorithm for the ISCST2 Model. Project report
for WA No. 1-27, 68D00124, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992c-. User's Guide for
the Industrial Source Complex (ISC2) Dispersion Models,
Volume I - User Instructions. EPA-450/4-92-008a, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
62
-------
APPENDIX A
POINT-TO-POINT COMPARISON RESULTS
FOR THE BASE CASE
-------
This Appendix presents the point-to-point comparison results
for the Base Case scenario. The Base Case consists of a 720m x
240m rectangular area with the long dimension oriented
perpendicular to the wind flow in a simulated boundary layer with
a 0.2 meter surface roughness length and a free-stream wind speed
of 4 m/s. The ground-level lateral concentration profiles (XY
plane) are presented first, followed by the centerline vertical
profiles (XZ plane), and then the vertical crosswind profiles (YZ
plane) at a downwind distance of 840 meters. The ground-level
profiles are based on a 1.8 meter receptor height above ground.
The vertical crosswind profiles for receptor heights above about
100 meters have not been included in this report. Normalized
concentration values of less than 0.01 have also been excluded
from the graphs. As noted in the captions, the ISCST2 model
results are based on the use of dispersion parameters fitted to
wind tunnel data. The use of wind tunnel sigmas is discussed in
Section 8.
A-l
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
100
10
0. 1
0 0
ISCST2
Wind TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance Cm)
Figure A-l.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Base Case at a
downwind distance of -60 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel daca.
A-2
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2D
100
10
0 1
0 01
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance Cm}
Figure A-2.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Base Case at a
downwind distance of 0 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel lata.
A-3
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, Vm**2}
1000F
100 -
10 -
1 -
a 1-
0.0'
j ,
ISCST2
W i nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure A-3.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Base Case at a
downwind distance of 120 meters from the center of
the area (downwind edge). ISCST2 model results
are based on dispersion parameter
tunnel data.
A-4
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
1000^—
100
10
0 1
0 0-
_L
ISCST2
Wind Tunnel
-BOO -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure A-4.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Base Case at a
downwind distance of 240 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-5
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000c
100
10
0 1
0 0
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance C"0
Figure A-5.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Base Case at a
downwind distance of 360 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-6
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2;)
1000p
100
0. 1
0 01
_L
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure A-6.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Base Case at a
downwind distance of 840 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel dara.
A-7
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q., 1/m**2}
100
10
0 01
I I I ! I I I I I
ISCST2
W i nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 BOO
Crosswind Distance
Figure A-7.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Base Case at a
downwind distance of 1800 meters from the center
of the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion oarameters fitted to wind tunnel iaca
A-8
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
-lOOOr ———
100
10
0 1
0 0
ISC5T2
Wind Tunnel
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure A-8.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Base Case at a
downwind distance of 2580 meters from the center
of the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data
A-9
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
ISCST2
Wind Tunnel
0 01
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/OJ 1/m**22)
Figure A-9.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of -60 meters from the center of the area. ISCST2
model results are based on dispersion parameters
fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-10
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
0
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
Figure A-10.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 0 meters from the center of the area. ISCST2
model results are based on dispersion parameters
fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-ll
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
ISCST2
Wind Tunnel
0,01
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
Figure A-11.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 120 meters from the center of the area
(downwind edge). ISCST2 model results are based
on dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel
data.
A-12
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/G, 1/m**23
Figure A-12.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 240 meters from the center of the area. ISCST2
model results are based on dispersion parameters
fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-13
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
ISCST2
W i nd TunneI
0 01
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
Figure A-13.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 360 meters from the center of the area. ISCST2
model results are based on dispersion parameters
fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-14
-------
Receptor Height
300
250 -
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q., 1/fn**2}
Figure A-14.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 840 meters from the center of the area. ISCST2
model results are based on dispersion parameters
fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-15
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
ISCST2
W i nd TunneI
0 01
01 1 10 100 10QO
Normalized Concentrati an CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
Figure A-15.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 1800 meters from the center of the area.
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-16
-------
Receptor Height Cm3
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
i I i
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration (CU/Q, l/m**2;)
Figure A-16.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 2580 meters from the center of the area.
