EPA-600/4-76-030b
                                                      June 1976
      ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION PARAMETERS IN GAUSSIAN PLUME MODELING
Part II.  Possible Requirements for Change in the Turner Workbook Values
                          F. Pasquill, D. Sc.
                          Visiting Scientist
                  Meteorology and Assessment Division
               Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory
              Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                 OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
             ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES RESEARCH LABORATORY
            RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711

-------
                              DISCLAIMER
     This report has been reviewed by the Environmental  Sciences Research
Laboratoryj U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, and approved for
publication.  Mention of trade  names or commerical  products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                               PREFACE

     The increasing concern of the last decade in  environmental  issues,  and
the fuller appreciation that air  quality simulation modeling may provide a
unique basis for the objective management of air quality,  has generated  an
unprecedented interest in the development of techniques  for relating air
quality and pollutant emissions through appropriate modeling of the
atmospheric transport and dispersion processes that are  involved.  A
multitude of recent publications  in the U.S.A. and elsewhere points to the
wide interest at many different levels of local, state,  regional and
national planning, and testifies  to the widespread acceptance of
meteorological-type air quality modeling as an important rational basis
for air quality management.  This point of view is now internationally
recognized in most industrial countries.
     Earlier attitudes towards the quantitative estimation of atmospheric
dispersion of windborne material  from industrial and other sources were
strongly influenced by a system introduced in 1958, and  published in 1961,
by Dr. F. Pasquill of the Meteorological Office, United  Kingdom.  This
was followed in 1962 by the publication of his definitive textbook on
"Atmospheric Diffusion," which includes detailed consideration of the
well-known simple "Gaussian-plume" model for the average concentration
distribution in space from an elevated continuous  point-source under
steady conditions.  The unique feature, however, of the  Pasquill system
is the method by which the critical parameters expressing the downwind
                                  m

-------
spread of the plume might be estimated in terms of the ambient meteorol-
ogical conditions.  These estimates were later expressed in slightly
more convenient, although exactly equivalent form, by Dr.  F.  Gifford,
and this so-called Pasquill-Gifford system for dispersion  estimates has
been widely used ever since.  It was early given some general endorsement
as a valuable practical scheme by the Public Health Service of the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, by the publication in 1967
of the "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates" (Public Health
Service Publication No. 999-AP-26) by D. B. Turner, that exclusively
utilized this system of Gaussian-plume dispersion parameters.
    In spite of the gradual appearance in recent years of  air quality
models based on more sophisticated formulations of the atmospheric processes,
e.g., through fluid-dynamical equations assumed to govern  the physical
processes of transport and turbulent diffusion, great use  continues to
be made of the simpler Gaussian-plume models.  However, a  direct consequence
of the unprecedented interest in the subject has been the  publication of
many attempts to confirm or improve the realism of the dispersion estimates.
These and other matters relating to the substantial progress made in
recent years in understanding atmospheric dispersion, are  discussed in a
much revised 2nd Edition of the Pasquill book, that was published late in
1974.  Under these circumstances it seemed desirable to examine critically
the possible requirements for change in the Turner Workbook values for
dispersion, that have been so widely used since 1967.  The present two-part
                                   IV

-------
report was prepared to meet this need.
     It was extremely fortunate that Dr.  Pasquill  was available for detailed
discussions during its preparation (1975-76), both while he was a Visiting
Professor at the North Carolina State University and also the Pennsylvania
State University (under research grant support of the EPA), and also as a
Visiting Scientist to the Meteorology and Assessment Division of the E.P.A.,
Research Triangle Park, N.C.  Even more fortunate has been Dr. Pasquill's
willingness to assume responsibility for preparation of the second part of
the report, which critically examines the possible requirements for change
of the Turner Workbook values.  The first part was prepared by Dr. Allen
Weber of the Department of Geosciences at North Carolina State University,
in consultation with Dr. Pasquill and the undersigned.  It provides a
reasonably comprehensive review of current systems and possible future
developments, and is a necessary input for the critical examination of the
second part.  It is perhaps unnecessary to emphasize that there are still many
problems of dispersion that are unlikely to be resolved satisfactorily in
terms of simple Gaussian-plume models.   However, it is hoped that the present
publication will provide a more up-to-date basis for continuing the
successful treatment of the many important practical problems that can be
analyzed by this simple approach.
Research Triangle Park,               Kenneth L. Calder
North Carolina                        Chief Scientist
March 1976                            Meteorology and Assessment Division
                                      Environmental  Sciences Research Lab.

-------
                               ABSTRACT

     The basis of the original  Pasquill-Gifford curves used in the Turner
Workbook is restated and consideration given to those features of the
curves which are now regarded as specially questionable.

     Data on crosswind spread from various field tests are reviewed to
emphasize the useful working relation which holds between Oy and the stan-
dard deviation of the wind direction fluctuation.  Some new trial
calculations of vertical spread are carried out in the light of recent
work using the gradient-transfer approach, recent similarity analyses,
new observational data on the structure of turbulence in the convective
boundary layer, and Deardorff's modeling of the mixed layer.

     Recommendations are made concerning the use of wind direction
fluctuation data for estimating Oy, for various adjustments and constraints
to be applied as an interim measure to the existing o^ curves, and for
continuing work required in the progress toward a final revision of the
Workbook.

-------
                                CONTENTS
Preface	iii
Abstract	vi
Acknowledgements 	  viii

   1.  Introduction	1
   2.  Restatement of the Basis and Scope of the Original  'Pasquill-
       Gifford' Curves 	   3
   3.  Consideration of Some Specially Questionable Features of the
       PG Estimates:	7
            Crosswind spread 	   7
            The effect of surface roughness on vertical spread ....  12
            Vertical-spread behaviour in unstable conditions 	  14
            Other aspects	19
   4.  Suggestions for Interim Changes in the Workbook Parameters
       and Procedure	22
   5.  Requirements for Progress Toward a Final Revision of the
       Workbook Parameters and Procedure 	  25

References	28
Appendices

   A.  Crosswind spread in relation to wind direction fluctuation.  .  .  30
   B.  Some calculations of vertical spread in unstable conditions  .  .  34
                                 VII

-------
                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

     The writer wishes to thank Dr.  G.  A.  Briggs, Mr.  K.  L.  Calder, Mr.
D. B. Turner and Dr. A. H. Weber for helpful  discussions  during the
preparation of the review, and Drs.  J.  C.  Kaimal  and J.  S.  Caughey
for access to draft data summaries from the Minnesota 1973 atmospheric
boundary layer study.
                                  vm

-------
                                SECTION 1
                               INTRODUCTION

     As pointed out in the preface to this two-part report the dispersion
                                            1 *
parameters or  and cr  adopted in the Workbook   are known widely as
'Pasquill-Gifford' curves.  In essence, they are estimates originally offered
tentatively by the writer, in unpublished form in the Meteorological  Office
                                      2
in 1958 and in published form in 1961.
     The purpose of this second part of the report is to provide an appraisal,
against the background of subsequent dispersion research and of the review in
Part I, of the requirements for change in the Workbook curves (Figs.  3.2
and 3.3 in that publication).  It was thought appropriate to begin the
appraisal  with a brief restatement of the basis and scope of the original
estimates, emphasizing certain points which may sometimes be overlooked and
also certain points which in restrospect, need clarification.  Consideration
of the various aspects in which the estimates are unacceptable or question-
able then follows in Section 3.  It is to be noted at the outset that
completion of the appraisal to the point of a definitive full revision of
the Workbook values is not immediately possible.
        There are specific points, including the consolidation of the
relation between v and wind direction fluctuation and the explicit repre-
                  J
sentation of the effect of surface roughness on dispersion, in respect
of which immediate recommendations for change appear fully justified.
*To facilitate frequent reference to certain publications the numeral
 system or referencing has been adopted.
                                   1

-------
These are presented in Section 4.   There are,  however,  features  in respect
of which further time must be allowed for a duly considered incorporation
of currently emerging material.   This appears  to be particularly the case
for vertical spread in very unstable conditions, which, in view  of the
current state of development, is one of the topics given most attention in
Section 3 and Appendix B.  Finally, and not surprisingly, there  still  remain
features which await theoretical clarification, and observational confirmation.
The developments which accordingly appear to be essential for progress to a
more complete revision of the 'PG' curves are briefly noted in Section 5.

