£A4
JULY 1986
PROJECT CONDORS —
CONVECTIVE DIFFUSION OBSERVED BY REMOTE SENSORS
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
-------
PROJECT CONDORS —
CONVECTIVE DIFFUSION OBSERVED BY REMOTE SENSORS
by
J. C. Kaimal, W. L. Eberhard, W. M. Moninger
J. E. Gaynor, S. W. Troxel and T. Uttal
NOAA/ERL Wave Propagation Laboratory
Boulder, Colorado 80303
G. A. Briggs
EPA/Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
G. E. Start
NOAA/ERL/Air Resources Laboratory
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401
Interagency Agreement No. AD13F2A251
Project Officer
Gary A. Briggs
Meteorology and Assessment Division
Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
-------
NOTICE
Acquisition of information provided in this document was funded in part by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency under Interagency Agreement No.
AD13F2A251. It has been subject to the Agency's peer and administrative
review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document. This
study was conducted jointly by the NOAA/Environmental Research Laboratory and
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an endor-
sement by NOAA/Environmental Research Laboratories or the Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents results from two diffusion experiments conducted at
the Boulder Atmospheric Observatory (BAO) in 1982 and 1983. The objective was
to compare diffusion in the atmospheric convective boundary layer with that
observed in laboratory tank experiments and numerical computer models. In
both experiments at the BAO, two different tracers, oil fog and aluminized
chaff, were released simultaneously and tracked by lidar and radar, respec-
tively, for periods up to two hours. In 1982, both tracers were released from
the same surface or elevated point; in 1983, the two were also released from
separate levels, the oil fog from near the surface, the chaff from an elevated
point on the tower. The 1983 experiment included tracer gas releases with in
situ samplers measuring surface concentrations downwind of the tower. The BAO
tower provided data on the mean and turbulent state of the atmosphere, while
mixing depths were monitored by balloon soundings, sodar, lidar and radar. A
detailed description of the experiment and the measurements obtained from the
different sensors are provided. The strengths and limitations of the experi-
ment are discussed in the context of a case study of one of the periods ana-
lyzed.
TM
-------
CONTENTS
Abst ract Ill
Figures vi
Tab! es i x
Acknowledgments xi
1. Background and Introduction
J. C. Kaimal < 1
2. Definition of Goals and Observing Strategies
G. A. Briggs and J. C. Kaimal 3
3. Lidar Sensing of Oil Fog
W. L. Eberhard and S. W. Troxel 23
4. Radar Sensing of Aluminized Chaff
W. R. Moninger and T. Uttal 45
5. In Situ Sampling of Gas Tracers
G. A. Briggs and G. E. Start 59
6. Operational Scenerio
G. A. Briggs, W. L. Eberhard and W. R. Moninger 67
7. Meteorological Data Summaries for Observing Periods
G. A. Briggs and J. E. Gaynor 71
8. Oil Fog Plume Statistics from Lidar Observation
S. W. Troxel and W. L. Eberhard 83
9. Chaff Plume Statistics from Radar Observations
T. Uttal and W. R. Moninger 103
10. In Situ Observations from Gas Samplers
G. A. Briggs and G. E. Start 117
11. Discussion of Experimental Results
W. L. Eberhard, G. A. Briggs, W. R. Moninger,
and J. C. Kaimal 133
References 151
Appendices:
A. Horizontal and Vertical Profiles of Oil Fog Concentration.... 157
B. Horizontal and Vertical Profiles of Chaff Concentration
and of Other Chaff Plume Parameters 237
C. Quality Control Evaluation Reports 285
-------
FIGURES
1.1 Oil fog plume released from the 280 m level on the
8AO tower during CONDORS 83 2
2.1 Number of sunny days with 2 < "u" < 6 m s"1 between 1300 and
1320 MST in September per 5° segment of wind direction... 6
2.2 USGS topographic map showing height contours in feet
and location of the BAO tower 7
2.3 Plume transport according to Willis and Deardorff (1976a,
1978, 1981) for different release heights 17
2.4 Contour map of the BAO site and vicinity showing location
of lidar, radar, and surface samplers for CONDORS experiments 19
2.5 Typical patterns for lidar scans and radar sweeps for the
CONDORS experiments shown in relation to the expected
plume behavior.. 22
3.1 Lidar system 25
3.2 Oil fogger and chaff cutter on BAO carriage 28
3.3 Oil foggers operating at high release rates during CONDORS 83 28
3.4 Experiment layout and lidar scan planes during Period 9 30
3.5 Display of lidar scan for editing 33
3.6 Lidar signal pluse (a) before and (b) after corrections for
attenuation and ambient signal 34
3.7 Average oil fog concentrations at one azimuth for an
analysis period 38
3.8 Example of empirical lidar calibration factors for oil
fog mass concentration 39
4.1 Wave Propagation Laboratory's X-Band Doppler radar on
location for the CONDORS experiments 46
4.2 Chaff cutter being installed on the carriage for chaff
release at elevated point on the BAO tower 48
5.1 Location of sampler stations for tracer gases shown in
relationship to release point at the BAO tower 60
-------
7.1 Mixing depth, wind direction, wind speed and heat flux for
the observing period on 7 September 1983 plotted as a
function of time 72
8.1 Conceptual diagram illustrating coordinates and symbols
defined in Sec. 8.2 83
9.1 Conceptual diagram illustrating coordinates and symbols
defined in Sec. 9.2 104
10.1 Frequency of occurrence of 10 min samples by log(x/Q)
categories, 7 per decade, for each tracer in each
successful run of CONDORS 83 119
10.2 Log("x/0) at each measured azimuth for each tracer in
each successful averaging period of CONDORS 83 130
11.1 Horizontal profiles of Xn for Period 9-83: oil fog (solid line)
and chaff (dashed line).? 140
11.2 Horizontal dispersion parameter for oil fog (circles) and
chaff (dots) for Period 9-83, plotted as a function of the
nondimensional downwind distance, X 141
11.3 Surface distribution of tracers for Period 9-83 shown as
a function of azimuth direction from release point 143
11.4 Vertical profiles of x in nondimensional coordinates 144
11.5 Mean tracer height plotted as a function of X for Period 9-83 145
11.6 Vertical dispersion parameter shown as a function of X for
Peri od 9-83 146
11.7 Height of maximum horizontally integrated concentration
shown as a function of X for Period 9-83 147
A.I Plots of lidar scans showing concentration profiles
listed in Table A.I 201
B.I Crosswind integrated chaff concentrations along the xz plane 239
B.2 Vertically integrated chaff concentration along the xy plane 251
B.3 Chaff a plotted as a function of x 260
B.4 Chaff y of (xz)max plotted as a function of x 263
B.5 Chaff 7 plotted as a function of x 265
8.6 Chaff a7 plotted as a function of x 268
-------
B.7 Chaff z of (X ) plotted as a function of x ..................... 271
y max
B.8 Chaff x plotted as a function of x .............................. 274
B.9 Chaff (x ) plotted as a function of x .......................... 277
z
B.10 Evolution of the X = 100 filaments/{50 m)2 column contour
on the xy plane shown at different time steps during periods
analyzed for CONDORS 83 ......................... .... ...... .. ...... 280
vm
-------
TABLES
2.1 Typical mean wind speeds for different values of z./L 16
3.1 Lidar operating configurations for CONDORS 26
3.2 Summary of oil fogger and lidar operation 29
4.1 Parameters used in radar data processing, 1982 -. 52
4.2 Parameters used in radar data processing, 1983 53
5.1 Gas sampler locations for CONDORS 83 61
5.2 Gas tracer release data 63
7.1 Data summaries for CONDORS 82 and CONDORS 83 74
7.2 Mixing depth estimates for CONDORS 83 77
7.3 Frequency distributions of wind azimuth angles,
z = 250 m, BAO tower, CONDORS 83 79
7.4 Frequency distributions of wind elevation angles,
z = 250 m, BAO tower, CONDORS 83 80
8.1-8.16 Average oil fog plume statistics for CONDORS 82
and CONDORS 83 86
9.1-9.12 Average chaff plume statistics for CONDORS 83 105
10.1 Average x/Q, 10~9 s/m3, measured along sampling arc
during CONDORS 83 averaging periods 118
10.2-10.7 Tracer x/Q, 10~9 s/m3, for each 10 min samples
during CONDORS 83 runs 121
10.8 Multiple spikes in tracer x affecting averaging periods 128
10.9 Single spikes in tracer x affecting averaging periods 128
10.10 Average x/Q, 10"9 s/m3, measured along sampling arc
during CONDORS 83 averaging periods, spikes removed 129
11.1 Typical tracer sampling resolution and intervals 138
A.I Fine and standard resolution profiles of oil fog
concentration for CONDORS 82 and CONDORS 83 160
A.2 Adjustments to vertical profiles of oil fog
concentrations for CONDORS 82 and CONDORS 83 215
-------
A.3 Near-surface profiles of the dilution factor (i.e.,
inferred x/Q) for the oil fog with adjustments in
Table A.2 added 217
B.I List of missing (M) and altered (A) chaff parameters
in plots of Figures B.3 to B.9 238
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge with gratitude the valuable contributions made by Daniel
Wolfe, Norbert Szczepczynski, Robert Kropfli, Terrance McNice and Susan
Carlson of the Wave Propagation Laboratory to the field experiment and to the
analysis of the data. We also thank Markuu Riikonen of Kuopio University,
Finland, and Li Zong-Kai of Nanjing University, Peoples Republic of China, for
their assistance during the field experiment. The patience and technical com-
petence of Mildred Birchfield and Alison Aragon in producing this report is
gratefully acknowledged. This project was supported in part by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under Interagency Agreement No. AD13F2A251.
-------
1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
J. C. Kaimal
Diffusion experiments were conducted at the Boulder Atmospheric
Observatory (BAO) to study diffusion in the convective boundary layer with
both remote and in situ sensors measuring downwind tracer concentrations from
both ground and elevated sources. The experiments were carried out jointly by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under an interagency agreement. The
participating laboratories were the Wave Propagation Laboratory (WPL) and the
Air Resources Laboratory (Idaho Falls) of NOAA, and the Meteorology Division
of EPA. The 1982 experiment was primarily a test of the adequacy and limita-
tions of the two remote sensing techniques being considered, while the 1983
experiment (Fig. 1.1) provided the type of data needed to compare diffusion in
the atmosphere with that observed in laboratory and numerical studies. The
two remote sensing techniques considered were:
1) Oil fog monitored by WPL's lidar operating at 0.53 urn.
2) Aluminized 'chaff monitored by WPL's 3-cm Doppler radar.
The two techniques have the advantage of being different enough to be free of
interference from each other, an essential requirement for observing diffusion
from simultaneous ground and elevated releases. The 1982 experiment was
designed to uncover systematic biases and other differences that might
exist between the two techniques. Both tracers were released simultaneously
at ground level or at typical stack heights while being tracked from optimum
-1-
-------
directions by the lidar and the radar. In the 1983 experiment the two sources
were separated most of the time, to contrast diffusion patterns from simulta-
neous ground and elevated releases. The decision to release the chaff only
from the elevated location in 1983 was based on the 1982 findings. The 1983
experiment included a set of tracer gas releases (SFs and Freon 13B1) with in
situ samplers measuring surface concentrations downwind of the tower.
Supporting observations used in the experiment included measurements of
the mean and turbulent properties of the flow from the eight instrumented
levels on the 300 m BAO tower. Mixing depths were monitored with balloon
soundings, sodar, lidar and radar.
The experiments proceeded as planned. Two-hour releases were made near
midday during four days in 1982 and eight days in 1983 when meteorological
conditions were optimum. The 1982 experiment extended over a period of ten
days in September; the 1983 experiment encompassed four weeks from mid-August
to mid-September. This report describes the experiments and their main find-
ings. Data summaries for 17 periods selected for analysis are included to
serve as a reference set for future studies. The experiments will be referred
to as CONDORS 82 and CONDORS 83, using the acronym derived from the title
"C_onvective Diffusion ^bserved by IRemote Sensors."
Fig. 1.1. Oil fog plume released from the 280 m level on the BAO tower during
CONDORS 83. Aluminized chaff was also released simultaneously from a chaff
cutter at the same level on the tower and tracked by radar.
-2-
-------
2. DEFINITION OF GOALS AND OBSERVING STRATEGIES
G. A. Briggs and J. C. Kaimal
2.1 Primary Goals
The primary goal of these experiments was to verify in the Earth's convec-
tive boundary layer diffusion phenomena observed in both laboratory and
numerical modeling experiments (Willis and Deardorff 1976a, 1976b, 1978, 1980;
Lamb, 1978 and 1979). In these experiments, for a source of passive tracer
near the surface, the maximum concentration was observed to lift off the
ground after a time of travel equal to about half the time it takes fluid in a
thermal to rise to the top of the mixed layer. Thereafter the concentration
at the surface reduced rapidly, as most of the material lofted into the upper
half of the mixed layer; at larger distances the material became more or less
uniformly mixed through the depth of the mixed layer. In contrast to this,
the maximum concentration of passive material from elevated sources was
observed to descend until it reached the surface; thereafter it behaved in a
manner similar to material released near the surface at the point of initial
ground contact. These phenomena have considerable impact on surface con-
centrations from either source type, and call into question some assumptions
routinely made in mathematical models of diffusion, namely, Gaussian distribu-
tion of concentration in the vertical and constant elevation of the con-
centration maximum. For elevated sources, the maximum crosswind integrated
surface concentrations observed in the above laboratory and numerical experi-
ments was up to 80% more than those predicted using the assumptions just men-
tioned.
-3-
-------
Because both laboratory (convective tank) and numerical experiments have
been done with source heights of about one-fourth and one-half of the mixed
layer depth, it was thought desirable to be able to adjust the height of an
elevated source in the field to approximate one of these heights, in order to
make comparison of field, laboratory, and numerical experimental results more
straightforward, with no interpolations necessary. It was also thought
desirable to detect and define simultaneously a plume from an elevated release
and a plume from a near-surface release, since the above-mentioned experiments
indicate dramatically different behaviors of these plumes near their sources.
Confirmation of these observations in "real world" field experiments would
greatly increase confidence in the laboratory and numerical convective dif-
fusion modeling techniques.
2.2 Secondary Goals
First priority was given to field measurements of plume geometry, but the
next most immediate goal was to measure or estimate (based on plume geometry)
x/Q, the ratio of concentration to source strength. This is the quantity of
most concern to air pollution modelers, and is most desirable for quantitative
comparisons of results from field, laboratory, and numerical techniques. A
related goal was to test the versatility and accuracy of two remote sensing
plume tracing techniques used simultaneously—specifically, lidar and radar.
These tools can provide plume concentration measurements in three dimensions
much more easily than with direct sampling, especially when a plume diffuses
through one or several kilometers of height. Another goal was to obtain a
large variety of convective boundary layer measurements, especially turbulence
-4-
-------
measurements, in the atmosphere concurrent with diffusion measurements. These
would help determine the importance of factors that cannot be resolved by con-
vective tank experiments or present numerical models.
2.3 The Site
The Boulder Atmospheric Observatory was chosen as the site for this
experiment primarily because of the facilities—the 300 m, well instrumented
meteorological tower and a unique array of remote sensing devices—but there
are some meteorological advantages as well. The dry climate, especially in
autumn, favors good convective boundary layer development on most days. Since
late 1979, instrumentation on the tower has operated most of the time, and 20
min averages of the measurements have been archived. These records show that
at 1300 MST in September, the favored conditions of sunny skies, wind speeds
of 2 to 6 m/s, and wind direction from a particular sector occur nearly half
the time (22 of the 45 days with data available) (Gaynor, 1982). The fre-
quented sector is easterly, with directions ranging from 50° to 105°,
suggesting that these winds may be thermally-driven upslope winds toward the
Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. The frequency of occurrence of these con-
ditions was about the same for all three data years in September, but in
October and November the frequency averaged about one-fourth of the data days,
and ranged from 12% to 45% in individual years. In December the number of
suitable days declined to less than 10% in two of the three years, so winter
months are unsatisfactory. The bar graph in Fig. 2.1 shows the wind direction
frequency of sunny days with u" between 2 and 6 m/s measured in September of
1979, 1980, and 1981 (45 days of measurements). Mixing depth climatology is
not known, but during Project PHOENIX at the BAO during September 1978, mixing
-5-
-------
09 _
> 8-
3 7-
o e'
5 4-
f{ 3-
1 2-
1 —
O-J
Nl
1
|:
;$,
E
If
"
»
S W
III 1 !
September
1300-1320 MST
2< u<6 ms"1
m fi n n n F!
45 90 135 180 225
Azimuth drection (deg)
270
315
Figure 2.1. Number of sunny days with 2 < u < 6 m s"1 between 1300 and
1320 MST in September of 1979, 1980, 1981 per 5° segment of wind direction.
depths at 1300 MST ranged from 700 to 1000 m. Again, this is a very favorable
range for this experiment.
The high frequency of easterly winds during convective conditions was
advantageous for optimum siting of the remote sensing devices, which could not
be moved during the experiments. However, the prevailing winds above the
mixing layer, being nearly geostrophic, were westerly. Thus, the momentum of
air within the mixing layer and the momentum of air entrained from above were
frequently in opposition, which is uncommon in boundary layers distant from
mountain slopes or shorelines. This opposition sometimes produced undesirable
effects, particularly during periods of rapid mixing depth growth. One effect
was unusually large wind direction shear in the upper part of the mixing
layer, which tends to increase lateral plume dispersion; there were even a few
occasions when a "renegade" elevated fragment of chaff plume was observed
moving in nearly the opposite direction of the main plume. Another probable
effect was an increased variability in mixing layer winds caused by shifts
-6-
-------
in the balance of opposing forces; this variability increased uncertainties in
operations, such as judging when to begin a release, and may have shortened
the length of acceptable averaging periods with reasonably steady winds.
The terrain of the BAO site is neither "ideal" nor complex. It is gently
rolling relief, with a 1 to 2% downward slope toward the north from the tower
(see Fig. 2.2). Within 6 km, terrain elevations range from a hill 40 m higher
105" 00'
40°03'-
105'00'12"W
40° 02* 54" N _
E!av. 5174- Tower
Bldg.
0.5
1.0
Figure 2.2. USGS topographical map showing height contours in feet and
location of the BAO tower.
-7-
-------
than the tower base, located 3.3 km S to SSW, to a creek valley about 70 ni
lower, 6 km to the NW and oriented approximately SW-NE. Such terrain
variations were not expected to appreciably channel the flow or affect large
scale turbulent eddies in daytime convective conditions, with mixing depths
during the experiments ranging from 500 m to 1600 m. (The terrain drop to the
west of the tower is about 45 m at 3.5 km in a north-running stream valley;
this was the plume direction considered for the experiment.)
The surface cover is primarily long grasses, spotted with widely scattered
trees and building clusters. The surface roughness length is very dependent
on the wind direction, ranging from about 3 to 30 cm. The latter value is for
southerly winds, from the direction of the hill. For long grass cover on flat
terrain, the expected value would be more like 3 cm.
2.4 Wave Propagation Laboratory Facilities
The facilities of the Boulder Atmospheric Observatory as of 1978 are
broadly reviewed in the Project PHOENIX report (Hooke, 1979), and are detailed
in the many references found in this report. Only those features of most
interest to the present experiment will be covered here, in brief.
The centerpiece, so to speak, is the 300 m tower (Kaimal and Gaynor,
1983). This served as a primary source of meteorological information, as well
as a very convenient release point for the tracers. As a platform for ele-
vated releases, the carriage was especially suitable because its height could
be adjusted just prior to an experiment, according to the depth of the mixed
layer predicted for the center time of the run.
-8-
-------
The meteorological instrumentation on the tower included three-component
sonic anemometers, quartz thermometers for mean temperature, platinum wire
thermometers for temperature fluctuations, and dew point hydrometers, all at
eight levels, 10 m to 300 m. This array of sophisticated instrumentation was
more than adequate for the experiment, at least to heights up to 300 m.
Quantities of special interest were mean wind speeds at all plume levels, mean
wind direction, wind direction shear, and lateral and vertical velocity vari-
ances; these were all available from the sonic anemometers. In addition,
the heat flux, in the form of w'T1 measured near the surface, was essential
for scaling the results for comparison with laboratory, numerical, and future
field experiments. (There are a few past field experiments that can be
compared also, e.g., Prairie Grass; however, these were very limited in that
both sources and samplers were located near the surface, and quantities like
w'T' were not measured directly with any accuracy.) The above quantities
were routinely measured on the tower and listed as averages over 20 min time
segments. Such averaging was useful for defining periods of relative steady
state, particularly for wind speed and direction. For data analysis, the raw
data were reprocessed to provide averages over selected time periods.
In addition to the tower, the Wave Propagation Laboratory has a unique
array of remote sensors, since part of its mission is to develop and test
these. Two of these instruments were particularly appropriate to an experi-
ment of this nature.
For monitoring vertical cross sections of plume aerosol concentration,
lidar is a proven and unsurpassed tool. The 10 Hz pulse firing rate of the
frequency-doubled neodynium: yag laser permits a detailed plume scan (in range
-9-
-------
and elevation) in about 15 seconds. Suitable plume sources for good lidar
returns such as silica, soot, or oil fog droplets release large numbers of
light scattering particles in the 1 urn diameter range. For CONDORS, WPL
deployed oil fog generators, which dispensed a moderately viscous oil with a
slow evaporation rates in the form of a mist.
To contrast the behavior of elevated and ground source plumes, we wished
to simultaneously release two different tracers that could be detected separa-
tely. This could not be accomplished by using aerosol releases and lidar
alone. So, a second remote sensor was used: a 3,2 cm (X-band) radar capable
of very sensitive tracking of chaff composed of 1.6 cm long aluminized mylar
filaments. The quantity of chaff dispersed has a small lidar cross section
compared to the aerosol, so the effect on the lidar returns was negligible.
WPL's Doppler radar is capable of detecting concentrations as low as five
filaments in a 106 m3 volume of air. Also, the interpretation of radar
returns was not distorted by background aerosols, since they are much too
small to be detected. Since attenuation is not a problem, the radar was able
to look lengthwise down the plume axis. Being a Doppler radar, it also
measured the axial mean and turbulent velocities of the chaff.
A drawback of the radar-chaff system is the fall velocity of the thinnest
available filaments, which is about 0.3 m/s, the fall rate of a large piece of
house dust. This velocity is a significant fraction of the vertical turbulent
velocities in a convective atmosphere, about 1 m/s. However, a preliminary
observation of chaff released from 300 m on the BAO tower (Moninger and
Kropfli, 1982) showed evidence of plume behavior similar to what Willis and
Deardorff (1978) observed from elevated sources in their laboratory tank.
-10-
-------
The plume appeared to initially descend, with maximum concentrations appearing
near the surface from 1 to 2 km downwind, then gradually rose to about 300 m
at 4 km and beyond. Close-in behavior was not observable in that experiment
because the radar returns within 1 km of the source exceeded the dynamic range
of the radar receiver. This problem was minimized in CONDORS by the use of
receivers with larger dynamic range. The chaff concentration maximum failed
to reach the upper half of the 900 m mixing depth, contrary to laboratory
plume behavior at the larger diffusion times; this was probably a consequence
of the chaff's fall velocity. The primary purpose of CONDORS 82 was to
establish just how much this effect distorts the plume relative to a passive
plume. This was accomplished with collocated releases of oil fog and chaff
mapped with the lidar and the radar.
2.5 In Situ Tracer Measurements
In addition to the above measurements, we wanted in situ measurements of
the concentration of a standard tracer to compare with values inferred from
the lidar and radar scans. These remote sensors are well suited for deter-
mining three-dimensional plume geometry, the primary objective of this experi-
ment. However, the main motivation behind the need to determine plume
geometries is to be able to predict ground concentrations with less uncer-
tainty than is inherent in present modeling methods. Remote sensing systems
are not yet developed to the point of giving reliable direct determinations of
x/Q, (concentration divided by source strength) because of problems with
accurate determination of Q, dropout of chaff, evaporation of oil fog
droplets, etc. With these problems, it is extremely difficult to calibrate
-11-
-------
lidar and radar returns in terms of x. However, these instruments adequately
define the plume geometry in terms of relative concentration at a given
distance. Thus, with good measurements of mean wind speed as a function of
height, we can infer the x/Q field for any conservative tracer by assuming
uniform relative depletion of mass. That is, assume that x « x1 at any given
downwind distance, where x1 is a linearized radar or lidar return, corrected
for background, attenuation, and 1/r2 response. Then, multiply the
conservative-tracer flux relationship
// X u dydz = Q
by the constant x'/X. Thus we infer that
x/Q = x'///x' u dydz.
The validity of this string of assumptions can be checked by some direct
sampling of a tracer known to be reasonably conservative, such as SFC. While
o
the budget of this program did not permit an extensive sampling network, one
arc of samplers at a distance expected to be frequented by high surface con-
centrations was provided as a valuable check on x/Q values inferred using
remote sensors. NOAA's Air Resources Laboratory in Idaho Falls conducted the
release, sampling and analysis of the in situ gas tracer concentrations
measurements made during CONDORS 83.
2.6 Experimental Design Parameters
As explained in Sec. 2.1, it was desirable for purposes of comparison to
make releases from both the surface and from near one-fourth or one-half of
the mixing depth z^. With a maximum platform height of 300 m at the BAO, this
limited desirable experimental runs with elevated releases to z. < 1200 m,
-12-
-------
which generally excluded the possibility of a springtime or summertime experi-
ment on the Colorado high plains. In the fall, especially in late fall, there
are days when z. < 600 m, low enough to permit running an elevated source at
either z./4 or z./2. In an ideal experiment, z. would be nearly constant
during a run, as in the laboratory and numerical experiments. In the real
atmosphere, at best only a "quasi-steady" state can be found. We attempted to
start the runs during periods of slow relative growth, in order to minimize
AZ./Z. during the runs. Normally, the growth rate of z. is nearly constant in
the early morning hours, then gradually diminishes through midday and after-
noon hours. However, inspection of the observations of z. versus time of day
from project PHOENIX, carried out at the 8AO site in September 1978, shows
that on three of the six days there was an acceleration, or even a jump, in
zi growth shortly after solar noon (Kaimal et al., 1980). In these three
cases, the morning rawinsonde soundings revealed layers of nearly neutral tem-
perature stratification extending to heights exceeding 2000 m overlying more
stable air near the ground. When z. reached the near-neutral layer, its
growth accelerated sharply. It was considered best to run before accelerated
growth of z. occurred on such days, or else to not run at all. For CONDORS 83
the behavior of z^ with time was predicted to some extent on the basis of
morning temperature soundings, using the model developed by Wilczak and
Phillips (1984).
Another important parameter for this study is the convective scale velocity,
** 5 (z1 HJ1/3 , (2.1)
where
H* - (g/T) w'T' (2.2)
at the surface, preferably an area average. This velocity has been shown to
be the chief determinant of horizontal and vertical turbulent velocities in
-13-
-------
strongly convective mixing layers (Kaimal et al., 1976). H^ is proportional
to the surface heat flux, which itself is approximately proportional to solar
insolation, so this quantity maximizes near solar noon on clear days. During
such days, H^ is constant, for practical purposes, between 1000 and 1400 solar
time. Incidentally, the BAO site stands only 1/300 of a degree west of 105°W
longitude, so standard time at the site (Mountain Standard Time) is within
one second of solar time. During this midday period, if the relative growth
of z. is slow, the relative growth rate of w* is even slower, since it depends
only on z. 3. Generally, w# maximizes in the early afternoon, when the
growth of z. counterbalances the diminution of H^. Under ideal conditions,
the best hours for this experiment were expected to be between 1200 and 1400
MST. Conditions could be degraded by a near-neutral temperature stratifica-
tion above z., a sudden increase in cloudiness, and, of course, more dramatic
meteorological event, such as a front or a nearby thunderstorm.
Another important factor to consider was the mean wind speed, IT. If u" is
too large, wind shear plays too dominant a role in the organization of convec-
tive elements, and mechanical production of turbulent energy competes with
convective production. This experiment focussed on highly convective condi-
tions, which occur only during low wind speeds. However, if u" is too small,
longitudinal diffusion becomes another influencing factor. In addition, when
u" is of the order of w*, lateral turbulent velocities also are of the order
of if, and the plume goes through very wide swings, which could cause some
observational problems for the lidar. According to Deardorff and Willis
(1975), longitudinal diffusion has little effect when u" exceeds 1.5 w*.
This criterion would also exclude excessively wide plumes, since the lateral
velocity standard deviation in a convective boundary layer is about 0.6 w^..
-14-
-------
At midday on sunny days in the fall, we can expect H^ to range between 40 and
70 cm2/s3. For z- ranging between 500 m and 1200 m, we can then expect
w^ values ranging between about 1.3 to 1.9 m/s, the higher values occurring
chiefly with higher z.. Therefore, the minimum desirable wind speed is 2 to 3
m/s, at upper tower levels. A slightly smaller u" would not be seriously
detrimental, but a U of only 1 m/s would present both observational and
interpretational difficulties.
The maximum acceptable wind speed is determined by the ratio -z.j/1, where
L = -u*3/kH* (2.3)
is the Obukhov length, and
u* = (-uV) (2.4)
(measured at the surface) is the friction velocity. At the very minimum,
|z./L| must exceed the order of 10 to avoid organized convective rolls and to
get into a more horizontally isotropic regime. Isotropic convection with
little influence from wind shear is likely for |z./L| exceeding about 50
(Deardorff, 1972). To translate these ratios into u" values, a wind profile
analysis is needed. In an unpublished analysis of the Minnesota 1973 experi-
mental data, Briggs (1977) suggested a very simple wind profile law that fit
the data at least as well as the more well known profile laws:
ku/u* = In Z/ZQ', (2.5)
where
ZQ' - zo(l - 4z/l)°-6 . (2.6)
This holds up to about z s 0.2'z^ (-z/L values as large as 30), above which
there is negligible wind shear. Table 1 is based on this profile law applied
to z = 0.2 zif and assumes that k = 0.4 and the roughness length z = 3 cm.
-15-
-------
Table 2.1 Typical mean wind speeds for different values of z./L
z.(m) H* (cm2/s3) Z1 * -10 L zj = -50 L
1000 70 u = 12.2 m/s 6.3 m/s
500 50 u = 7.9 m/s 4.0 m/s
The criterion |z./L| > 10 was easily satisfied by the prevailing wind
speeds at the BAO (see Sec. 2.3), but |z./L| > 50 requires u" values half as
large. The ideal range of wind speeds at tower top level is roughly 3 to
6 m/s for the larger acceptable zi values, and 2 to 4 m/s for z.. values in the
500 m range.
Two considerations affected optimum siting of the lidar and radar units.
One was the most favorable wind direction sector, which was discussed in Sec.