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-17
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
1000c
100
10
0 1
0 0
i I i
I I I
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 BOO
Crosswind Distance CmD
Figure A-17.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 840 meters from the center of the area and a
receptor elevation of 1.8 meters above ground.
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-18
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2;)
1000e
100
10
0 1
0 011
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswmd Distance
Figure A-18.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 840 meters from the center of the area and a
receptor elevation of 10.8 meters above ground.
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-19
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/0J 1/m**2}
1000|=
100
10
0 1
0 0
i i i i i i
5CST2
Wi nd Tunnei
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure A-19.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 840 meters from the center of the area and a
receptor elevation of 19.8 meters above ground.
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-20
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
lOOQc
100
10
0 1
0.01
I SCST2
W i nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure A-20.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 840 meters from the center of the area and a
receptor elevation of 28.8 meters above ground.
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-21
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
10QOp
100 -
10
1 -
0 1-
0 0
I SCST2
W i nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure A-21
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 840 meters from the center of the area and a
receptor elevation of 37.8 meters above ground.
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-22
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2;i
1000c
100
10
0 1
o oi
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance CmD
Figure A-22.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 840 meters from the center of the area and a
receptor elevation of 46.8 meters above ground.
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-23
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
100
10
Q 1
0 0
SCST2
Wi nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance Cm3
Figure A-23.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 840 meters from the center of the area and a
receptor elevation of 55.8 meters above ground.
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-24
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2D
-lOOOp—
100
10
0. 1
0 0
i i i i i i i
ISCST2
Wi rid Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure A-24.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 840 meters from the center of the area and a
receptor elevation of 64.8 meters above ground.
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-25
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
100
10
0 1
0 0
^ ISCST2
*
Wi nd TunneI
1
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance Cm3
Figure A-25.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 840 meters from the center of the area and a
receptor elevation of 73.8 meters above ground.
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-26
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q,
100
10
0. 1
o en
I5CST2
Wind TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance CmD
Figure A-26.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 840 meters from the center of the area and a
receptor elevation of 82.8 meters above ground.
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-27
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
10QOc
100
10
0 1
0 0
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure A-27.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 840 meters from the center of the area and a
receptor elevation of 91.8 meters above ground.
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-28
-------
Normalized Concentration C.CU/Q, 1/m**2;)
100 -
0. 1
o o-
I5CST2
Wi nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure A-28.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Base Case at a downwind distance
of 840 meters from the center of the area and a
receptor elevation of 100.8 meters above ground.
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
A-29
-------
APPENDIX B
POINT-TO-POINT COMPARISON RESULTS
FOR THE 45-DEGREE ROTATED CASE
-------
This Appendix presents the point-to-point comparison results
for the 45-Degree Rotated Case scenario. The 45-Degree Rotated
Case consists of the 720m x 240m base case rectangle rotated 45
degrees counterclockwise in a simulated boundary layer with a 0.2
meter surface roughness length and a free-stream wind speed of 4
m/s. The ground-level lateral concentration profiles (XY plane)
are presented first, followed by the centerline vertical profiles
(XZ plane), and then the vertical crosswind profiles (YZ plane)
at a downwind distance of 840 meters. The ground-level profiles
are based on a 1.8 meter receptor height above ground. The
vertical crosswind profiles for receptor heights above about 100
meters have not been included in this report. Normalized
concentration values of less than 0.01 have also been excluded
from the graphs. As noted in the captions, the ISCST2 model
results are based on the use of dispersion parameters fitted to
wind tunnel data. The use of wind tunnel sigmas is discussed in
Section 8.