-------
                               SECTION  2
RESTATEMENT OF THE BASIS AND SCOPE  OF THE  ORIGINAL  'PASQUILL-GIFFORD'  CURVES

     The formulation of the PG curves was  stimulated by  increasing  demands
for methods of estimating dispersion which were  both simple  to  apply  in
terms of the idealized 'Gaussian plume1  description of the spread of  a
continuous point source plume, and  which  could be applied in terms  of
routinely available meteorological  data.   Even so,  the view  was adopted  that
the best prospect for generality and reliability in the  estimates lay with
a maximum use of the theoretical principles of turbulent diffusion  and a
minimum dependence on uncritical analyses  of pollution surveys.
     In the latter respect it is perhaps  appropriate to  emphasize that the
estimates were not just a compilation of observational experience on
dispersion per se.  They did embody some a priori quality in two notable
respects.  First, the attempted generalization about cr  was  considered
as far as possible in terms of a simple adaptation  of the Taylor
statistical theory.  Indeed a preference was clearly stated  for a direct
use of wind direction fluctuation data in  estimating a~ , and the cr
                                                      J           J
estimates contained in the PG curves were  provided  for use in the absence
of such data.  Inevitably, these estimates are of limited value, derived
as they were from preliminary statistics  of wind direction fluctuation and
applicable to a particular (3 min)  sampling time.  A second  a priori
element, embodied in the o^ curves, is  the gradient transfer theory result
for short distance of travel and neutral  conditions of flow.  Demonstration
of the correctness of this result,  in terms of data on the wind profile

-------
over a natural rough surface, had been provided by Calder.
     For extension of the estimates beyond the two fundamental  'reference
points' of the preceding paragraph it was, of course,  necessary to  appeal
to a subjective interpretation of the limited experience then available
on rates of dispersion in the atmosphere.   Note that the o^ estimates
referred strictly to a surface release of material (i.e. H  = 0  or in more
general terms effectively when H _cr) was encouraged.
     Although the relevance of sampling time was made  specifically clear for
cr properties, there was an implication which was  not  made  clear originally
concerning o^.  For a release which is effectively at  the surface
(i.e.  H < cr) it is  logically necessary  to expect  the  crz property to
become independent of sampling time T for  T >  tm-   This limiting sampling
time T  is that which is required for the  vertical  distribution to  respond
      m
to the whole spectrum of the vertical component of turbulence.   Experience
on the latter property suggests that rm will at first  increase  near-
linearly with H and then more slowly.  As  a rough  guide it  is suggested
that the estimates of cr should be taken to apply  for i > T  with T = 10 min
                       Z                                   lil       III
for H >_ 100m, and rm = H/10 min for H (in  metres)  < 100.  (note that the
relation between cr and sampling time is also fundamently tied to the
spectrum—of the v-component in this case—but here the existence of a
clear-cut short limit to T, beyond which o~ no longer increases, is

-------
generally precluded by the highly variable low-frequency content of the
v-spectrum).  Again, referring to o',  for sampling times less  than Tm
one cannot however expect a systematic increase of a*  with T to be
reflected in the ground-level  concentration from an effectively elevated
source, i.e., for cr" _ rm.
     In conclusion of this section, and for future convenient reference,
the essential points of the background to the  PG  curves are summarized
in Table 1.

-------
oo
UJ
a:
ZD
O
CJ3
Q_
03
i—i
a;
o

UJ
UJ
D_
O
CJ
00

Q


<


00
I—t

00


CQ
O


>-
 00
 CQ
























































T3
re
cu
s-
D.
oo

•^j
E

2
01
01
O
S-


E
O

-4_3
ro
^3
_f.-_>
CJ
3
r—
4-

E
O
•r—
j *
CJ
O)

•r—
-a
-a
E
•r—

4-
'— O
cu on

^ ., 	
r— 1 *
O1
•a -r-
CU 4-3
x re

'i 01 E
o
E >•>
•i- S- OO
-E 01 re
4-> CU E !l

S 3 E O
- — • E •!— M

>, E "a! s-
E S- 0
re oo Q.4-

E
•*
1
3C H
o
4-ป CU II
cn •!- x
ซ^— -I*
cu s-
_E cn o
C 4-
CU -1-
(J t— 01
S- Q_ -r-
3 E 01
o ro re
oo oo CQ



cu
'i
•r— r—
r— CU

4- CU
0 r—

4J ^ E
x: cu o
cn ^
•r- O O
i— OO
E
CU O 11
-C -r-
4-> 01 O
S- N
E 0)
•i- O-T3
10 CU
re -i- •!-
4-> -O i—
re Q.
-0 S- E
cu ••-
CU CJ — '
cn re
E i- 01
re -t-5 to
s- cu
1 4- E
-(-> O J=
s- en
O CO 3
-E E 0
01 0 S-
•r~
4- 4-> T3
o re cu
> X
E S- T-
0 CU E
•r- 01

re o o
r—
O i— E
Q. (O -i—
ro -i- ro
i- 0 i-
+-> CU S-
X 0- CU
CU 01 4->
E

o
o
o
<—
II
X

5-
o


01
>r—
01
ro
CQ




J^
ro c
E o
01 •!-
01
4- S-
0 0) •—
Q- ro
cu 01 E
O -r- S-
re T3 cu
4- JE
s- E +->
3 O
CO i- 4-
4- 0
re
CU •f~'
S- U O
CU E CU
> re 4-
o -a 4-
•r- CU
CU 3
i — cn to
•i- T3
4- .E S-
o +•> re
s- -r- cn
0- S 0)
"O **
E--~> to
•r- E re
s <->
^J
* cu oo i —
s- •ป-> ii 're •
cu ••- E
fsl 4- OtJ O
O N CU T-

i — 01 01 re
cu cu to cu u
> -I- 01 T-
•r- +J CU 01 4-
4-> S- E CU -r-
O CU -E -I- -M
cu * o- cnT3 re
4- >, O 3 3 S-
4- E S- O -I-1 +->
cu re Q. S- to to

E
~*
r^
n: H ^
o
+-> C^ II
cn -i- x
(j ปj^ *4~- )
re cu S-
cu JT en o
t- E 4-
Q. CU •!-
OO O i — 01
S- Q. -r-
r— 3 E O1
ro o ro ro
U 00 00 CQ
•r-
1-
cu