2.3. The other was the distances of greatest interest downwind of the source,
especially for improvement of diffusion modeling. Very close to the source,
the distribution of the time-averaged elevated plume is determined by the
distance, x, times the wind angle distribution; this is just the "waved garden
hose" effect, and does not require special study (the plume concentration
isopleths here can be inferred from the sonic anemometer wind statistics
measured on the tower). The ground source plume initially behaves similarly
in its lateral spread, and its vertical spread is a function of x, z , and L;
this, too, has already received much study (Briggs, 1982). The distances of
most interest are those where the ground source plume departs radically from a
Gaussian vertical distribution, with its maximum value leaving the ground,
while the elevated source plume comes down to the ground. An idea of these
distances can be obtained from Fig. 2.3, which is based on the laboratory tank
-16-
-------
O25
OS
0.75
1.00
1.25
Figure 2.3. Plume transport according to Willis and Deardorff (1976a,
1978, 1981) for different release heights. Desired lidar scans are
shown superimposed.
experiments (Willis and Deardorff, 1976a and 1978). In this representation
the time of travel, t =» x/u", or time after release in the tank, is non-
dimensional ized by the characteristic time for turbulent motions to tra-
verse the mixing layer depth, zw^. Thus the nondimensional distance is
X = (x/z1)(w^/u)
(2.7)
In terms of X, the ground source plume begins a rapid growth stage at
about 0.3, and its height of maximum concentration begins to leave the ground
at 0.6. By the distance 1.2, the maximum concentration reaches the upper half
of the mixing layer, and the ground concentration is reduced to less than half
the maximum; by the distance 3, concentrations vary less than ±10% in the ver-
tical, having become well mixed through the depth of the mixing layer. For
the elevated sources at z/z^ = 1/4 and 1/2, high concentrations begin reaching the
ground at X - 0.3 and 0.5, and remain at the surface until about 0.8 and 1.0,
near which point the plumes begin to re-elevate. For the source at z/z. = 1/4,
the concentration again becomes very well mixed by X = 3, but there is still
-17-
-------
about ±15% variation at this distance for the source at z/z^ » 1/2. One
result from the laboratory experiments that is quite surprising, and begs
further confirmation, is that at X ~ 1 the ground concentration produced by an
elevated source can be up to three times larger than that produced by a ground
source of the same strength.
For the purposes of CONDORS, the most critical range of distance was be-
tween X = 0.3 and 1.2. Since estimates of the parameters before each run were
imprecise, and since the plumes in the atmosphere may behave differently from
the laboratory plumes, we extended this range at least a factor of 2 each way,
from X = 0.15 to 2.4 (for z/z. = 0.5 chosen as a source height, X = 0.25
would be an acceptable minimum distance). To translate these distances into
dimensional distance, use x = X^.U/w*). For the upper end of the acceptable
z, range, z, = 1000 m, w^ = 1.9 m/s, and acceptable u" ranges from 3 to 6 m/s,
so (z^TT/w*) ranges from about 1.5 to 3.2 km. For the lower end of the
expected z^ range, zi = 500 m, w^ = 1.4 m/s, and acceptable u° ranges from 2 to
4 m/s, so (z.IT/w*) ranges from about 0.7 to 1.5 km. Accepting some trun-
cation of the desired distances in the extreme cases, it appeared that the
radar and lidar units should be sited so that good observations could be
obtained in the range x a 0.2 km to 6 km. However, in a given run, a smaller
geometric range was sufficient. In practice, an x less than 6 km was needed
to adequately distinguish the diffused oil fog from the haze in the mixed
layer. The height chosen for release, the mid-run estimated value of
(Z..IF/W*) and the maximum X for adequate detection determined the azimuth
angles chosen for lidar cross sections.
-18-
-------
2.7 Remote Sensor and Sampler Siting
With the foregoing distance ranges in mind, as well as the expected most
prevalent wind directions (50° to 105°), it was possible to consider some
possible siting choices for the lidar and radar units. These are shown on the
topographic map (Fig. 2.4) of the BAO site and surroundings. As a somewhat
arbitrary starting point, for the lidar site it was desired that the angle be-
tween the site, the tower, and the plume axis be larger than 45° when the wind
Contourj in m«l«n rtlotivi to tow«r Has*
Figure 2.4. Contour map of the BAO site and vicinity showing location
of lidar, radar and surface samplers for the CONDORS experiments.
Contours are indicated in meters referenced to tower base.
-19-
-------
was from the above sector. There is wide variability in the largest axial
distance of interest (X = 3 may range from 2 to 10 km) so another criterion
was that the angle between the tower, 6 km downwind, and the lidar site be
greater than 30° when the wind was from the above sector. This generally
assured a lidar shot angle greater than 45° across the plume axis within
distance ranges of most interest (X < 1.2). Of course, a 90° angle is ideal,
but some compromise was necessary. The net result of the above criteria was
that the lidar should be located about 3-4 km to the NNW or S of the tower
(see Fig. 2.4). The site chosen for CONDORS 82 was 3.0 km at 324.8° azimuth
from the tower. For CONDORS 83 a location 4.05 km away at 345.9° azimuth was
chosen for better lateral perspective of the plumes. Both locations are indi-
cated in Fig. 2.4.
Attenuation of the beam by the tracer material is not a problem for the
radar, so its siting with respect to the plume axis was chosen to minimize the
solid angle scanned. A position upwind of the plume source was best in this
respect. Near the source, the minimum acceptable plume resolution is about
one-third of the elevated plume source height, which could be as low as 150 m.
To resolve 50 m with a 0.8° beam, the radar had to be less than 3.6 km from
the tower. Because the plume grows much wider and deeper after a few kilome-
ters travel, much coarser resolution is acceptable farther away, and is not a
limitation. When the radar is located approximately 3.5 km upwind of the
tower, and if the maximum range of interest is 6 km downwind, the range to the
target varies by approximately a factor of 3, and the 1/r2 signal decrease due
to range varies by a factor of 9. Moreover, plume concentrations may vary by
a factor of 1000, with highest concentrations near the source. The net
-20-
-------
effect, a factor of 10* in signal strength between near and far ranges, is
well within the 106 dynamic range of the radar electronics. Thus, the site
finally chosen for both CONDORS 82 and CONDORS 83 was 3.5 km east (90.4° azi-
muth) of the tower (see Fig. 2.4).
With easterly winds, there is only one road west of the tower that pro-
vided good access to a line of samplers. It is a north-south road about 1.2
km west of the tower, an appropriate distance for plume interception. With
elevated source heights ranging from about 150 m to 300 m, and u/w^ ranging
from about 1.5 to 3, the high concentrations from the elevated plume were
expected to reach the ground by this distance nearly all the time. The
smallest a value expected at x = 1.2 km within the acceptable ranges of w^/u"
and z. without shift in wind direction was about 150 m. The lateral distribu-
tion of the plume as it crossed this road could be adequately defined with
samplers set about 100 m apart, or at about every 5° of bearing from the tower
in the range 205° to 305° (21 samplers along a 3.4 km line).
An example of a typical pattern for lidar scans and radar sweeps of the
plume is shown in Fig. 2.5. For purpose of concrete illustration, we assumed
that Z.JU/W* = 1.5 km and z^ = 800 m. The radar sweeps are not at a constant
elevation along the plume centerline because they are made at a constant ele-
vation angle, and the distance to the plume varies. The azimuth angles of the
lidar scans were chosen with closer spacing at small distances, to get more
detail in the descending and ground-hugging phase of the elevated source
plume. Since it was always desirable to make a scan crossing the plume axis
at the same distance as the arc of surface samplers, one lidar azimuth was
dictated by only the plume (wind) direction.
-21-
-------
r-1.0 km
0.0
1.8
Figure 2.5. Typical patterns for lidar scans and radar sweeps for the CONDORS
experiments shown in relation to expected plume behavior. Surface gas sampler
location indicated at 1.2 km distance from tower base.
-22-
-------
3. LIDAR SENSING OF OIL FOG
W. L. Eberhard and S. W. Troxel
3.1 The Lidar Technique
The lidar measures the position of the oil fog plume and the concentra-
tions of particles in it by performing a repeating series of vertical cross-
sectional scans at discrete distances from the source. The concentration of
the particles is inferred by measuring the fraction of transmitted light they
scatter back to the receiving telescope. Collis and Russell (1976) provided a
comprehensive, easily understood description and bibliography of lidar theory
and operation. Signal processing must account for the effect of ambient haze,
optical geometry, and system calibration on the raw signal. These adjustments
to the signal yield the volumetric backscatter coefficient 5 , which is a
characteristic of the composition and size distribution of the oil fog
droplets as well as the mass loading. The spatial distribution of 0 provides
valuable information on the location and shape of the plume. In CONDORS, suf-
ficient data were also available to obtain an empirical calibration between
8 and mass concentration, which allowed us to estimate the absolute con-
centrations of tracer oil from the lidar data.
The equation of radiative transfer, or the "lidar equation", that de-
scribes the raw Hdar signal is
K. R
P(R) =4 CBn(R) + 3,3 exp{-2 / [«, (R) + aJdR} , (3.1)
R^ P a o P a
where R is range along the lidar line of sight, and K. is the calibration fac-
tor that includes pulse energy, telescope aperture, optics efficiency, detec-
-23-
-------
tor responsivity, and electronic amplification. Q is the backscatter
coefficient of the plume material, and sa is the backscatter coefficient of
the ambient molecules and haze particles. The exponential describes atten-
uation of the probing radiation on its round-trip path to R due to scattering
and a much smaller amount of absorption. The extinction coefficient
-------
Figure 3.1. Lidar system. The telescope with laser and detector mounted
astride scanned in elevation angle at several azimuth directions downwind of
the source. The observer disabled the laser whenever an airplane approached
the laser beam. When not operating, the scan assembly retracts into the
semitrailer, which also contains workbenches and storage space. The opera-
tor's console and computer data acquisition system are contained in the
vehicle on the right.
-25-
-------
position and height of the haze layer to other participants. Additional lidar
specifications are listed in Table 3.1. The dynamic range of the linear
detection system was optimized according to the peak plume concentration in
each scan by adjusting calibrated filters in the receiving optics with
controls at the operator's console.
Table 3.1 Lidar operating configuration for CONDORS
Wavelength 532 um
Pulse energy 0.1 J
Pulse rate 10 s"1
Beam divergence (full angle) 0.5 mr
Spatial resolution (FWHM) 7 m
Receiver aperture diameter 70 cm
Interference filter passband 1.0 nm
Detector quantum efficiency 0.13
Minimum sampling increments:
Range 3.00 m
Azimuth 0.1°
Elevation 0.01°
Signal digitizer linear, 256 levels
The most important and frequent quality assurance procedure was the
calibration of the system sensitivity during equipment setup and at least once
each week during the field phase. In this procedure, the light scattered from
a standard, diffuse target is measured at a variety of system gain settings.
The calibration tests were examined separately and together in order to
discover any malfunctions or changes in the lidar's sensitivity. The absolute
accuracy of the calibration for system sensitivity was judged to be within
30%. However, the conversion from & to mass concentration depended on the
oil fog size distribution, which was not measured. Therefore, an empirical
conversion factor was obtained by the method described in Sec. 3.5. During
the 1983 experiment, a special check of the lidar's accuracy in range and
-26-
-------
pointing angle was completed. Range and direction to several landmarks agreed
within measurement accuracy with a commercial surveyor's report. The pointing
direction to several celestial bodies also fell within expected limits. We
are therefore confident that the lidar operated properly during CONDORS.
»
3.2 Oil Fog Tracer
The tracer for the lidar was a continuously released plume containing a
large number of oil droplets with mode diameter of a few micrometers. The
generator sprayed the oil into a jet of air that had been heated during flow
through the fogger's kerosene furnace to a temperature well above the evap-
orating point of the oil. The combination of the mechanical breakup of the
oil drops and the heat caused most of the oil to evaporate. When the jet
cooled by mixing with the exterior air, the oil vapor condensed into small
droplets.
During 1982 we used a commercially built fogger, Curtis Dyna-Products
Corporation model 1200, designed for insecticide dispersal. The fogger is
shown mounted on the BAG tower's instrument carriage in Fig. 3.2. The oil was
a pale paraffin type ("Corvus 13", Texaco) that was expected to suffer
insignificant evaporation after generation. The steady decline with downwind
distance of the integrated signal in the cross section convinced us that eva-
poration still exceeded acceptable limits. We also found that the 35 g/s oil
release rate did not provide sufficient plume signal above the ambient haze as
far downwind as desired.
During 1983 two model 1200's were operated side by side for surface
releases (Fig. 3.3). A considerably heavier (i.e., higher viscosity and lower
-27-
-------
i
Figure 3.2. Oil fogger and chaff cutter on BAO carriage.
Figure 3.3. Oil foggers operating at high release rates during CONDORS 83.
-28-
-------
vapor pressure) oil designed for use in hydraulic systems ("Rando", Texaco)
was successful in producing a more conservative tracer. In order to spray
sufficiently small drops into the air jet, we modified the oil fog generators
to preheat the oil. Release rates from the combined pair of generators were
as high as 72 g/s. Limited size and weight capacity of the tower carriage
permitted operation of only one of the fogger units during elevated releases.
Table 3.2 lists the periods of oil fog release and lidar plume scanning,
including three periods that were cut short due to unfavorable wind shifts.
Table 3.2 Summary of oil fogger and lidar operation
Date
9/10/82
9/16/82
9/18/82
9/20/82
9/21/82
9/22/82
8/26/83
8/27/83
8/28/83
8/31/83
9/ 6/83
9/ 7/83
9/12/83
9/13/83
9/15/83
Release
Ht.
Surface
235m
167m
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
285m
265m
Surface
Surface
Surface
Release
Begin
1133
1254
1247
1333
1130
1318
1207
1116
1230
1220
1120
1045
1040
1200
1305
1120
1025
Release
End
1252
1318
1445
1505
1316
1353
1238
1125
1350
1430
1330
1255
1250
1410
1510
1430
1250
Scan
Begin
1135
1250
1349
1140
1209
1119
1237
1225
1125
1051
1044
1205
1309
1124
1237
1027
Scan
End
1321
1449
1511
1355
1236
1130
1349
1433
1335
1259
1255
1414
1514
1225
1433
1257
-29-
-------
3.3 Lidar Scan Modes
In order to observe the dispersion of the oil fog plume, the lidar per-
formed a series of vertical scans. Each pulse in a scan provided a profile of
plume concentration along the lidar's line of sight. A cross section of the
plume was obtained by recording the signal from a series of pulses while the
elevation angle decreased from above the plume to very near the surface. A
repeating sequence of scans at typically five discrete azimuth directions
(Fig. 3.4) produced a description of the three-dimensional evolution of the
plume.
Lidar
Oil Fog
Plume
N
:K
1 km
Gas -- ^
Samplers ^ —
Tower/Source
Radar
Figure 3.4. Experiment layout and lidar scan planes during Period 9.
The centerline and edges (10% of cross section peak) of the vertically
integrated oil fog plume averaged over the period are shown. The
dashed lines delineate the azimuth limits of the radar scan.
-30-
-------
After setting up the lidar, the lidar crew prepared a list of azimuth
directions where the scan would avoid trees and other tall obstructions. From
this list the azimuth directions for the day were selected just prior to
tracer release. Scans were kept above the local horizon because the laser
radiation was not eyesafe at typical ranges to the plume. A crew member acted
as spotter and disabled the laser when an aircraft occasionally approached.
The lidar operators adjusted the upper elevation angle to include the top of
the plume as the mixing layer height increased or wind direction changed.
They also adjusted the scan rate to intercept the plume with typically 100
pulses during each scan.
The vertical scan planes were usually not exactly in a cross section per-
pendicular to the plume direction. Instead, each scan was a slant section
turned at some horizontal angle a from the plane normal to the plume direc-
tion. When a was less than about 30°, the slant section provided an excellent
representation of the plume's cross section by projection onto the normal
plane. Sometimes the angle was considerably larger; care must be taken in
interpreting those data.
3.4 Solution to Lidar Equation
The first stage of data processing involved solution of the lidar equation
(3.1) for each pulse to isolate the profile of 3 along the line of flight of
the pulse. This stage is divided into five parts.
1. The system sensitivity factor K, , determined during the calibration
runs, was applied to each pulse. This result was then multiplied by the
square of the range.
-31-
-------
2. The signal profile in each pulse was corrected for the attenuation
caused by the ambient haze. In order to determine cra, a representative sample
of typically 20 pulses scattered over the analysis period was selected. The
value of a was calculated for each of these pulses over a range interval
3
where no plume was evident. The average of these was used during processing
on all pulses in the period. Although the attenuation coefficient did vary
somewhat, our experience has shown that the average value provides more con-
sistent and dependable results in the well-mixed layer than if we attempted to
adjust a, within or between pulses.
a
3. A staff member edited each scan with interactive computer graphics
(Fig. 3.5) in order to define the region where the plume was located. An area
between the lidar and plume was also defined where the signal level from
ambient haze was accurately measured.
4. Each pulse was corrected for extinction caused by the oil fog. Unlike
the extinction by the haze, which was relatively uniform, the extinction by
the plume varied with its density. We therefore found a representative value
of extinction to backscatter ratio for each analysis period. A representative
sample of pulses was chosen, and the transmission loss caused by the oil fog
in each pulse was determined from the decrease in signal from the haze at
ranges beyond the plume compared to ranges between the plume and the lidar.
The extinction to backscatter ratio was calculated for the plume traversed by
each of these pulses, and the results then averaged. During processing, this
average ratio was multiplied by the measured plume backscatter to correct for
extinction due to the oil fog (using (3.1), working from small to large R).
-32-
-------
NOAA/uPL LIDAR CONDORS '83
FILE 186 SUBFILE 0 DAY 250 TIME 13'14--47
AZI 178.9 TO 178.9 PULSES * 23 TO * 81 EUERY * 1 CELL AUE
ThR .140E-0S EXP FACTOR 1.5 SAM INT .02 AC1B EXT CO .480E-04
11.13° ,
491-—™.:.. -.--.
'• 9S3m
E
L
E
(j
A
T
I
0
n
9.36°
7.58°
2.22C
.90°
2500
3000
3500 4000
DISTANCE (METERS)
4500
5000
Figure 3.5. Display of lidar scan for editing. The profile of signal magni-
tude for each pulse after correction for calibration, range, and attenuation
by ambient haze is displayed in a crude gray scale. The abscissa is distance
n from the lidar, and elevation angles are marked on the ordinate. The height
above the lidar of the probing pulse at the near and far distance limits of
the display are also given along the vertical axes. Scan identifiers and pro-
cessor selections of display settings are above the graph. The signal from .
the oil fog is surrounded by the plume box drawn by the processor in the
center. The box to the left defines a region of plume-free haze signal. The
box to the right is used only in determining signal to noise ratio. High
voltage transmission lines caused the strong signal near the bottom at 3000 m
distance.
5. At the same time, the average value of haze density $ for each pulse
3
(determined between the boundaries of the ambient region defined in step 3)
was subtracted from the attenuation-corrected profile of the pulse, leaving
the oil fog profile 3 . At all data points outside the plume box, & was set
equal to zero.
Figure 3.6 shows an example of a pulse before and after steps 2 through 5
were completed except points outside the plume box are not yet zeroed. In
-33-
-------
I
.2
8:
o>
o
u
£
o
u
09
je
o
CO
o
«t-w<»-
14E-04-
Gtf^C OlOt
14E-04-
25E-04-
00E 00-
2<;p-0-
-------
little with changes in wind direction, accuracy in cra was not crucial either.
The u correction is relatively important near the source. In convective con-
ditions, however, we have found that the shape of the time-averaged plume
depends more on the meander than on proper choice of a . Far downwind, where
diffusion had made the oil fog signal weak compared to the haze signal,
accuracy in the choice of
-------
signal scattered by the wires in the plume box along with all of the plume
signal in the pulse, or else exclude part of the oil fog signal with the
wires. In the latter case, the part of the plume that was only on one side of
the wires or the other could be enclosed in the plume box. When the plume
near the wires was dense, the wire signal was usually included; when the plume
was diffuse, the wires and the smaller fraction of the plume were excluded.
This was a problem only for the low elevation angles, or a maximum of about 70
m above the lidar at azimuths pointed near the 8AO tower. The affected plume
area was small, so the plume integrals were not significantly affected. The
near-surface averaging layers were raised, when necessary, to exclude power
line contamination.
3.5 Preparation of Data
The second stage of processing included several steps to prepare the data
on Bp» or inferred oil fog concentrations, for interpretation and comparison
with theory and models. This stage consisted of converting to a more con-
venient coordinate system, averaging scans, and then calculating profiles and
plume descriptors.
The lidar operated in a spherical coordinate system (range, azimuth angle,
and elevation angle) with the lidar at the origin. We elected to first con-
vert data through a bi-directional interpolation scheme to a two-dimensional
Cartesian system in the vertical plane of each scan, with the lidar at the
origin. As a practical matter, the vertical and horizontal grid spacings were
automatically set for each scan to encompass the plume area that was defined
during the editing phase of the processing (Fig. 3.4). The Cartesian array
-36-
-------
typically had 65 grid points in the vertical and 100 in the horizontal.
Results were recorded on digital magnetic tape and plotted on graphs.
The various scans at the same azimuth for an analysis period were averaged
together with a grid spacing of 50 m, or sometimes smaller near the source.
Interpolation was'performed when grid points of the individual scans did not
exactly coincide with those of the chosen averaging array. Tapes and graphs
of the average two-dimensional arrays were made in a manner similar to the
individual scans.
Figure 3.7 shows a routine example of an average array graph and its asso-
ciated profiles and plume descriptors. The vertical profile was obtained by
integrating the average array horizontally, and the horizontal profile by
integrating vertically through the plume. The zero, first, and second moments
of each profile were calculated. The zero moment gives the total optical
signal from the oil fog in the scan. The first moments give the coordinates
of the plume's centroid. The second moments are a measure of the vertical and
horizontal size of the plume. The moments are tabulated under the graph in
Fig. 3.7. The position of the plume's centroid is given in three coordinate
systems: distance (n), height, and azimuth 9L from the lidar; distance,
height, and azimuth from the source location; and distance, height, and azi-
muth from the origin of the "user coordinates", which was the base of the
tower. The second moment of the vertical profile ("sigma vertical" in Fig.
3.7) is the vertical dispersion coefficient. The projection angle a shows how
close the scan azimuth was to the perpendicular to the plume direction.
Multiplication of "sigma horizontal" in Fig. 3.7 by cosine(a) gives the hori-
zontal dispersion coefficient.
-37-
-------
NOAA / UPL AVERAGE
1806
15 LIDAR SCANS CONDORS '83, BAO TOUER
DAY 250
9' 7x83
TIME 13: 11
TO 13:50
CASE 6
AZIMUTH
178.9
LIDAR FILE
188 TO 263
4400'. 30 4?ee 99
39*0'. 3d
DISTANCE (METERS)
FILE 61 TOTAL SIGNAL .401E ... ...
MAX SIGNAL .35lE-05/(«SR) EXPONENTIAL DISPLAY
TERRAIN CONTAMINATION: NONE
PLUME YIEU:
DIRECTION<&EG>> MAXIMUM SIGNALS
178.9 ' FOR PROFILES:
269.8 > HORIZONTAL . 143E-02'SR
269.8 ' VERTICAL
TOPE CON83AB
THRESHOLD x(MSR)
PLUME PARAMETER QUALITY:
DATA QUALITY:
CENTROIDS: DISTANCECM) HEIGHTCM)
LIOAR 3926.S 389.2
SOURCE 911.3 80.8
USER 918.0 346.8
SIGMA HORIZONTAL 188.4M SIGMA VERTICAL 160.3M PROJECTION ANGLE .90EG
Figure 3.7. Average oil fog concentrations at one azimuth for an analysis
period. Coordinates are relative to the lidar, with description of incor-
porated data (including 178.9 degree azimuth) listed at the upper right. The
larger/darker pixel symbols indicate greater concentration. The sharp peak of
the horizontal profile appears at the top center of the graph with zero at the
bottom axis; the value at the peak is listed near the lower right. The ver-
tical profile is plotted with zero at the left axis and two nearly identical
values at the peak on the right. The text explains the centroids, sigmas, and
projection angle.
An empirical calibration of 8 with oil fog mass was obtained by assuming
mass was conserved and defining
[/ /
o o
U COSa/Q ,
(3.2)
where Q is the oil release rate. The value of Kg versus downwind distance of
the centroid is plotted for several periods in Fig. 3.8. If the optical prop-
erties of the oil fog were independent of travel time and fogger settings,
the plots should be approximately straight and overlap. The decline with
-38-
-------
0.20
0.10
_0> 0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Distance from source (km)
2.5
Figure 3.8. Example of empirical lidar calibration factors for oil fog mass
concentration. (+) Period 2-83 with surface release of high viscosity oil at
high rate, (o) Period 9-83 with elevated release of high viscosity oil at
moderate rate. (O) Period 7-83 with elevated release of high viscosity oil at
low rate. (•) Period 1-82 with elevated release of moderate viscosity oil at
high rate.
downwind distance we attribute mainly to evaporation of the oil droplets. The
decline was less severe in 1983 when we used the heavier oil with lower vapor
pressure. Deposition loss is believed small in comparison. Some of the
decline is probably caused by loss of diffuse parts of the plume in the haze.
The initial increase in KQ near the surface release is the result of missing
a significant portion of the plume below the lower scan limit. The vertical
displacements of the curves are caused by differences in the evaporation rate,
by changes in the release conditions that alter the size distribution, and by
errors in the lidar calibration and in measurement of oil release rate.
-39-
-------
3.6 Equations in lidar Processing
Listed here are the mathematical definitions of the data reported in
Chapter 8 and in Appendix A. The equations appear in the discrete form appli-
cable to the digital storage format. The beginning point is the rectangular
array of 8 (n-»Z-)» which are the average volumetric backscatter coefficients
of oil fog at one azimuth. CONDORS averaging periods ranged from 29 to 60 min
and typically contained 11 individual scans at each lidar azimuth.
The total backscatter in the array is
• 0.3)
where An and AZ are the grid spacings in the horizontal and vertical direc-
tions, respectively. The horizontal and vertical profiles in Table A.I are
normalized to total 1000 when the standard grid spacing of 50 m is used. The
normalized horizontal and vertical profiles are
xn(n.) = 1000 Y^-l Sp^.ZjjAZ . (3.4)
P > nz j
^(z ) * 1000 |2JL J 8p(ni,zj)An . (3.5)
ptr\z i
Note that profiles presented with a spacing finer than 50 m will total to a
larger amount, e.g., 2000 for 25 m spacing. This was done so the listed nor-
malized concentrations would be the same for identical profile concentration
irrespective of the grid spacing.
The height of the centroid above the surface (i.e., the base of the tower)
is
*> • (3-61
-40-
-------
The height of the centroid above the release, or z$, is obtained by sub-
tracting the release height from z. The distance between the lidar and the
centroid is
n • I nj xJtV/J x"(V • (3.7)
A coordinate transformation on the point defined by n and the lidar azimuth 9i
produced the distance p and direction 9S of the centroid from the source. For
surface releases, which were sited 141 m WNW (288°) of the tower, the position
.>
of the centroid in the horizontal plane from the tower are also reported as
p and 9. The centroid coordinates are reported in Tables 8.1 to 8.16.
The second moments of the profiles are also reported in the same tables.
The vertical dispersion coefficient a is defined by
«J(Zj) . (3.8)
The horizontal dispersion coefficient a was estimated by calculating a
according to
2O n
~ v f — "" \ \ \ / \ i \ / *3 Q ^
n ^ i z i i z i
and projecting onto the plane normal to the plume direction according to
where
a= a cosa , (3.10)
a = |8S - (9L + 90°)| . (3.11)
The empirical calibration factor Kg was calculated according to (3.2) and
listed in Tables 8.1 to 8.16.
The height where the maximum in the vertical profile occurred was obtained
from the version of the profile with the finest vertical spacing; a profile
-41-
-------
with coarser resolution will show the maximum at a slightly different height,
or possibly a substantially different height in multi-peaked profiles. ATI
parameters in Tables 8.1 to 8.16 are for the data resulting from routine pro-
cessing, except 2 of (X ) , which also incorporated the following adjustment
r\ max
to the lowest useable data point.
When a scan covered most of a layer in the vertical profile, but missed
the far lower corner, a correction to xn was estimated and listed in Table
n
A.2. The correction considered the fraction of the layer not scanned" and also
the slight diagonal slope of the bottom pulse in each scan. Scans in each
average were first selected that showed significant oil fog within the layer.
The average of the lowest elevation angles in these scans was calculated,
yielding e . The addition to the value of Xn(z.) was
& n j
Ax"(z ) = x"(z ) [ £ l} + xn( _ AZ) t (3>12)
n J n J z. + AZ/2 - nc tan S£ n J
where T\ is the distance from the lidar to the center of mass of the horizon-
tal profile near the surface (the last term in (3.12) was nonzero only when
some pulses grazed the near upper corner of the layer below). In a few cases
AXn(z.) was slightly negative; in such cases, no correction was applied.
n J
When the scans all terminated in the upper part of a layer, no attempt was
made to adjust the vertical profile. Of course, if the adjusted data point is
used, the total Xn in the profile is no longer 1000.
n
The near-surface profiles in Appendix A provide our best estimate of sur-
face concentrations of oil fog by assuming that a negligible gradient existed
from the surface to the lowest layer fully scanned by the lidar, typically
-42-
-------
encompassing 25 to 75 m above the surface. The profiles in Table A. 3 are
expressed in terms of dilution factors using the empirical mass-backscatter
calibration K~ for the same averaged scans. Thus, in continuous form,
b
(3.13)
where z. and z are the bottom and upper limits of the horizontal strip near
the surface that was encompassed by all of the scans. The actual integration
was accomplished with the scan-averaging computer program with only one grid
point in the vertical with z. = (z + z,)/2 and AZ - z - z .
J u b u b
-43-
-------
4. RADAR SENSING OF ALUMINIZED CHAFF
W. R. Moninger and T. Uttal
4.1 The Radar Technique
Ooppler radars traditionally have been used to study clouds and precipita-
tion. In the last few years, however, such radars have proven to be equally use-
ful in the study of the clear planetary boundary layer using a combination of
natural targets and artificial chaff. This technique has been utilized in the
study of the transport and dispersion characteristics of a plume of microwave-
reflecting chaff from a continuous point source (Moninger and Kropfli, 1982).
The NOAA X-band radar and the data processing techniques that were deployed in
the CONDORS experiment are described in this chapter.
The X-band Doppler radar (see Fig. 4.1) operates at a wavelength of 3.22 cm,
with a peak transmitted power of 20 kW, a pulse duration of 1.0 s and a beam-
width of 0.8°. The radar acquires data in pulse volumes, beams, sweeps and
volume scans. The pulse volume is determined by the duration of the transmitted
pulse and by the angular width of the antenna. With the antenna stationary, a
pulse has a volume 90 m in depth and 0.8° (0.014 radians) in diameter. The
pulse volume, V, is:
V = ir (0.007 R)2 (90 m) , (4.1)
where R is the range referenced to the radar. If the antenna is moving through
an azimuth angle 9 (radians), the pulse volume is also a function of the
antenna motion that smears the pulse volume through space. The distance x that
the volume moves during a pulse is:
-45-
-------
S^C-^i?" ^i^^^.^^.-r^ra * •
«f» -»--. 5,:. x -..„ f^Vi'.T i-p^^-i;* -c,
spXr - .^^^-Y-^^a^nsi^ft-^^;
^fj^>' •- -%y^.-2&gKi ^JS-S «^*'i*>.
Figure 4.1. Wave Propagation Laboratory's X-band Doppler radar
on location for the CONDORS experiments.
x =
de
dT
- R x (dwell) .
(4.2)
(Dwell is the time set for accumulation of pulse returns to constitute an ade-
quate total signal.) Therefore, the actual pulse volume is an ellipse, 90 m
deep, with volume:
-46-
-------
V = TT (0.007 R)[0.007 R + (39p/3t) dwell . R/2] (90 m). (4.3)
The second factor can be easily comparable in magnitude to the first given
average antenna speeds and dwell times. (Typical dwell times multiplied by
d9r/dt during CONDORS were 1.2°.)
Pulse volumes are acquired along a radial continuously to form a beam, and a
beam of processed data is acquired approximately five times per second. A sweep
is made up of all the beams acquired as the antenna sweeps at a constant eleva-
tion through an azimuth sector. A volume scan consists of a set of several
sweeps at increasing elevations. In CONDORS, the plumes studied required be-
tween 9 and 27 volume scans to cover the period of interest. Each volume scan
lasted approximately two minutes.