B-l
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2D
100
10
0 1
0 01
I I I I I
I I
SCST2
Wind Tunnel
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswmd Distance
Figure B-l.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated
Case at a downwind distance of -170 meters from
the center of the area. ISCST2 model results ar;
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
B-2
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
1000F
100
10
0 1
0 01
ISC5T2 '
X
Wind TunneI
1
-BOO -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure B-2.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated
Case at a downwind distance of 0, meters from the
center of the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
B-3
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
1000=
100
10
0 1
0 0'
I I I I I
ISC3T2
*
Wi nd Tunne
1
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance CmD
Figure B-3.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated
Case at a downwind distance of 170 meters from the
center of the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
B-4
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000p
100
10
0 1
SCST2
Wi nd Tunne
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure B-4.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated
Case at a downwind distance of 340 meters from the
center of the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
3-5
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000c
100
10
0 1
Q 01"
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure B-5.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated
Case at a downwind distance of 480 meters from the
center of the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
E-6
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
100 -
10
0 1
0 0
ISCST2
Wind Tunne
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure B-6.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated
Case at a downwind distance of 600 meters from the
center of the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
B-7
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
-lODOc :
100
10
0 1
0 0
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure B-7.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated
Case at a downwind distance of 840 meters from the
center of'the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
B-8
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000^—
100 -
10
0 1
Q 0
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure B-8.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated
'Case at a downwind distance of 1800.meters from
the center of the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
B-9
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
0 01
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
Figure B-9.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 0 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data
B-10
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
Figure B-10.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 170 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
B-ll
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
0 01
01 1 10 100
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q,
1000
Figure B-ll.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 340 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
B-12
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Q 01
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/'m**23
Figure B-12.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 480 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel daca.
B-13
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
ISCST2
*
Wind Tunnel
1
01 1 10 100
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q.,
1000
Figure B-13.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 600 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnei daca.
B-14
-------
Receptor Height
3001
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
ISCST2
Wind Tunnel
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
Figure B-14.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 840 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
B-15
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration (CU/Q, 1/m**2}
Figure B-15.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 1800 meters from the center
of the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
B-16
-------
Normalized Concentration
1000c
, 1/m**2}
100 -
10
0 1
0 01 L
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne i
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
uCrosswind Distance CmD
Figure B-16.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 840 meters from the center of
the area and a receptor elevation of 1.3 meters
above ground. ISCST2 model results are based en
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
B-17
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
lOOOc
100
10
Q 1
0.0
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance CrrQ
Figure B-17.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 840 meters from the center of
the area and a receptor elevation of 19.3 meters
above ground. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion paramecers ficted ~o wind cunnel aaca.
B-18
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
100
10
0 1
0.0
I I I
ISCST2
W i nd Tunne
-BOO -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance C"\)
Figure B-18.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated Case at a •
downwind distance of 840 meters from the center of
the area and a receptor elevation of 37.8 meters
above ground. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
B-19
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
1000c
100
10
0 1
0.0
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne
•600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance Cm3
Figure B-19.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 840 meters from the center of
the area and a receptor elevation of 55.8 meters
above ground. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
B-20
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000c
100
10
0 1
0.0
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
-BOO -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 500
Crosswind Distance (rrO
Figure B-20.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 840 meters from the center of
the area and a receptor elevation of 73.8 meters
above ground. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel daca.
B-21
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000r
100
10
0 1
0 0
, I i
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure B-21.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 840 meters from the center of
the area and a receptor elevation of 91.8 mecers
above ground. ISCST2 model results are based en
dispersion paramecers fitted to wind tunnel daca.
B-22
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000c
100
10
0 1
0 0
ISC5T2
Wi nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance C^O
Figure B-22.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the 45-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 840 meters from the center of
the area and a receptor elevation of 109.8 meters
above ground. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind cunnel data.
• B-23
-------
APPENDIX C
POINT-TO-POINT COMPARISON RESULTS
FOR THE 90-DEGREE ROTATED CASE
-------
This Appendix presents the point-to-point comparison results
for the 90-Degree Rotated Case scenario. The 90-Degree Rotated
Case consists of the 720m x 240m base case rectangle rotated 90
degrees counterclockwise (short dimension perpendicular to the
wind flow) in a simulated boundary layer with a 0.2 meter surface
roughness length and a free-stream wind speed of 4 m/s. The
ground-level lateral concentration profiles (XY plane) are
presented first, followed by the centerline vertical profiles (XZ
plane). There were no vertical crosswind profile (YZ plane)
measurements taken for this scenario. The ground-level profiles
are based on a 1.8 meter receptor height above ground.
Normalized concentration values of less than 0.01 have been
excluded from the graphs. As noted in the captions, the ISCST2
model results are based on the use of dispersion parameters
fitted to wind tunnel data. The use of wind tunnel sigmas is
discussed in Section 8.