1
o +->
s~ re
a.
cu
CD CJ
-E E
4-3 CU
^~
E 3
o _a

re 3
4-} 4-3
re
•a 4-
0
>j *
r— 4-* S—
S- E CU
re cu >,
cu E re
O i—
E 0.
eE T3
O CU
4- CJ X
>r_
CU r- E
cj re
E CJ CU
re •!- j=
•a 4-> 4->
•r- S-
3 CU 4->
cn > 3
o
-E CU -C
4-> .E cn
•r— 4-* 3
2 O
4- S-
ซ 0 J=
\_ ^> 4~*
o
to to
1- CU 4->
0 •!- J=
4- 4-> cn
i- •!-
01 CU CU
re Q_J=
E

O
o
0
~"
II
X

s-
o
>4—

01
• r—
to
re
CQ



                                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                         re  o s
                                                                                                                         cn to
                                                                                                                         re     4->
                                                                                                                            4- re
                                                                                                                         cu  O

                                                                                                                         E  <" E
                                                                                                                         <"  aj
                                                                                                                         "O  r; o
    i—  i ^
 cn-r-  3
 c     o
 O to .a
 S- cu  re
4J E
 01 •!-  O
 O CD Q.
    E  3
 OJ •!-
 O r— 31
 C Q.
 OJ E  S-
 01 re  o
X3 10 4-
 re
    o :c
 O) 4->
-E       i.
 c ro  3
•^ -r  o
    1-  01
 S- Q.
 O) O 4-
 >, S-  O
 re CL
r— O-4->
    re x:
-o     cr>
 cu cu -r-
 X s-  cu
•r- TO -E
 E
    ซ  MO   •
 re o 4->  01
           cu
 E 4- ,—  4->
•i- o  re  3
        E  C
4-> 01  O  M-
    cu -r-  E
•r-  re  s- o
 01  E  O r—
JZ -i-  Q.
   4->  O  >,
 >, 01  S- i—
 E  ai  Q.X:
 re         CD
    cu  >, 3
 i- -E r-  O
 O 4-> _E  S-
4-      cn
    CU  3  to

2  2  g-r-
-Q  3       E
 re  o   ป  P
 to  01   E
 3      H  CU

 01  CU    3 xi
    re i—  ro
-o  >  ro
 CU  CU  > T3

 aj  cu  cn re
4-      E
4-  E -I- 4->
 o  re 4-J .E
       •r-  CD
4J  S-  E -r-
 3  O -r-  CU
JO U- r— .E

-------
                                 SECTION 3
   CONSIDERATION OF SOME SPECIALLY QUESTIONABLE FEATURES OF THE PG ESTIMATES

CROSSWIND SPREAD
     Several recent discussions of the application of the Taylor statistical
theory to practical relations between crosswind spread and wind direction
fluctuation are available (Ref. 6, p 185 et seq., and Ref. 7 and 8).  By
way of further demonstration of the usefulness of the approach, some of the
existing test data on v are presented in rearranged form in Appendix A.
Taken together with the previously published discussions, the following
conclusions may be drawn:
(i)  Irrespective of sampling time (within the practical  range of
a few minutes to about  1 hour), and irrespective of surface
roughness and stability, there is a rough conformity to a  'universal1
relation between cr/cr  and distance x, when the standard  deviation cr
                  y  o                                               o
of the wind direction is evaluated over the sampling time, for
distances of travel up  to about 10 km.
(ii)  At the shortest distances of interest (<0.1 km), the limiting
form cr = cr x is a reasonably good approximation on average
(or. in radians)
  o
(iii)  In general, we may write cr = f(x) o^ x on average, with
f(x) taking the values  listed in Appendix A.

-------
 (iv)  For individual samples the departures from the foregoing


 average relations are mostly within a factor of about 1.5 at


 short range and about 2.0 at long range.



 (In all the foregoing relations note that for generality,


 irrespective of the magnitude of cr^, the quantity 
-------
point source will  have fewer very small  concentrations (i.e., receptor
outside the plume) and fewer very large  concentrations (which arise
partly from very narrow plumes) for a long sampling time than for a
short sampling time.  This may well partly explain the difference
in calculated and observed frequency distributions reported by
Klug (Ref. 16), where the observations were for 1-hr samples, if,
as appears to be the case, the calculations were based on the PG
D"1 curves as they stand.
     Further demonstration of the direct importance of the actual
wind direction variation is contained in the Idaho A.R.L. study
(Ref. 13) already referred to in Appendix 1.  Here, the observed
arc distribution of concentration from a continuous point source
(at radii up to 400 m) was compared with calculated distributions.
Closest agreement was achieved by subdividing the total sampling
duration  (1 hr) into 3-min sections, for each of which the plume
spread was taken in accordance with the PG curves, and then super-
imposing  the 3-min distributions on the arc at positions in accordance
with the  3-min average wind directions.
     The  incorporation in the Workbook procedure of estimates of

-------
to height.  In a well-mixed layer the experience  is  that cr  per se
does not change markedly with height, though in  stably stratified
flow a decrease with height is to be expected,  especially in the
relatively high-frequency part of the spectrum.   Noting that
o~  = cr/u, and taking into account the usual increase of wind
with height, it follows that cr  per se must be  expected to decrease
with height at a rate depending on the stability.   In practice,
therefore, it would seem to be necessary to consider specification
of cr at a reference height which should be increased in accordance
    D
with the progressive vertical spread of the plume.
     Regarding the need argued above for an effective value (cT)
                                                              9 e
at some appropriate reference height, which might most logically be
set equal to o~, there is, however, an interesting simplification
which might be argued as follows.  The value ultimately adopted for
cr is to be used in the expression for time-mean concentration C(x),
and it will be recalled that in the denominator of that expression
we have the product u  cr, in which the mean wind speed u  also
should be an effective value in relation to the vertical spread of
the plume, i.e., we should use u  (T.  If there is no variation of a"
with height, then to an approximation (with T the average time of travel  of
of  'particles' to distance x)

      ue ฐy  * ue ^v T  " ue ^ x/ue  *  ฐ^  x
                                10

-------
i.e., the need for a specific reference  height is  cancelled out  as  far
as the variation of H  with height is  concerned,  though,  of course,  it
remains insofar as cr changes with height.
     Provision of appropriate data for ojj requires either real-time
measurements or a climatology of the form utilized in the construction
of the PG o~ curves at short range, but  now necessarily generalized  in
terms of sampling duration.  In principle,  such a climatology is
derivable from the accumulated knowledge of the v-spectrum, though
there are considerable uncertainties arising from the poorly-defined
low-frequency form of that spectrum (e.g.,  see Ref 7).  An interim
approach which is worth considering in the  present context is to
                                                          2
consider the total cr in two parts (additive in terms of cr) representing
                    0
high-frequency and low-frequency contributions separately.  The
relatively-high-frequency part may be represented by a a* for a
sampling duration of 3 min, say, for which  we could continue to  use
the  'preliminary1 climatology incorporated  in the PG curves, until  a
better climatology is constructed.  The low-frequency part (to be
                   2
added in terms of cr) would require an estimate of cTfor an averaging
(smoothing) time of 3 min and for the total sampling duration of
interest (usually 1 hr).  An obvious convenience is that the latter type
of statistic does not require rapid response records of wind direction
and is derivable from routine slow-response records.
                              11