4.2 Clutter and Blockage
Ground clutter, or reflectivity from the topography and other objects
surrounding the radar, is apparent at fixed locations in the lower elevation
sweeps. Treatment of the ground clutter is discussed in Sec. 4.5. Blockage, a
related problem, is caused by the physical shadowing of a portion of the beam by
terrain. The site for the radar was purposely chosen so that the nearby horizon
blocked the beam below approximately 0.5°. This was done to minimize ground
clutter at the ranges where the plume would be located. However, this necessary
constraint resulted in lost data below 0.5°; each beam in the lowest (0.5°)
sweep was approximately 50% blocked. This caused an underestimate of plume con-
centrations near the ground.
-47-
-------
4.3 Chaff Tracer
Chaff is composed of microwave reflecting filaments of aluminized mylar-
cut to 1.6 cm lengths to maximize the return for the X-band radar. The chaff
cutter (see Fig. 4.2) produces 38,000 filaments/s, dispersed in a small air jet;
however, a large fraction of these filaments clump together and fall quickly to
r
Figure 4.2. Chaff cutter being installed on the carriage for
chaff release at elevated point on the BAD tower.
-48-
-------
the ground. This clumping seemed to be more serious for the ground releases
than for the elevated ones, probably because the wind blowing by the cutter is
stronger for elevated releases. These clumps quickly fall out of the plume and
do not contaminate the data significantly.
Gravitational settling makes chaff a less than perfect tracer. The terminal
velocity of a chaff filament is about 30 cm/s. In this daytime study, convec-
tive turbulence was sufficient to keep the chaff aloft and the effects of
settling are relatively small compared with those during less vigorous tur-
bulence conditions. However, the observed chaff plumes tended to reach the
ground somewhat sooner than oil fog plumes released from the same tower plat-
form, and there was some evidence of deposition loss of chaff after 1 or 2 km of
travel.
4.4 Radar Scan Modes
The plumes in the CONDORS experiment were tracked by the radar operator.
Therefore, as the plume spread vertically and horizontally and moved as a func-
tion of changing wind fields, adjustments were made to the azimuth sector width
and to the number of elevation sweeps that the radar performed to fully cover
the plume. Changes in the number of elevation sweeps affected the elevation
increment between sweeps, thus affecting the resolution of data. The elevation
increment was generally between 0.6° and 1.0°.
-49-
-------
4.5 Data Processing
4.5.1 Processing
In order to put the radar data in a useful form for analysis, a number
of steps must be performed. Briefly, these steps are: 1) "thresholding", 2)
conversion of reflectivity to chaff density, 3) interpolation to a Cartesian
grid, 4) removal of ground clutter, and 5) averag-ing of individual volume
scans. These steps are discussed in detail below.
1) Thresholding. A preset threshold on received power was used to ensure
that signals too weak to be reliable did not become part of the data set. This
threshold was set at -85.5 dBm (85.5 dB below 1 mW). This translated into an
equivalent reflectivity factor of -3.0 dBZ at 3 km range from the radar and 5.0
dBZ at 7.5 km range. Using the relationship between equivalent reflectivity
factor and spatial chaff density discussed in Sec. 3 below, these reflectivity
factors translate into minimum required chaff densities of 0.09 filaments per
(50m)3 at 3 km range, and 0.58 filaments per (50m)3 at 7.5 km range. In fact,
things are slightly better than this. At ranges closer than 4.3 km (0.8 km
downwind of the tower), the radar beam dimensions are sufficiently small that
the radar can pick up one chaff filament per pulse volume; that is, the radar
can see every chaff filament. Beyond this range, the minimum chaff densities
mentioned above are required.
In two cases (Periods 8-83 and 9-83) the preset power threshold still
allowed some extraneous data. In these cases, an additional reflectivity thres-
hold of 3 dBZ was applied to the data. This translated into a minimum spatial
chaff density of 0.4 filaments per (50m)3, independent of range. This threshold,
combined with the power threshold previously mentioned, resulted in a minimum
-50-
-------
required chaff density of 0.4 filaments per (50m)3 for ranges less that 6 km.
Beyond that range, the minimum chaff densities were determined by the power
threshold.
2) Cartesian interpolation. For ease of analysis, reflectivity data from
each volume scan were interpolated onto a Cartesian grid. The grid was
rotated so that the negative x axis lay along the approximate mean wind direc-
tion for each averaging period. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 show the Cartesian grids
used for each case. To produce a smoother field of Cartesian data, new inter-
polated sweeps were created between every two actual sweeps. Both radar data
and interpolated data that fell within each grid cell were averaged together to
produce Cartesian data.
3) Conversion of reflectivity to chaff density. Radar data presented in
this report are in the form of x, the number of chaff filaments per unit volume.
In all cases, the unit of volume for x is (50m)3. This rather odd unit was cho-
sen because it is the size of a Cartesian cell for the grids used in most cases.
Reflectivity data were converted to x by starting with the relation
N = n (0.18 x2)"1 (4.4)
from Schlessinger (1961, p 130), where N is in filaments/m3, n is radar reflec-
tivity in m and ;
tivity factor Z by
tivity in m" and x is radar wavelength in m. n is related to radar reflec-
n = 0.93 *5 X"4 Z (4.5)
from Battan (1973, p 44), where I is in (mm)6/m3. The resulting relationship
between Z and x is
X = 0.184 Z . (4.6)
-51-
-------
CM
OO
^h
en
C
L.
T3
t_
C
'^™
•o
CD
l/l
3
12
O)
1
TO
TO
O_
^:
0)
TO
N (U
• +•>
« C
X -p—
""^ "2 .— ^
cos
O O ^£
.4J
TO ^3 S
U CU Ol
O ^"* ^J
p— TO
•*-" >1
S- O (/)
TO U
TO C
*e
a>
N
°t/>
-o
t_
en
C in
O •—
•••» x
OJ 4-> TO
3 O
C- CU X
'•o'o
0)
O T-
<*- "O
•o o
O) J= in
O- QJ ff
00 t.
**
00
O
^
4)
E
H™
T3
O
•*"
^
CU
°-
^-H
C
0*
1
^_;
10
*
•«
vO
CO
uO uO UO
O O O
o o o
>» >^ >)
^^ ^3 ^>
\^^
r* O 00
CO CM O
O O O
CM O
O CM O
1 1
X >, N
0
en
CM
o
CM
CM
CO
^>
r- 1
•—1
CM
00
a.
a)
oo
,_
1
CM
CO
1
o
^
o
0*
1
ao"
*
T
^
o
on
uO uO UO
o o o
o o o
_£>_£>_£>
uO
r^ C 00
CO CM O
O 0 O
uO
CM O
O CM O
1 1
X >, N
O
O
CM
O
CM
CTl
O
CO
CM
00
a.
O)
OO
U5
T— ^
CM
ao
i
r-H
^-1
O
*
O
1
CO
•
1
•1
o
CO
CO
, N
O
O
UO
CM
O
CM
t— l
""*
^
— 1
2
CM
00
a.
CU
00
UO
,*•(
CM
00
1
CM
*"^
O
o
1
^
•
*""'
«
o
CO
CO
lO UO UO
o o o
o o o
.a .a .a
LO
r^- C3 c^
CO CM O
-t- -t>
o o o
CM O
O CM O
1 1
X >, N
o
0
CTi
CM
O
CM
CM
CM
UO
CO
CM
CO
a.
Qi)
CO
00
CM
00
1
CO
^~
o
o
1
00
i—M
•
r-<
A
O
CO
CO
uO uO UO
O O O
o o o
_,>,>)>
UO
r- O CM
CO CM f<
-I- -(-
O O O
UO
CM O
O CM O
1 1
X >, M
O
O
UO
CM
UO
O
,
~
CO
UO
'"'
CM
co
a.
ai
OO
o
CM
C\J
CO
1
«r
•^
o
o
1
oo"
1— 1
•
1
A
o
CO
CO
UO uO UO
o o o
0 O 0
.a ja .a
lO
r» O uo
CO CM r^
O O O
uO
CM O
O CM O
1 1
X >, M
O
O
UO
CM
|
UO
o
,_,
"*
CM
t— t
CO
CM
oo
Q.
CU
oo
o
CM
CM
OO
1
UO
-52-
-------
CO
00
r— 1
„
CO
.^
1/1
Ol
o
o
L.
O.
4j
TO
•o
t_
•o
t_
c
.|_
•^2
O)
I/I
3
I/I
O!
d)
E
TO
c_
TO
o_
CM
•
«*
ai
h^
N ai
* c
X -i-
c o's'
O O -*
•^ (J "^-^
TO -0 E
O CU CU
O t * ^*
. t ^.^
^ O */l
TO (_
TO C
OS -i-
"^
_*
"""•- r"
CO
.2
l/)
•a
01
C 01
O •!-
•i- X
CU •*-> TO
3 O
c. cu x
i— t-
•i— <«-
•a o
CTl
<- c
o —
"«- -a
-o "o
0) > >l >>
J2 -Q J2
in in
•o^ o co
CO «9- r-^
o o o
in
0 0
o *r o
i i
X >, IM
0
cn
(Nl
O
1— 1
r— 1
^
CM
.— 1
CO*
CO
en
3
00
CM
CO
00
CM
i— f
O
t
o
1
oo
^*
•»
m
«
CM
m o in
o — o
o o o
>>>>>>
ja .0 ja
in ^ in
O* C7^ CO
CO CO t— (
000
in«3
i— t CT^
O CO C
1 1
X >, N
O
CM
O
CO
o
^
CO
.—1
m
in
o
CO
00
o>
3
,_,
CO
CO
CO
^f
r~>
o
0*
1
CM
CM
CM
A
O
r**
•
CM
in co in
O i— ' O
coo
>»>>>>
J3 -G J3
m in
en co co
co vo I-H
o o o
in
O «3-
« •
CO ^f CD
1 1
X >, N
O
cn
O
CO
f— 1
^
r-.
CM
O
un
o
A
CO
oo
ex
oo
1C
CO
00
1
«
un
•— *
O
o
1
-"
<— 1
CM
O
•
CO
in o
o — •
0 0
>! >,
-O .C
UO
cn o
co ^o
0 O
un
0 O
O CM
1 '
x >,
o
o
o
CO
1— 1
,-!
CM
i— l
O
r— 4
CO
»— t
A
CO
00
a.
ai
oo
,
-C
un
CO
f~H
o
o
M
0
C3
1
^
CO
o
1
A
CO
^f
•
CO
ur> m un
coo
0 O O
>>>)>>
J3 -O -O
un in
o^ o co
CO CM 1-1
000
m
0 C
O CM O
i i
X >, Nl
0
^^
uo
CM
in
CM
c*
"*
en
CM
CM
CO
oo
ex
a>
00
i —
CO
CO
1
CO
r-t
0
CO
1
^
CM
CM
O
1
en
^f
•
CO
un in in
O O O
o o o
^ >> >>
un un
o^ CD co
CO CM •— 1
O O O
in
CO CO
O CM O
t 1
X >, M
0
UO
^O
CM
00
CM
_
CM
O
r— t
CO
CO
oo
a.
ai
00
r».
CO
00
1
en
-53-
-------
4) Ground clutter removal. Ground clutter was present in the lowest few
planes of data. This clutter was removed by comparing the data taken during
chaff releases with data taken by the radar when no chaff was present. Plume
data having a signal strength greater than 10 dB above the clutter alone was
retained. Some clutter-contaminated data were still obvious in grid points
adjacent to points that had been removed. We therefore prepared a "spread out"
clutter map. In this map, in each horizontal level, the clutter signal strength
at each grid point was set to the maximum of the clutter strengths in any of the
four adjacent grid points; i.e., if G is the ground clutter signal strength,
GS(x,y) * max[G(x,y),G(x+dx,y),G(x-dx,y),G(x,y+dy),G(x,y-dy)] . (4.7)
If the data signal was less than 10 dB above GS, the data were kept only if
the Doppler velocity was greater than some value. This value depended on
the mean wind for the day and varied between 0.5 and 2.8 m/s. The
values used for each case are shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. This velocity
test was added because most data well away from clutter-contaminated points had
velocities near the mean wind speed, and most data known to be contaminated had
velocities biased to nearly zero by the presence of clutter.
These two tests together—signal strength and velocity—removed nearly all
evidence of clutter in the data. Occasional spurious data points remained,
however. These were most likely due to vehicles and aircraft. Such points were
removed by hand on an individual basis.
5) Volume scan averaging. The number of individual volume scans for each
averaging period, as shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, varied from 9 to 27. For each
-54-
-------
averaging period, the individual volume scans were averaged. This resulted in a
single volume of averaged data; all subsequent analysis was performed on the
averaged volume.
4.6 Data analysis
For each averaging period, ten products, showing various statistical proper-
ties of the plume, are generally available. These are discussed below, with the
equations used to calculate them. All products are available for the processed
cases of 1983; however, some of the products are missing for some of the 1982
cases. The products are presented in Chapter 9.
1) Plume concentration, integrated vertically (x ). Although data are
available for every (x,y) grid column, data shown in Chapter 9 are averaged
along 250 m intervals in x, in order to produce a more readable data set. In
much of the 1983 data, the X are normalized to sum to 1000 along each vertical
column; these data are identified by the superscript n.
z
max
X(x,y) = / x(x,y,z)dz (4.8)
o
X (x y )
X_n(x,y) = 1000 2 - (4.9)
_
Xz(x,y)dy
2) Plume concentration integrated along the y (crosswind) direction (x ).
Data are available for every (x,z) grid column; however, as with x data shown
in Chapter 9 are averaged along 250 m intervals in x. In much of the 1983 data,
the x are normalized to sum to 1000 along each vertical column; these data are
identified by the superscript n.
-55-
-------
xv(x,z) = / X(x,y,z)dy (4.10)
v •
•'mm
X (X.Z)
x(x,z)dz
n
X n(x,z) = 1000 — ^ - . (4.11)
" max
0
3) Plume concentration integrated along both y and z, hence, the total
plume material at each downwind distance interval x . For a conservative
tracer, this should be a constant. For our data, however, this quantity is
highly variable. We attribute this to the following: a) Variability of the
chaff cutter output rate, b) chaff being carried below the minimum field of view
of the radar, and then back into the field of view, c) chaff settling out, d)
small bunches of chaff breaking up as they travel downwind, resulting in
increased radar reflectivity, and e) chaff diffusing until it is below the mini-
mum detectable signal of the radar.
z
max
dy /
rmin
xv,(x) * / dy / dz x(x,y,z) . (4.12)
J \i r\
4) Mean plume height (z).
max
7 ..
y
max
/ z x (x.z)dz
z(x)-5_ . (4.13)
max
/ X(x.z)dz
o 3
5) Vertical variance of the crosswind integrated plume (a 2)
-56-
-------
max o
/ Z* Xy(x,z)dZ
2(x) = o^ -- Cz'(x)]2 . (4.14)
z zmax
/ x (x,z)dz
o y
6) Mean crosswind plume position for each downwind distance (y).
y xz(x,y)dy
y .
^ mi n
-/ \ / * i ,- \
y(x) = — - . (4.15)
•^max
/ Xz(x,y)dy
•^min
7) Horizontal standard deviation of the vertically integrated plume (a 2).
y
«
max
/ y x (x,y)dy
y
2/\min r*/\T2 /,ii^\
a (x) = — -- Cy(x)] . (4.16)
J •'max
/ xz(x,y)dy .
ymin
8) Maximum concentration observed in the crosswind-integrated plume
9) Height at which the maximum concentration occurred in the crosswind-
integrated plume (z of (xy)max). This is not necessarily the height of the
three-dimensional point of maximum concentration, but it does correspond to the
heights of maximum concentration presented by Willis and Deardorff (1976a, 1978,
1981) and other investigators.
10) Crosswind location at which the maximum concentration occurred in the
vertically integrated plume (y of (x ) ).
» lilu A
-57-
-------
5. IN SITU SAMPLING OF GAS TRACERS
G. A. Briggs and G. E. Start
The specific objective of the CONDORS experiment was to determine the
geometry of plumes from surface and elevated releases in the atmosphere during
convective conditions in order to compare them with the surprising results of
laboratory and numerical modeling. However, an important ultimate objective
is to develop improved models of surface concentration, x. In Sec. 2.6 we
discussed how the ratio x/0, where Q is the release rate, can be estimated
from the fields of relative concentration of oil fog or chaff by assuming uni-
form depletion of source material at any given value of x. It is simply taken
as the ratio of local concentration to the downwind flux of local con-
centration at that distance. However, this assumption is imperfect. For
instance, the percentage reduction of chaff due to surface deposition is not
likely to be uniform with height, and slightly more evaporation of oil fog
droplets may occur near the ground because of smaller u" and larger travel time.
It is difficult to make a priori estimates of the magnitude of these factors.
Therefore, it seemed worthwhile to do some "ground truth" testing of these x/Q
estimates using proven methods of surface sampling of quite conservative,
gaseous tracers. In situ sampling was carried out in CONDORS S3 by the NOAA
Air Resources Laboratory Field Research Division (ARLFRD).
5.1 Siting
Budget and accessability considerations limited the in situ effort to one
line of 29 samplers spaced at 5° intervals of azimuth from the BAG tower, the
-59-
-------
primary release point (see Fig. 5.1). This spacing was adequate to define the
approximate lateral distribution of x in convective conditions, as most plumes
were about 40° wide at the sampling arc. A N-S road located 1.22 km west of
the tower provided easy access to the largest segment of the sampling arc, in
the most favorable plume direction, and at a desirable distance from the
source (near or no more than twice the distance of expected maximum surface
impact from the elevated releases—see Sec. 2.6 and 2.7). A circular arc
was not possible, because of houses to the north and fields under cultivation;
most of the samplers were set a few meters from the inside edges of the roads
135
140
• •
N
130«
342.5
202.5
120*
Source
Locations for
Run 1 only
1 km
Figure 5.1. Location of sampler stations for tracer
gases shown in relationship to release point at the
BAO tower.
-60-
-------
defining the "square mile" in which the 8AO tower stands, with some rounding
of the corners. The E-W road 0.92 km to the north was considered an accep-
table arc segment, while the one 0.67 km to the south was considered too close
to the source. Therefore, the five most southerly samplers were initially
placed 1000 m from the tower, across an open field. However, they had to be
relocated to the north edge of the road immediately after the run of August
27 because plowing was in progress.
An^ error in the supposed azimuth positions of the samplers was discovered.
A survey of the west road alignment showed that it lay within 0.2° of true N-S
alignment, as indicated by USGS maps; 2.5° had to be subtracted from the
nominal azimuth positions to make the straight-line segments of the sampling
arc nearly N-S and E-W. This correction is reflected in the positions indi-
cated in Fig. 5.1 and in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 Gas sampler locations for CONDORS 83
Location
number
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
Bearing* (degrees azimuth)
from tower base
202.5
207.5
212.5
217.5
222.5
227.5
232.5
237.5
242.5
247.5
252.5
257.5
262.5
267.5
272.5
Range
Test 1
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.994
1.104
1.249
1.249
1.249
1.249
1.247
1.227
1.217
1.217
(km)
Test 2-6
0.726
0.756
0.796
0.846
0.910
0.994
1.104
1.249
1.249
1.249
1.249
1.247
1.227
1.217
1.217
Comments
Locations
changed
* Corrected for 2.5° offset in the nominal azimuth positions.
-61-
-------
Table 5.1 Gas sampler locations for CONDORS 83 (continued)
Location
number
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
Bearing* (degrees azimuth)
from tower base
277.5
282.5
287.5
292.5
297.5
302.5
307.5
312.5
317.5
322.5
327.5
332.5
337.5
342.5
Range
Test 1
1.226
1.245
1.274
1.314
1.364
1.364
1.364
1.364
1.252
1.162
1.094
1.041
0.996
0.965
(km) Comments
Test 2-6
1.226
1.245
1.274
1.314
1.364
1.364
1.364
1.364
1.252
1.162
1.094
1.041
0.996
0.965
* Corrected for 2.5° offset in the nominal azimuth positions.
5.2 Tracers
Two tracer gases were employed, SFg and Freon 1381 (CFJJr). The SF, was
always released near the chaff generator on the elevated carriage mounted on
the west side of the tower. The 13B1 was released a few meters from the oil
fog generators when they operated from the surface release site, 141 m WNW of
the tower; during the two runs with elevated oil fog, September 6 and 7, it
was released from the west corner of the tower base. The releases were ini-
tiated about 10 min before the samplers were turned on, to allow time for the
transport of the tracer to the sampling arc. The tracers were stored in
compressed gas cylinders and were piped through linearized mass flow meters to
the release nozzles, with strip chart recording of the release rates and digi-
tal readouts of the total release volumes. The release rates during each run
were quite steady. The pre- and post-test weights of each gas cylinder served
-62-
-------
as checks on the flow meter measurements; these needed only a -4% to +1%
adjustment, except for a +7% and +10% adjustment for one run (August 27). The
adjusted release rates for the successful runs are shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Gas tracer release data
Test
1
2
3
4
5
6
Note:
no. Sampling period SFg
Date Time Release rate
(MST) (g/s)
27 Aug 83 1230-1430 0.191
28 Aug 83 1130-1330 0.185
31 Aug 83 1055-1255 0.201
2 Sept 83 1150-1220*
6 Sept 83 1050-1250 0.192
7 Sept 83 1210-1410 0.195
*Run
aborted
Density of SFg : 6515 g/m3 at STP
Density of 13B1 : 6644 g/m3 at STP
Amount
released
(g)
1492
1443
1504
__-._
1498
1519
1381
Release rate Amount
(g/s) released
(g)
1.25 9730
- —
----
___-
5.3 Samplers
The samplers at each position were modified EMI ASQII air samplers; each
housed 12 separate pumps and external tubes to draw ambient air into 12 two-
liter Tedlar bags. Each sampler is battery powered and is electronically
programmed using a crystal-controlled clock accurate within ±0.002% to turn on
the pumps for sequential sampling. In this experiment, 10 min samples were
taken over 120 min sampling periods. This allowed some flexibility in the
choice of averaging periods for analysis; these were generally chosen for
steadiness of meteorological variables, but sometimes were set to avoid the
-63-
-------
short lapses that occurred in radar or lidar data acquisition. The pumps were
actually cycled on and off about every five seconds to achieve the desired
sampling volume (about 1.7 liters), as they performed best at full power.
Although the sampling initiation time could be preset, this was impractical in
this experiment because the onset time of favorable wind speed, wind direc-
tion, and mixing depth could not be predicted. Instead, the samplers were
connected by a wire that was switched to "on" if conditions remained favorable
after the start of the tracer releases, about 10 min earlier.
5.4 Analysis
The 12 bags from the 29 samplers were collected soon after each run by
persons who had not been near the release points. The bags were placed in
separate 12-compartment boxes for shipping to the ARLFRD laboratory in Idaho
Falls for analysis. However, all samples from the last three of the eight
runs of CONDORS 83 were found to be highly contaminated (measured con-
centrations appeared to be randomly distributed across the entire arc and were
100 to 1000 times as large as expected plume centerline concentrations). It
is believed that contamination occurred during shipping because partly filled
gas cylinders accompanied the boxes of samples in the same truck. In addi-
tion, the remaining 1381 samples, except the August 27 ones, showed similar
levels of contamination. This was possibly due to improper storage of the
bags in a van or building with some source of 13B1 prior to use.
The bag samplers were analyzed in the laboratory using electron capture
gas chromatographs (GC's). These were automated adaptations of Lovelock's
1972 prototype GCs. Careful check-in and handling procedures were followed,
-64-
-------
and the calibrations of the GCs were tested before and after each gas analysis
shift using five reference mixtures each of SFg and 1381. Past checks on
these mixtures by other laboratories indicated less than 10% uncertainties in
the concentrations of these mixtures, as claimed by the manufacturer.
5.5 Error Estimates
This experiment did not include cross-checks such as collocated samplers
or independent audits. However, the methods and equipment were similar to
those used by ARLFRO in the Small Hill Impaction Study No. 2 (SHIS2), for
which such checks were made (Greene, 1985). The SHIS2 measured and calibra-
tion concentrations were generally much higher than those observed in CONDORS
83 because the former experiment was made in stable conditions. For
reference, typical plume centerline levels of Sf, in CONDORS 83 were 30 to 50
b
ppt (parts per trillion) and background levels were about 2 ppt. Plume cen-
terline levels of 1381 for the only usable period were about 70 ppt and
background levels were too small to be resolvable.
The standard deviation of repeated measurements of standard mixtures for
SHIS2 averaged over all GCs was 14% for the most dilute 13B1 mixture, 58 ppt;
it improved to 8% at 150 ppt. The standard deviation for the SFg tests was
smaller, 10% at 3 ppt improving to 6.5% at 10 ppt and to 3% at 500 ppt. The
average errors of four GCs compared to audits of standard mixtures by the
Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina, ranged from -12% to +3% for 13B1
at 2000 ppt and from -11% to -2% for SFg at 100 ppt. The sign of the errors
reversed at higher test concentrations, but there was no significant trend in
the absolute values of the errors.
-65-
-------
The SHIS2 experiment included two pairs of collocated samplers. For
SF,-, the average absolute disagreement between the collocated samplers was only
o
6%; this did not vary appreciably with concentration range. However, for 13B1
concentrations of less than 1000 ppt, the average disagreement was almost 70%
(i.e., a factor of 2 difference in the readings). This improved markedly for
higher concentrations, to 16%, but the CONDORS 83 plume concentrations were
much smaller than 1000 ppt. This result and the large inconsistencies beween
our 10, min samples adjacent in time or space (see Table 10.2) tend to reduce
confidence in the CONDORS 1381 measurements. On the other hand, the total
error in concentrations measured from uncontaminated SFg samples was probably
less than 10%.
-66-
-------
6. OPERATIONAL SCENARIO
G. A. Briggs, W. L. Eberhard and W. R. Moninger
It is apparent from the preceding sections that the prerequisites for a
good run included an acceptable range and slow growth of z., steady insola-
tion, wind speed in a suitable range, and wind direction in the chosen sector.
To avoid scheduling runs during days and hours that the above meteorological
criteria were not met, we identified possible run days about a day in advance
so that needed personnel would be on hand. The starting time for the two-hour
runs was set nominally at 1200 MST but could be called as early as 1100 MST if
an accelerated midday mixing layer growth was anticipated, based on the early
morning sounding. We therefore established a decision time (0830 MST) to give
people enough time to get to their duty stations and to make preparations for
the run. From 0930 MST onward, z^ was closely monitored with rawinsonde,
lidar, radar and acoustic sounder; just prior to the beginning of the elevated
release, the carriage height was adjusted according to the z. forecast for the
middle of the run.
Thus, it was recognized from the outset that the success of the experiment
depended on some skill at short-term predictions of meteorological variables
at the BAO site. It seemed prudent to develop such skills before the main
experiment CONDORS 83. The following learning program was followed for
CONDORS 82.
On the basis of National Weather Service projections for 1200 GMT (0700
MST), we had to decide whether the following day looked favorable. Based on
preliminary evidence from BAO records and weather maps from previous years,
the criteria for a "favorable" day were:
-67-
-------
1. Clear or partly cloudy sky.
2. The state of Colorado more under the influence of a surface
high than a surface low.
3. Light to moderate geostrophic winds over Colorado.
On days deemed favorable, a rawinsonde was released at about 0530 MST
before mixing layer development began, and tracked with double theodolites to
about 3000 m height. Temperature, humidity, wind speed, and wind direction
profiles were developed with the best resolution possible up to this height.
Wind speed and wind direction at the tower top were monitored throughout the
morning and midday hours. Through the same hours, determinations of z. were
made at the site at least every 30 min.
The above information was forwarded as soon as it was available to several
people designated as 'forecasters' for the experiment. Using 1200 GMT NWS
synoptic maps and the above measurements at the site, mostly intuitive methods
were used for predicting midday wind speed, wind direction, and z. behavior
for the site during CONDORS 82. The procedure was made more objective for
CONDORS 83 through the use of Wilczak and Phillips (1984) boundary layer
height prediction model, which provided a z^ forecast for the day based on the
predawn sounding at the BAO. The model predictions were compared with
z. values determined from the rawinsonde data and from periodic soundings made
by the lidar and the radar. Because the most convenient source of above-tower
meteorology was the radiosonde, at least three releases were scheduled before
and during each run, including a release at 1000 MST. Usually, only two
radiosondes were released during each run. The lidar and radar soundings for
z. were made on a regular basis approximately every 20 min until the start of
-68-
-------
the run, after which they were made only as needed to avoid undue interrup-
tions in the data sampling. The z, information, along with other parameters
from the tower, were plotted as the run progressed to provide a realistic
assessment of the quality of the run. At run initiation time (RIT) minus 30
min, a revised estimate of z. at RIT + 1 hr was made and the elevated source
height adjusted accordingly, to 1/4 or 1/2 z.. This z. estimate, current wi
nd
speed and direction at upper tower levels, and the distance scale z.u/w^ were
used to advise the lidar crew of desired azimuth settings for this run and the
maximum elevation angles needed to encompass the plumes. The radar crew was
given wind direction and z. estimates to determine the range of azimuth and
the desired elevation angles for the radar sweeps. Sources (oil fog, chaff,
gases) were turned on at about 10 to 20 min before the declared run initiation
time; this allowed time for the materials to reach about X = 1 by the time
measurements actually began (see Fig. 2.5).
Lidar and radar measurements of the plume were conducted from RIT + 0 hr
to RIT + 2 hr and occasionally longer. They were recorded throughout this
period, to be subdivided later for averaging according to periods of steadiest
meteorological conditions. While frequent repetition of lidar scans and radar
sweeps was desirable for obtaining good ensemble averaging, there was little
little to be gained statistically by repeating them much more often than every
z.j/u', because consecutive realizations of plume concentrations at any given
position would then be highly correlated. This period ranged from 100 to 400
s, so a scan cycle every 2 to 4 min was typical.
During CONDORS 83, ground sampling of gas tracers also extended from 0 to
2 hr past RIT. Two gas tracers were released: SFg from the elevated release
-69-
-------
point on the tower and Freon 13B1 from the base of the tower. While most of
the SFg concentrations were measured and evaluated with sufficient accuracy,
only one of the 1381 releases could be evaluated successfully because of
sampler bag contamination.
-70-
-------
7. METEOROLOGICAL DATA SUMMARIES FOR OBSERVING PERIODS
G. A. Briggs and J. E. Gaynor
The choice of periods for analysis depended very much on the vagaries of
the experimental conditions, including operation of the measuring equipment.
The BAD meteorological tower measurements, which were already well automated
with eight levels of measurement, were looked at first to screen out periods
of sudden changes in wind direction, u" or w'T1, or periods of wind direction
or speed outside of the suitable ranges. Selected variables were processed
into 5 min averages, in addition to the customary 20 min real-time averaging
period employed at the BAO tower. Lidar and radar data during the run periods
were examined to provide frequent estimates of z.. Time plots of z., wind
direction, wind speed, and w'T1 (see Fig. 7.1) were inspected in order to
define periods during each 2 hr run with the least variability in z., w*/u",
and 5 min averaged wind direction. Emphasis was placed on steadiness rather
than on length in choosing averaging periods. Typically the chosen periods
were of 40 min duration; most of the 2 hr runs furnished two adequate
averaging periods. Since typical large eddies in convective turbulence are
1.5 z. across (Willis and Deardorff 1976b) and eddies pass by a point at about
the mean wind speed, each average will be an "ensemble" of about (40 min) *
(1.5z^/u") eddy passages; this number ranged from 2 to 13 in these experi-
ments.