C-l
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000c
100
10
0 1
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance CnO
Figure C-l.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated
Case at a downwind distance of -180 meters from
the center of the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
C-2
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
ioooF :
100
10
0 1
0 0
I
ISCST2
*
Wi nd TunneI
1
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 -400 500 60Q
Crosswind Distance (rrO
Figure C-2.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated
Case at a downwind distance of 0 meters from the
center of the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
C-3
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/rn**2}
1000c
100
10
0 1
0 0
I SCST2
Wi nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure C-3.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated
Case at a downwind distance of 180 meters from the
center of the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
C-4
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000p
100
10
0 1
0 0
I
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure C-4.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated
Case at,a downwind distance of 360 meters from the
center of the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
C-5
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
-lOOOp
100 -
10
1 -
0 1-
0 0
I I I
ISCST2
i nd Tunne
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure C-5.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated
Case at a downwind distance of 480 meters from the
-center of the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
C-6
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000e
100 -
10
0 1
0 0
I SCST2
Wi nd Tunne !
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 500
Crosswind Distance C^O
Figure C-6.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated
Case at a downwind distance of 600 meters from the
center of the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
C-7
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000c
100
10
0 1
Q 0
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 500
Crosswind Distance Cm}
Figure C-7.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated
Case at a downwind distance of 840 meters from the
center of the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
C-8
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2;)
100
10
0 1
0 0
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance CnO
Figure C-8.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated
Case at a downwind distance of 1800 meters from
the center of the area. ISCST2 model results are
based on dispersion parameters fitted to wind
tunnel data.
C-9
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
Figure C-9.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of -180 meters from the center
of the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
C-10
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2;>
Figure C-10.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 0 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data
C-ll
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
01 1 10
Normalized Concentration
100 1000
, 1/m**2}
Figure C-ll.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 180 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel daca.
C-12
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
2DO
150
100
50
0
0 01
1SCST2
Wi nd TunneI
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
Figure C-12.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 360 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
C-13
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
0 1
1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
Figure C-13.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 480 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are -based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
C-14
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2;)
Figure C-14.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 600 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
C-15
-------
Receptor Height
300
I SCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
250 -
200 -
150 -
100 -
0 01
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
Figure C-15.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 840 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
C-16
-------
Receptor Height
300
250 -
200
150
100
50
0
ISCST2
*
Wi nd TunneI
1
0 01
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2;)
Figure C-16.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the 90-Degree Rotated Case at a
downwind distance of 1800 meters from the center
of the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
C-17
-------
APPENDIX D
POINT-TO-POINT COMPARISON RESULTS
FOR THE CIRCULAR CASE
-------
This Appendix presents the point-to-point comparison results
for the Circular Case scenario. The Circular Case consists of a
circular source with a diameter of 470 meters (equivalent area to
the base case rectangle) in a simulated boundary layer with a 0.2
meter surface roughness length and a free-stream wind speed of 4
m/s. The ground-level lateral concentration profiles (XY plane)
are presented first, followed by the centerline vertical profiles
(XZ plane), and then the vertical crosswind profiles (YZ plane)
at a downwind distance of 840 meters. The ground-level profiles
are based on a 1.8 meter receptor height above ground. The
vertical crosswind profiles for receptor heights above about 100
meters have not been included in this report. Normalized
concentration values of less than 0.01 have also been excluded
from the graphs. As noted in the captions, the ISCST2 model
results are based on the use of dispersion parameters fitted to
wind tunnel data. The use of wind tunnel sigmas is discussed in
Section 8.
D-l
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000c
100
10
0 '1
0 0
I I I
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure D-l.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Circular Case at a
downwind distance of -102 meters from the center
of the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
D-2
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
100 -
10
0 1
0 0
I5CST2
Wi nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure D-2.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Circular Case at a
downwind distance of 0 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
D-3
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
-lOOOp
100
0 1
o o-
i i i
ISCST2
W i nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure D-3.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Circular Case at a
downwind distance of 102 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
D-4
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000c
100
10
0 1
0 0
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure D-4.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Circular Case at a
downwind distance of 204 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
D-5
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000n
100 -
10 -
0 1-
0 0
ISCST2
Wind Tunne
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure D-5.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Circular Case at a
downwind distance of 240 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion tjarameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
D-6
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000c —
100
10
0 1
0 0
', I '. 'l I
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure D-6.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Circular Case at a
downwind distance of 360 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
D-7
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000F
100
10
0 1
0 Oi
i i i
i i i
ISCST2
)K
Wi nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure D-7.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Circular Case at a
downwind distance of 480 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
D-8
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000F
100
10
0 1
0 CH
I
ISCST2
*
Wi nd Tunne
1
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure D-8.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Circular Case at a
downwind distance of 840 meters from the center of
the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
D-9
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000p
100
10
0 1
0 0
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure D-9.