-------
     In terms of 
-------
of eddy velocity.  The r.m.s. value of the latter (or) again appears
in similarity considerations (see Appendix 2)  and in the K-formulation
(see Ref.  6, p 105) used by F.  B. Smith in deriving numerical  solutions
of the two-dimensional equation of diffusion.
     Although the theoretical dependence of 
-------
VERTICAL SPREAD BEHAVIOUR IN UNSTABLE CONDITIONS
     The PG curve for stability category A contains  a pronounced mono-
tonic increase of do-'/dx with x.  This shape was based on the experience
                                                 n
provided by the 'Prairie Grass1  dispersion study.    It should be
recalled, however, that the study provided direct measurements of crz
(i.e. values derived from an observed vertical  distribution) only
for a distance of travel of 100 m, and indirect estimates (i.e., from
the reduction of ground-level concentration with distance) only
up to 800 m downwind.  For greater distances the PG  curve is essentially
a subjective extrapolation.  The further evidence and argument which
may now be brought to bear on the acceptability of this curve (and to
a lesser degree on that of the B and C curves)  is summarized below.
(i)  The new and essentially theoretical derivations '  of cr
from numerical solutions of the two-dimensional diffusion equation
using plausible profiles of K based on early-stage  data on turbulence
over the whole depth of the boundary layer (and not on dispersion
data), yield a or ,x curve in unstable conditions which does show the
property of dol/dx increasing with x, but only transiently.  This
increase does not continue beyond a 
-------
convenient similarity representation of the foregoing numerical
         7 R
solutions   ,  using new data on the w-spectrum in  the
atmospheric mixing layer,  obtained in a joint U.S.A.F.C.R.L.
                                                    g
and U.K. Meteorological Office boundary layer study.    It is
to be emphasized that these new estimates of o^ do not explicitly
contain any contribution from mechanisms other than that of gradient-
transfer.
(iii)   Early  results of the 2nd-order closure modelling developed
by ARAP (Fig.  16 of Ref. 10) also show a section with do^/dx
increasing with x.  This curve is for a condition equated with
Category C and was evaluated for a specified depth of mixing.
(iv)  The existence of a regime with increasing doi/dx is
predictable on similarity grounds for the special  case of effectively-
windless convection.  In such conditions, postulating reasonably
that the 'velocity' of vertical spread (dcr/dt) must, in the
region sufficiently below any upper limiting boundary, be
determined completely by two parameters, namely, a buoyancy
parameter determined by the surface heat flux H , and the height z
as the only relevant length scale, it follows on dimensional
grounds that
                                      1/3
              dcr/dt   ซ   (gHoz/pcpT) /                    (1)
On integrating
               o~z(t)   -   (gH0/PcpT)1/2t3/2                (2)
                         15

-------
                                  3/2                            -M
This prediction of ol growing as t '   has been ascribed to Yaglom

and has been found by Deardorff and Willis (Fig.  3 of Ref. 11)

to be substantially confirmed by laboratory-convection-tank data

over the range 0.15 < o"I/z. < 0.4, z. being the total depth of

the mixed layer.  It is noteworthy that in Deardorff's considera-

tions this relation emerges as a special  regime in an overall

'mixed-layer1 relation between o"7z.  and the dimensionless time t*
                                        1/3
formed by w*t/z., with w* = (9H0zi/PcD"0   •

The simple relation

                   
-------
does not emerge strongly until  z/z^  is  nearly 0.5.   (In the



later stages of this review,  however,  it has  been  learned that



a more recent presentation and  discussion of  laboratory data is



in course of publication by Deardorff,  and it has  yet to be



clearly settled how far the new results confirm or modify the



foregoing statements.)
                    v



(v)  In regard to the relation  between  d1 /w*  and z/z.,  which on
                                        W           1


Deardorff's hypothesis is expected to  be a universal  function,



it is noteworthy that the form  demonstrated by Deardorff's



laboratory data is not completely confirmed by the atmospheric



data recently acquired in Minnesota and referred to in (ii)



above.  There is agreement up to z/z.  =0.5 (and up to 0.1 both



support d  proportional to z '   and independent of z.), but  for
         W                                          \


larger z/z. the two sets of data diverge (see Fig.  1  of Ref. 11



and Fig. 14 of Ref. 9), the laboratory data showing a distinct



fall in ^w/w* as the top of the layer  is approached whereas



the atmospheric data show, if anything, a very slight increase.




      Details of new estimates of & for unstable conditions,  using



both  the gradient-transfer approach, and the free-convection  law in



Eq. 3,  are  set out  in  Appendix B.  Three cases have been  considered,



the first  referring to  relatively smooth open country  (to which the



PG curves  apply),  and  the second and third to an urban area,  for



which estimates are available from the St. Louis tracer study.
                                17

-------
Specific conclusions which emerge from these results  are set out at
the end of the appendix.   It is clear that a closer approach to the
extrapolated (long-range) section of the PG 'A'  curve and to the
St. Louis 'B' and 'C' curves has been achieved in terras  of the 'free-
convection'  law and, implicitly, in terms of the Deardorff 'mixed-
layer1 law.   Up to a point this is not surprising and it is clear that
final revision of the PG curves must take into account the new insight
into the effects of convective motion.  However, because of the
discrepancies and conflicts which have been noted in  (iv) and (v) above
and which have not been resolvable in the present review, and because
the latest report on the Deardorff modelling has not been available
to us in time for full consideration, it would certainly not be
appropriate to attempt a final revision immediately.
     Aside from the magnitude of 
-------
OTHER ASPECTS
     There are several features which have not been given extensive
consideration during the preparation of this review, and these are
noted below with brief comment and reference.
(i)  Vertical  Spread in Stable Flow
     From the resume1 given in Part I it is evident that estimates
of cr in stable conditions vary over a wide range.  In view of the
expected (though not yet well-documented)  decrease of cr with
                                                       w
height a dependence on height of release H is also to be expected
over the distance of travel for which cr < H.  The BNL curves may
be thought to contain some evidence of this dependence, as the
'stable1 curve falls distinctly below the PG 'F1  curve, despite the
fact that it refers to a much rougher surface.  However, the evidence
is somewhat ambiguous, since the precise equivalence of the stability
classifications in the two cases is in some doubt.  This particular
point, as well as the more general question of the dispersive
character of stable flow, is in need of further critical examination.
One obvious and preeminent requirement is  continued progress in the
description of the characteristic profiles of the intensity and scale
of turbulence, in the distinction between  turbulence and wave-motion,
and in the ongoing work to which our attention has been drawn in the
course of the present review (G. A. Briggs - private communcation).
(i i)  The Effect of Elevation of Release and Plume Rise on Dispersion
      The possibly special  importance of elevation of release in stable
                                 19

-------
conditions has already been mentioned,  but as  noted in Part I  there
is a more general  problem arising from  the inapplicability of  either
the simple statistical or gradient-transfer treatment in the crucial
stage of dispersion at which cr is similar to  H (see Ref.  8).   This
is one of the problems for which the Znd-order closure modelling
seems to be specially necessary.
     For strongly buoyant plumes there  is also the contribution to
spread (both vertical and horizontal) associated with the entrainment
induced by relative vertical motion of plume and surrounding air.
As previously discussed (Ref. 6, p 271), the addition to the 'passive1
dispersion represented in the PG curves may be especially important
for cr in stable conditions.  It is to be noted, however, that for
maximum ground-level concentration per se the resultant effect may
not often be important, since the major part of the dispersion to
ground level may often depend predominantly on the  'passive' part
of the process.  The condition for maximum ground-level is roughly
                               1/2
represented by cr =  (H  + AH)/2 ' , where H  is the stack height and
AH the height of rise.  The data on rising plumes suggest that the
induced cr is roughly AH/3.5 which obviously cannot be the major
contribution to the  required cr even when AH is very large compared
with H .