All lidar scans and radar sweeps were averaged over the chosen periods;
data outside those periods were not analyzed. For each averaging period,
*
values of the meteorological parameters were selected for the purpose of non-
dimensionalizing the results. The mean wind direction, "9^, averaged over the
-71-
-------
| Period 8-831 Period 9-83 j
1000
,§ 800
600
400
O)
0)
•o
CO
a
—
—
o
i ! I 1
o _
*— Radar ° / -
o
)
O HP
o y _
Rawinsonde °o
/ o .^^^^3
? O -O j "^ ** ~" —
•
••»
1 1 1
\i •-. ^ 0 00
Udar ° °
o
1 1 1 1
50
70
90
110
130
6
5
4'
3
2
0.3
0-1
0.0
7 Sept. 1983
I
1200 1230 1300 1330 1400
Time (MST)
Figure 7.1. Mixing depth, wind direction, wind speed and heat flux for
the observing period on 7 Sept. 1983, plotted as a function of time.
Periods selected for analysis are indicated on the mixing, depth plot.
-72-
-------
upper four tower layers was used to orient the radar coordinate system along
the plume center-line. The wind speed was averaged through the same layers to
get u". Consistent with previous findings (Kaimal et al., 1976), the mixed
layer wind speeds and wind directions at the four levels above 100 m showed
little variation with height. To calculate w*, the estimated value of z. was
• 1
used with (g/T)w'T' values determined from the time averages at the lowest two
levels on the tower. Accurate determination of z. is -|ess straightforward;
our methods are discussed in some detail below.
The summary data for CONDORS 82 and CONDORS 83 are given in Table 7.1.
In this table we define U and 9^ as the average of the wind speed and dir-
ection, respectively, at the top four levels on the tower (150, 200, 250
and 300 m) and w'T' as the vertical temperature flux from the 10 and 22
m levels. The source height for the tracer is designated as z and the
chosen averaging period duration as T.
Because CONDORS was designed to compare field measurements of diffusion
with laboratory and numerical results using convective scaling, adequate
determinations of the mixing depth, z^, are particularly important. Pre-
liminary estimates made during the runs and for initial data analyses were de-
rived from the rawinsonde profiles of temperature and humidity; these were
supplemented by reports of the haze top elevation by the lidar team and of the
highest chaff elevation by the radar team (the chaff reports probably repre-
sented the most penetrative thermals, and tended to be several hundred meters
higher than the other indicators). When the processed profiles of /xdy for
the chaff returns during CONDORS 82 became available, z. was estimated using
0.92 times the projected height of zero concentration for each averaging period
-73-
-------
f>
CO
(/I
OS
0
c
0
o
c
to
CM
00
OO
a:
o
o
o
f ^
o
*"
^
a;
t_
i
3
CO «T
CM (M
CO 00
a. CL
in
vo 10
CM CM
co co
1 1
—• CM
en vn
vo vo
en co
P"» CO
~ -
s §
P*s CO
in co
pv VO
« CO
0 0
en CM
CO if)
vo O
CM CM
0 0
vo CO
en en
i t
i i
pv CO
vo
r» co
VO
o *r
^ CO
u> vn
a s
Q. O.
GO GO
CO O
r1 CM
CM CM
CO CO
1 1
CO «T
CM
CO
^
00
o
1
CM
00
co
o
en
in
en
in
*-
O
vo
CM
1
1
CO
CO
CM
CM
•«*
CO
CM
a.
cu
GO
o
CM
CM
CO
1
m
CO
^
in
~
co
in
o
o
CM
CO
m
o
^B-
CM
vn
-*
CO
o
o
vo
CO
vo
CM
vn
vo
CM
CO
s
o
CO
CO
CO
CO
01
3
P^
CM
CO
00
1
*"*
CO vo
CM vo
vn en
en CM
O x
S S
— eo
— en
o en
p~ en
C3 P^
O O
r~ f.
— • O
en vn
— « CM
S §
CM W
l~4 f— 1
1 1
in vn
CO CO
CM CM
vn vn
CO CO
CM CM
CO CO
So
VO
o o
CO CO
*-« CM
co eo
en en
3 3
f <
CO CO
CM CM
CO CO
CO CO
1 1
CM CO
CM en
in vo
-« «r
o in
- -
O 10
— in
— CO
co -«r
00 0
en CM
co vn
0 0
r~ CM
CM CM
a CM
at vn
—• CM
O O
2 §
f— 1
1 1
o o
co co
CM CM
O O
CO CO
CM CM
CO O
CO
CM
O 0
vn o
in in
a o
CO CO
CO CO
3 a.
"* $
,_4
CO VO
CO CO
co oo
t t
«r m
co oo
m vo
en CM
*f 0
— 1 CM
a co
CO P-»
^ vn
r— vo
V CO
ao in
O O
O CM
V CM
en «r
vn co
CM CO
i i
1 1
So
oo
CM CM
O O
co co
CM CM
S S
M CVJ
^1 C*l
o o
CO —4
•H CM
CO CO
co co
a. a.
vV CU
GO GO
vo vo
CO CO
eo eo
i i
VO P~
p.
VO W
CM O
CM ~*
CO CO
vn vo
iO *•*
o ^
CM CM
co co
co «r
O CO
CO CO
o o
••* p*k
en co
m en
•r vn
f v
S S
VO P--
1 1
vn vn
vo vo
CM CM
m vn
vo VO
CM CM
in vn
vo vo
CM CM
CT O
a o
CO *-•
CM CO
CO CO
co oo
ex a.
GO GO
p*» r».
CO CO
eo co
i i
co en
CM CO
* *
vo »
—4 CO
-. o
CM V
*T CO
O P-
O VO
00 00
O P*.
O CM
CM CM
0 0
CM VO
o vn
en i»»
o m
CM f«
o o
en co
t i
i t
i i
CO CO
CO ^
s s
— • CM
CO CO
oo co
ex a.
GO GO
CO CO
** **
CO CO
eo eo
i i
O — i
*«* f-*
-74-
-------
(for details, see Moninger et al., 1983). These determinations showed con-
siderable constancy with distance when x > 2 km. The oil fog profiles
obtained during CONDORS 82 did not extend far enough downwind to show this,
and were not used for z. determinations.
During CONDORS 83, a heavier, less volatile type of oil was used, which
extended the maximum ranges at which the lidar could distinguish the oil fog
plume from background haze by more than 20%. Furthermore, for the surface
releases in 1983, the source strength was doubled by using two oil fog genera-
tors (these were too bulky to mount more than one on the tower carriage). For
these releases, the maximum source-plume distance of processed scans was about
80% larger than in 1982. The processed scan distances ranged from 1100 to
1850 m in 1982, from 1500 to 2000 m for elevated releases in 1983, and from
2100 to 2900 m for the surface releases in 1983. Except for period 7-83, an
elevated release, oil fog scans made in 1983 were useful for determining z..
In addition to the "zero projection" method used in 1982, a second method was
applied to both chaff and oil fog profiles of /xdy vs. z. A peak or a "shelf"
of nearly constant /xdy was chosen from the upper part of the profile, and
z. was assumed to be the height above this level where /xdy drops to 40% of
this concentration. Because a few of the profiles were complex and showed
more than one peak or shelf in the upper layers, an arbitrary choice sometimes
had to be made; the z. value most consistent with profiles at neighboring
values of x was the usual choice, unless the profile strongly suggested other-
wise. The z. values from this method differed from that given by the "zero
projection" method by no more than -99 to +35 m for the chaff, and by no more
than -40 to +38 m for the oil fog in periods 1, 3, 4, and 8 through 11 of
-75-
-------
1983. In periods 2, 5, and 6 of 1983 the "zero projection" method applied to
oil fog was at variance with the other indicators, and in period 7 the oil fog
simply did not reach the z. elevation indicated by the chaff and the rawin-
sonde profiles (the maximum X, as in Eq. (2.7), was 0.94 for oil fog and 2.1
for chaff).
A comparison of z. estimates, along with recommended values, is shown for
CONDORS 83 in Table 7.2, The /Xdy profiles of chaff and oil fog were con-
sidered the primary indicators of mixing depth in the most literal sense.
They were given weight especially when they yielded an approximately constant
z^ over a large range of x and when they showed a sharp drop-off near the top
of the distribution (one measure of this is the "profile fuzziness index"
defined in the table; 0.9 or greater means z. is very ambiguous, while 0.25 or
less indicates a well-defined cutoff). The lidar-determined haze tops were
instantaneous measures that agree best with other measures only when they
agree well with each other, which probably occurs when undulations in z. are
small (e.g., this occurred 6 September 1983). The rawinsonde measurements can
also be considered instantaneous. The rawinsonde profiles were given more
weight when there was a steep increase in virtual potential temperature or a
steep decrease in dewpoint in a layer above a nearly uniform layer. For
instance, in period 1-83, the potential temperature profile was quite ambi-
guous. The dew point showed definite drops at two different levels; however,
the layer of greatest wind speed and direction shear, which is another coarse
indicator of z., encompassed only the lower dew point drop layer, near 1600 m.
This was in good agreement with the sharply defined oil fog profile at x =
2.14 km, so z. was assumed to be 1600 m. For the other 10 periods, there was
-76-
-------
CO
1
CO
0
fl
00
en
<•*>
CO
oo
C"O f*?
03 »
t/1
&?
o
Q S
Z i
o »
0
O oo
<*— '
10
O)
1^ 00
•*->
(/)
a> S
.c <*>
Q.
n
•3 s
1
O) M
c
X 0
•£• 00
s: j.
*
CM
•
_
.O
1—
•o
o
OJ
a.
0 —
o *n
m CM
m •»
in r*i
~* r-»
O CO
•-* r*
O CO
m *
CM ~"
S 5
CM CM
in f*
»•• — «
0 S
S 2
CM O
O r*i
O n
m CM
in —
— » M«
«-« —
in o
^ CM
O 4-»
•*- <«
0} «
ex —
i/i
C 01
JO O
01 C
> f
"• X
»- U
o
4-1
*— tA
Of 01
*J U
C
o g.
C 01
X
£"«
si
i *
a
vt &
01
£ 3
w» ••-
01 >
**
§"o oo
m O in
r- O r-. O
O O
in in
oo oo
0 0
o o
o o
en en
o o
S §
o a
en en
L. U
O 01 O 01
c — c —
O U
o
o o o
o a m
g §
O O
•M •-«
o o o o
o o o o
-* CM — • CM
,*_
<*-
o
ex
01 >%
I 1
e oi
o •«-
a. *j
fl "J
a ae
0
o
00
o
o
0 0
in r**
a
§o
0
o
§i
CO O
o
°2
in o
^^
o
4-*
§§
vo O
*^
^
o"o
in in
CO CM
o
o o
o a
V CO
o
4-1
o o
a o
O CM
O
4-»
§o
in
CM O
— • CM
U
>
O
O)
•a
c
X
1 CO
i vO
1 CO
1
i m
i CO
1 CO
I
en CM
en — i
p^ CO
co vn
O in
r- vo
vo m
§co
«•
„!
01
O — •
O U
>
§5
en o
**
0 0
— ^
1 ^
— S
CM 00
^^
! S
i in
*—
J^
O CM
u en
a. •
o
X
"""• C
s-2
O 4J
I- U
•*- 0>
W1 O
oi t- en
u a. o
I 0 w __
*J V S. -~
•> rvl (j o
01
IM •—
l «3
1 00
1 IQ
1 •*
1
O O
O CO
— —
f~ CO
00 vo
o *n
CO f**
CO CO
o o
Sen
CO
V O
CM en
00
1 CM
i .— «
t ^r
i **
— ^
CM CM
.-• f-^
1 lO
1 CO
i m
1 MM
U
01
2
3
O
o*
vo in
0 0
m S
o o
n en
o a
O — •'
in in
o o
i
i •
1 O
O "~
— ' d
[ in
( •
1 0
X
VI
•o 01
o en
£ U
'trj ,2
>»*
"C x
X ai
c
o *~
Ul
•ft Of
U C
O — Ol
4-> ISI O
*0 3 «*-
jd •*•
^ 01 CJ O
*fl "S
OQ.
1 1
l l
l 1
l 1
1 1
1 1
1 t
1 t
V vo
fry (••)
1 1
vo en
VO *O
*? *7
^-i *O
CM -*
VO VO
n n
i i
CM -*
rn £
vO vo
^
vO vo
l l
VO vo
vo VO
i i
en en
CM
i t
i i
i i
i t
VO *O
CM CM
1 1
— « t-^
1 1
1 1
1 1
| |
E
t*4
O
*
.w
O ""
VJ "O t3
O O
a»
C 1
M
0) •—
C f
*-
X
en en
CM CM
~* CO
VO vo
CM CM
i i
CO CO
O O
CM CM
i t
^" ^^
in in
r i
CM CM
r*» i**
i i
CO CM
en
11
e —
1^1 (O
i i
n *n
CM -*
i i
o ^
i t
CO CO
CM CM
1 I
CM CM
1 1
— CM
1 CM
CM VO
1 -M
_r
•a -o
o o
i i
i
en
o
^m
o
m
en
O
CO
o
vn
o
in
O
vO
CO
o
vO
CO
o
vo
CO
0
**
0 O
en —
o
O O
o
o
o <*•>
r*» ~H
l
i
i
L.
•O
*
-------
a larger array of supporting evidence for the recommended zi values. The
accuracy of these values can be roughly estimated as ±20 m on 6 September and
13 September, and as ±50 m on other days.
Much valuable statistical information on wind velocity was obtained from
the fast-response u-v-w measurements from sonic anemometers at eight tower
levels (10 m, 22 m, 50 m, and every 50 m to 300 m). One example is shown in
Tables 7.3 and 7.4, which list frequencies of occurrence of wind azimuth and
elevation angles, by 5° bins, for each CONpORS 83 period at z = 250 m (near
the height of elevated releases). These distributions will be useful for com-
parison with the observed near-source chaff and oil fog distributions. Table
7.3, which shows azimuth angle distributions, shows predominantly Gaussian-
like distributions, with a skew towards one flank or secondary peaks during
some periods. The square root of variance, a , ranges from 11° to 39°, and is
a
predominantly controlled by wind speed; a * a /u~, when
-------
Table 7.3 Frequency distributions of wind azimuth angles,
z = 250 m, BAD Tower, CONDORS 83 (from 10 s averages), percent x 10"3
Period
Direction
40°-45°
45°-50°
50°-55°
55°-60°
60°-65°
65°-70°
70°-75°
75°-80°
80°-85°
85°-90°
90°-95°
95°-100
100°-105
105°-110°
110°-115°
115°-120°
120°-125°
125°-130°
130°-135°
135°-140°
140°-145°
145°-l'50°
150°-155°
155°-160°
160°-165°
165°-170°
170°-175°
175°-180°
180°-185°
185°-190°
190°-195°
aa
aJT/w*
a
1-83
6
6
6
39
33
61
72
106
122
128
89
83
83
28
17
11
22
11
33
17
11
17
21°
0.58
2-83
8
4
4
12
4
4
8
29
29
38
108
146
108
129
67
46
62
50
33
25
29
17
8
4
4
12
8
22°
0.37
3-83
3
8
6
8
3
3
11
19
25
31
64
103
119
119
69
108
83
72
61
36
28
17
3
19°
0.43
4-83
3
13
3
3
3
7
23
10
20
30
37
40
90
93
113
113
110
73
33
47
47
33
13
7
7
3
7
23°
0.41
5-83
4
4
4
8
17
17
17
29
25
38
62
46
58
50
46
54
62
62
79
67
92
25
50
38
29
8
4
4
28°
0.75
6-83
6
6
6
17
22
11
11
11
28
22
50
56
100
111
72
106
50
61
78
72
50
22
17
11
6
24°
0.62
7-83
6
6
6
6
6
6
17
11
17
22
67
89
167
139
78
144
78
56
61
11
11
18°
0.64
8-83
8
12
12
29
50
71
125
117
154
113
108
117
58
17
8
14°
0.77
9-83
8
12
17
25
75
196
213
171
125
71
54
17
8
8
11°
0.59
10-83
6
6
6
44
28
11
17
22
100
89
89
106
83
72
67
28
50
39
33
11
17
28
11
6
17
29°
0.60
11-83*
8
8
4
21
4
17
33
46
4
38
67
58
87
87
108
83
83
75
42
25
17
8
4
4
8
4
4
4
39°
0.57
*50° added to period 11 azimuths - mean wind direction was 56'
-79-
-------
Table 7.4 Frequency distributions of wind elevation angles,
250 m, 8AO Tower, CONDORS 83 (from 10 s averages), percent x 103
Period
Elevation
75°-80°
70°-75°
65°-70°
60°-65°
55°-60°
50°-55°
45°-50°
40°-458
35°-40°
30°-35°
25°-30°
20°-25°
15°-20°
10°-15°
5°-10°
+ 0°- 5°
- 5°- 0°
10°- 5°
15°-10°
20°-15°
25°-20°
30°-25°
35°-30°
40°-35°
45°-40°
50°-45°
55°-50°
60°-55°
65°-60°
70°-65°
75°-70°
80°-75°
85°-80°
90°-85°
Mean 9e
1-83
6
6
17
28
67
89
83
94
122
94
89
89
78
50
44
17
6
11
6
6
-11°
2-83
4
8
8
17
4
4
33
38
21
38
12
29
42
75
87
67
87
138
117
62
50
25
17
8
8
-15°
3-83
3
6
6
11
11
11
19
22
17
22
61
61
56
117
181 .
142
139
72
25
14
6
-18°
4-83
3
13
7
7
23
13
47
43
33
43
17
47
37
37
27
47
63
60
83
80
40
57
37
40
40
7
10
13
10
3
7
3
3
-5°
5-83
4
8
8
21
33
50
58
29
54
75
50
92
42
92
117
100
83
33
33
12
4
+1°
6-83
6
17
6
6
11
6
17
28
6
17
56
39
39
61
61
167
156
139
94
56
17
-13°
7-83
11
6
22
11
17
11
44
67
94
61
78
161
100
78
78
56
50
11
28
6
6
6
-6°
8-83
4
8
4
46
79
146
154
142
125
117
92
71
8
4
+2°
9-83
17
29
75
100
142
175
154
129
92
54
21
12
+1°
10-83
6
6
11
22
44
39
6
17
17
44
39
72
56
78
78
100
117
72
78
39
39
11
6
6
-8°
11-83
8
8
21
8
8
8
17
21
21
42
12
21
17
12
46
67
38
104
104
79
75
83
50
33
38
17
8
12
8
4
4
4
-16°
-------
Table 7.4, which shows elevation angle distributions, reveals surprisingly
large skewness in some periods, with mean 9 as low as -18° and the mode of
8 as low as -28°. The most negative mean 9 values tended to correlate with
the lowest wind speeds, and two of the three slightly positive values occurred
during the highest wind speed periods. This trend could be due to a site
effect, or could be due to a bias towards downdraft-dominated periods in our
attempt to exclude large wind direction changes from averaging periods (this
is especially a problem at low wind speeds). This question needs further
investigation. The ae IT/w* values, with ae in radians, fall within the range
observed in other convective boundary-layer experiments, with a slight trend to
smaller values both at smaller dimensionless period durations (TU/Z^) and at
smaller dimensionless measurement heights (250 m/z.).
Much more statistical information has been obtained than could be included
in this volume. The type of information in Tables 7.3 and 7.4 has been
obtained for each tower level for each CONDORS 83 period; in addition, we have
calculated the mean wind speeds for each 5° bin of 9 and of 9 , and the joint
a e
distribution of 9, and 9Q for each averaging period. For each of the five
a 6
days with SFg sampling, for the entire release period, we have calculated
5-min averages and distributions for a number of quantities; these include
w'T', solar radiation, u and 9, at 50 m and 250 m, the distribution of 9, at
a d
250 m by 5° bins, and the percent of negative 10 s w" events at 50 and 250 m;
in addition, the u", "9,, and 9, distribution were conditionally sampled during
a a
negative w" events for comparisons with tracer distributions impacting the
surface from elevated sources.
-81-
-------
8. OIL FOG PLUME STATISTICS FROM LIDAR OBSERVATIONS
S. W. Troxel and W. L. Eberhard
8.1 Description of Data
This chapter presents a summary description of the average behavior of the
oil fog plume for each analysis period. The tables in Sec. 8.3 include param-
eters such as the coordinates of plume's centroid, second moments of the
horizontal and vertical profiles, and the empirical conversion factor that
relates optical backscatter coefficient to mass loading. Each parameter was
calculated after the two-dimensional distributions from the individual scans
were averaged together at each lidar azimuth (there were typically about 11
scans in an averaging period). Section 8.2 defines the algebraic symbols for
these plume parameters and the relevant coordinate systems (Fig. 8.1) for the
1idar data.
Figure 8.1. Conceptual diagram illustrating coordinates and symbols
defined in Sec. 8.2.
-83-
-------
Some aspects of these data require clarification. The oil fog release
rate changed during some of the periods; KQ is based on a time-averaged rate
for the period. Since the surface releases were about 0.1 km west of the
tower, the centroid locations relative to the source (subscripted with an s)
are more rigorous. Centroid locations that have no subscripts are relative to
the base of the tower. They are useful for comparing lidar data with those
from the radar and gas samplers. (The value of 7 - 7 differs slightly from
the nominal release height zg because minor, uncoordinated approximations
were applied to each type of data. The difference is insignificant.) The
parameter z of (x_)max is the only one that incorporates the adjustments
(Eq. 3.12) to the lowest usable data point. For more detailed data, see
Appendix A.
8.2 Lidar Coordinates and Symbols
Kn conversion factor from x to optical backscatter coefficient
0 (m2 g"1 sr-1).
y horizontal coordinate normal to "p. (m).
z vertical coordinate referenced to tower base (m).
T height of plume centroid from tower base (=» 7 for surface
release) (m).
7 height of plume centroid from source (m).
z of (x )max height referenced to tower base of maximum in x M*
a acute angle between n and y axes (°).
n horizontal coordinate in the scan plane (m).
"i" azimuth angle of plume centroid from tower base (°).
"§°s azimuth angle of plume centroid from source (°).
9, lidar scan azimuth (°).
-84-
-------
p horizontal coordinate referenced to tower base (m).
"p" horizontal distance from tower to centroid (m).
p horizontal coordinate referenced to source (m).
"p. horizontal distance from source to centroid (m).
-------
8.3 Average Oil Fog Plume Statistics for CONDORS 82 and CONDORS 83
Table 8.1 CONDORS 82 averaged plume statistics, Period 1-82
Release height: 235 m
9L
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
p
es
?
ay
TS
1
a,
z of (xn)max
Ko
a
150.0°
1304
1333
274
274
232.6
232.6
38.1
-2.2
233.7
36.6
207
0.1204
7.4
154.9°
1304
1333
540
540
231.9
231.9
51.1
17.6
253.5
56.1
219
0.0707
13.1
162.5°
1304
1333
950
950
236.3
236.3
132.9
13.9
249.8
116.9
288
0.0782
16.2
176.6°
1304
1333
1745
1745
241.5
241.5
358.7
4.8
240.8
146.9
38
0.0295
25.2
-86-
-------
Table 8.2 CONDORS 82 averaged plume statistics, Period 2-82
Release height: 235 m
OL
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
OS
P
"8s
"9
ay
z"s
~z
-------
Table 8.3 CONDORS 82 averaged plume statistics, Period 3-82
Release height: 167 m
9L
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
p
7s
7
ay
2~S
1
"2
7 nf ( Y )
L. \j \ y A, — ' ma Y
Ko
cc
147.8°
1354
1434
183
,183
268.4
268.4
64.2
'20.5
188.4
48.1
176
0.1400
30.6
150.0°
1354
1434
321
321
272.1
272.1
55.2
46.7
214.6
85.0
126
0.0637
32.1
154.9°
1354
1434
575
575
268.8
268.8
118.6
71.9
239.8
138.1
188
0.0647
24.0
165.0°
1354
1434
1086
1086
272.6
272.6
268.7
126.0
293.9
206.8
38
0.0302
17.6
-88-
-------
Table 8.4 CONDORS 82 averaged plume statistics, Period 4-82
Release height: surface
OL
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
P
"es
?
ay
z~s
1
<*z
z of (*n}m*
K0
a
150.0°
1153
1237
182
290
239.0
260.3
123.7
135.6
136.6
109.6
38
0.0841
1.0
154.9°
1153
1237
444
526
229.1
242.1
195.2
364.3
365.3
193.5
438
0.0716
15.9
159.7°
1153
1237
693
779
233.0
241.4
277.7
504.4
505.4
250.7
538
0.0358
16.7
-89-
-------
Table 8.5 CONDORS 82 averaged plume statistics, Period 5-82
Release height: surface
,
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
P
Is
I
ay
*s
~z
az
z of (x )
K0 '
a
150.0°
1312
1354
207
272
211.2
240.8
139.7
224.0
225.0
180.0
26
0.0567
28.8
154.9°
1312
1354
463
532
222.4
236.1
199.5
374.8
375.7
270.1
88
0.0495
22.5
159.7°
1312
1354
677
772
238.7
246.5
306.6
557.5
558.5
260.9
488
0.0398
11.0
-90-
-------
Table 8.6 CONDORS 83 averaged plune statistics, Period 1-83
Release height: surface
OL
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
P
"es
?
ay
z"s
F
az
z of (xn)max
K0
a
169.9°
1330
1400
391
510
325.0
315.6
62.5
100.5
98.3
88.3
20
0.0145
65.2
174.0°
1330
1400
576
712
302.3
299.6
134.0
169.9
167.7
104.8
20
0.0497
38.3
181.1°
1330
1400
1078
1214
301.0
299.6
249.6
377.0
374.8
256.9
133
0.0455
29.9
190.0°
1330
1400
1565
1704
293.5
293.1
322.0
667.7
665.5
345.5
583
0.0548
13.5
200.1°*
1330
1400
2144
2284
286.7
286.8
435.8
896.1
893.9
441.2
733
0.0283
3.4
200.1°**
1330
1400
2155
2295
283.3
283.6
471.1
888.2
886.1
456.9
733
0.0361
6.8
* Smoke from fire was excluded. May have omitted some oil fog.
** Some smoke from fire included.
-91-
-------
Table 8.7 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 2-83
Release height: surface
9L
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
P
"9s
?
cry
^s
F
CfZ
2 of (x^max
Ko
a
169.9°
1140
1200
219
357
300.6
295.8
74.5
59.0
56.9
41.8
14
0.0331
40.7
174.0°
1130
1200
540
678
297.4
295.5
173.9
225.3
223.2
174.4
95
0.0712
33.3
181.1°
1130
1200
1049
1187
298.0
296.9
229.7
342.9
340.7
231.2
183
0.0603
26.9
190.0°
1130
1200
1604
1742
298.5
297.7
323.5
364.0
361.9
248.9
133
0.0492
18.5
200.1°
1130
1200
2161
2298
297.8
297.2
443.9
391.1
388.9
256.6
333
0.0468
7.7
210.1°
1130
1200
2691
2830
296.2
295.8
581.3
488.1
485.9
319.9
283
0.0397
3.8
-92-
-------
Table 8.8 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 3-83
Release height: surface
,
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
P
"9s
7
*y
2S
1
°Z
z of (xn)max
Ko
at
169.9°
1230
1330
168
305
272.1
279.4
112.6
59.4
57.2
60.7
14
0.0590
12.2
174.0°
1230
1330
471
609
280.8
282.5
235.5
153.9
151.7
123.4
45
0.0729
16.8
181.1°
1230
1330
949
1088
281.1
282.0
339.3
269.4
267.7
186.6
83
0.0717
10.0
190.0°
1230
1330
1539
1679
288.8
288.7
548.7
358.4
356.2
255.6
183
0.0757
8.8
200.1°
1230
1330
2146
2285
286.8
286.8
686.6
429.6
427.4
308.0
133
0.0839
3.4
210.0°
1230
1330
2786
2925
284.6
284.7
745.6
522.6
520.5
349.1
183
0.0955
15.5
-93-
-------
Table 8.9 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 4-83
Release height: surface
9L
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
p
9s
"9
CTy
Is
z"
az
z of (xn)max
Ko
a
169.9°
1055
1145
339
463
320.8
311.5
137.6
199.7
197.5
185.0
33
0.0378
60.9
173.0°
1055
1145
639
765
316.4
311.4
220.9
357.9
355.7
256.7
233
0.0420
53.4
177.5°
1055
1145
993
1121
313.8
310.7
288.0
485.4
483.2
282.3
483
0.0464
46.4
183.1°
1055
1145
1410
1537
313.8
311.5
345.9
528.7
526.5
283.9
533
0.0380
40.7
195.0°
1055
1145
2143
2267
316.1
314.4
384.8
493.7
491.5
285.1
433
0.0334
31.1
-94-
-------
Table 8.10 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 5-83
Release height: 280 m
«L
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
p
"9s
"9
ay
zs
7
-------
Table 8.11 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 6-83
Release height: 280 m
9L
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
p
^
7
ay
z~s
T
az
z of (xn)max
Ko
a
169.9°
1130
1200
600
600
322.0
322.0
144.6
-75.7
205.3
157.8
133
0.0312
62.1
174.0°
1130
1200
963
963
317.7
317.7
265.4
-33.1
247.9
202.0
33
0.0306
53.7
173.9°
1130
1200
1330
1330
315.7
315.7
344.8
8.5
289.5
195.5
33
0.0315
46.8
183.1°
1130
1200
1592
1592
314.2
314.2
441.8
-22.1
258.9
174.6
133
0.0373
41.0
188.0°
1130
1200
1922
1922
315.6
315.6
387.3
48.4
329.4
203.3
333
0.0365
37.6
-96-
-------
Table 8.12 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 7-83
Release height: 280 m
91
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
p
es
?
-------
Table 8.13 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 8-83
Release height: 265 m
,
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
P
"es
I
ay
rs
T
crz
z of (xn)max
Ko
a
168.4°
1230
1310
178
178
267.9
267.9
54.9
8.8
274.9
36.3
301
0.1142
9.5
172.3°
1230
1310
462
462
274.3
274.3
100.9
58.3
324.4
88.8
395
0.1194
12.0
176.1°
1230
1310
723
723
273.8
273.8
123.2
90.6
356.7
114.1
420
0.1239
7.7
178.9°
1230
1310
915
915
274.6
274.6
143.2
99.6
365.7
136.7
433
0.0851
5.7
183.1°
1230
1310
1197
1197
272.9
272.9
200.9
83.4
349.5
129.7
333
0.0778
0.2
188.0°
1230
1310
1526
1526
273.7
273.7
271.7
64.1
330.2
163.4
283
0.0747
4.3
-98-
-------
Table 8.14 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 9-83
Release height: 265 m
QL
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
P
"as
7
ay
25
1
az
z of (Vmax
K0
a.
168.4°
1310
1323
177
177
268.2
268.2
36.9
19.8
285.8
22.7
276
0.1372
9.8
172.3°
1310
1350
452
452
267.7
267.7
63.0
40.2
306.2
100.1
270
0.1066
5.4
176.1°
1310
1350
718
718
266.1
266.1
164.3
91.3
357.3
159.2
283
0.0932
0.0
178.9°
1310
1350
911
911
269.8
269.8
188.3
80.8
346.8
160.3
333
0.0708
0.9
183.1°
1310 .