Comparison of ground-level lateral normalized
concentration profiles for the Circular Case at a
downwind distance of 1800 meters from the center
of the area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion narameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
D-10
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
0 01
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
Figure D-10.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of -102 meters from the center of the
area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data
D-ll
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
SCST2
Wi nd TunneI
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
Figure D-ll.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 0 meters from the center of the area
ISCST2 model results are based on dispersion
parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
D-12
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
SCST2
Wind Tunnel
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
Figure D-12.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 102 meters from the center of the
area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
D-13
-------
Receptor Height
300
250 -
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2;)
Figure D-13.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 204 meters from the center of the
area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel dat;
D-14
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
Figure D-14.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 240 meters from the center of the
area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data
D-15
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 01
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
01 1 10 100 1000
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2)
Figure D-15.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 360 meters from the center of the
area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data
D-16
-------
Receptor Height
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
ISCST2
Wind Tunnel
0 01
01 1 10 100 1QOQ
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
Figure D-16.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 480 meters from the center of the
area. ISCST2 model' results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data
D-17
-------
Receptor Height
300
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne I
250 -
200 -
150 -
100 -
0 01
01 1 10 100
Normaliz.ed Concentration CCU/Q,
1000
Figure D-17.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 840 meters from the center of the
area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data
D-18
-------
Receptor Height
300
250 -
200 -
150 -
ISCST2
*
Wi nd TunneI
1
100 -
0 01
01 1 10 100
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, I/ ' m
1000
Figure D-18.
Comparison of vertical normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 1800 meters from the center of the
area. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data
D-19
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, Vm**2;)
1000c
100
10
0 1
0.0
i i
ISCST2
W i nd Tunne I
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 BOO
Crosswind Distance Cm3
Figure D-19.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 840 meters from the center of the area
and a receptor elevation of 1.8 meters above
ground. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted co wind cunnel daca.
D-20
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
1000r
100
10
0 1
o.oi
!
ISCST2
Wi nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure D-2Q.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance "of 840 meters from the center of the area
and a receptor elevation of 19.8 meters above
ground. ISCST2 model results are based en
dispersion parameters fitted to wind cunnel daca.
D-21
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, Vm**2}
1000=
100
10
a 1
o.o
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne
-BOO -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure D-21.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 840 meters from the center of the area
and a receptor elevation of 37.3 meters above
ground. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind cunnel daca.
D-22
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**23
100
10
0 1
0.0
I I I
ISC5T2
Wi nd TunneI
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance C^D
Figure D-22.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 840 meters from the center of the area
and a receptor elevation of 55.8 meters above
ground. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
D-23
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000F
100
10
0 1
0.01
I I I
ISCST2
Wind Tunnel
-BOO -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure D-23.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 840 meters from the center of the area
and a receptor elevation of 73.8 meters above
ground. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
D-24
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2;)
-\ooo<=-
100 -
ISCST2
Wi nd Tunne
-BOO -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Crosswind Distance
Figure D-24.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 840 meters from the center of the area
and a receptor elevation of 91.8 meters above
ground. ISCST2 model results are based on
dispersion parameters fitted to wind tunnel data.
D-25
-------
Normalized Concentration CCU/Q, 1/m**2}
1000c
100 -
10
0 1
0 0
I I I
I I I
ISCST2
*
Wind Tunnel
1
-500 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 BOO
Crosswind Distance
Figure D-25.
Comparison of lateral normalized concentration
profiles for the Circular Case at a downwind
distance of 840 meters from the center of the area
and a receptor elevation of 109.8 meters above
ground. ISCST2 model results are based on
disoersion oarametars fittad to wind tunnel aa;a.