(iii)  Vertical Spread in an Evolving Mixed Layer
     Allowance for the more or less abrupt termination of the  upward
vertical dispersion by an overhead stable layer is included in the
                            20

-------
Workbook (see pp 7 and 36 thereof).  This procedure needs to be
generalized in terms of the typical evolution of the depth of the
mixed layer in the surface heating cycle following nocturnal
stabilization of the boundary layer, as discussed in Ref. 6, p 379.
If the mixed layer is of depth h'(t) at time t, it is clear that the
o*(x) appropriate to a source at distance x upwind is in accordance
with unbounded o~,x curves only up to a certain limit depending on
h1.  One simple rule may be stated immediately on the basis of the
conventional 'image source1 principle, for the case of the ground-
level crosswind-integrated concentration (CWIC) from a ground-level
source, with constant h1.  The curve of CWIC against x is found to
be adjusted quite sharply (for practical purposes effectively
suddenly at the distance defined by o~ = 0.8h') from the vertically-
unbounded form
           CWIC  =  21/2Q/TT1/2"ucr, 0   0.8h',                       (5)
For source-heights and receptor-heights other than zero, the curve
is, of course, more complex, but nevertheless derivable on the
same principle.
                                21

-------
                                  Section 4
   SUGGESTIONS FOR INTERIM CHANGES IN THE WORKBOOK PARAMETERS  AND PROCEDURE
     Suggestions for the more satisfactory estimation of crosswind spread
have already been considered at some length (see p.  7).   For vertical  spread
(see p.  14), there are significant current developments  which  should be
incorporated as soon as an adequate clarification and consolidation of the
results  have been achieved.  In the meantime, it would be reasonable to
retain the present Workbook values of a*  with adjustments  for roughness (in
accordance with the discussion on p.  12), for induced spread of buoyant
plumes (see p. 19), and for the effects of urban-heating on lines which are
briefly considered below.
     Ideally, the or  curves for urban flow should be related to surface
roughness and surface heat flux, with the latter representing the total
effect of natural and man-made contributions, as was attempted in Appendix B
for the unstable conditions.  Until this  can be satisfactorily accomplished,
a reasonable simple procedure would be to adjust the PG curves for roughness
as already discussed and then apply an additional correction for 'urban-
heating'  in accordance with the practical experience of the St. Louis study.
This latter correction could be applied conveniently in the form of an
'adjusted (urban) stability category,' appropriately more unstable than the
estimated 'open country1 category.  The experience suggests that this
adjustment should be roughly 'half a stability category.1
     The foregoing suggestions are collected in summary form in Table 2.
                                     22

-------
t
















C/5
UJ
7~"*
— 1

^>

i*i
o
o
rTi
*^
o:
O
3

UJ
Dr N
r— O

Z. 0
i— i z;
to
LU >,
CD O
z:
ซC t/l
3: a:
<_> UJ
ป—
S UJ
Gฃ -•
tJ— OH
oฃ
o'/ UJ
Z D-
O CO
1 — ' h— 1
I— a
**^
Q UJ
-ZL in
LU ! —
s:
51 U_
o o
o
LU
Cฃ

U_
O

">—
oa

3

C
O

iJ
ro

3


CD

_
, —
Q_

rO
co

TO
ฃ;
ro

P

cn
B
cu
f

QJ
V)
ro


d)
^

to
to
QJ
C

CD
3
O


C
*r—

S-
S_
QJ

QJ

jj
4_
O

CU
• p— '

o
cu
Q.
to
QJ

s_


0,
b2

TO
ro
CU

Q.
to

•a
c

3
to
to
o

o

s-
o
u_
•4-'
o
o

QJ CO
JC 3 o
-P O S-

i- P^ 3
o o cr
4—4— to •
QJ
C co CU ฃ
o ro -c: 3

P ' — . O-
ro X QJ

t) lj 	 fft f—
(J cvj +J 4->


4- -—-CO
co x ro
C CU -v. J=
O 3 O CM -P
•p- r— i— X 0.
-t-> ro 	 QJ
U > CO > >
i/) 3 ro CO P O
C T-
rO CU " O O -P C
•r- JC TO i — CO
"O -p QJ ro •!-
(C -i- 3 -P
4-4-4- CT O
O T- ^J- QJ
C O • QJ 5-
•i- C QJ -st 0 -C ••-
O Q. -P TO
Y_CD >i- CO
DP QJ TO
ro co > c
•> -p- -r- LO O T-
" — * > " r~i 3
X QJ I 3 OJ O 03
	 TO C
4— _c "O rO
v CD TO O QJ QJ
O S- T- C E
rO _d VD fp~
TO 3 rO 4-
II C p— O P O
ro -p JQ
4-> ro O QJ
X oo cn
•>*. P LO CO C

\3 JZ CD • -C
P -r- 0 O \_>j 0
QJ O
4- c f—
O QJ ro
0! J= ฑ>
* cu .c cxj r~v p o
ro P P P
r- ro 0 O 4-
3 E S- O QJ
E -I- O J=
S- -P 4- QJ P
O CO S-
4- QJ "O i — OO (O CD
C ..30
cu cu ^ o CD cr
jC r — CO -C
-M J2 P P
ro co CU •?-
x, QJ i — CU -^ 3
CO T- S- -— P
3 (O QJ E — - "
> +J ^ X O !_>,
ซ ro c — •> — -P O
S- -p- X 4-
3 P T3 i —
O I/) 4- "O rO
c- QJ O ra P
J3 O
r- QJ E P
QJ ฃ -^
4-> JC T- QJ
3 P P O -C
O CM P
f-*t )i rj)
ro i CD C A | QJ
b -r- >
O P— X -i-
p j= a. cn
P E s-
D- T- ro O O
3 3 co U- +J
QJ
CO
ro
QJ

flj
C.

TD
a>
4-3
ro
>
QJ

QJ

c~
ro

i-
O


C
•p—
E

O

A

>.
ro
CO

T5
c
ro
•*
QJ
CO

QJ
2
QJ
O
ro
(4 —
^,
3
co
rO

i.
0
4-

QJ
*f
P
cn
c
•i —
O-
E
ro
CO

>^
C
re

S-
0


ซt
bf
-o
ro
QJ
s_
a.
to

p.—
ro
U
'i —
p
S-
QJ
>

S-
0
u_


s-
o

LO

s
4-
QJ
fy*
*. 	 ^

E
ro
i.
cn


3 O
o c
p—
r— CO
O
4- -ฃZ
p
CO •!—
ro E
CO
P
c
•p- CQ
rO
S_
P uu
to
c c
o o
o
TO
s- cu
O CO
(O
P J3
c
QJ to
P O
to -P
3 O
•<—) ro
"O 4—
rO
>^
^g-; | —
-P CL
•i- Q.
3 <3

co E
QJ 0

s- co
u S
o
_v i-
O 4-
O
.a P
^L C.
i- QJ
0 i-
3 Cui

cn 4-
C •!-
•r- T3
P
00 C
•p- N
X
QJ JC
4.}
QJ •.-
-C 3
Nl P
QJ -r-
to ro
3 S-
s-
•> QJ
^^* P
CM
i-
c o
o u_
• p—
-P
o • — .
CU rO
CO 	