1350
1197
1197
273.7
273.7
271.2
28.1
294.1
219.8
33
0.0648
0.6
188.0°
1310
1350
1527
1527
273.5
273.5
228.0
79.1
345.2
204.2
133
0.0618
4.5
195.0°
1329
1350
1998
1998
275.1
275.1
333.4
123.0
389.1
226.2
433
0.0634
9.9
-99-
-------
Table 8.15 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 10-83
Release height: surface
,
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
p
7S
7
-------
Table 8.16 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 11-83
Release height: surface
,
Start time (MST)
End time (MST)
PS
P
"9~S
7
ay
rs
T
*z
z of (xn)max
Ko
a
172.3°
1240
1320
335
456
252.2
262.5
141.6
164.1
161.9
139.1
83
0.1038
10.1
175.0°
1240
1320
538
654
250.0
257.6
212.9
312.7
310.5
198.9
133
0.0615
15.0
178.9°
1240
1320
811
931
254.8
259.5
215.6
344.8
342.6
230.4
183
0.0553
14.1
183.1°
1240
1320
1134
1251
253.8
257.4
299.3
438.0
435.9
241.0
233
0.0412
19.3
190.0°
1240
1320
1707
1823
253.0
255.5
464.0
490.1
487.9
221.9
633
0.0335
27.0
205.0°
1240
1320
2930
3054
260.7
261.9
571.6
469.1
467.0
226.3
483
0.0119
34.4
-101-
-------
9. CHAFF PLUME STATISTICS FROM RADAR OBSERVATIONS
T. Uttal and W. R. Moninger
9.1 Data Format
Radar observations for the 12 periods chosen for the CONDORS study are pre-
sented in this section. For each period, up to nine parameters describing the
statistical properties of the observed average plumes are tabulated in Sec. 9.3
(there were typically about 17 volume scans in an averaging period). These
calculations are discussed in Sec. 4.4. It should be noted that the first
period, designated 0-82, was not included in any subsequent analysis or in the
radar-lidar intercomparison. However, the radar data alone are of sufficient
interest that we include them here. Periods 1, 3, 10 and 11 of 1983 were pro-
cessed for the lidar, but have not been processed for the radar. Therefore,
data for these periods are not included here. Also, periods 5 and 6 of 1983
were combined into one averaging period in the radar data analysis.
Most of the statistical parameters presented in the following tables can
also be viewed in graphical form in Appendix B.
9.2 Radar Coordinates and Symbols
x horizontal downwind coordinate referenced to tower base (m).
y horizontal crosswind coordinate referenced to tower base (m).
7 centroid of xz (m).
y of ^xz^max crosswind position of maximum x (m).
z vertical coordinate referenced to tower base (m).
1 centroid of x (m).
-103-
-------
z of (x ) height of maximum x (m).
y max
x . x
y z
standard deviation of xz along y axis (m).
standard deviation of X along z axis (m).
chaff concentration (filament/(50 m)3).
horizontally crosswind integrated chaff concentration (filament/
(50 m)2 horizontal column).
vertically integrated chaff concentration (filament/(50 m)2
vertical column).
integrated concentrations normalized to total 1000, (see Eqs, 4.3,
4.5).
horizontally (crosswind) and vertically integrated chaff concen-
tration (filament/50 m thick slab normal to plume axis).
A pictorial representation of the above symbols is given in Fig. 9.1.
Fig. 9.1. Conceptual diagram illustrating coordinates and symbols
defined in Sec. 9.2.
-104-
-------
9.3 Average Chaff Plume Statistics for CONDORS 82 and CONDORS 83
Table 9.1 CONDORS 82 averaged plume statistics, Period 0-82
Release height: 3 m, direction x axis: 295°
X
125
375
625
875
1125
1375
1625
1875
2125
2375
2625
2875
3125
3375
3625
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
y of
(xz}max
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
155
95
112
189
342
335
378
407
479
509
489
491
498
439
473
az
124
84
70
88
194
199
267
255
255
268
283
286
264
239
245
z of (
^xy 'max
85
65
75
215
215
265
185
85
565
535
255
205
465
315
515
'Vrax
1
1
16
43
31
36
25
31
19
16
16
21
13
16
15
XyZ
2
3
47
191
233
250
188
342
273
203
223
252
185
173
176
-105-
-------
Table 9.2 CONDORS 82 averaged plume statistics, Period 1-82
Release height: 235 m, direction x axis: 250°
X
125
375
625
875
1125
1375
1625
1875
2125
2375
2625
2875
3125
3375
3625
y
-11
-53
-126
-239
-249
-268
-331
-525
-528
-527
-342
-493
-656
-608
-636
^
132
76
128
177
151
283
345
290
357
391
441
383
442
619
675
y of
^xz max
15
-35
-125
-345
-225
-255
-405
-495
-495
-615
-255
-655
-885
-815
-1045
z
220
201
213
243
199
209
195
181
221
246
255
214
246
265
265
''
34
53
87
126
118
141
136
125
132
- 124
113
127
132
127
124
z of
^xy 'max
225
195
185
195
125
85
75
75
125
215
285
115
135
195
225
xy 'max
5474
5706
3461
3603
4622
3608
3066
2619
2306
2356
1769
2050
1702
1444
1590
xyz
8786
14626
13849
20969
21919
16785
13949
11367
14216
15484
11111
10917
11260
9919
10676
-106-
-------
Table 9.3 CONDORS 82 averaged plume statistics, Period 2-82
Release height: 235 m, direction x axis: 250°
X
150
450
750
1050
1350
1650
1950
2250
2550
2850
3150
3450
3750
4050
4350
y
14
-117
-441
-486
-528
-566
-663
-805
-838
-865
-1090
-1136
-1138
-1235
-1222
°y
139
121
501
350
285
346
356
433
529
559
552
704
758
663
751
y of
(xz'max
-6
-102
-594
-716
-702
-726
-738
-918
-870
-666
-1098
-1350
-1878
-1242
-1578
z
204
230
184
203
217
245
199
243
281
290
266
308
323
312
348
az
38
82
109
129
147
156
148
170
177
188
169
187
186
175
182
z of
^xy'max
205
185
105
105
95
125
95
75
155
125
175
195
125
155
155
Vmax
— — — —
6026
5195
6292
5390
2595
3651
3886
2315
2230
2789
1680
1329
1694
1191
XyZ
....
19991
16804
23807
27807
16298
17296
21550
15959
17111
18256
13707
11273
13615
11432
-107-
-------
Table 9.4 CONDORS 82 averaged plume statistics, Period 3-82
Release height: 167 m, direction x axis: 290°
X
225
475
725
975
1225
1475
1725
1975
2225
2475
2725
2975
3225
3475
3725
y
6
-29
-43
-34
-82
-76
-29
26
77
125
177
225
282
280
9
"y
63
116
175
223
256
296
334
381
403
411
432
452
456
451
310
y of
^max
35
5
15
95
-155
-275
45
175
25
175
305
335
415
335
135
z
141
161
207
252
294
339
386
431
460
475
479
474
467
443
412
az
60
109
142
169
190
199
210
223
231
236
242
246
249
242
235
z of
^xy 'max
95
75
115
125
125
245
345
295
415
455
495
445
455
315
265
xy max
11780
10768
8487
7640
6102
5024
4906
4392
4009
3385
3087
2763
2299
2104
1231
xyz
35536
46034
45819
52478
52752
52709
50629
49594
47851
41560
38186
32850
28511
25105
13989
-108-
-------
Table 9.5 CONDORS 82 averaged plume statistics, Period 4-82
Release height: 3 m, direction x axis: 250°
X
275
525
775
1025
1275
1525
1775
2025
2275
2525
2775
3025
3275
3525
y
-4
-122
-228
-188
-300
-276
-313
-385
-450
-540
-645
-678
-734
-806
ay
183
250
457
446
563
541
595
652
635
637
664
713
757
768
y of
*z max
35
-115
-395
85
-765
-105
-155
-625
-435
-725
-855
-925
-965
-1175
z
150
340
439
566
578
579
598
590
548
538
544
532
546
546
az
116
181
236
230
247
241
241
261
267
239
246
248
249
257
z of
^*y 'max
135
285
245
635
575
705
765
725
675
645
675
655
615
645
Vmax
428
146
137
118
140
107
106
96
91
82
78
65
62
50
XyZ
1424
1070
886
1114
1303
1312
1305
1156
1140
1018
909
834
727
620
-109-
-------
Table 9.6 CONDORS 82 averaged plume statistics, Period 5-82
Release height: 3 m, direction x axis: 250°
X
275
525
775
1025
1275
1525
1775
2025
2275
2525
2775
3025
3275
3525
y
-76
39
119
-48
-21
92
94
77
96
149
136
118
54
72
ay
241
376
470
445
589
573
645
711
752
790
834
863
939
951
y of
-45
305
355
-45
-55
195
605
425
255
35
-55
75
-55
275
z
257
319
352
572
651
706
708
723
681
650
613
581
585
595
•'
204
215
230
270
323
317
31.9
314
306
. 304
309
309
297
310
z of
(y )
*y 'max
85
155
245
565
435
665
765
665
715
745
745
635
625
655
xy max
607
1503
2530
321
313
239
219
194
178
157
131
128
122
88
xy2
3998
5251
6341
3827
4090
4068
3692
3205
2659
2394
2148
2065
1786
1333
-110-
-------
Table 9.7 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 2-83
Release height: 235 m, direction x axis: 297°
X
135
385
635
885
1135
1385
1635
1885
2135
2385
2635
2885
3135
3385
3635
y
61
52
38
41
57
49
66
41
54
54
74
96
73
70
37
^
y
192
105
154
193
226
266
290
345
393
454
491
552
607
621
645
y of
^xz 'max
-110
50
30
-39
130
90
130
190
250
270
150
210
190
250
290
z
177
161
167
197
300
343
399
439
434
432
468
512
540
575
583
•z
93
127
135
192
238
257
304
307
292
289
309
326
339
342
332
z of
'*y 'max
135
65
35
25
115
185
165
125
155
165
265
245
235
365
435
xy max
5388
4517
3656
5346
2187
1625
1429
1075
935
825
694
532
454
359
300
*
13811
19639
16299
18551
17258
15967
14841
13397
11560
10192
9292
8006
6881
5290
4489
-111-
-------
Table 9.8 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 4-83
Release height: 280 m, direction x axis: 302°
X
135
385
635
885
1135
1385
1635
1885
2135
2385
2635
2885
3135
3385
3635
y
65
126
184
185
280
374
432
475
506
541
570
634
651
672
674
CTy
124
149
211
284
335
390
394
406
435
483
509
536
567
609
638
y of
40
60
120
120
320
400
440
540
420
520
520
580
640
580
600
z
333
284
312
339
410
452
452
443
442
472
510
534
532
538
541
az
121
224
252
279
270
273
266
256
260
274
283
285
289
287
285
z of
^xy max
255
115
75
75
185
325
365
335
375
415
465
485
485
535
385
*y max
2495
2390
2405
3643
1590
1463
1318
1140
944
822
768
673
570
478
426
xyz
9405
16548
18222
20829
20906
20952
19522
16738
14413
12807
11710
10792
9189
8032
6896
-112-
-------
Table 9.9 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 5,6-83
Release height: 280 m, direction x axis: 309°
X
135
385
635
885
1135
1385
1635
1885
2135
2385
2635
2885
3135
3385
3635
y
31
13
-42
-124
-141
-153
-146
-117
-77
-22
-3
13
24
76
145
ay
103
225
284
386
464
543
596
668
728
788
851
888
938
965
942
y of
'*z 'max
59
59
85
-227
-175
-253
-279
-253
-71
-123
-123
137
397
215
423
z
253
206
217
228
300
355
385
412
423
440
445
452
453
449
443
CTz
99
157
186
205
228
241
242
240
239
- 240
236
232
234
231
231
z of
^xy 'max
225
135
105
25
85
105
165
225
295
295
305
375
385
405
365
(*y}max
2661
1744
1622
1656
1040
760
613
553
542
462
439
404
359
348
310
xyz
5404
7861
9475
' 8453
8513
8477
7899
7823
7610
6790
6304
5682
5094
4731
4182
-113-
-------
Table 9.10 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 7-83
Release height: 280 m, direction x axis: 300°.
X
125
375
625
875
1125
1375
1625
1875
2125
2375
2625
2875
3125
3375
3625
y
46
83
112
152
228
252
447
519
631
767
826
921
991
1128
1212
ay
73
120
176
296
372
467
586
701
111
832
865
915
961
957
960
y of
30
110
110
90
330
310
510
150
10
110
170
110
190
670
950
z
214
179
216
153
242
302
312
349
385
399
419
440
450
455
452
az
53
106
125
156
200
223
245
241
233
232
227
224
224
229
230
I Of
(Y )
v*y 'max
205
105
175
35
35
65
35
155
175
145
225
295
445
425
435
Vmax
4250
2313
1853
6199
2559
1536
1185
919
648
618
614
553
537
484
457
xyz
8711
10707
11156
13997
12272
11272
9746
9533
8328
7600
7901
7363
7048
6965
6294
-114-
-------
Table 9.11 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 8-83
Release height: 265 m, direction x axis: 264°
X
135
385
635
885
1135
1385
1635
1885
2135
2385
2635
2885
3135
3385
3635
y
48
73
146
147
210
253
279
348
382
428
476
497
564
591
603
ay
162
102
128
172
178
228
258
305
321
352
364
414
458
487
498
y of
*xz ^max
45
55
175
95
245
275
285
365
385
425
465
465
445
625
605
z
263
287
275
272
282
277
306
312
320
329
324
327
316
302
303
az
74
89
123
154
153
169
174
171
174
177
179
181
182
180
183
z of
^xy 'max
285
265
255
215
205
205
335
285
275
285
265
305
325
195
225
Vmax
1244
2354
1932
1572
1638
1373
1295
1358
1515
1302
1154
996
958
928
950
Xyz
3160
10836
12253
12403
13958
12610
12714
12702
12995
12253
10858
9867
9238
9190
8957
-115-
-------
Table 9.12 CONDORS 83 averaged plume statistics, Period 9-83
Release height: 265 m, direction x axis: 266°
X
135
385
635
885
1135
1385
1635
1885
2135
2385
2635
2885
3135
3385
3635
y
65
78
101
157
168
219
267
260
328
337
366
415
466
484
522
ay
75
96
126
189
208
250
262
287
304
342
367
378
411
423
431
y of
(XzUx
55
85
105
195
165
175
255
185
315
265
325
325
345
415
505
z
265
278
286
279
308
302
304
303
299
333
319
341
337
345
357
°Z
44
85
132
179
167
205
191
198
196
205
207
198
211
211
210
z of
^xy 'max
275
265
285
155
295
125
225
195
145
155
235
255
235
185
225
xy 'max
4326
2666
2505
2168
1902
1226
1343
1123
1088
927
974
894
723
743
674
XyZ
8185
11049
13850
12873
14108
10623
12289
10441
10321
9986
9218 .
8777
8012
7983
7460
-116-
-------
10. IN SITU OBSERVATIONS FROM GAS SAMPLERS
G. A. Briggs and G. E. Start
Normalized concentrations of the two tracer gases, SFg and Freon 1381,
measured along the 29 points on the sampling arc for the duration of the 1983
data averaging periods are presented in Table 10.1. As mentioned in Chapter
5, each 120 min diffusion run is separated into twelve 10 min sampling periods
referred to as "fields" in the table. For example, Period 1-83 comprises
Fields 7, 8 and 9. The bearings of the 29 stations listed are the corrected
values with the 2.5° offset removed from the nominal azimuth positions.
Superscripts in parenthesis indicate the number of missing 10 min samples in
the average. If more than half the 10 min samples are missing, no average is
given.
The "background" values of x/Q listed in Table 10.1 do not necessarily
represent the actual background level of the tracers. They represent the high
side of the range of measured x/Q values that occurs most frequently outside
the obvious plume boundaries. These and lesser values seem to be randomly
distributed with respect to sampler positions. The background values are
suggested on the basis of frequency distributions for the 10 min samples for
each entire run; these distributions are shown here in Fig. 10.1. (Values
that were outside the scale ranges are credited in the highest and lowest
log(x/Q) ranges in these figures.) For SFg there was a clear peak in the low-
level x/Q frequency for four of the runs; for the remaining one, Test 2 (28
August 1983, Periods 2-83 and 3-83), there were two peaks in the distribution,
one near 60 x 10"9 and one near 120 x 10"9 s/m3; we chose the smaller x/Q as
-117-
-------
Table 10.1 Average x/Q, 10"9 s/m3, measured along sampling arc during
CONDORS 83 averaging periods
Period
Tracer
Duration (m1n)
Fields
Background
Bearing
202.5"
207.5"
212.5"
217.5°
222.5"
227.5"
232.5"
237.5"
242.5°
247.5"
252.5"
257,5"
262.5°
267.5"
272.5°
277.5"
282.5"
287.5"
292.5"
297.5"
302.5"
307.5"
312.5°
317.5"
322.5"
327.5"
332.5"
337.5"
342.5"
1-83
1381
30
7-9
52
21
954
...
334
6")
511
...
—
...
95")
—
...
...
21
90
145
—
133
405
205
364
335
348
158
101
52
49
42
7
1-83
SF6
30
7-9
52
38
45
...
18
21(1)
29
...
—
...
5")
—
...
...
56
52
27
—
46
294
364
215
143
141
183
212
51
52
29
32
2-83
SF6
30
13-15
72
20
72
48
39
28
25
33
49
e")
72
62
33
70
745
200
312
792
1018
314
1090
1160
461
369
138
348
95")
54")
...
...
3-83
SF6
60
19-24
72
66
98
46")
36
75")
24")
39
24
21
210
370
313
463
9l")
1567
1598
835
412
148"'
399
267
192")
149")
144<2>
136<3)
...
139<3>
...
...
4-83
SF6
50
25-29
100
64")
67<2>
9l")
24
112
57
182
98")
34
65
50")
70
103
73")
49(1)
103
157
259
362
348
267
774")
1018
540")
546
253")
2725")
116
144
5-83
SF6
40
49-52
72
79
100
16s")
165
29
ios")
69
52
476
69
106
175
1771'1)
752")
1064
784
1250
736
720")
793
818
650
451
182")
852")
12495(1'
84
744
93
6-83
SF6
30
53-55
72
45
33
88
123
2l")
46
89
70
...
38
738
67
296
60
242
364
312
240
264
239")
698
1010
900
6606
.*.
2756
1338")
636
414
7-83
SF6
30
57-59
72
71
47
90")
86
504
21
75
446
ll")
78
419
72
119")
290
563
673
774
1318
703
682
1064
681
967")
887
659
12532
467
548
272
8-83
SF6
40
63-66
100
M(2)
37(2>
151<2>
26(2)
42(2>
96
126
60
124")
310
324")
728
1445
1112
237
2337
221
191(1)
45
149
31
74
71
680
67")
70")
66
9-83
SF6
40
67-70
100
...
...
140
229")
88
265
37
120
895
968
1838
689
166
2659
36(1)
32
58
155
SO
151
140<2)
230
23
117
94
Note: Superscripts 1n parenthesis Indicate number of missing 10 m1n samples (no avg. 1f >50X missing).
-118-
-------
K-
1381 - TEST 1 - 27 AUG 83
If*
CHI/0
19 -
SF6 - TEST 1 - 27 AUG 83
CHI/3
ia-s
3-
13-
SF6 - TEST 2-28 AUG 83
CHl/Q
SF6 - TEST 3-31 AUG 83
CHI/0
18 -*
IB-5
SF6 - TEST 5 - 6 SEPT 83
a-
SF6 - TEST 6 - 7 SEPT 83
CHI/0
u-s
Figure 10.1 Frequency of occurrence of 10 min samples by log (x/Q)
categories, 7 per decade, for each tracer in each successful run of
CONDORS 83. x/Q in s/m3. Out-of-range values placed in highest or
lowest ranges within each figure abscissa.
-119-
-------
"background" in this case. The 13B1 distribution has a number of peaks
broadly distributed; the background value in this case is partly chosen on the
basis of Period 1-83 (fields 7-9), the only data averaging period for that
run.
Tables 10.2 to 10/7 show all the 10 min x/Q values measured for the five
successful runs during CONDORS 83. All five had acceptable ranges of values
for the elevated-release SF,, but only the first run gave reasonable magni-
tudes for the surface-release 13B1 tracer. The remainder of the measurements
are not shown because strong contamination of the samples is suspected, as
mentioned in Section 5.4. The suspected causes of the contamination are
discussed at length in Appendix C.
It is evident in Tables 10.2 - 10.7 and in Fig. 10.1 that there are
infrequent "spikes" of very large 10 min x/Q compared to that measured at
nearby samplers. (In Tests 1 and 5, some of these occurred slightly off the
high end of the scales in Fig. 10.1) It is difficult to accept all of these
as real, rather than as products of sporadic contamination. For instance, the
largest x/Q, (8000 mVs)"1 for 1381 in Field 12 at 247.5° azimuth, implies the
equivalent of a plume only 50 m wide and high impacting on only that par-
ticular sampler for 10 min, at x = 1250 m during highly dispersive conditions
(Pasquill "B" stability category). For SFg, during Test 5 (6 Sept. 1983)
there were three spikes of about 1/4 this magnitude and four spikes of lesser
magnitude for 10 min samples at a single sampler, 327.5° azimuth; the extreme
case, Field 60, had 578 times the average X/Q of its two nearest neighbors in
azimuth. It is particularly difficult to imagine that such spikes of very
high x/Q could repeatedly hit the same sampler during noncongruent sampling
-120-
-------
Table 10.2 1381 x/Q, 10"9 s/m3, for 27 August 1983, 1230-1430 MST
Field
Bearing
202.5°
207. 58
212.5"
217.5°
222.5°
227.5°
232.5°
237.5°
242.5°
247.5°
252.5°
257.5°
262.5°
267.5°
272.5°
277.5°
282.5°
237.5°
292.5°
297.5°
302.5°
307.5°
312.5°
317.5°
322.5°
327.5°
332.5°
337.5°
342.5°
1
52
1290
—
896
12
569
0
179
779
527
—
19
0
15
0
0
0
222
310
13
—
11
99
175
0
0
174
262
252
2
0
1297
...
1096
0
46
20
0
9
974
0
53
...
225
384
894
—
247
327
59
0
17
216
0
0
0
111
0
14
3
117
1116
...
1034
...
825
191
6
18
0
0
35
876
109
455
...
268
673
113
43
467
43
0
0
19
...
35
96
0
4
328
...
...
1034
76
0
...
75
19855
0
0
—
0
74
590
1001
17
117
0
78
220
13
29
0
72
0
36
311
152
5
0
1019
...
524
0
1063
25
37
19101
...
—
87
—
0
6
883
342
42
479
30
372
0
19
302
72
91
11
0
0
6
0
911
...
883
0
424
...
...
—
...
...
—
...
49
231
321
692
0
0
0
327
0
252
212
28
842
0
166
0
7
36
726
...
0
0
607
...
—
...
.,-
...
...
...
7
76
169
...
0
575
30
485
0
664
311
93
84
8
0
0
8
0
1221
...
1001
12
563
...
—
...
0
—
—
—
41
78
0
...
118
278
298
294
216
380
164
211
37
126
0
0
Period 1-83
9
25
915
...
0
365
...
...
...
189
—
—
...
14
114
265
—
282
361
287
312
788
0
0
0
35
13
127
21
10
9
—
—
7592
494
—
...
—
...
7597
—
—
—
10903
3262
2597
—
3072
4304
17854
2648
5739
7459
2229
21893
8329
9526
11
996
2766
—
919
5999
—
—
—
—
1627
—
„_
—
—
—
—
...
—
—
—
—
4844
18442
10909
1777
392
4106
12
--.
4126
517
—
—
—
—
—
125130
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
171
—
—
2513
2910
6617
2793
26
-121-
-------
Table 10.3 SFg X/Q, 10"9 s/m3, for 27 August 1983, 1230-1430 MST
Field
Bearing
202.5°
207.5°
212.5°
217.5°
222.5°
227.5°
232.5'
237.5°
242.5°
247.5°
252.5°
257.5°
262.5°
267.5°
272.5°
277.5°
282.5°
287.5°
292.5°
297.5°
302.5°
307.5°
312.5°
317.5°
322.5°
327.5°
332.5°
337.5°
342.5°
1
26
92
—
16
183
781
232
580
546
206
—
114
323
59
150
46
38
835
60
28
.—
1
44
10
12
21
26
38
23
2
54
72
—
946
18
556
42
4
1
240
72
21
—
84
1
602
—
21
172
4
1
31
76
44
13
33
58
34
4
3
22
13
—
79
—
195
83
48
68
41
24
53
128
1639
983
...
54
39
17
11
50
4
30
1
13
—
14
34
1
4
48
...
75
31
9
—
17
103
42
36
.—
2396
1745
1335
144
46
177
38
64
11
49
36
1
41
78
1
98
12
5
36
8
...
70
56
64
70
25
72
...
...
44
—
932
24
674
197
91
179
83
209
41
4
52
50
4
34
19
33
6
38
14
— -
1
19
62
—
...
...
...
...
.—
...
50
76
19
46
41
83
441
328
337
50
32
9
109
50
65
16
7
35
50
...
32
1
18
—
—
...
...
...
„ -
...
34
60
23
...
56
313
511
215
73
315
152
44
15
41
37
3
8
50
39
—
16
42
19
—
...
—
10
—
—
—
124
59
6
...
10
126
231
227
1
1
332
79
82
38
31
37
Period 1-83
9
28
45
—
5
—
51
—
—
...
1
—
—
—
10
35
51
...
72
442
352
203
356
105
66
512
55
78
18
57
10
46
—
34
26
—
...
...
...
259
—
...
...
106
111
63
—
81
296
524
541
287
138
124
175
284
259
11
10
32
—
5
72
...
...
...
...
77
—
—
...
...
—
—
—
...
—
—
268
—
43
6
14
95
242
12
V —
40
...
1
...
...
22476
• —
...
—
...
—
—
130
—
...
113
37
41
79
45
-122-
-------
Table 10.4 SFg X/Q, 10"9 s/m3, for 28 August 1983, 1130-1330 MST
Field
Bearing
202.5°
207.5°
212.5°
217.5°
222.5°
227.5°
232.5°
237.5°
242.5°
247.5°
252.5°
257.5°
262.5°
267.5°
272.5°
277.5°
282.5°
287.5°
292.5°
297.5°
302.5°
307.5°
312.5°
317.5°
322.5°
327.5°
332.5°
337.5°
342.5°
13
1
65
56
1
82
58
51
43
1
208
52
22
44
1916
126
283
1291
1894
302
1019
2234
622
131
122
173
—
—
—
—
14
1
131
48
21
1
15
1
66
...
1
51
76
38
288
346
366
918
515
56
1092
908
131
360
32
741
59
59
—
---
Period 2-83
15
59
19
39
95
1
1
47
39
11
3
83
1
79
29
127
288
166
645
584
1161
339
629
616
260
129
130
49
135
43
16
1
1
49
65
1
36
*
49
136
1
31
7
24
8
1079
53
111
189
523
537
980
469
494
356
536
348
120
234
119
6
17
1
1
4
111
6
1
49
140
1
110
7
60
96
80
114
48
242
185
641
1042
807
459
379
486
500
177
148
85
171
18
55
1
24
1
1
5
27
41
1
49
54
1
—
187
312
277
499
679
107
602
1591
1475
638
207
57
150
54
64
85
19
13
175
30
91
250
72
13
119
1
139
781
1
1522
276
315
718
473
371
245
101
79
135
138
330
110
—
119
—
—
20
135
8
58
74
111
34
59
1
37
178
206
792
147
15
4508
6010
2636
488
160
293
126
60
71
20
95
56
...
...
...
21
49
192
60
35
1
11
63
1
8
364
789
675
157
44
791
770
472
221
167
259
209
228
—
113
201
100
229
...
...
Period
22
22
157
—
18
13
—
10
24
1
193
79
93
191
74
152
247
667
285
74
558
305
473
153
113
—
—
68
...
—
3-83
23
58
1
73
1
1
1
53
1
76
11
224
215
429
—
1996
1459
485
742
607
883
—
276
—
—
—
—
...
...
24
119
55
11
1
—
1
30
1
1
323
139
102
334
49
739
385
277
363
94
399
1
65
108
—
—
...
—
—
...
-123-
-------
Table 10.5 SFg X/Q, 10"9 s/m3, for 31 August 1983, 1055-1255 MST
Field
Bearing
202.5°
207.5°
212.5°
217.5°
222.5°
227.5°
232.5°
237.5°
242.5°
247.5°
252.5°
257.5°
262.5°
267.5°
272.5°
277.5°
282.5°
287.5°
292.5°
297.5°
302.5°
307.5°
312.5°
317.5°
322.5°
327.5°
332.5°
337.5°
342.5°
25
56
122
70
38
1
159
84
88
63
90
58
100
84
39
50
44
375
141
268
237
114
900
2521
353
27
43
76
5
95
26
96
...
96
24
137
1
142
122
46
75
43
1
69
116
—
73
33
282
509
293
689
1009
1421
396
1270
162
1589
113
1
27
—
1
21
26
156
38
62
85
18
49
22
64
1
57
22
17
287
367
618
611
290
...
368
—
56
114
8817
109
167
28
66
...
...
1
216
88
55
97
40
63
74
167
302
79
63
316
64
88
45
116
150
259
438
577
241
692
—
181
138
29
39
79
175
31
50
1
567
...
4
49
...
19
61
...
61
65
25
416
368
484
93
929
343
834
1136
...
417
173
321
30
...
97
52
31
1
89
49
...
76
54
...
64
96
170
102
1
151
154
86
1015
242
370
598
470
179
288
190
16
97
31
—
48
1
55
1
90
67
1
—
77
...
45
6
749
330
63
- 176
127
57
71
90
171
76
134
—
42
4483
188
336
32
40
1
16
47
1
,116
—
53
102
1
156
60
92
71
68
274
244
...
48
54
66
93
151
131
203
1709
71
123
33
52
1
84
53
—
80
63
83
46
71
9
40
29
65
238
27
50
84
124
127
64
54
...
732
359
855
127
—
633
34
15
1
1
74
1
83
107
88
8
34
63
78
117
100
180
1
256
179
114
11
96
132
174
169
391
1495
—
391
35 36
58 1
1
42 1
41 90
12
490 65
64 213
64 39
58 80
57 14
32 40
93 73
21 28
270 165
195 126
4700 1296
160 145
392 220
85 219
472 624
444 332
908 70
599 103
91 291
91 377
97 682
63 1280
103 1123
63 692
Period 4-83
-124-
-------
Table 10.6 SFg X/Q, 10"9 s/m3, for 6 September 1983, 1050-1250 MST
Field
Bearing
202.5°
207.5°
212.5°
217.5°
222.5°
227.5°
232.5°
237.5°
242.5°
247.5°
252.5°
257.5°
262.5°
267.5°
272.5°
277.5°
282.5°
287.5°
292.5°
297.5°
302.5°
307.5°
312.5°
317.5°
322.5°
327.5°
332.5°
337.5°
342.5°
49
70
129
313
356
58
65
69
2
235
190
118
133
122
229
574
825
1682
1429
1512
790
434
161
252
1952
1286
28
43
17
50
117
114
148
239
1
91
48
37
1475
63
202
56
311
767
1726
429
1219
253
480
225
273
88
48
160
39
186
84
2655
Period
51
65
65
44
1
1
159
73
133
187
23
51
462
—
1262
1031
344
1063
707
167
619
1541
640
615
133
566
—
89
65
12
5-83
52
63
90
—
64
56
---
85
35
8
1
52
50
100
—
924
1539
1034
556
—
1537
1023
1710
1443
—
—
36012
137
214
248
53
36
1
169
46
1
64
64
80
—
56
59
63
30
63
238
54
271
284
247
—
398
465
904
8371
—
285
155
127
23
54
91
63
59
257
—
39
63
60
33
55
2060
64
278
84
364
175
453
265
393
222
911
563
534
8093
— -
6015
—
104
52
55 56
9 41
36 1
36 61
67 233
41 58
35 35
140 23
72 457
42
1 49
96 490
70 188
580 281
33
121 67
864 121
. 213 98
173
151 81
256 58
784 124
2003 262
1262 303
3356 42
2725 74
1967 16445
2521 2052
1677 1696
1168 1230
Period 6-83
57
70
61
105
59
44
1
36
608
20
79
677
75
194
756
1041
417
964
728
129
357
1149
1001
1359
556
1409
27155
930
1472
358
58
93
31
76
176
78
57
43
665
1
56
502
108
45
76
42
84
100
1286
864
1230
1956
389
576
1998
468
9402
423
121
414
59
51
49
—
23
1389
6
146
65
—
98
79
33
—
39
606
1518
1258
1939
1116
460
88
153
—
107
99
1038
46
50
42
60
65
18
56
10
829
148
1
122
—
20
60
21
220
175
658
554
225
451
148
123
596
226
542
8010
44
32078
67
40
65
Period 7-83
-125-
-------
Table 10.7 SFg X/Q, 10"9 s/m3, for 7 September 1983, 1210-1410 MST
Field
Bearing
202.5°
207.5°
212.5°
217.5°
222.5°
227.5°
232.5°
237.5°
242.5°
247.5°
252.5°
257.5°
262.5°
267.5°
272.5°
277.5°
282.5°
287.5°
292.5°
297.5°
302.5°
307.5°
312.5°
317.5°
322.5°
327.5°
332.5°
337.5°
342.5°
61
70
77
12
1
75
1
84
430
205
427
—
854
422
836
659
2487
62
40
47
68
78
1
101
60
131
105
101
53
39
62
1
29
250
31
16
76
1
954
635
341
...