D-26
-------
APPENDIX E
RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES
IN TABULAR FORM
-------
This Appendix presents results of the statistical analyses
in tabular form for all four scenarios. The tables provide the
values of mean fractional bias (MFB) and standard deviation of
the fractional bias (SD) used to generate the graphical plots in
the main body of the report. Also included on the tables is the
mean ration of observed (wind tunnel) to predicted (ISCST2)
values (OB/PR) and the number of data points used from each
profile. For each scenario, the ground-level lateral
concentration profiles (XY plane) are presented first, followed
by the centerline vertical profiles (XZ plane), and then the
vertical crosswind profiles (YZ plane) at a downwind distance of
840 meters. The ground-level profiles are based on a 1.8 meter
receptor height above ground. The vertical crosswind profiles
for receptor heights above about 100 meters were not included in
the graphical plots presented in the main body of the report, for
consistency with the range of measurements used for the Base Case
and because the number of data points drops off. Normalized
concentration values of less than 0.01 were also excluded from
the graphs. The ISCST2 model results used to generate these
statistical results are based on the use of dispersion parameters
fitted to wind tunnel data. The use of wind tunnel sigmas is
discussed in Section 8.
E-l
-------
Table E-1. Statistical Results for the XY Plane for the Base Case
X (m)
-60.00
.00
120.00
240.00
360.00
840.00
1800.00
2580.00
Z
-------
Table E-4. Statistical Results for the XY Plane for the 45-Degree Rotated Case
X (m)
-170.00
.00
170.00
340.00
480.00
600.00
840.00
1800.00
Z (m)
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
MFB-SD
-.88
-.62
-.41
-.40
-.43
-.37
-.45
-.56
MFB
-.14
-.05
-.13
-.13
-.20
-.22
-.28
-.40
MFB+SD
.60
.52
.16
.13
.03
-.07
-.12
-.24
SD
.74
.57
.29
.26
.23
.15
.17
.16
OB/PR
10.09
5.11
.91
.90
.83
.81
.76
.67
N
14
22
28
30
32
32
38
24
Table E-5. Statistical Results for the XZ Plane for the 45-Degree Rotated Case
X (m)
-170.00
.00
170.00
340.00
480.00
600.00
840.00
1800.00
Y (m)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
MFB-SD
1.94
.06
-,07
-.22
-.24
-.26
-.24
-.44
MFB
1.97
.54
.40
.40
.47
.42
.56
.30
MFB+SD
2.00
1.02
.88
1.01
1.17
1.11
1.37
1.04
SD
.03
.48
.48
.61
.70
.68
.81
.74
OB /PR
284.36
2.17
1.86
2.17
3.06
2.43
4.51
2.52
N
3
13
16
17
22
25
17
26
Table E-6. Statistical Results for the YZ Plane for the 45-Degree Rotated Case
X (m)
840.00
840.00
840.00
840.00
840.00
840.00
840.00
840.00
840.00
840.00
Z (m)
1.80
19.80
37.80
55.80
73.80
91.80
109.80
127.80
145.80
163.80
MFB-SD
-.34
-.38
-.38
-.04
.16
.54
.99
1.32
1.63
1.83
MFB
-.27
-.32
-.25
.10
.39
.88
1.26
1.55
1.73
1.87
MFB+SD
-.20
-.26
-.13
.24
.63
1.21
1.52
1.77
1.83
1.90
SD
.07
.06
.13
.14
.23
.33
.27
.23
.10
.03
OB/PR
.76
.72
.78
1.12
1.54
2.91
5.14
11.44
17.11
29.83
N
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
13
8
4
E-3
-------
Table E-7. Statistical Results for the XY Plane for the 90-Degree Rotated Case
X (m) Z
-180.00
.00
180.00
360.00
480.00
600.00
840.00
1800.00
(m)
1.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
MFB-SD
-.37
-.19
-.36
-.20
-.30
-.31
-.35
-.56
MFB
-.19
.01
-.13
-.04
-.09
-.18
-.25
-.32
MFB+SD
-.01
.21
.10
.13
.12
-.05
-.15
-.09
SD
.18
.20
.23
.17
.21
.13
.10
.24
OB/PR
.84
1.03
.90
.98
.94
.84
.78
.74
N
23
25
28
34
30
25
29
40
Table E-8. Statistical Results for the XZ Plane for the 90-Degree Rotated Case
X (m)
-180.00
.00
180.00
360.00
480.00
600.00
840.00
1800.00
Y (m)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