QJ
QJ
CO


P QJ
ro JC
JC P
-P
4—
C O E
rO O
j= 00 $-
P QJ 4-
•4—5
CU rO jc
r- E P
JD -r- 3
ro P 0
•P CO S-
co QJ cn
c:
3 S- 00
QJ P
CU "O •!—
!w 'r—
O CO >,
E C r—
O P—
>, 0 ro
S- T-
o ซ o
cn cu cu
QJ CO Q.
P (O CO
rO QJ CU
U p—
QJ cn
4- S- C
r— "p—
ro QJ N




x QJ
•• JC
JC -P
CO
to
o ••-

s- n:
o ^

x QJ
CO i-
QJ QJ
> -C
S- 3
3
0 O

QJ -^
JC CM
P ^
<3
>^
_Q CD
C
c •ป-
QJ "O
> "O
•p- rO
cn

CO -O
ra
JC O T- . CO
1 ro C \ N QJ
QJ 4- Cn O >
C S- O
O 3 CJ
CO QJ
>> s-
S- ro
O ซ
cn E cn
QJ O C
4-> S- -p-
ro 4- p-
0 Q.
QJ E
>, O ro
-P ro co
•i- j*: 4-
•— 0 S- 4-
••- O 3 0
JO JQ CO
rO J*ฃ QJ
P S- QJ E
CO O JC T-
3 -P P
rO I
QJ p -a
-!-> JC > ro
cn ra s- +->
C 3 P ro
•p- C
P p— QJ -
ro ra O jc
QJ E C
JC C O JC
O O +->
DCC Q.
rO QJ QJ
o ni t- -n
S- JC -M
3 -P TO
	 	 - CD QJ
r~- c c x
ro o *" P E
4- TO (O
O_ CU 3 QJ
3 -0 i— >
• O T- ro T-
CO i — i- > 4J
r— O QJ CJ
> rO co QJ
4- QJ S- 4-
QJ 0 S- 0 4-
QC. \— O- U_ QJ


*^^. ^-%.
JO O
^— - v^^





>-
S_ 3
QJ O
JC
4-> QJ
'S x-C. p
4-> 	 	 E
a. p
OCrS-
TO LU 4-
ra
r— T^
C T- QJ
QJ C
JC C -r-
-P O ro
•r- -P
TO P f">
C 3 O
ro +->
•i— CM
^ 4-> I M
CO CO O
P JQ
-C 3 QJ
Cn to JC
•p- P
c s-
O QJ
CU 4- CO
i — ro
JO ^ QJ
ro S- S-
P QJ O
W> i— C
i^— *r— *
c ro CU
O E " co
co co *p~
co QJ S-
cu cu E
3 JC 3 QJ
p- 4J P- E
ra Q- 3
> CO r—
•p- P a.
t— C
, — S_ ro TO
n3 QJ >> QJ
E > O P
CO O) 3 ro
JC JO E
>, O T-
C -P- s- P
QJ JC O CO
> 3 u_ QJ


^— ^
TT














































































—
OJ

0)

JO
ra
1—
c
o

CO
QJ
p
0

~

-------
 Notes on Table 2




 *  This formula is strictly true only for small  values  (i.e.,  when



    tan e = e).  For larger values (i.e.,  with wide and  usually slow



    variation of wind direction)  an appropriate procedure is  to use the



    formula in a formula for concentration in which the  y-distribution



    of concentration is replaced  by an arc distribution  at a  radius r.





f   For correct evaluation this tfi should  be for an effectively infinitesi-
                                 u


    mal averaging time (i.e., no  loss of variance by 'smoothing' of the



    complete wind fluctuation).  As an alternative one could  continue to use



    the PG or" values, which refer to a sampling time of  3 min,  and add to



    this value squared the square of the value obtained  from the above



    formula with a oC obtained from 3-min  averages over  the sampling time
                    H                           	


    of interest.
                                   24

-------
                              SECTION 5
           REQUIREMENTS FOR PROGRESS TOWARD A FINAL REVISION
               OF THE WORKBOOK PARAMETERS AND PROCEDURE

     In view of the conflicts of evidence and gaps in knowledge which so
obviously exist at presents by far the most important issue is the identi-
fication of the points at which new measurements and further critical
analyses are most required.  A short list of those which seem to the writer
to be the most urgent is given below.
VERTICAL DISPERSION IN THE CONVECTIVELY MIXED LAYER
     The present review has been a vivid reminder, if such were needed,
of the very inadequate background of high-quality test data on the
crucial features of vertical dispersion beyond the first kilometre of
travel from a source.  Improvement in this respect is vital,  not only
for resolution of the difliculties encountered here, but also as an ultimate
essential test of the emerging 2nd-order closure treatments of dispersion,
which treatments are seen by some as the main future hope of improved
dispersion estimates.  The necessity for this advanced type of treatment,
especially in respect of convective transfer, has recently beem emphasized
by Lumley.
    The convective case is of specific practical importance in the familiar
'looping' and 'fumigation1 aspects of power-plant plumes, and is of
general importance as the condition for the 'upper bound1 to a family
of curves such as those of the PG system.  Despite the various
                                     25

-------
attempts in the past to obtain definitive  data  on  vertical  spread  there
still  remains a particular need for good measurements,  say,  by  aircraft
sampling of the plume from a surface release of passive tracer,  of the
progress to the stage of near-uniform distribution with height.  This
should be considered in the first instance over an ideal  (Kansas-  or
Minnesota-type) site, with supporting data on the  surface heat  flux,
the mixing depth, and the wind profile.   The experience of the  Minnesota
boundary layer study (Ref. 9) confirms that a useful  study of the  role
of convective transfer is feasible even  in moderate winds, although the
preference should be for winds ?s light as possible consistent  with
predictability of the plume trajectory.   The tracer sampling (crosswind
traverses at several levels in the mixed layer) should be at intervals
of downwind distance of, say, one mixing depth up  to at least 5 mixing
depths.
VERTICAL DISPERSION  IN STABLE  FLOW
     The very stable condition represents the  'lower bound' to  the family
of cr curves and is, of course, the most serious condition for  pollution
from low-level sources.  From  the discussions which have been held during
the present  review there are signs that a concentration of effort might
now be  timely, especially  in the respect of marshalling newly available
turbulence data  (or  acquiring  such data) and appraising the significance
thereof in terms of  effective  eddy diffusivity.  Whether an adequate
background of  dispersion data  already exists in a form appropriate  for
testing of new ideas has yet to  be seen, but should a  need become

-------
apparent for new data in this context, the observational  requirement will
be less of a problem than for the convective case, for the obvious
reason that crucial  data will be obtainable from sampling on masts or
towers.
CRITICAL STUDY  AND ANALYSIS  OF 2ND-ORDER CLOSURE  CALCULATIONS  OF
VERTICAL DISPERSION
     The potential importance of the 2nd-order closure approach has
already been noted in respect of convective mixing.  Another important
feature for which it could be the most profitable means of improved
understanding is the case of the elevated source for the range over
which  cr 
-------
                                REFERENCES


 1.   Turner,  D. B.  (1970  revised).  Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion
     Estimates, U.S.D.H.E.W., Environmental Health Service.

 2.   Pasquill, F.  (1961).  The  Estimation of the Dispersion of Windborne
     Material, Met. Mag., 90, 33.

 3.   Calder,  K. L.  (1949).   Eddy Diffusion and Evaporation in Flow over
     Aerodynamically  Smooth  and Rough Surfaces, Quart. J. Mech. & Appl.
     Math.,  II, p  153.