84
813
576
228
1004
413
470
35
82
47
74
1
73
48
41
96
1
63
38
230
85
55
136
50
—
59
63
1
260
849
344
1898
2533
1398
328
85
1
277
123
102
37
48
75
299
107
139
72
64
—
20
20
166
1
26
48
349
21
57
65
—
343
1201
1433
375
144
537
~-
52
28
41
133
111
71
—
71
78
Period
65
—
—
—
...
...
66
183
93
178
—
233
564
490
572
855
180
40
41
146
1
265
46
27
97
879
59
—
29
8-83
66
...
—
—
„_
...
33
94
1
38
55
94
65
182
1475
763
64
9079
304
150
5
199
1
87
1
1471
36
1
86
67
...
...
...
...
...
—
264
491
115
1
1
210
27
46
917
459
105
9227
10
34
57
80
123
90
...
260
1
84
1
68
...
—
—
—
—
—
61
...
40
316
1
186
2493
746
1112
216
118
1289
40
94
68
166
60
53
238
22
87
63
169
Period
69
—
—
—
—
...
...
183
24
105
58
31
67
916
1097
1514
226
359
20
57
1
106
295
10
275
41
519
1
226
102
9-83
70
...
—
—
—
...
—
51
172
93
685
117
19
145
1984
3810
1856
82
102
...
1
1
80
46
186
...
117
2
97
104
71
...
—
—
—
—
—
778
47
56
117
205
123
340
90
179
107
58
3137
90
1660
100
86
95
198
103
864
50
304
79
72
...
—
—
—
-_.
—
81
102
289
1407
231
51
—
107
9981
66
83
3289
42
44
124
67
77
37
89
1435
87
105
141
-126-
-------
intervals, while entirely missing the nearest samplers, about 110 m away. In
these cases contamination of the particular sampler is easily suspected,
although no cause of this type of contamination has been uncovered.
Tables 10.8 and 10.9 are provided here to identify the most suspect 10-min
spikes of large x/Q values affecting our averaging periods. Table 10.8 iden-
tifies cases of multiple spikes occurring at the same sampler during the same
run. A spike is defined here as more than 5 times both the background x/Q and
the average x/Q of the nearest two neighbors. If the neighboring x/Q is
missing, the designated background value for the run is used in its place.
Table 10.9 identifies cases of single spikes of 10- or 20-min high x/Q values
using a slightly more restrictive criterion. A spike is defined here as more
than 10 times both the background x/Q and the average x/Q of the nearest two
neighbors, with the same fallback for missing neighbors.
These tables are presented for convenience, but we hesitate to recommend
discarding all of these data samples. Some could be real, especially the less
extreme cases like Fields 70 and 72 of SFg at 247.5°. The incidence of these
suspect samples ranges from none for SFg during Period ^33 to 16>4% fop 13B1
during the same period. The average incidence for all 871 measured SF.,
o
samples during the averaging periods is 3.1%. The recomputed period average
x/Q's with removal of all spikes listed in Tables 10.8 and 10.9 are listed in
Table 10.10 and plotted in Fig. 10.2. These averages give much improved
appearance to the x/Q cross sections compared with the untouched averages in
Table 10.1. Except when the spikes occur outside the azimuth range of the
plume, this filtering should have only small effects on computed a values.
However, inclusion or removal of the spikes has a large effect on crosswind-
-127-
-------
Table 10.8. Multiple spikes in tracer X affecting averaging periods
Period(s)
Affected
13B1: 1-83
ii
M
ii
n
SF,: 2-83
5 4
7
6,7
6
5,6,7
9
8,9
8,9
Bearing
207.5°
217.5°
227.5°
292.5°
302.5°
267.5°
332.5°
237.5°
252.5°
317.5°
327.5°
247.5°
287.5°
327.5°
Fields
1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,12
1,2,3,4,5,6,8,10
1,3,5,6,7,8,9
5,7
3,5,6,7
13,16
26,27,31,32
56,57,58
54,57,58
53,54,60
52,54,56,57,58,59,60
70,72
66,67,68,71,72
65,66,69,71,72
Avg. x/Q,
Spikes
1403
1758
631
527
413
1498
4150
577
1080
8158
18306
1046
5204
1034
10-9 s/m3
Neigbors
42
66
39
26
24
59
125
28
73
361
426
182
91
56
Ratio
34
26
16
21
17
25
33
21
15
23
43
6
57
18
Note: A "spike" in this context means that each x field listed exceeded both
the background and the average of the two neighboring samplers by at
least a factor of 5. If a neighboring sample is missing, background
x is assumed.
Table 10.9. Single spikes in tracer x affecting averaging periods.
Period(s)
Affected
SF,: 2-83
5 3
5
5
7
Bearing
322.5°
262.5°
242.5°
337.5°
222.5°
Fields
14
19
50
50
59-60
Avg. x/0,
Spikes
741
1522
1475
2655
1109
10'9 s/m3
Neigbors
46
138
50
78
47
Ratio
16
11
30
34
24
Note: A "spike" in this context means that each x field listed exceeded both
the background and the average of the two neighboring samplers by at
least a factor of 10. If a neighboring sample is missing, background
X is assumed.
-128-
-------
Table 10.10 Average x/Q, 10"9 s/m3, measured along sampling arc during
CONDORS 83 averaging periods, spikes removed
Period
Tracer
Duration (m1n)
Fields
Background
Bearing
202.5°
207.5°
212.5°
217.5°
222.5°
227.5°
232.5°
237.5°
242.5°
247.5°
252.5°
257.5°
262.5°
267.5°
272.5°
277.5°
282.5°
287.5°
292.5°
297.5°
302.5°
307.5°
312.5°
317.5°
322.5°
327.5°
332.5°
337.5°
342.5°
1-83
13B1
30
7-9
52
21
954
— —
o">
6">
511
---
*« •_
,.~_
95(D
...
...
- — —
21
90
145
...
133
320"'
205
303"'
335
348
158
101
52
49
42
7
1-83
SF6
30
7-9
52
38
45
« «.
18
21(D
29
,--
...
~~-
5(D
.—
_--
_. .
56
52
27
...
46
294
364
215
143
141
183
212
51
52
29
32
Note: Superscripts In parenthesis
2-83
SF6
30
13-15
72
20
72
48
39
28
25
33
49
6{1'
72
62
33
70
158(1'
200
312
792
1018
314
1090
1160
461
369
138
15l"'
95(D
54<1>
...
Indicate
3-83
SF6
60
19-24
72
66
98
46"'
36
75(l>
24(D
39
24
21
210
370
313
252(D
91(D
1567
1598
835
412
148"'
399
267
192(D
149"'
144<2>
136<3'
...
139(3)
—
number of
4-83
SF6
50
25-29
100
64"'
67<2'
9l(D
24
112
57
182
98"'
34
65
so'1'
70
103
73(D
49(D
103
157
259
362
348
267
774"'
1018
540(1)
546
253"'
2725(1)
116
144
missing
5-83
SF6
40
49-52
72
79
100
168"'
165
29
105"'
69
52
143"'
69
106
175
177"'
7520)
1064
784
1250
736
720(1)
793
818
650
451
182"'
352"'
736(2>
84
107(1)
93))n
6-83
SF6
30
53-55
72
45
33
88
123
21(D
46
89
70
...
38
78"'
67
296
60
242
364
312
240
264
239")
698
1010
900
W v
1126(1'
1338(1)
636
414
10 m1n samples (no
7-83
SF6
30
57-59
72
71
47
90"'
86
6l"'
21
75
446
ll"'
78
419
72
119"'
290
563
673
774
1318
703
682
1064
681
967"'
887
659
»«
467
548
272
avg. 1f
8-83
SF6
40
63-66
100
52(2)
37(2)
151(2)
26(2)
42^2'
96
126
60
124"'
310
324"'
728
1445
1112
237
90"»
221
19l"'
45
149
31
74
71
185<2>
67"'
70"'
66
9-83
SF6
40
67-70
100
...
...
...
....
140
229"'
88
125"'
37
120
895
968
1838
689
166
6l"'
36(1'
32
58
155
60
151
140<2>
133(1'
23
117
94
>50% missing).
-129-
-------
I
2M
+ 1381 - PERIOD 1-33 - FIELDS 7-9
244
KRUNO (DCS)
321
3t»
SF6 - PERIOD 2-83 - FIELDS 13-15
218
8DWIN8 (0£B)
329
36»
§
a
a
SF6 - PERIOD 1-83 - FIELDS 7-9
241 7S1
SEMINO (DCS)
SF6 - PERIOD 3-83 - FIELDS 19-24
239
zn
8CM(M (OEO)
329
a5!
SF6 - PERIOD 4-83 - FIELDS 25-29
241
2N
(DCS)
321
Figure 10.2. Log (x/Q) at each measured azimuth for each tracer in each
successful averaging period of CONDORS 83. x/Q in s/m3. Bearings are
nominal; actual bearings from BAO tower are 2.5° less. Horizontal dashed
line is designated background concentration. Long dashed lines are inter-
polations through azimuth of missing or doubtful measurements. Open
circles are averages listed in Table 10.10, obtained after removal of
"spikes" listed in Tables 10.8 and 10.9. Plus are averages listed in
Table 10.1, which are inclusive of spikes.
-130-
-------
SF6 - PERIOD 5-83 - FIELDS 49-52
ZM
SF5 - PERIOD 6-33 - FIELDS 53-55 *
288 248
2S8
toes)
33*
SF6 - PERIOD 8-83 - FIELDS 63-66
3fi> 238
2*8
•INS (OCS)
SF6 - PERIOD 7-83 - FIELDS 57-59
i
5V
5s'
*\
SF6 - PERIOD 9-33 - FIELDS 67-70
KMIW (CEO)
SB Iff
238 328
8CWINS (OE3)
Figure 10.2. Continued.
-131-
-------
integrated or summed values of X/Q for most periods. For instance, the inclu-
sion of the single 10 min spike from Field 52 at 327.5° more than doubles the
summed 40 min averages of SFg for Period 5-83.
Removal of these spikes generally does not affect the completeness of the
cross sections shown in Fig. 10.2, if 1) we accept an average at one sampler
if half or more of the 10 min samples remain and 2) we accept interpolation
across a single sampler lacking adequate measurements. However, for SFfi in
Period 6-83 we lose two adjacent samplers near the midpoint of the plume,
while inclusion of the spikes gives average X/Q's with unlikely magnitudes.
The 13B1 readings for Test 1, which affect Period 1-83, are another special
case. Here we find in Table 10.2 many very large x samples in the southwest;
sector, especially at 207.5°, 217.5°, and 227.5°. The wind direction was ini-
tially toward 240° during this run, but shifted to the range 270° - 340°
within 20 min of run initiation time. Thus, we would not expect to find
substantial plume concentrations in the SW sector. However, these samplers
were only 400 to 600 m west of a storage area that contained cylinders of 13B1
not in service at the time, and it has been established that some of these
cylinders have valves with substantial leakage (see Appendix C). While the
leakage rate would have to be quite large to produce such high x values, the
stored 1381 cylinders are a conceivable source. This explanation still leaves
the puzzle of very small values of x/Q at 202.5° and 222.5° for most fields,
and a few extremely large values near 245°. Considering these enigmas and the
many missing samples at azimuths less than 265°, it is convenient to pretend
that there were no 13B1 samplers captured in the SW sector. The removal of
spikes screened by the criterion in Table 10.8 effectively does this.
-132-
-------
11. DISCUSSION OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
W. L. Eberhard, 6. A. Briggs, W. R. Moninger, and J. C. Kaimal
11.1 Assessment of Observations
The results presented in the three previous chapters and Appendices A and
8 comprise an extensive data set useful for verifying diffusion models deve-
loped for the convective boundary layer. Although taken one year apart, the
data from CONDORS 82 and CONDORS 83 can be viewed as the product of a single
experiment; the sensor configuration was essentially the same for both years.
CONDORS 82, as stated earlier in this report, was designed to test the feasi-
bility of the oil fog and chaff tracer techniques. CONDORS 83 served to
complete the experiment with tracer releases separated in height and augmented
by the addition of conventional gas sampling techniques.
Processing and tabulation of the data required considerable investment in
personnel time. Data manipulations for model comparisons have only begun.
Some preliminary results have been presented at conferences (Moninger et al.,
1983; Eberhard and Lavery, 1984; Eberhard et al., 1985), highlighting some of
the more general characteristics observed during data processing. With data
now processed for all the selected periods, the findings of CONDORS 82 can be
summarized as follows:
1. The field results qualitatively support the plume behavior observed in
laboratory tank (Willis and Deardorff, 1978) and numerical model (Lamb,
1978) experiments. Excellent agreement is found (Moninger et al., 1983)
*•
between the crosswind integrated dimensionless chaff concentrations
-133-
-------
observed during Period 1-82 and the results from laboratory tank experi-
ments. The height of maximum concentration for Period 1-82 dropped with
downwind distance as observed in the tank and predicted by the numerical
model.
2. The oil fog and chaff data show good agreement in the horizontal profiles
of vertically integrated concentrations; the horizontal edges agree to
within 100 m of each other (Moninger et al., 1983). However, the vertical
profiles of crosswind integrated concentrations did not agree as well.
This is probably because of settling of the chaff, which has a terminal
velocity of 0.3 m/s. Such settling was generally small with respect to
statistical variations in the vertical behavior of plumes. (Buoyancy of
the hot oil fog was considered in Eberhard et al., 1985, and was estimated
to cause no more than a 13 m rise in the height of the oil fog plume.)
3. Neither the oil fog nor the chaff can be considered fully conserved, but
the losses can be reasonably compensated for within the distance range of
greatest interest (prior to uniform vertical mixing) by using the local
mass flux in place of source strength in x/Q calculations.
4. Extinction of the laser radiation by the haze and self-shielding by the
plume is not a serious problem. The data can be adequately corrected for
this attenuation, at least for plume-source distances of greatest
interest. Ground clutter present in the lowest 200 m of radar data can be
removed by comparing with clutter data obtained in the absence of chaff
and retaining only data with Doppler velocities or reflectivity above pre-
determined thresholds.
-134-
-------
In terms of meteorology and signal-to-noise ratios encountered, conditions
for CONDORS 83 were even more favorable than for CONDORS 82. The loss of most
gas sampler information through contamination of the sampler bags was indeed a
disappointment. But there were more periods with steady wind directions, wind
speeds, and boundary layer depths in 1983. The excellent agreement between
the horizontal profiles of oil fog, chaff and SFs gas for Period 9-83 reported
by Eberhard et al. (1985) was in part due to the steady conditions prevailing
at the time. Some small but significant departures from the laboratory tank
observations were noted in the behavior of the height of maximum con-
centration, but confirmation from analyses of other periods listed is needed
prior to final conclusions concerning this behavior.
A comprehensive study of all the data is beyond the scope of this report.
In the sections to follow, we limit ourselves to a case study of Period 9-83
to demonstrate some characteristics of the data presented in this report. The
period is an ideal one for this purpose: the oil fog, chaff, and SFg gas were
all released from the same elevated point, allowing direct comparison of
sampled results.
11.2 Meteorological Conditions for Period 9-83
Figure 7.1 shows the preliminary meteorological data that formed the
basis for selecting Period 9-83 for analysis. The mixed layer heights in the
figure were derived from essentially real-time data. Temperature and humidity
profiles obtained from the radiosonde data determined the inversion heights
plotted in the figure. The lidar heights reported were the tops (above the
lidar) of the surface-based haze layer. The radar heights reported were the
-135-
-------
top of a layer of natural targets, thought to be insects. The agreement bet-
ween the reported mixed layer heights is surprisingly good, as is the relative
constancy of that height through the afternoon. (Most other periods show a
small but steady increase in the mixed layer height with time.) Only toward
the end of Period 9-83 did the mixed layer show signs of rising rapidly. The
procedure used for establishing the value of z. are described in Chapter 7.
The wind speeds and wind directions in Fig. 7.1 are 5 min averages pro-
cessed a few weeks after the field experiment. The wind directions during
Period 9-83 remained well within the design range for tracer sampling. The
direction showed a small, gradual trend toward a more northerly component.
Period 9-83 had less variation in wind direction than most of the other
periods. The behavior of heat flux in Fig. 7.1 was typical for that time of
day.
11.3 Tracers
Oil fog and chaff were released during Period 9-83 from the carriage
at 265 m above the surface. The SFs was released from the personnel elevator
inside the tower structure at essentially the same height. (Freon 13B1 was
dispensed from the surface, but its measurements were invalidated by
contamination.)
Load capacity of the carriage allowed only one fogger to be operated
during Period 9-83, at an oil flow rate of about 26 g/s (see Table Al in
Appendix A). Surface releases during 1983 from the dual foggers were typi-
cally twice this rate. The chaff cutter operated in the usual manner (Sec.
-136-
-------
4.3) during Period 9-83 without interruption. SFs was released during Period
9-83 at a rate of 0.195 g/s (Table 5.2).
11.4 Tracer Sampling
During Period 9-83 the lidar scanned in the seven vertical planes shown
in Fig. 3.4. During the first 15 min of the period, only the six planes clo-
sest to the source were scanned. At 1326 MST the scan closest to the source
was discontinued and replaced by the farthest downwind scan shown in Fig. 3.4
because we desired measurements at larger X, and the oil fog signal seemed
adequate for detection there. Such rare instances of azimuth change can be
identified by the times listed in Tables 8.1 through 8.16. The scan at azi-
muth 183.1° was closest to the north-south midsection of the sampling arc.
During Period 9-83, which lasted 40 min, the lidar successfully completed 13
scans at 183.1°, as listed in the heading for this period in Fig. A.I.
Averaged over all the periods, the lidar completed the azimuth sequence once
every 210 s.
The domain of the radar scan was selected according to the mean wind
direction from the tower (with generous allowance for fluctuations in wind
direction) and mixed layer height. When the wind changed direction, the radar
scan was sometimes adjusted during a run to include all of the chaff plume to
at least 4 km downwind of the tower. Figure 3.4 shows the azimuth limits of
the radar scan for Period 9-83. The radar swept in azimuth at each of a
series of discrete elevation angles. During Period 9-83, the radar used 15
elevation angles, ranging from 0.5° to 10.1°, at 0.7° increments. This
sequence was completed 21 times (Table 4.2) during the period. Averaged over
-137-
-------
all periods, the radar completed a sequence of elevation sweeps once every
135 s.
Table 11.1 lists typical tracer sampling resolutions and intervals for
CONDORS. The vertical and crosswind parameters for the lidar and radar tended
to be somewhat finer near the source and coarser at the greatest reported
distances downwind. The vertical sampling intervals also scaled roughly with
mixed layer height.
Table 11.1. Typical tracer sampling resolutions and intervals
Item
Lidar
resolution
interval
Radar
resolution
interval
Gas
resolution
interval
Vertical
2 m
10 m
70 m
70 m
point
Crosswind
6 m
3 m
160 m
90 m
point
100 m
Downwind
2 m
380 m
90 m
37.5 m
poi nt
Time
instantaneous
210 s
instantaneous
135 s
continuous
600 s
The sampling intervals for the lidar and the radar (210 s and 135 s) have to be
examined in the context of typical eddy passage times. The eddies in the con-
vective boundary layer are typically 1.5 z. (Willis and Deardorff, 1976b;
Kaimal et al., 1976), so the eddy passage time is about 1.5 z./U which was 255
s for Period 9-83. Thus, the sampling rates for the lidar and the radar are
not rapid enough to fully resolve the individual eddy passages. Some aliasing
in the data may be present. The radar data are probably more representative
of the ensemble average than the lidar data, since the radar scan fills the
entire volume of the plume rather than only taking slices at discrete distan-
ces downwind like the lidar.
-138-
-------
The total sampling time for Period 9-83, T = 40 min, corresponds to a non-
dimensional interval Tu"/zi = 14.1 (Table 7.1). This represents 9 to 10 typical
eddy passages, which can be considered a statistically meaningful "ensemble"
of events (individual scans). However, the comparable nondimensional interval
for the laboratory tank experiments was 28, allowing a better approximation to
a true average.
11.5 Comparisons of Tracer Measurements
Since the oil fog, chaff, and SF6 releases were collocated during Period
9-83, the results can be examined for internal consistency and for discrepan-
cies due to differences in the techniques. Moninger et al. (1983) performed
such a comparison for Period 1-82, while Eberhard et al. (1985) examined
Periods 5-83 and 9-83. In this report we expand somewhat our analysis of
these results, including more comparisons with data from the tank experiments
of Willis and Deardorff (1978 and 1981).
While SFs is known to be a highly conservative tracer, the behaviors of
oil fog and chaff are less well known. This point is discussed in Sec. 3.5
and 4.6 of this report. For oil fog, a decrease in the value of Kn with down-
wind distance would imply loss of oil fog. We find a modest (50%) decline in
KQ at x = 1.2 to 2.0 km in Table 8.14 for Period 9-83. (Declines in
KQ measured in CONDORS 83 at x * 1.5 km ranged from 0 to 65%.) The value of
x for chaff in Fig. 8.8 (Appendix B) shows an initial increase to a maximum
at x a 1 km, followed by an exponential decline with downwind distance of
about 20% per km. From these results we conclude that the oil fog and chaff
could be considered, at least in the range of maximum surface impact (x ~ 1 km
-139-
-------
for Period 9-83), semi conservative. It is, therefore, reasonable to account
for gradual changes by normalizing oil fog profiles with KQ and chaff profiles
by x . This is the main reason for normalizing profiles in Appendices A and
B to total 1000*
The horizontal profiles of vertically integrated concentrations of oil
fog are quite consistent with those of chaff, as exemplified in Fig. 11.1.
Oil fog data are from the Period 9-83 entries of Table A.I with normal (50 m)
grid spacing. (Figure A.I includes plots of the same profiles.) The hori-
zontal profile of oil fog in Fig. 11.1 has been projected from the n plane
I
I
«
•a
'(
t
.a
I
. ^=.717™
-1875m
x-1825m
x-1l25m
x-875m
x-«25rn
x-375m
220 240 260 280 300
Direction from source (deg)
320
Figure 11.1. Horizontal profiles of
for Period 9-83: oil fog (solid line)
and chaff (dashed line).
-140-
-------
onto a plane normal to the plume axis, which is defined by 9$ in Table 8.14.
Chaff data are from the Period 9-83 entry in Table B.I, where the y coordinate
has been aligned approximately normal to the mean wind direction as listed in
Table 4.2. The gross features of the profiles of the two tracers are similar,
although differences do exist in detail. Such minor differences can be
expected because the plume is patchy and the two instruments were not pre-
cisely synchronized in time and space. The similarity of the horizontal pro-
files instills confidence in the oil fog and chaff.
Figure 11.2 is a plot in nondimensional coordinates of a for Period
9-83 for chaff (Fig. B.3), oil fog (Table 8.14), and from Willis and
0,6
0.5-
0.4-
0.3 -
0.2-
0.1 -
Period 9-83
O..
'/ O Oil fog
• Chaff
Tank (78)
Tank (81)
0.5 1.0
X
1.5
Figure 11.2. Horizontal dispersion parameter for oil fog (circles) and chaff
(dots) for Period 9-83 (z/z^ = 0.34), plotted as a function of the nondimen-
sional downwind distance, X. The solid line represents the water tank results
of Willis and Oeardorff (1978) for z /z. = 0.24 and the dashed line, Willis and
•Deardorff (1981) for z$/zi = 0.49.
-141-
-------
Deardorff s (Fig. 2, 1978, and Fig. 2, 1981) convective tank experiment. The
oil fog and chaff match well, except near the source where the cruder resolu-
tion of the radar introduces an artificial spread, also evident in Fig. 11.1.
The tracer in the tank spread more slowly in the horizontal than did the
tracer in the field; a similar observation was made by Nieuwstadt (1980) in
his analysis of the Prairie Grass field data. Wind direction shear and
mesoscale changes in wind direction are absent in the tank; this may be one
cause of the difference. Other possible causes include differences in how the
scaling parameters were determined and the restrictive influence of the tank's
sidewalls. The release heights in the tank were different than in the field,
but the effect of z on 3 appears not to be large.
A comparison of oil fog and gas concentrations provides another check of
the integrity of these tracers. Since gas samplers operated at the sur-
face, and the lidar could scan only as low as a few tens of meters above the
surface, some type of extrapolation of measured oil fog concentrations to the
surface is necessary. A near-surface profile of oil fog (azimuth 183.1° of
Period 9-83 from Table A. 3) is plotted in Fig. 11.3, along with nearby SFs
measurements from Table 10.1. This lidar scan is the one closest to the west
side of the sampler arc (Fig. 3.4). The average oil fog concentration in the
lowest scanned 50 m deep layer, between about 22 and 72 m above the ground, is
assumed to represent oil fog concentrations at the surface. The empirical
calibration factor KQ for this scan from Table 8.14 was used in (3.13) to con-
vert backscatter coefficient to mass concentration. The $?$ data has had a
background value of 0.09 x 10"6 s m"3 subtracted from it and a suspect data
point at 287.5° removed. The agreement in Fig. 11.3 is very good, considering
-142-
-------
3.0
2.5
n~~
'E 2.0
-------
Lldar
Radar
Tank
0.4
CONDORS—
Tank
(78)
Xy (relative units)
Figure 11.4. Vertical profiles of x in nondimensional coordinates. Oil fog
(solid line) and chaff (dashed line) are from Period 9-83, while large dots are
from tank results (Willis and Deardorff, 1978). Downwind distances X for
lidar, radar, and tank, are shown at the top. The data at X = 0.16 for the tank
are an average of results published for X = 0.12 and 0.20. The brackets, whose
tops are at BAO release height, show predicted chaff fall distance assuming 30
cm/s settling rate and horizontal transport at the mean wind speed. Arrows
along the ordinate indicate release heights.
fog releases should be considered in determining the effect of gravitational
settling on chaff vertical profiles.
The loss of signal from chaff and oil fog near the surface biases 7
slightly toward larger values. Table A.I explicitly shows the cutoff
height for xn in the lidar vertical profile. The branches at the bottom of
n
the oil fog profiles in Fig. 11.4 show the adjustments to the lowest data
points as listed in Table A.2. Low-level blockage of the radar is discussed
in Sec. 4.2 and in Appendix C.
The profiles in Fig. 11.4 from the tank are noticeably smoother than the
field results, which may be partly attributed to the shorter nondimensional
-144-
-------
0.55
O Oil fog
• Chaff
Tank (78)
Tank (81)
Figure 11.5. Mean tracer height plotted as a function of X for Period 9-83.
duration of the latter. It should be noted also that the curves from the tank
were obtained from smoothed contour plots (Deardorff, 1982, personal com-
munication).
Nondimensionalized mean tracer heights versus X are compared with Willis
and Deardorff's (1978, 1981) tank results in Fig. 11.5. Except for the lack
of a slight initial dip inT/z^, the chaff values approximate an interpolation
between the two tank experiments for z /z. - 0.24 and 0.49 (z /z. - 0.34 in
Period 9-83). Half of the oil fog scans roughly agree, and half give
7/z. values 0.05 to 0.1 larger. These increments are also the order of the
scatter between adjacent radar volumes and lidar scans. The tank data were
subjected to smoothing procedures. Later analyses of CONDORS, data will
-145-
-------
attempt to combine similar periods and to apply some smoothing to reduce
stochastic noise.
Figure 11.6 shows a plotted in nondimensional coordinates. The chaff
near the source has larger a than the oil fog, presumably as a result of
coarser instrument resolution. There is also a hint of slightly larger a "for
the oil fog farther downwind. These differences notwithstanding, the
agreement among the chaff, the oil fog, and the tank results is very good.
The behavior of the height of (X ) shown in Fig. 11.7 departs somewhat
Jr "Id A
from behavior observed in the tank experiments. In the water tank, this
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
Period 9-83
0.5 1.0
X
1.5
Figure 11.6. Vertical dispersion parameter shown as a function of X for Period
9-83.
-146-
-------
Tank
•3 CONDORS
Figure 11.7. Height of maximum horizontally integrated concentration shown as a
function of X for Period 9-83. Symbols and lines are as defined in Fig. 11.2.
height dropped quickly to the surface, while the oil fog and the chaff showed
an initial increase before starting to descend. It should be pointed out that
in some of the other CONDORS periods analyzed (Eberhard et al., 1985; Mom'nger
et al., 1983), behavior of z of (x ) had shown striking resemblance to the
j max
tank results. The shorter dimensionless sampling time compared with the tank
experiments and the lack of smoothing in the field data make the results for
oil and chaff in Fig. 11.7 considerably more erratic than the laboratory
results. Much more agreeable comparisons are obtained using mean quantities
or standard deviations, as in Figs. 11.2, 11.5, and 11.6.
-147-
-------
11.6 Strengths and Limitations of Data Set
The CONDORS data set viewed in its entirety is one of good quality, con-
taining unique information on dispersion in the convectively mixed boundary
layer.
The meteorological data from the BAO tower is comprehensive and accurate.
The height of the mixed layer, which is a crucial scaling parameter, was
determined by a consensus of several methods.
The gas tracers provide information on surface concentrations in the
vicinity where high concentrations are predicted by the water tank results.
This tracer is conservative and is a well-established methodology. It there-
fore serves also as a benchmark for establishing the validity of the oil fog
and chaff measurements. The gas data were carefully screened and bad periods
rejected, but a small number of data points reported here are still suspect.
The gas tracers also offer no information on the vertical distribution of
tracer that is the central theme of CONDORS.
The lidar measured the distribution of oil fog in cross sections through
the plume, supplying the required data on vertical profiles of a tracer.
Blockage by intervening terrain and eye safety restrictions prevented us from
monitoring oil fog within the first few tens of meters above the surface. The
small diameters of the fog droplets make them excellent passive tracers of air
motion. One disadvantage of the oil fog was the lack of adequate signal
beyond 1-3 km downwind, depending on fogger and meteorological conditions.