MFB-SD
-.31
-.03
-.27
-.15
-.30
-.30
-.49
-.61
MFB
-.09
.22
.11
.15
.11
.23
.07
-.13
MFB+SD
.12
.48
.48
.44
.52
.76
.63
.36
SD
.21
.26
.37
.30
.41
.53
.56
.49
OB/PR
.93
1.30
1.21
1.22
1.24
1.56
1.41
1.03
N
11
17
15
16
16
19
14
18
E-4
-------
Table E-9. Statistical Results for the XY Plane for the Circular Case
X (m)
-102.00
.00
102.00
204.00
240.00
360.00
480.00
840.00
1800.00
Z (m)
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
MFB-SD
-.17
-.07
-.12
-.05
-.09
-.14
-.19
-.28
-.43
MFB
.23
.09
.05
.10
.01
-.04
-.11
-.18
-.33
MFB+SD
.63
.25
.22
.24
.10
.07
-.02
-.09
-.23
SD
.40
.16
.17
.15
.09
.11
.08
.09
.10
OB/PR
1.63
1.11
1.07
1.12
1.01
.97
.90
.83
.72
N
28
27
32
29
31
33
35
38
49
Table E-10. Statistical Results for the XZ Plane for the Circular Case
X (m)
-102.00
.00
102.00
204.00
240.00
360.00
480.00
840.00
1800.00
Y (m)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
MFB-SD
-.19
-.12
-.15
-.11
-.15
-.34
-.33
-.35
-.59
MFB
.22
.17
.22
.13
.13
.11
.19
.10
.00
MFB+SD
.62
.45
.59
.37
.41
.56
.72
.55
.60
SD
.40
.28
.37
.24
.28
.45
.53
.45
.60
OB/PR
1.37
1.23
1.36
1.17
1.20
1.28
1.50
1.24
1.37
N
12
10
15
15
15
13
16
13
19
Table E-11. Statistical Results for the YZ Plane for the Circular Case
X (m)
840.00
840.00
840.00
840.00
840.00
840.00
840.00
840.00
840.00
840.00
Z (m)
1.80
19.80
37.80
55.80
73.80
91.80
109.80
127.80
145.80
163.80
MFB-SD
-.30
-.37
-.40
-.05
.12
.54
.96
1.33
1.65
1.89
MFB
-.23
-.29
-.21
.13
.30
.75
1.13
1.45
1.73
1.91
MFB+SD
-.17
-.20
-.01
.31
.48
.96
1.30
1.57
1.80
1.92
SD
.07
.09
.20
.18
.18
.21
.17
.12
.07
.01
OB/PR
.79
.75
.83
1.16
1.38
2.29
3.74
6.62
14.88
41.54
N
11
11
12
12
11
11
11
9
7
2
E-5
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-454/R-92-014
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Comparison of a Revised Area Source Algorithm for
the Industrial Source Complex Short Term Model and
Wind Tunnel Data
5. REPORT DATE
October 1992
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Pacific Environmental Services
5001 South Miami Boulevard
Post Office Box 12077
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2077
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO. WA No. 1-131
EPA Contract No. 68 D00124
12.
SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Technical Support Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Work Assignment Manager: • Jawad S. Touma
16. ABSTRACT
This report summarizes the results of comparison between a new numerical
integration algorithm for modeling area source dispersion, as implemented in the
Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST2) model using wind tunnel data collected in
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Fluid Modeling Facility. Area sources
referred to can be characterized as low level releases with little buoyance due to
either momentum or temperature such as landfills or lagoons that are commonly found at
Superfund sites. The results of the analyses show that the new ISCST2 area source
algoroithm predicts the concentration distribution with relatively good accuracy,
especially for ground-level area sources. This conclusion seems also valid for the
various source shapes and orientations thus suggesting the ability of the model to
accurately depict the plume shape for complex source-receptor geometries.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI
Field/Group
Air Pollution
Toxic Air Pollutants
Air Quality Dispersion Models
Dispersion Modeling
Meteorology
Air Pollution Control
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
180
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------