 4.   Haugen,  D. A.  (Ed)  (1959).  Project Prairie Grass, A Field Program
     in  Diffusion,  Geophysical  Research Papers No 59, Geophysics Research
     Directorate,  AFCRC,  Bedford,  Mass.

 5.   Smith,  F. B.  (1972).  A Scheme for Estimating the Vertical Dispersion
     of  a Plume from  a  Source near Ground Level, Proceedings of the Third
     Meeting of the Expert Panel on Air Pollution Modeling, NATO/CCMS.

 6.   Pasquill, F.  (1974).  Atmospheric Diffusion, 2nd Ed., John Wiley  &
     Sons, New York.

 7.   Pasquill, F.  (1975).  Some Topics Relating to the Modeling of Dispersion
     in  the  Boundary  Layer,  EPA-650/4-75-015.

 8.   Pasquill, F.  (1975).  The  Dispersion of Materials in the Atmospheric
     Boundary Layer - the Basis for Generalization;  Lectures on Air
     Pollution and Environmental  Impact Analyses, Ameriran Meteorological Soc.

 9.   Kaimal, J. C., J.  S.  Caughey, et al  (1976).  Turbulence Structure in
     the Convective Boundary Layer, Unpublished Draft.

10.   Lewellen, W.  S.  and L.  Teske  (1975).  Turbulence Modeling  and its
     Application  to Atmospheric Diffusion, Part 1, EP/>-6QO/4-75-016a.

     Deardorff, J.  W. and G. E. Willis  (1974).  Computer  and Laboratory
     Modeling of  the  Vertical Diffusion of Non-Buoyant Particles  in  the  Mixed
     Layer,  Turbulent Diffusion in Environmental  Pollution; Advances  in
     Geophysics,  18B, pp 187-200,  Academic Press.

12.   McElroy, J.  L. and F.  Pooler (1968).  St. Louis Dispersion Study, Vol  II-
     Analysis,  U.S.D.H.E.W.

13.   Slade,  D.  H., (Ed) (1968).  Meteorology  and  Atomic  Energy, U.S.  Atomic
     Energy Commission, Div. Tech. Inf.

14.   Sagendorf, J.  F. and C. R. Dickson  (1974).   Diffusion  under  Low Windspeed
     Inversion Conditions,  NOAA Technical  Memorandum ERL,  ARL-52.


                                    28

-------
15.   Pasquill,  F (1970).   Prediction of Diffusion over an  Urban  Area-Current
     Practice and Future  Prospects;  Proceedings  of Symposium on  Multiple
     Source Urban Diffusion Models,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.

16.   Klug, W. (1975).   Dispersion from Tall  Stacks, EPA-600/4-75-006.

17.   Lumley, J.  L.  (1976)  Turbulent Transport in Urban Air Pollution  Modeling,
     Draft.
                                     •
18.   Draxler, R. R.  (1976).  Determination of Atmospheric  Diffusion  Parameters,
     Atmos. Environ.,  10, pp 99-105.
                                    29

-------
APPENDIX A.  CROSSWIND SPREAD IN RELATION TO WIND DIRECTION FLUCTUATION




     The relation between crosswind spread from a continuous point source



and the crosswind component of turbulence, cr, has been developed on useful



lines in terms of the G. I. Taylor statistical theory (Ref 6, p 185).



Neglecting the variation with height of the r.m.s. and scale of the



v-component, the result for travel time T or distance downwind x may be

                                            •

put in the forms:
        Qy = o; T f^T/^) * 
-------
where f(x) approximates to the required limit when x < 0.1 km, and is a
slowly decreasing function at longer range.  The upper and lower bounds
only of these cr data are reproduced in Fig. 1.

     It has also been noted (Ref 6, p 295) that measurements of cr and cTQ
in two large towns in England are also related in conformity with the
bounds of the U.S.A. tests.  Data obtained in the St. Louis urban dispersion
     12
study  , for a sampling time of 1 hr, have now been analyzed on the same
basis and the individual hourly values are plotted on Fig. 1, with
discrimination according to day or night.  The property cr was actually
                                                          D
observed at two levels on a television tower, and in the  present analysis
choice was made of the upper level (459 ft) as the more appropriate to the
average magnitude of vertical spread cr also deduced in these tests.
These data too are strikingly consistent with the bounds  of the open-site
data.  Finally, the overall range of some data pertaining to very light
winds and stable conditions, with very large values of cr, obtained in
                                                        a
field tests in Idaho, are shown.

     The overall impression from these data and other data which have been
reviewed previously (Ref 6, p 185) is that the crosswind  spread may be
usefully represented on average by the simple equation (3), with f(x) as
now determined by eye from Fig. 1 taking approximate values as follows:

     x (km)    0.1  0.2  C.4   1    24    10   >10          ,
     f(x)      0.8  0.7  0.65  0.6  0.5  0.4  0.33  0.33(10/x)1
                                    31

-------
the value for x > 10 km being set on the reasonable assumption  that the
'large x1 limit, corresponding to the 'large T1  limit referred  to earlier,
is effectively operative for such distances, at  any rate in  respect of
the direct effect of the crosswind component of  turbulence (see Ref.  6,  p 362
for earlier discussions of this aspect).
     Departures from the simple average relation are presumably a consequence
partly of variations of 
-------

                                     DAY     •

                                     EVENING  X
ST,LOUIS  DATA  (REF.12)
_._^_ IDAHO  A.R.L DATA  (REF.13)
        VARIOUS  l),S,  TESTS  (REF.W)	JH
                                             DISTANCE (KM)
                          1
                                            10
   Fig. A-l.   Various Data on Crosswind Spread Normalized  in Accordance
             with the Standard Deviation of Wind Direction Fluctuation
                                     33

-------
APPENDIX B.  SOME CALCULATIONS OF VERTICAL SPREAD IN UNSTABLE CONDITIONS




     Vertical  spreads derived by F.  B.  Smith from numerical  solutions  of

                                                         o

the two-dimensional  equation of diffusion have been shown  to approximate



to certain simple similarity relations.   With I the mean vertical



displacement of passive  particles at distance x downwind of a continuous



release at the surface, one relation is




                       d I/dx = 0.75 (K/uz)?                         (1)





the subscript outside the parentheses denoting the height to which all



quantities inside refer.  Substituting the basic form of eddy diffusivity K



adopted in Smith's solutions, i.e., 0.1  cr", X -  where \  is the equivalent
                                         W  nT          Ml


wavelength ( = U/n ) for maximum value of the product of frequency (n)



and spectral density S(n) of the vertical component,




                dZ/dx =  0.075 ((TXm/uz}—                            ,0\
                                 w m    z                            (ฃ.)




This relation may be used to obtain new Z/x or o^/x curves from new a^



and x  data in convective conditions, recently made available from the



'Minnesota' boundary layer experiment (Ref 9).