The oil fog also was not fully conserved, but we consider the relative pro-
files to be trustworthy. Empirical calibration factors can correct for the
losses and allow computation of dilution factors.
-148-
-------
The radar measurements of chaff throughout the volume of the plume also
provide vertical profiles. The chaff data are more comprehensive than the
lidar data because the latter were obtained only at a few discrete, thin
planes. Chaff signal was also sufficient for measurements to 4 km downwind
during all periods. The greatest disadvantage of the chaff is its settling
velocity, for which a compensation scheme must yet be applied. The radar also
endured more terrain blockage than the lidar, but this is a major problem only
for the surface releases of chaff. Removal of ground clutter was extremely
successful; residual contamination is of little consequence in the data
reported here.
-149-
-------
REFERENCES
Battan, L. J., 1973: Radar Observations of the Atmosphere. Univ. of Chicago
Press, Chicago, IL, 324 pp.
Briggs, G. A., 1977: Some theoretical notes on sigma curves and stability
classification (unpublished manuscript). Atmospheric Turbulence and
Diffusion Laboratory, P.O. Box E, Oak Ridge, TN 37830.
Briggs, G. A., 1982: Similarity forms for ground source surface layer dif-
fusion. Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 23. 489-502.
Collis, R. T. H., and P. B. Russell, 1976: Lidar measurements of particles
and gases by elastic backscattering and differential absorption, pp
71-151 in Laser Monitoring of the Atmosphere, E. 0. Hinkley, ed.,
Springer-Verlag, 380 pp.
Deardorff, J. W., 1972: Numerical investigation of neutral and unstable plan-
etary boundary layers. J. Atmos. Sci., 29, 91-115.
Deardorff, J. W. and G. E, Willis, 1975: A parameterization of diffusion
into the mixed layer. J. Appl. Meteor., 14, 1451-1458.
Eberhard, W. L., 1983: Eye-safe tracking of oil fog plumes by UV lidar.
Appl. Opt., 22, 2282-2285.
Eberhard, W. L., and T. F. Lavery, 1984: Participation of NOAA lidar in
experiments guiding development of air quality models. Proceedings of the
77th APCA Annual Meeting, Vol. 3, San Francisco, California, June 24-29,
1984, Paper # 84-51.1. Air Pollut. Control Association, Pittsburgh, PA.
-151-
-------
Eberhard, W. L., W. R. Moninger, T. Uttal, S. W. Troxel, J. E. Gaynor, and G.
A. Briggs, 1985: Field measurements in three dimensions of plume disper-
sion in the highly convective boundary layer. Preprints, 7th Symposium on
Turbulence and Diffusion, November 12-15, 1985, Boulder, Colorado.
American Meteorological Society, Boston, 115-118.
Greene, B* R., 1985: Complex terrain model development: quality assurance
project report for small hill impaction study no. 1. ERT Document No.
P-B876-350, August 1985. Environmental Research and Technology, Inc.,
Concord, MA 01742.
Gudiksen, P. H., G. J. Ferber, M. M. Fowler, W. L. Eberhard, M. A. Fosberg,
and W. R. Knuth, 1984: Field studies of transport and dispersion of
atmospheric tracers in nocturnal drainage flows. Atmos. Environ., 18,
713-731.
Hicks, B. B., 1985: Behavior of turbulent statistics in the convective boun-
dary layer. J. CJim. Appl. Meteorol., 24, 607-614.
Hooke, W. H., ed., 1979: Project Phoenix: the September 1978 Field
Operation. Report Number One, December 1979. NOAA/ERL, Boulder, CO
80303.
Kaimal, J. C., N. L. Abshire, R. B. Chadwick, M. T. Decker, W. H. Hooke, R. A.
Kropfli, W. D. Neff, F. Pasqualucci, and P. H. Hildebrand, 1980:
Convective boundary layer thickness estimated by in-situ and remote
probes. Preprints, Nineteenth Conference on Radar Meteorology, April
1980, Miami. American Meteorological Society, Boston, 633-636.
-152-
-------
Kaimal, J. C., N. L. Absfiire, R. B. Chadwick, M. T. Decker, W. H. Hooke, R. A.
Kropfli, W. D. Neff, and F. Pasqualucci, 1982: Estimating the depth of
the convective boundary layer. J. Appl. Meteor.. n_, 1123-1129.
Kaimal, J. C., and J. E. Gaynor, 1983: The Boulder Atmospheric Observatory.
J. dim. Appl. Meteor.. 22_, 863-880.
Kaimal, J. C., J. C. Wyngaard, D. A. Haugen, 0. R. Cote, Y. Izumi, S. J.
Caughey, and C. J. Readings, 1976: Turbulence structure of the convec-
tive boundary layer. J. Atmos. Sci., _33_, 2152-2169.
Lamb, R. G., 1978: A numerical simulation of dispersion from an elevated
point source in the convective planetary boundary layer. Atmos. Environ.,
JL_2, 1297-1304.
Lamb, R. G., 1979: The effects of release height on material dispersion in
the convective planetary boundary layer. Preprints, Fourth Symposium on
Turbulence, Diffusion and Air Pollution, January 15-18, 1979, Reno,
Nevada. American Meteorological Society, Boston, 27-33.
Moninger, W. R., and R. A. Kropfli, 1982: Radar observations of a plume from
an elevated continuous point source. J. Appl. Meteorol., 21, 1685-1697.
Moninger, W. R., W. L. Eberhard, G. A. Briggs, R. A. Kropfli, and J. C. Kaimal
1983: Simultaneous radar and lidar observations of plumes from continuous
point sources. Preprints, 21st Conference on Radar Meteorology, Edmonton,
Alta. Canada, American Meteorological Society, Boston, 246-250.
Nieuwstadt, F. T. M., 1980: Application of mixed-layer similarity to the
observed dispersion from a ground-level source. J. Appl. Meteor., 19,
157-162.
-153-
-------
Schiessinger, R. J., 1961: Principles o;F Electronic Warfare. Prentice-Hall,
213 pp.
Uthe, E. E., W. B. Johnson, and H. Till, 1979: Vertical plume diffusion
parameters derived by lidar for the Rancho Seco generating station.
Preprints, Fourth Symposium on Turbulence, Diffusion, and Air Pollution,
January 15-18, 1979, Reno, Nevada. American Meteorological Society,
Boston, 536-540.
Venkatram, A., D. Strimaitis, and W. Eberhard, 1983: Dispersion of elevated
releases in the stable boundary layer. Extended Abstracts, Sixth
Symposium on Turbulence and Diffusion, March 22-25, 1983, Boston,
Massachusetts. American Meteorological Society, Boston, 297-299.
Wilczak, J. M., and M. S. Phillips, 1984: Indirect Estimation of Convective
Boundary Layer Structure for Use in Routine Dispersion Models. EPA Report
No. EPA/600/3-84/091. EPA Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, 80 pp.
Willis, G. E., and J. W. Deardorff, 1976a: A laboratory model of diffusion
into the convective planetary boundary layer. Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol.
Soc.. 102, 427-445.
Willis, G. E., and J. W. Deardorff, 1976b: Visual observations of horizontal
planforms of penetrative convection. Third Symposium on Atmospheric
Turbulence, Diffusion, and Air Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina. October
19-22, 1976. American Meteorological Society, Boston, 9-12.
Willis, G. E., and J. W. Deardorff, 1978: A laboratory study of dispersion
from an elevated source within a modeled convective planetary boundary
layer. Atmos. Environ., 12, 1305-1311.
-154-
-------
Willis, G. E., and J. W. Deardorff, 1980: A laboratory study of dispersion
from a source in the middle of the convectively mixed layer. Atmos.
Environ.. 15_, 109-117.
-155-
-------
APPENDIX A
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL PROFILES OF OIL FOG CONCENTRATION
The profiles presented in Table A.I are identified by period, lidar azi-
muth for the cross section, and resolution (for complete definition of the
symbols see Sec. 8.2). Each normalized oil fog concentration value is the
average over a length interval centered at the coordinate listed. For the
horizontal profile of vertically integrated concentration, x", this coordi-
nate is horizontal distance to the release point, p (n is the horizontal
distance from the lidar and 9g is the azimuth angle from the source). For the
vertical profile of horizontally integrated concentration, xn, it is height
relative to the base of the tower, z. For the standard 50 m resolution, the
profile values total 1000. For some azimuths near the source, the profiles
are first given at finer resolution, with a normalized total equal to an
integer multiple of 1000. The solid hash mark shows the height in the ver-
tical profile of the lower scan limit; data values at lower z are erroneously
small. The dashed hash mark, when present, indicates that a correction has
been calculated for the lowest usable data point; this and the additive
adjustment are listed in Table A.2.
The average of the scans at each lidar azimuth for each analyses period
are presented in Fig. A.I. Each plot corresponds to a profile set in Table
A.I with the same data spacing. As in Table A.I, some of the averaged scans
near the source appear twice, first with fine resolution, followed by the
standard 50 m x 50 m grid spacing. These plots reveal the general behavior of
the plumes more completely than do the tabulated profiles in Table A.I. They
-157-
-------
also illustrate the "lumpiness" of the plume, which is often apparent even
after the averaging of many scans. They reveal instances where the near-
surface portion of the plume is displaced horizontally with respect to the
body of the plume aloft.
Table A.2 lists the adjustments to the vertical profiles of xn to com-
n
pensate for incomplete coverage of the plume at scan bottom. These adjust-
ments, when added to the appropriate data points in Table A.I, alter the nor-
malized total to a number larger than 1000.
Near-surface profiles in the form of dilution factors, X/Q, are presented
in Table A.3. These are horizontal profiles within a vertically narrow strip
whose height limits relative to the base of the tower are listed in each
table. The minimum elevation was chosen to avoid regions where significant
signal would have been lost because of the lower limit of any of the scans.
The coordinates of the data point are the distance and direction from the
source to the center of the horizontal cell. These profiles can be used as an
estimate of the concentration at the surface, although with less confidence
when strong vertical gradients exist near the surface. The dilution factors
were calculated using the empirical calibration factors, K , in Tables 8.1 to
8.16 (in effect, 0 is replaced by the estimated total downwind flux of optical
backscatter from the plume in each scan, taken individually).
Slight contamination of the oil fog plume by smoke from a stubble fire
occurred during Period 1-83. Two versions of processing, one which removes
the smoke and the other which does not, were applied to the contaminated azi-
muth (9 = 200.1°). Both the results are presented in Table A.I and Fig. A.I.
-158-
-------
Table A.3 includes only the version from which smoke (and a bit of oil fog)
was removed. The oil release rate listed in Table A.I is the most prevalent
rate for each period of lidar data. The average rate for each period was
slightly different.
-159-
-------
Table A.I Fine and standard resolution profiles of vertically integrated
and horizontally integrated oil fog concentrations for CONDORS 82 and
CONDORS 83. For definitions, see opening paragraph of this appendix (they
are also listed in Sec. 8.2). Profiles tabulated chronologically by
period, within periods by increasing lidar azimuth.
-160-
-------
Period
CONDORS
Stltas*
R«l«as«
1-82, 0L =150.0° (fine)
•32 AVERAGED OIL
aaca: 35
H«i?nt:
Horizontal
C12.S a
.3
235
3/»
.9 a
FOG
PROFILES ?«ri3d «
Aziautft
protil*
r««
• )
•7
19
32
44
57
59
32
34
237
213
232
244
257
259
232
234
307
319
332
344
357
r«i.
)
v"
^ t
13.
27.
31.
322.
365.
372.
203.
313.
453.
466.
404.
345.
233.
54.
5.
-.
3
7
S
5
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
2
7
3
9
3
4
3
0
Period 1-82, 0L =150.0° (normal)
CONDORS
S«l«a»«
s«l«a»«
'32 AVERAGED 01
Rata: 35.3
-------
Period 1-82, 0L =162.5° (normal) Period 1-62, 0L =176.6° (normal)
CSNOORS '32 A7I3AGED OIL FOG PROFILES ?«rlsd « 1
R«l«as« aat«: 35.3 ?/s Aziauc.1 162.3
a*l«as« H«igftc: 233.9 m
Horizontal Prafil*
(30.0 a r««.)
T7 aat«: 35.3 9/s Aziauth 150.3
a*lu«« Kaujtlt: 233.9 a
Horizontal Profile
(23.0 a ri*.)
-7f(m) a,C> X"
2363 233 254.1 .3
2333 239 259.6 .3
2913 231 234.3 .2
2933 276 249.3 .2
2963 273 244.6 56.6
2933 272 239.3 332.5
3313 274 234.1 719.7
3038 277 223.9 392.0
3063 233 224.3 232.5
3338 291 219.2 30.9
3113 301 214.3 9.3
3138 312 210.6 6.7
3163 325 236.3 6.2
3133 340 203.3 5.4
3213 333 230.0 4.3
3238 372 197.1 1.6
3263 339 134.4 .3
3238 407 191.9 .2
3313 426 139.7 .3
3333 446 137.6 .2
3363 466 13S.7 .2
3383 437 134.0 .0
3413 507 132.4 .0
3433 529 131.0 .0
v«rtisai ?rofil«
112.3 a ris. )
2(«) x;
19 .3
32 -.1
44 .4
57 5.4
59 57.5
32 132.3
194 332.3
207 599.7
219 346.1
232 393.3
244 260.3
257 365.2
269 445.4
232 291.4
294 251.7
307 130.3
319 26.2
332 .7
344 .3
357 .3
CONDORS '32 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES ?«riad • j.
R«l»s« Ratt: 35.3 $,<•) X"
2423 1534 271.3 .3
2473 1331 259.2 .3
2325 1573 257.4 2.7
2573 1579 255.5 3.5
:S25 1531 253.3 15.5
26"3 1534 262.3 24.2
2725 1533 260.2 44.3
2773 1395 253.4 69.9
2325 1603 256.6 56.6
2375 1613 254.9 32.3
2925 1524 253.1 42.4
2373 1636 231.4 34.9
3323 1530 249.3 13.9
3C73 1SS5 243.1 9.7
3125 1632 246.5 15.2
3173 1699 244.9 13.3
3223 1713 243.4 32.5
3275 1733 241.8 25.3
3325 1760 240.4 17.5
3375 1733 233.9 13.7
3425 1307 237.3 12.1
3473 1332 236.2 29.4
3525 1353 234.3 57.6
3373 1384 233.5 100.0
3623 1912 232.3 71.9
3«73 1941 231.1 69.1
3723 1970 229.9 35.7
3775 2001 228.7 40.7
3823 2032 227.6 49.5
3373 2063 226. 5 16.9
3925 2096 223.5 9.3
3973 2129 224.5 -1.3
4025 2163 223.3 -3.2
4075 2197 222.5 -1.6
4123 2233 221.6 -.9
4173 - 2268 220.7 -.2
4223 2304 219.9 -1.2
4273 2341 219.0 -.4
4325 2373 213.2 .0
4373 2416 217.4 .3
Vertical Prs(ti«
150.3 a r«».,
ZCm) X??
-12 .3
33 46.4
33 34.4
133 46.5
133 39.3
239 17 ;
333 43,2
333 36.3
233 7J. S
433 43.4
433 43.3
333 34.3
533 7.2
533
633 .3
Period 2-82, 0L =150.0° (normal)
CONDORS '32 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES ?«riod « 2
S«l«as« Rat*: 35.3 q/a Aziauu 150.3
3«i«««« K«Lcttie: 235.9 a
Horizsntal Prafil*
(50.3 a ras. ,
77(01) />
-------
Period 2-82, 0L =154.9° (fine)
Period 2-82, 0L =154.9° (normal)
COMDOSS '32 AVESAOED OIL TOS PROFITS ?eriad » 2
Release Rate: 33.3 g/S Aziauth 134.9
Release Height: 235.9 a
Horizontal Profile
(25.0 a res.)
77,C) X"
2313 344 259.6 .3
2333 533 237.0 -.0
2363 333 234.4 - 1
2888 330 251.7 3.3
2913 527 249.0 12.1
2938 326 246.3 13.0
2963 326 243.6 93.1
2983 527 240.3 239.4
3313 530 233.1 222.4
3033 533 233.5 201.6
3063 533 232.3 226.5
3038 544 230.3 333.7
3113 330 227.7 243.3
3133 533 223.3 143.3
3163 567 222.3 79.3
3138 577 220.6 37.7
3213 538 218.4 64.2
3238 599 216.2 14.1
3263 612 214.2 1.7
3283 625 212.2 .3
3313 639 210.3 .0
3338 653 208.3 .0
vertical Profile
(23.3 3 rss. )
2 X?
TS .0
131 .3
126 25. 3
131 242.7
176 320.4
201 247.9
226 533.3
231 343.7
276 113.9
301 5S.6
326 13.7
331 53.3
375 25.3
431 3.4
425 .3
431 .3
Period 2-82, 0L =162.5° (normal)
CONDORS '82 AVSRACEO OIL FOC PROFILES ?«nod • 2
Release Rate 35.3 g/s Azimuth 162.3
Release Height: 235.9 a
Horizontal Profile
'33.0 a res.)
I7(m) pt X$
-12 .3
33 1.2
33 31.4
133 39.6
133 39.2
233 333.5
233 97.1
333 103.7
333 9S.3
433 74.0
438 7.4
333 12.0
333 13.3
633 14.7
633 2.9
738 .0
CONDORS '32 AVERAGED Oil FOC PROFILES Period « 2
Release Rate: 35.3 g/s Aziauth 134.9
Release Height: 235.9 a
Horizontal Profile
(30.0 a res. )
i7 X^
;12 .3
33 .3
33 .3
133 134.4
133 234.2
233 443.3
233 92.3
333 32.3
333 15.6
433 .3
438 .3
533 .0
Period 2-82, 0L =176.6° (normal)
CONDORS '32 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES Period * 2
Release Rate: 35.3 g/s Aziautft 176. 6
Release Height: 235.9 »
Horizontal Profile
(50.0 a res.)
•7
-------
Period 3-82, 0L =147.8° (fine)
Period 3-82, #L =147.8° (normal)
CONDORS '31 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES Period * 3
Release* R»t«: 35.3 g/s AziautS 147.3
Release* Heigftt: 168.0 a
Horizontal Profile
'23.3 a res. )
17(111) />.(•") 0,0 X"
2663 366 302.3 .3
2638 343 330.6 .3
2713 321 233.3 .0
2733 300 296.2 17.4
2763 279 293.5 39.9
2738 259 290.4 116.3
2313 239 236.7 164.5
2338 221 232.4 45.3
2363 204 277.4 235.5
2388 139 271.6 342.0
2913 177 264.9 336.3
2938 167 257.2 144.4
2963 160 243.7 263.5
2938 137 239.7 21.6
3013 158 230.7 44.1
3038 163 221.9 137.4
3363 172 213.9 29.3
3033 134 236.7 4.7
3113 198 200.5 2.3
3133 214 195.2 .3
Vertical ?rofii«
(23.3 a res.)
2<«n) X$
25 .:
31 12.3
75 131.3
131 2:i.5
126 175.4
151 453.2
176 533.3
231 233.4
226 64.3
251 90.3
275 33.3
331 12.5
325 .3
351 .3
CONDORS '82 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES ?«riod »'j
Release Rate: 35.3 g/s Aziauea 147 a
Release Height: 168.0 •
Horizontal Profile
(50.3 a res.)
•7(m) 0,O X"
2573 355 331.3 .3
2725 311 297.4 3.7
2775 2«9 292.3 133.0
2323 230 234.7 i:4.3
2375 196 274.6 233.3
2J2S 171 261.1 240.5
2975 133 244.3 143.3
3025 161 226.2 93.3
3075 177 210.2 17.1
3125 205 197.7 1.1
3175 241 133.6 .3
"•rtical Profile
(33. 3 3 res. )
2 0"> X$
-12 .3
33 6.2
33 191.1
138 317.4
133 334.5
233 77.3
233 22.9
333 .3
333 .3
Period 3-82, 0L =150.0° (fine)
Period 3-82, 0L=150.0° (normal)
CONDORS '32 AVESAOEO OIL FOG PROFILES ?«ricd » 3
Release Rate: 35.3 g/s Aziaucn 133.3
Release Height : Kt.o m
Horizontal Profile
(25.0 a re*.)
T7 £ 0,0 X"
2363 679 306.4 .3
2338 636 305.5 .3
2413 633 304.6 .3
2433 611 303.6 .4
2463 539 332.5 .6
2488 367 301.3 1.4
2513 545 300.1 1.3
2533 323 293.7 1.9
2553 502 297.2 6.9
2538 431 295.6 3.7
2613 461 233.9 7.3
2638 441 ;;..9 4.9
2663 421 239.3 35.7
2688 403 237.5 36.9
2713 385 285.0 51.9
2738 367 282.3 146.9
2763 351 279.2 135.2
2788 336 273.9 245.7
2313 322 272.3 234.3
2338 309 268.4 339.3
2363 298 264.2 269.6
2388 239 259.7 209.2
2913 2S1 2S4.8 77.9
2938 276 249.3 33.7
2963 273 244.6 4.7
2988 272 239.4 .3
3013 273 234.1 .0
3038 277 229.0 .0
vertical Profile
(25.3 a res.)
Z<"0 X$
1 .3
~ 25 30.3
31 139.3
76 174.2
131 214.5
126 246.3
131 31.2
176 133.6
201 131.3
226 169.3
231 227.3
276 225.3
301 141.0
326 74.5
331 17.3
376 2.5
431 .2
426 .3
CONDORS '82 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES Period « 3
Release Rate: 35.3 ?/s Aiimuttt 1.30.3
Release Height: 169.0 •
Horizontal Profile
;30.o a res.)
77
-------
Period 3-82, 0L =154.9° (normal)
CONDORS
Release
Release
'32 AVERAGED OIL
Rate:
Heigat
35.3 g/S
: 168.0 »
F0<3
PROFILES Period « 3
AZiautA 154.9
Horizontal Profile
;so.o
a res.)
77(111} p(m) 6*,O X^
2123
2173
2223
2273
2325
2373
2423
2473
2525
2575
2625
2675
2725
2775
2325
2375
2923
2973
3023
3073
3123
979
937
39«
356
317
779
743
7C9
676
646
613
593
572
554
540
531
526
526
531
540
554
302.4
300.3
299.0
297.0
294.9
292.5
239.9
237.0
233.9
230.4
276.7
2-2.6
263.1
263.4
253.3
253.1
247.7
242.2
236.8
231.6
226.5
1.
3.
17 .
44.
54.
57.
114.
75.
197.
235.
'5.
70.
54.
IS.
7,
3
0
1
5
2
0
9
0
3
0
3
6
9
6
2
2
9
5
3
5
3
Vertical
!50.3
Z(ffl)
-12
33
33
133
133
233
233
333
333
433
433
533
533
533
633
733
733
338
Profile
a res. )
Yft
* ' *
115.0
143.2
164.9
163.3
137.3
73.5
32.6
21.3
31.3
37.7
33.4
11.2
4.3
.2
.0
.0
.0
Period 3-82, 0L =165.0° (normal)
CONDORS
Release
Release
'92 AVERAGED OIL
Rate: 35
Height:
Horizontal
17 (m)
1373
1425
1473
1525
1575
1625
1573
1725
1775
1323
1373
1923
1973
2025
2073
2123
2173
2223
2273
2323
2373
2423
2473
2523
2375
2623
2673
2723
2773
2323
2873
2925
2975
3025
3073 .
3123
3175
;30.0 a
/»t(m)
1771
1731
1691
1552
1613
1575
1533
1501
1465
1430
1396
1363
1331
1300
1271
1242
1213
1190
1166
1144
1124
1103
1089
.3 g/s
1S8.0 m
Profile
res.)
0,0
309.3
303.3
307.3
336.2
305.1
303.9
302.7
301.4
300. 1
298.7
297.2
295.6
294.0
292.3
290.5
238.6
236.6
284.6
232.5
230.2
277.9
273.5
273.1
107* .270. 5
10S2
1052
1044
1039
1036
1033
1037
1041
1048
1056
1068
1031
1Q9«
267.9
265.3
262.6
259.3
237.1
254.3
251.5
243.8
24«.l
243.4
240.3
233.2
233.7
FOG
>
2.
2.
2 .
2.
-.
4.
7 .
14.
40.
49.
29.
31.
34.
23.
29.
32.
34.
33.
43.
41.
60.
33.
99.
65.
44.
15.
10.
14.
14.
4.
PROFILES
AZt
,n
3
3
4
9
0
3
1
2
9
1
3
3
3
7
2
7
7
4
1
5
7
3
3
9
2
2
2
0
5
3
2
1
3
1
6
4
0
Period I 3
=uta 163.0
Vertical Profile
(50
Z(m)
-12
33
33
133
-.33
233
233
333
333
433
433
533
533
638
633
733
733
333
338
938
983
1038
3 .1 res.)
vn
Ar,
25.7
154.1
114. 3
112.7
34.6
73.7
57.3
50.3
33.3
43. 6
52.3
43.9
44. 3
33.3
15.6
4.5
3.1
2.3
2.3
2.4
.2
.0
Period 4-82, 0L =150.0° (normal) Period 4-82, 0L=154.9° (normal)
CONDORS
'92 AVERAGED 01
Rate: 33.3 g/s
Height: surface
C. FOS
PROFILES Period •
Aziautn 150
Horizontal Profile
•30.0 a rss.)
Tj(tn) p(tn) $,O ]
2375
2625
2675
2725
2775
2323
2373
2925
2975
3023
3075
3125
3175
3223
3273
3325
336
314
274
239
213
130
131
137
204
232
266
304
343
339
434
430
299.
294.
233.
230.
273.
257.
241.
226.
212.
201.
193.
136.
131.
177.
174.
172.
4
7
6
7
3
2
9
4
6
6
1
6
7
3
7
2
52
270
135
170
119
68
27
45
35
3S
16
I
<*
.0
.0
.2
.3
.7
. 7
.4
.7
.0
.3
.1
.6
.6
.1
.3
.3
4
.0
Vertical Profile
(50.3 a res.)
Z(m)
-12
~ 33
33
133
133
233
233
333
333
433
433
533
538
638
638
*^>ft
3.
321.
214.
140.
119.
69.
33.
26.
27.
34.
1.
3
5
3
3
5
3
^
4
7
0
4
2
7
3
0
CONDORS
Release
Release
'32 AVERAGED OIL
Rate: 35
Height:
Horizontal
(50.0 a
.3 g/s
Surface
Profile
res. )
FOG
PROFILES Period * 4
Aziautn 154.9
Q \/fl
2475
2523
2375
2625
2675
2725
2775
2823
2873
2923
2973
3025
3073
3123
3173
3225
3273
3323
3375
3425
3475
3525
3575
571
540
513
435
463
446
434
423
427
433
443
459
430
305
333
563
599
635
673
712
753
794
337
236.5
232.6
273.2
273.2
257.3
251.3
255.5
243.9
242.2
235. S
229.2
223.2
217.6
212. S
233.0
204.0
200.4
197.1
194.3
191.7
139.4
137.4
135. S
9
23
54
35
40
73
142
133
131
54
42
4 *
36
47
52
35
24
19
4
0
9
5
3
3
0
2
3
0
7
0
6
2
3
9
4
3
0
5
3
0
3
0
Vertical
(30.0
Z(m)
-12
' 33
33
133
133
233
233
333
333
433
433
533
538
533
538
733
738
338
338
933
938
1033
1033
Profile
•a res.)
Yn
1.3
43.9
30.4
63.3
67.7
135.3
92.4
107.0
103.0
115.3
10J.7
49.3
17. a
6.0
12.5
17.6
21.1
16.7
S.6
1.4
2.3
3.1
. 4
Table A.I (3-32/154.9° to 4-82/154.9°)
-165-
-------
Period 4-82, 0L =159.7° (normal)
CONDORS
Release
Releaee
'92 AVERAGED Oil.
Race:
HeigBtt
33.3 a/S
: Surface
FOfi PROFILES Period « 4
Aziautft 139.7
Horizontal Profile
•7 On)
2225
2275
2323
2373
2425
247S
2525
2373
2421
2673
2723
2773
2323
2873
2923
2973
3023
3075
3123
3173
3223
3273
3323
3373
3423
3473
3223
3373
3625
3S73
3723
3773
(50.9
pjm)
334
332
322
793
757
743
722
704
839
S77
669
563
564
567
S74
634
698
713
733
753
733
311
341
372
903
940
976
1013
1032
1091
1131
1172
• ree.)
5,0
291.0
233.3
233.3
232.9
279.3
276.4
272.9
299.1
263.2
261.1
236.9
232.7
243.3
244.1
239.3
233.7
231.7
227.9
224.3
220.9
217.7
214.7
211.9
209.3
206.9
204.6
202.6
200.6
193.3
197.2
195.6
194.2
X"
Ax
.3
.3
2.4
9.0
11.2
14.1
11.3
13.3
21.3
40.4
43.3
64.3
101.4
92.5
73.6
49,6
39.0
44.3
30.1
9S.1
33.4
23.3
31.6
39.
31.
34.
32.
17.
7.7
2.2
.3
.0
vertical
;so.a
Z(m)
i -12
33
33
133
133
233
233
333
333
433
433
533
593
633
638
733
738
333
338
933
933
1033
1 = 33
1133
Profile
a r«». )
y"
Ai,
1.3
33.2
30.3
27.3
23.4
30.4
42.3
63.3
59.3
51.3
T4.0
34.3
62.0
54.7
64.1
62.7
63.2
33. L
39.4
19.3
4.3
.3
.3
.0
Period 5-82, 0L=150.0° (fine)
CONDORS
Release
Release
'32 AVERAGED OIL
Hate: 33.3 a/s
Height: Surface
FOS PROFILES
Period » s
Aziaut.l 150.3
Horizontal Profile
i^(m)
2323
2373
2423
2473
2325
2373
2625
2675
2725
2775
2323
2375
2925
2975
3025
3075
3123
3175
3223
3273
3323
3375
3423
3475
3523
3373
3623
3673
3725
3775
(50.3 3 res.)
£
266
304
343
339
434
430
526
573
621
669
717
766
314
363
912
5,0
193.1
136.5
131.7
177. 3
174.7
172.2
173.2
153.4
167.3
155.7
164.6
163.7
152.9
162.1
161.3
^yrt
114.2
53.4
25.9
20.4
14.7
19.7
22.5
6.2
1.3
.3
.7
.4
.2
.1
.3
Z(m>
738
738
333
388
933
983
y"
Atj
5.9
3.6
2.9
.4
.3
.0
Table A.I (4-82/159.7° to 5-82/150°)
-166-
-------
Period 5-82, 0L=154-9° (normal) Period 5-82, 0L =159.7° (normal)
CONDORS
Release
Release
'82 AVERAGED OIL
Ratet 35
Height:
Horizontal
(50.0 a
.3 9/8
surface,
Profile
r««.)
FOG PROFILES
Period t 5
AZimutn 154.9
77(m) /»$
-------
Period 1-83, 0L =169.9° (fine)
Period 1-83, Q\_ =169.9° (normal)
COHDORS '83 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES Period » 1
Release Rate: 53.6 g/s Aziauth 169.9
Release Height: Surface
Horizontal Profile
(30.0 a res.)
?7
Release Height: Surface
Horizontal Profile
(50.0 a res.)