     For convenience we may integrate (2) in separate sections of the 2



range, for which simple mathematical forms may be prescribed as approximations



to the observed profiles of cr and X  contained in Figs. 5 and 14 of Ref 9:



     Section A



            -3L  
-------
where L is the Monin-Obukhov length, and h'  the mixing depth
Section B
       O.lh1 < z  
-------
Section A (Eq.  (3) and (4)  applicable)
          x(Z) - x(-3L) = [_2.79uch'u^u/w* |  Z1""*  -  (-31)""" J     (9)


Section B (Eq. (5) and (6)  applicable)


                          r             If                 1
        x(Z) - x(O.lh') =  8.9uc/w^h'ฐ'6 Jjl1-6  -  (O.lh1)1*6]       (10)



Note that if, as usual, wind speed is specified  at a given  low  reference


level (say, 10m), then for such a given wind speed u  is  proportional


to h1 '    (in accordance with Eq. (8), and remembering that w* is

                  1/3
proportional to h1 '   it follows that,  as required by definition,  the


relation between Z and x in Eq. (9) is  independent of h1.   Note also


that if the variation of wind with height is disregarded  in Section A


Eq. (9) reduces to



        x(Z) - x(-3L) =J2.61   uh|1/3/w* ]\f/3 - (-3L)2/3J       (11)


which for large values of-Z/3L is of the same form as Eq.  3 in  the


main text.


      In the trial calculations carried out here,  Eq. (9)  and  (10)  have


been used in the slightly rearranged forms


            x(Z) - x(-3L) = fA  [(Z/-3L)0'74 - l]                  (12)


                  with fA= 2.79uch'ฐ-26(-3L)ฐ-74/w*




            x(Z) - x(O.lh') = fB  [(Z/O.lh1)1-6 - l]               (13)


                  with fB = 8.9uch' (0.1)1-6/w*



                                36

-------
The Z,x data calculated from these equations were ultimately converted
to cr,x data by assuming 
-------
It seems unlikely, however, that any plausible deviations  from these
choices would basically change the implications listed below.
Note in particular that the largest magnitudes of &ฃ are essentially
         1/2
set by H  ' , so a substantial latitude in the value adopted for HQ
would have a minor effect.
The conclusions may now be summarized as follows:
1.  For a smooth surface, gradient-transfer calculations  using
the latest data available on the intensity and scale of the
w-component in convective conditions give 
-------
and Willis'(Ref.  11) tank data)  the calculations  approach  closer
to the PG curve,  but are still  on the low side of the curve.
3.  Over a rough  (urban) surface, when even with large heat flux
the magnitude of -L is relatively large and accordingly when  the
gradient-transfer assumption should be more realistic over a
greater height range, the gradient-transfer calculations still  fall
below those inferred from ground-level concentrations of tracer in
the St. Louis study.  The 'free-convection' law,  which by the same
argument about -L should be less valid (compared with a smooth
surface and small -L) does give a closer approach to the St.  Louis
data, though with a more rapid variation of o^ with x than was
inferred from the concentration data.
4.  The implications regarding Deardorff's laboratory law for
the  'mixed layer' are at present ambiguous.  Over the bottom
half of this layer the laboratory data on cr^ are consistent
with the  'free-convection' law, which on first principles might
be expected to fail above z/h'  =0.1, and which in respect of ff*
                                                               w
apparently does fail in both laboratory and atmospheric data.
It is understood, however, that a more recent statement of the
laboratory data on ffi is in course of publication, and it is
clearly desirable that this should be fully considered in the
present context before drawing final conclusions.
                             39

-------
TABLE B-l.   DATA USED IN SPECIMEN CALCULATIONS OF EQ.  (12),  (13)  and (14)
Case
ZQ cm
2
H mw/cm
IT (10m) m/sec
approx -3L nr1'
assumed h' knr '
u (from Eq. 8) m/sec
w* m/sec
fft in Eq. 12 m
fg in Eq. 13 m
Stability Category^111'
'Workbook1 Stability
Category^1 v)
1
3
26
2
10
3
2.58
2.75
115
630
A

2
100
40
4
250
5
5.36
3.80
2140
1575
A
B
3
100
30
5
600
3
6.45
2.90
--
1490
B
C
    Notes:  (i)  Estimated from the nomogram on p 338 of Ref. 6
           (ii)  In cases 2 and 3 these values of h1 have been
                 adoped as necessarily larger than the derived
                 rfz values in the St. Louis urban study.
          (iii)  In accordance with F. B. Smith's nomogram, p 374
                 of Ref. 6 and the magnitudes of H  and Tf(lOm)
                                                             P
           (iv)  Obtained as in (iii) but for (H  - 15) mw/cm  on
                                              2
                 the supposition that 15 mw/cm  is the typical
                 man-made contribution to H  in a modern city.  The
                  'Workbook1 stability category is then the category
                 which would be assessed in the normal way in the
                 Workbook.
                                     40

-------
        B-l.  Vertical Spread cr  from a Continuous  Source  H
       at  Ground Level as a Function of Distance Downwind.
       Flow Conditions as in Case 1 of Table 1.
       Curve Identification:
              Pasquill-Gifford curve with letter referring
              to stability category
              From F. B. Smith nomograms for the same
              conditions
              Calculations from Eq. (12) and (13),  the
              broken lines being an extension of Eq.  (12)
              (steeper slope) and the large (Z/O.lh1)
              limit of Eq. (13)
                                     FP
0,1
1
10
                                                                                       100
                                 DISTANCE DOWNWIND  KM
                                         41

-------
                          Fig,  B-2. As for Fig.  1,  with Flow Conditions  as  in Case 2
                            of  Table 1, and with 'St.  Louis B1 from Fig.  10 of
                            Ref.  12
0,1
1
10
                                 DISTANCE DOWNWIND KM
                                       42

-------
     Fig. B-3.  As for Fig.  1,  with  Flow Conditions  as  in
         Case  3 of Table 1,  and with  'St. Louis C'  from
         Fig.  10 of Ref. 12
1
10
100
    DISTANCE DOWNWIND  KM
           43

-------
                                  TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                           (Please read Instruction* on the reverse before completing)
                             2.
1. REPORT NO.
 EPA-6QO/4-76-03Qb	i
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION PARAMETERS
  GAUSSIAN PLUME MODELING.   Part II.   Possible
  Requirements for Change  in the Turner Workbook Values
                                                          3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
       IN
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
                                                          8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
  F.  Pasquill
REPORT DATE
June 1976
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Meteorology and Assessment  Division
  Environmental Sciences  Research  Laboratory
  Research Triangle Park, North  Carolina  27711
             10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

               1AA009
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  Environmental Sciences  Research Laboratory
  Office of Research and  Development
  U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency
  Research Triangle Park,  North  Carolina 27711
             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
               In-house  <3an - Mar 1976
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
               EPA-ORD
IB. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT

       The basis  of the original Pasquill-Gifford  curves  used in the Turner Workbook
  is restated and consideration given to those  features of the curves which are  now
  regarded as specially questionable.

       Data on crosswind spread from various field tests  are reviewed to emphasize
  the useful working relation which holds between  Oy  and  the standard deviation  of
  the wind direction fluctuation.  Some new trial  calculations of vertical spread
  are carried out in the light of recent work using the gradient-transfer approach,
  recent similarity analyses, new observational data  on the structure of turbulence
  in the convective boundary layer, and Deardorff's modeling of the mixed layer.

       Recommendations  are made concerning the  use of wind direction fluctuation
  data for estimating Oy,  for various adjustments  and constraints to be applied  as
  an interim measure to the existing 0$ curves, and for continuing work required
  in the progress toward a final revision of the Workbook.
17.
                               KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
  Air pollution
 *Atmospheric diffusion
 *Wind (meteorology)
 *P1umes
 *Mathematical models
                                             b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
  Gaussian plume
                             COSATl Field/Group
                 13B
                 04A
                 04B
                 21B
                 12A
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

      RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
      UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                        21 NO. OF PAGES
                53
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                                    UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                        22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                           44

-------