T) (m) ^(m) 5,(") Xj
2925 1117 330.2 .0
2973 1072 329.1 .0
3025 1027 327.9 .1
3075 932 326.6 2.7
3125 938 325.2 7.4
3173 394 323.7 10.1
3225 352 322.0 17.1
3275 310 320.1 32.5
3325 759 313.3 36.2
3373 729 315.7 33.1
3425 690 313.2 53.4
3475 653 310.3 32.0
3525 613 307.1 96.2
3573 335 303.5 90.3
3623 555 299.5 130.8
3675 527 295.1 114.2
3723 503 290.2 120.3
3775 483 284.9 74.1
3323 468 279.1 83.0
3875 497 273.1 5.6
3925 452 266. 1.1
3973 493 260. 2.4
4025 438 234. 2.6
4075 469 248. 1.0
4125 489 242. 1.0
4175 506 237.2 .3
4223 530 232.4 .0
4275 558 223.0 .0
4323 589 224.1 .3
4375 622 220.6 .0
Vertical Profile
(25.3 a res.)
zero) X"r,
-30 .0
_ -5 .1
20 94.4
45 139.1
70 197.9
95 200.5
120 197.2
143 138.6
170 175.5
195 157.3
220 112.2
245 30.3
270 73.7
295 61.2
320 38.4
343 33.4
370 43.8
393 19.4
420 11.1
445 5.6
470 2.0
495 2.2
S20 3.1
545 3.0
370 3.3
595 1.7
620 .1
645 .3
670 .0
695 .0
CONDORS '83 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES Period * 1
Release Rate: 58.8 g/s Aziauth 174.0
Release Height: Surface
Horizontal Profile
(50.0 o res.)
77
-------
Period 1-83, 0L =181.1° (normal) Period 1-83, 0L =190.0° (normal)
CONDORS 'S3 AVTSACID OIL TOG 7ROKLSS Period • 1
Release Rate: 53. « a/» Aziauth 181.1
Release Height: Surface
Horizontal Profile
(50.0 a CM.)
77
-------
Period 1-83? 0L= 200.1° (normal) Period 1-83, 0L=200.1° (normal)
COHOORS '33 AVtSAGEO OIL FOG PROFIT
Releaie Race: 58.4 X^
1925 2370 323.7 .0
1973 2542 322.3 .0
2025 2516 321.3 .0
207! 2490 320.3 .3
2125 2463 319.3 .3
2175 2440 313.3 .9
2223 2417 317.3 1.1
2275 2394 316.7 .9
2323 237] 315.6 .4
2375 2351 314.5 .1
2423 2331 313.4 .5
2473 2311 312.3 1.1
2325 2293 311.1 1.2
2573 2275 309.9 2.6
2625 2259 303.7 3.9
2675 2243 307.3 5.0
2725 2229 306.3 S.3
2773 2216 305.1 3.9
2323 2203 303.3 9.1
2375 2192 302.3 10.9
2925 2132 301.3 15.7
2975 2172 300.0 24.3
3025 2164 298.7 30.6
3075 2151 297.3 41.3
3125 2152 296.0 !6.3
3175 2147 294.7 «4.1
3225 2144 293.4 46.0
3275 2142 292.0 42.2
3325 2141 290.7 33.2
3375 2141 289.3 38.3
3425 2142 238.0 44.6
3475 2144 236.7 55.3
3523 2148 233.3 54.6
3573 2133 234.0 60.4
3625 2138 232.7 68.3
3675 2165 281.4 65.6
3725 2174 280.1 32.3
3773 2183 278.3 26.2
3825 2193 277.5 14.0
3873 2205 276.2 6.3
3925 2217 273.0 3.6
3975 2231 273.7 2.2
4025 2245 272.5 4.1
4075 2261 271.3 1.9
4125 2277 270.1 .7
4175 2295 268.9 1.0
4225 2314 267.3 3.0
4273 2333 266.7 6.4
4325 2353 265.5 9.0
4375 2375 264.4 9.7
4425 2397 263.4 9.5
4473 2419 262.3 7.0
4525 2443 261.3 6.3
4S75 2468 260.3 3.3
4625 2493 259.3 9.2
4675 2519 253.3 3.3
4725 2546 257.3 6.4
4775 2573 256.4 3.4
4325 2601 255.5 1.3
4375 2630 254.6 .7
4925 2639 253.7 .6
4975 2689 232.8 .4
5025 2720 252.0 -.0
5075 2731 251.2 .0
3125 2783 250.4 .0
-ES Period * 1
Azimuth 200.1
Vertical Profile
(SO.o n res.)
2(m) X?
-17 1.5
33 6.1
33 12.5
133 13.9
133 24.3
233 26.1
283 37.3
333 36.9
333 30.5
433 25.4
483 13.3
S33 13.1
533 27.2
633 34.7
683 33.3
733 44.4
733 40.3
333 35.5
383 23.6
933 30.7
983 30.9
1333 32.0
1033 32.3
1133 33.2
1133 31.3
1233 29.3
1283 35.6
1333 40.1
1383 40.9
1433 43.3
1483 42.7
1333 39.2
1533 13 5
1633 10.0
1683 4.7
1733 .7
1733 -.6
1333 -.2
1383 .0
1933 .0
1983 .0
2033 .0
2083 .0
2133 .0
2183 .0
CONDORS '83 AVtSAGZD OIL FOG PROFX
Release Rate: 39.6 g/»
xelease Height: Surface
Horizontal Profile
{50.0 a ree.)
77(111) /)$(m) 0,<«) Xj
1925 2370 323.7 .0
1973 2342 322. .0
2025 2516 321. .0
2075 2490 320. .3
2125 2465 319. .7
2175 2440 318. .7
2225 2417 317. .3
2275 2394 316. .7
2325 2372 315. .2
2375 2331 314. .1
2425 2331 313. .4
2475 2311 312. .3
2525 2293 311. 1.0
2575 2273 309. 2.0
2625 2239 308. 3.1
2675 2243 307. 4.0
2725 2229 306. 4.4
2775 2216 305. 4.7
2325 2203 303. 7.3
2875 2192 302. 3.9
2925 2132 301. 12.6
2975 2172 300.0 19.3
3025 2164 298.7 24.3
3075 2158 297.3 33.0
3125 2152 296.0 44.9
3175 2147 294.7 51.0
3225 2144 293.4 37.1
3275 2142 292.0 33.7
3325 2141 290.7 30.8
3373 2141 289.3 31.7
3425 2142 288.0 36.7
3475 2144 286.7 45.2
3525 2141 235.3 45.0
3575 2153 284.0 49.3
3625 2158 282.7 56.6
3675 2165 281.4 55.5
3723 2174 230.1 47.7
3775 2183 278.3 30.2
3323 2193 277.5 20.5
3875 220S 276.2 15.2
3923 2217 273.0 14.2
3975 2231 273.7 14.7
4023 2243 272.5 14.4
4073 2261 271,3 13.3
4125 2277 270.1 15.9
4175 2293 263.9 18.2
4223 2314 267.3 20.2
4275 2333 266.7 21.5
4325 2353 265.5 20.6
4375 2373 264.4 19.1
4425 2397 283.4 16.3
4475 2419 262.3 11.4
4525 244: 261.3 7.6
4575 2468 260.3 7.6
4625 2493 259.3 7.5
4675 2519 253.3 6.5
4725 2546 237.3 5.0
4775 2373 236.4 2.7
4325 2601 255.5 1.0
4875 2630 254.6 .5
4925 2659 253.7 .5
4975 2639 252.3 .3
5025 2720 252.0 -.0
5075 2751 251.2 .0
5125 2783 250.4 .0
LES Period « l
Azisuth 200. 1
vertical Profile
(50.0 a res.)
Z(m) X?
-17 3.3
33 10. a
33 14. C
133 19.5
133 22.9
233 23.3
233 32.7
333 34.3
333 31.2
433 23.5
433 24.7
333 23.5
333 34.2
633 34.3
633 34.9
733 39.3
783 38.3
333 35.6
383 30.1
933 31.0
983 31.2
1033 32.5
1083 33.3
1133 32.6
1133 29.7
1233 26.3
1283 31.4
1333 33.7
1383 33.3
1433 35.7
1483 36.1
1533 33.6
1583 17.2
1633 11.6
1683 9.4
1733 7.2
1783 5.4
1333 3.9
1383 2.5
1933 .9
1983 .1
2033 .0
2033 .0
2133 .0
2183 .0
*Fire smoke removed
*Fire smoke not removed
Table A.I (1-83/200.1° with and without fire-smoke contaminated plume area)
-170-
-------
Period 2-83, 0L =169.9° (fine)
Period 2-83, 0L =169.9° (normal)
C3STDORS
Relceee
Releaee
•S3 AVZ3ACED OIL
Rats:
HeigBt
44.6 g/e
: Surface
FOG PROFILES ?«riad 1 2
Aziautft 169.9
Horizontal Profile
77 /3s(m) &,(•) X"z
3363 738 316.4 30.0
3388 719 313.1 33.3
3413 700 313.9 37.3
3438 681 312.3 36.8
3463 662 311.1 39.0
3488 644 309.3 39.3
3313 627 307.9 48.7
3338 609 30S.3 39.0
3363 393 304.3 70.4
3388 377 302.6 76.3
3613 362 300.6 73.1
3638 547 298.3 69.2
3663 334 296.3 30.2
3688 321 293.9 99.0
3713 309 291.3 139.7
3738 498 238.9 170.7
3763 438 236.3 133.3
3788 479 283.3 123.3
3813 471 230.6 107.3
3838 464 277.7 77.7
3383 439 274.6 56.1
3888 435 271.3 60.3
3913 433 268.4 67.0
3938 431 263.2 33.6
39«3 432 262.1 19.6
3988 433 238.9 10.2
4013 456 233.3 3.0
4033 460 232.7 .7
4063 466 249.7 .0
4088 473 246.7 .0
Z(m) X;
720 9.4
743 8.4
770 6.1
793 4.1
320 2.4
343 2.0
370 2.1
39S 2.3
920 2.9
943 2.7
970 2.2
995 .7
1020 .0
134S .0
1070 .0
1093 .0
1120 .0
1145 .0
1170 .0
1195 .0
Table A.I (2-83/169.9° to 174°/fine)
-171-
-------
Period 2-83, 0L =174.0° (normal) Period 2-83, 0L =181.1° (normal)
CONDORS '83 AVERAGES OIL FOG PROFILES Period » 2
Release Rate: 44.6 g/« Azimuth 174.0
Release Height: Surface Tap* File * 69
Horizontal Profile
(30.0 a res.)
77s(m) 0,C) X"
262S 1397 335.2 .0
2675 1350 334.3 .0
2725 1303 333.3 .2
2775 125« 333.0 .5
2325 1209 332.1 1.3
2375 1163 331.2 4.6
2925 1117 330.2 4.9
2975 1072 329.1 4.2
3025 1027 327.9 4.7
3075 932 326.7 4.3
3125 933 325.3 5.3
3175 394 323.7 7.0
3225 351 322.0 10.1
3275 310 320.1 15.7
3323 769 318.1 23.3
3375 729 315.8 32.6
3425 690 313.2 37.1
3475 653 310.3 39.2
3525 618 307.1 53.3
3575 539 303.5 73.5
3625 554 299.5 71.2
3675 527 293.1 39.6
3723 503 290.2 155.2
3775 433 234.9 140.4
3825 467 279.2 92.5
3875 457 273.1 58.5
3925 452 266.8 51.3
3973 452 260.5 14.9
4025 433 254.2 1.3
4075 469 248.2 .0
vertical Profile
(50.0 B r«s.)
zO"> x;
-17 .4
~~33 113.4
'33 135.6
133 175.1
133 105.3
233 33.3
233 73.6
333 64.7
333 49.2
433 36.5
433 28.4
333 15.9
583 12.6
S33 13.3
683 9.1
733 3.9
783 5.1
333 2.2
383 2.3
933 2.3
983 1.4
1033 .0
1033 .0
1133 .0
1133 .0
CONDORS '33 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES Period * 2
Release Rate: 44.6 g/« Azlauth 131.1
Release Height: Surface
Horizontal Profile
(30.0 a ree.)
77(m> /Js(m) 0,0 X"z
2125 1972 332.8 .0
2175 1923 332.1 .0
2225 1385 331.4 .0
2275 1841 330.6 .1
2325 1799 329.3 .2
2375 1736 323.9 .4
2425 1714 323.0 1.0
2473 1672 327.1 1.7
2525 1631 326.1 2.8
2573 1590 323.1 2.9
2625 1550 324.0 2.3
2675 1511 322.9 2.6
2725 147J 321.7 6.3
2775 1433 320.4 7.2
2325 1396 319.0 6.9
2875 1359 317.6 6.1
2925 1323 316.1 8.0
2975 1289 314.6 10.9
3025 1253 312.9 17.7
3075 1222 311.2 20.5
3125 1190 309.3 30.2
3175 1160 307.4 42.7
3225 1131 303.3 65.2
3275 1104 303.2 83.7
3325 1073 300.9 103.3
3375 1054 298.6 120.4
3425 1032 296.1 100.3
3475 1012 293.5 34.7
3325 994 290.9 33.7
3375 973 288.1 42.1
3625 965 285.3 30.7
3675 954 282.4 27.4
3725 943 279.4 21.5
3773 939 276.4 18.7
3825 936 273.3 21.7
3875 936 270.3 13.8
3925 938 267.2 10.3
3975 942 264.2 9.7
4025 950 261.2 6.4
4075 960 253.2 3.3
4125 972 255.4 1.0
4173 987 232.6 .7
4225 1004 249.9 .6
4273 1023 247.3 .3
4323 1044 244.7 -.0
4375 1067 242.3 -.0
4425 1092 240.0 .0
4475 1119 237.3 .0
4525 1147 235.3 .0
4575 1177 233.8 .0
Vertical Profile
(50.0 a res.)
Z(m) XS
-17 .1
33 62.6
33 38.3
133 94.9
133 96.2
233 38.3
233 32.9
333 31.4
383 30.1
433 70.2
483 45.5
533 34.7
383 32.9
633 31.7
633 23.0
733 22.2
733 16.9
333 13.9
383 8.4
933 6.9
983 7.9
1033 7.6
1083 2.3
1133 .2
1133 .0
Table A.I (2-83/174°/normal to 181.1°)
-172-
-------
Period 2-83, 0L =190.0° (normal) Period 2-83, 0L =200.1° (normal)
CONDORS
Release
Release
'83 AVERAGED OIL
Rate: 44
Height:
Horizontal
rj(m)
1323
1373
1923
1975
2025
2075
2125
2175
2223
2273
2323
2373
2425
2475
2525
2575
2625
2673
2723
2775
2323
2873
2925
2973
3025
3075
3125
3175
3223
3273
3325
3375
3425
3475
3523
3575
3625
3675
3723
3773
382S
3873
3925
3973
4025
4075
4125
4175
4225
4275
(So.O a
/>
.
.
.
.
.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
6.
12.
20.
31.
42.
35.
62.
61.
64.
64.
59.
59.
52.
30.
45.
35.
30.
23.
20.
13.
21.
25.
25.
23.
20.
15.
10.
9.
6.
3.
-------
Period 2-83, 0L=210.0° (normal) Period 3-83, 9L =169.9° (fine)
CONDORS '33 AVZRACED Oil. FO />(m) £,(•) X"
3113 373 339.0 .0
313* 343 333.7 .0
3163 323 338.4 .0
313* 799 331.0 .0
3213 779 337.6 .0
323* 750 337.2 .0
3263 726 336.* .0
321* 701 336.3 .0
3313 677 339.8 .1
333* 693 333.3 .0
3363 639 334.7 .3
333* 603 334.1 .7
3413 581 333.4 1.6
343* 557 332.7 4.4
3463 533 331.9 12.9
341* 309 331.9 16.1
3313 4*4 330.1 10.4
333* 4*3 339.0 7.4
3343 439 337.9 3.4
391* 41* 32*. 4 .9
3613 393 339.1 .4
363* 370 333.9 .3
3643 34* 331.7 .3
361* 32* 319.6 .1
3713 309 317.3 .1
373* 284 314.9 .3
3783 2*4 311.4 9.1
373* 243 307.7 64.*
3113 237 303.9 99.4
3*3* 211 29*.* 123.*
31*3 19* 293.9 1*7.9
3*** 114 21*. 3 11*.*
3913 174 279.0 161.9
393* 18* 270.1 13.0
3963 14S 243.3 294.9
391* 165 293.* 294.4
4013 170 249. 2 29*.*
403* 171 237.4 93.*
40*3 119 230.4 43.*
401* 203 224.3 64.0
4113 21* 211.9 43.7
413* 239 214.3 19.4
4163 234 210.3 10.1
41** 273 .206.9 3.8
4213 294 204.0 1.2
4238 319 201.4 .9
4263 336 199.2 .2
4288 358 197.2 .1
4313 330 195.5 .0
4338 403 194.0 .3
Vertical Profile
(12.5 a r*«.)
Z(m) XU
-34 .0
-24 .0
-11 .0
1 70.2
~~14 721.6
26 331.3
39 647.0
51 473.8
64 345.6
76 267.9
39 143.3
101 104.0
114 72.3
126 46.6
139 9.3
191 5.6
164 7.0
176 20.3
139 59.9
201 39.7
214 19.2
22* 6.7
239 5.1
251 8.6
264 8.2
27* 8.1
289 8.9
301 8.8
314 3.2
32* 10..4
339 12 .,7
391 13.,*
364 10,0
37* 3.3
31* 1.6
401 .7
414 .3
43* .6
439 2.0
431 1.7
4*4 .9
47* .3
4«« .2
501 .0
514 .0
526 .3
539 .3
351 .0
564 .0
575 .0
539 .0
601 .0
614 .0
626 .0
639 .0
651 . 0
664 . 0
676 . 0
689 . 0
701 .0
Table A.I (2-83/210° to 3-83/169.9°/fine)
-174-
-------
Period 3-83, 0L =169.9° (normal) Period 3-83, 0L =174.0° (fine)
CONDOM -S3 AVSRACZO OIL FOG PROFILES Period t 3
Releaie Rate: 41.3 ?/• Azimutn 169.9
Release Heigtlt: Surface
Horizontal profile
(so. a a re«.)
77 Cm) />s(m) $,<•> X;
3123 3SO 339.3 .0
317J 311 333.2 .0
3229 762 337.4 .0
3273 714 334. S .0
332S 665 335.6 .1
3373 617 334.4 .3
3423 369 333.1 3.0
3473 321 331.3 14.9
3323 474 329.6 9.1
3373 427 327.2 2.2
3623 332 324.3 .4
3673 337 320.7 .1
3723 295 313.9 .2
3773 233 309.4 3«.9
3323 219 301.1 111.3
3373 190 239.7 133.3
3923 170 273.0 122.4
3973 163 257.9 274.6
4023 174 241.2 175.2
4075 193 227.2 34.3
4123 226 216.3 32.6
4173 263 203.3 7.0
4223 304 202.6 1.0
4275 347 191.2 .1
432S 392 194.7 .0
vertical profile
(50.3 i ree.)
2(m) XJ|
-17 17.3
~33 6S3.6
33 213.2
133 33.3
133 30.6
233 3.9
233 3.4
333 11.3
333 3.9
433 1.2
433 .4
S33 .0
S33 .0
533 .0
633 .0
Table A.I (3-83/169.9°/rwrmal
to 174°/fine)
-17«i-
CONDORS '33 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES Period « 3
Releaae Hat«: 41.3 9/s Aziautfi 174.0
Release Height: Surface
Horizontal Profile
(23.0 a res.)
ij Xn
-30 .0
. •' -o
~20 145.1
45 316.2
70 305.9
95 212.3
120 155. S
145 136.0
170 116.4
195 95.4
220 69.5
245 70.3
270 54.1
293 32.3
320 46.9
345 54.1
370 46.6
395 27.9
420 11.4
443 6.3
470 - 7.3
493 11.3
520 6.3
545 5.0
370 6.1
595 7,7
620 4.8
645 2.1
670 1.1
693 1.4
720 1.1
745 .7
770 .5
793 .5
320 .3
843 .0
870 -.0
393 .0
920 .0
943 .0
-------
Period 3-83, 9\_ =174.0° (normal)
CONDORS
Release
•83 Avnuwro OIL FOG PROFIMS ?*rioa t j
Ratal 41.3 a/« Aziauth 174.0
Heioht: Surface
Horizontal Profile
(50.0 • ree.)
77n
1325
1375
1925
1975
2023
2075
2125
2173
2225
2275
2323
2373
2423
2473
2523
2575
2623
2673
2723
2773
2829
2873
2929
2979
3029
3073
3123
3173
3229
3279
3329
3373
3429
3479
3929
3373
3623
3673
3723
3779
3129
3873
3939
3973
4023
4073
4123
4173
4223
4273
4325
4375
4423
4475
4325
4575
4623
4673
4723
4773
2241 336.5
2195 335.9
2150 335.3
2105 334.7
2060 334.1
2016 333.5
1972 332.8
1923 332.1
1884 331.4
1341 330.6
1798 329.3
1736 328.9
1714 323.1
1672 327.1
1831 328.1
1590 323.1
1530 324.0
1510 322.9
1471 321.7
1433 320.4
1391 319.1
1339 317. <
1323 316.2
1281 314.1
1234 312.9
1221 311.2
1190 309.3
1160 307.4
1131 303.4
1103 303.2
1078 301.0
1034 291.8
1032 291.1
1011 293.8
993 290. »
971 281.1
964 289.1
993 232.4
949 279.4
939 271.4
933 273.3
939 270.}
937 267.2
942 264.2
949 281.2
959 258.2
971 253.4
986 252.8
1003 249.8
1022 247.2
1043 244.7
1067 242.3
1092 240.0
1113 237.3
1146 235.7
1176 233.7
1207 231.9
1239 230.1
1273 228.4
1307 226.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.1
.2
.1
.0
.0
.0
.1
.9
2.3
3.1
1.9
2.1
2.6
.0
.3
.2
.1
.2
.8
.1
.7
7.0
22.2
24.8
24.1
22.1
19.9
19.9
22.8
32.2
36.0
43.3
55. <
63.4
77.1
78.8
6C.4
51.6
54.2
56.8
54.4
44.0
32.6
20.8
17.1
7.6
2.8
1.1
1.9
1.4
.7
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
Vertical Profile
(30.
0 a re«.)
ZO") X"
-17
~~33
33
133
183
233
283
333
333
433
433
533
333
633
883
733
783
833
883
933
983
1033
1083
1133
1183
3.3
107.2
132.6
111.5
103.0
32.4
31.3
30.4
74.2
80.3
46.0
30.3
23.3
17.9
11.9
10.4
7.0
5.9
3.1
.4
.1
-.0
.0
.0
.0
Table A.I (3-83/174°/norma1 to 181.1°)
-176-
-------
Period 3-83, 0L =190.0° (normal) Period 3-83, 0L = 200.1° (normal)
COKDORS '13 AVERAGED OIL FOC PROFILES P«risd 1 3
R«l«»a R«t«: 41.1 ?/• AziauC.1 190-3
R«l«»«« H«igftt: 3url»c«
Horizontal Pro«il«
(SO.O a r««. )
77 £„(•) Xj
1425 2712 335.9 -3
1475 2S71 335.3 -0
1525 2630 334.7 .2
1575 2389 334.0 .5
1623 2349 333.4 .4
1S73 2309 332.7 .5
1723 2469 332.9 .3
1773 2430 331.3 .3
1823 2391 330.3 -3
1873 2333 329.7 1.0
1923 2313 328.9 1.4
1975 2277 328.1 2.1
2023 2241 327.3 2.2
2073 2204 326.4 1.9
2123 21S8 323.3 2.1
2173 2133 324.3 2.S
2223 2098 323.3 3.7
2273 20S4 322.3 7.3
2323 2030 321.3 9.8
2373 1998 320.4 8.3
2423 19«« 319.3 7.9
2473 1934 318.2 7.4
2323 1904 317.9 9.3
2373 1374 31S.3 10.3
2423 1843 314.3 10.2
2673 1813 313.2 12.3
2723 1791 311.9 16.1
2775 17SS 310.5 20.7
2823 1740 309.1 23. «
2873 171S 307. S 24.2
2915 1694 30«.l 24.7
2975 1672 304.6 22.9
3023 1652 303.9 21.4
3073 1633 301.4 23.3
3123 1616 299.7 26.2
3173 1600 293.0 29.6
3225 1533 294.3 31.4
3273 1372 294.6 29.1
332S 1360 292.3 24.2
3375 1349 291.0 21.2
3423 1541 289.2 19.2
3475 1334 237.3 21.9
3523 1528 23S.3 22.2
3373 1324 283.6 27.$
3625 1322 281.7 33.3
3675 1521 279.8 39.2
3723 1522 277.9 39.4
3775 1325 27S.1 40.9
3825 1529 274.2 43.4
3875 1533 272.3 47.0
3923 1342 270.3 41.3
3973 1331 268.7 38.4
4025 1362 266.9 33.1
4075 1574 26S.1 26.3
4125 1388 263.4 18.3
4175 1603 241.6 12.3
4223 1619 260.9 19.7
4275 1637 238.3 7.9
4323 1656 25S.7 5.4
4375 1676 253.1 5.9
4425 1698 233.6 7.1
4475 1721 232.1 7.2
4323 1743 230.7 3.3
4375 1770 249.3 1.3
4623 1796 247.9 .8
4675 1823 246.6 .5
4723 1331 243.3 .4
4773 1880 244.0 .1
4823 1919 242.3 -.1
4873 1940 241.5 -.1
AQ24 1 972 240 ^ 1
47iO +y 1 A 4.U.3 . J
4973 2904 239.4 .0
5023 2937 238.3 .9
3073 2071 237.3 .0
5123 2105 236.3 .9
vertical ?rofil«
{50.3 a r«». )
2"»> XS
-17 7.9
33 73.1
83 37.6
133 37.7
133 91.1
233 81.3
233 $9.3
333 65.2
333 67.1
433 S3.0
433 57.5
533 43.3
583 37.2
633 31.3
633 26.9
733 23.6
733 20.4
333 14.2
333 9.3
933 8.7
933 8.6
1033 6.3
1333 5.6
1133 4.2
1133 2.5
1233 1.1
1233 .4
1333 .1
1383 .0
1433 .0
1433 .0
1333 .9
1383 .0
1633 .9
1683 .0
1733 -.0
1783 .9
1333 .0
1833 .9
1933 .9
COHDORS '83 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES P«nod * 3
R«l«*»« R»e»: 41.3 g/« Azlaucii 299.1
R«l«»»« iUlqht: Surlac*
Horizontal Proiilo
(30.3 a rts. )
77 X"
-17 11.3
33 39.3
93 70.2
133 74.3
133 73.3
233 70.2
233 66.4
333 S9.3
333 54.4
433 59.3
433 49.4
533 49.9
583 48.7
633 42.3
633 37.6
733 36.5
733 31.7
833 26.3
833 19.4
933 13.5
983 8.3
1933 8.3
1033 7.7
1133 6.4
1133 3.3
1233 2.9
1233 2.7
1333 2.1
1383 1.9
1433 1.7
1433 1.6
1533 1.3
1583 1.4
1633 1.2
1683 .3
1733 .7
1783 .5
1333 .2
1883 .9
1933 -.9
1983 -.0
2933 .9
2083 .9
2133 .0
2133 .9
Table A.I (3-83/190° to 200.1°)
-177-
-------
Period 3-83, 0. =210.0° (normal)
CONDORS. '13 AVZKACZO OIL TOO PROFt!
£•!•>!• Rata: 41.3 g/i
R«l«««« H«ight: Surfaca
Horizontal Profila
(50.0 a r««.)
iiOn) /3f(m) £,(•) X"
1223 3180 332.4 -.0
1273 3153 331. 6 .0
1325 3127 330.9 .1
1375 3102 330.1 .2
1425 3077 329.3 ,3
1475 3053 328.4 .4
1325 3030 327.6 .3
1575 3007 326.8 .5
1623 2915 32S.9 .7
1675 29S3 325.0 1.1
1725 2942 324.2 1.5
1775 2922 323.3 1.9
1325 2903 322.4 2.2
1375 2884 321.4 2.5
1925 286« 320.3 3.3
1975 2149 319.6 4.3
2023 2833 318.6 3.3
2073 2817 317.6 6.2
2125 2803 316.7 6.2
2173 2789 315.7 6.7
2223 2776 314.7 7.1
2273 2763 313.7 7.5
2325 2752 312.7 7.9
2375 2741 311.7 8.0
2423 2732 310.6 3.3
2473 27J3 309.6 9.7
2525 2713 308.6 10.1
2373 2708 307.3 9.3
2625 2702 306.3 8.3
2673 2697 305.4 8.0
2725 2693 304.3 9.4
2773 2689 303.3 11.1
2823 2687 302.2 12.2
2875 2686 301.2 13.0
2925 2613 300.1 13.3
2975 268« "9.0 13.7
3023 2687 298.0 14.2
3075 2689 296.9 15.7
3123 2692 293.8 16.7
3173 2696 294.8 17.5
3223 2701 293.7 17.7
3275 2707 292.7 17.9
3323 2714 291.6 17.9
3375 2722 290.6 17.6
3423 2731 289.5 13.7
J3 Period * 3
Aziauttt 210.0
vertical Prafll*
(50.0 m raa.)
2< XS
-17 7.4
33 45.0
33 32.2
133 35.3
183 37.3
233 53.5
233 53.2
333 32.6
383 53.3
433 33.8
483 32.7
333 30.0
583 48.6
633 47.0
683 42.7
733 39.1
783 33.8
833 27.1
383 24.7
933 21. »
983 20.3
1033 13.2
1083 15.4
1133 12. 8
1183 12.2
1233 10.9
1283 8.3
1333 7.2
1383 5.9
1433 4.5
1483 3.4
1533 2.8
1383 2.0
1633 1.0
1633 ,4
1733 .0
1783 -.2
1833 -.0
1383 .0
1933 .0
17(111) />f(m) 0,C) Xi
3473 2740 288. S 20.1
3523 . 2731 287.5 21.3
3373 2762 236.5 21.2
3623 2774 285.3 23.1
3675 2787 284.5 25.3
3725 2801 283.3 26.3
3773 2816 232.5 26.7
3825 2831 231.5 27.0
3875 2847 280.6 28.5
3923 2864 279.7 29.0
3973 2382 278.7 27.6
4025 2901 277.8 25.3
4073 2920 276.9 25.0
4125 2940 276.0 23.2
4173 2961 273.1 26.1
4225 2982 274.2 26.9
4275 3004 273.4 23.6
4323 3027 273.3 23.9
4373 3030 271.7 23.6
4423 3074 270.9 22.1
4475 3099 270.1 19.1
4325 3124 269.3 16.4
4575 3150 268.5 14.0
4625 3176 267.7 12.6
4675 3203 267.0 10.7
4725 3231 266.2 9.4
4773 3259 265.5 8.5
4325 3288 264.8 8.3
4875 3317 264.1 7.7
4923 3346 263.4 3.7
4973 3376 262.7 4.7
5023 3407 262.0 3.7
3075 3438 261.4 3.0
5123 3469 260.7 2.
5173 3501 260.1 3.
3223 3534 239.5 3.
5273 3566 238.9 3.
5323 3599 238.3 2.
5373 3633 257.7 2.
5423 3667 237.1 1.
5473 3701 236.3
5523 3735 236.0
3575 3770 235.4
5623 3806 254.9
5673 3841 234.4 .1
2(m) X$
Table A.I (3-83/210°)
-178-
-------
Period 4-83, 0L =169.9° (normal) Period 4-83, 0L =173.0° (normal)
COXDORS
Release
Release
'83 AVERAGED OIL
Rate: 44.5 g/s
Height: Surface
TOG PROFILES
Period I 4
Aziauth 169.9
Horizontal Profile
T?
2360 343.7
2311 343.5
2262 343.3
2213 343.1
2163 342.9
2114 342.6
2063 342.4
201C 342.1
1967 341.8
1918 341.3
1869 341.2
1820 340.9
1771 340.6
1722 340.2
1673 339.8
1623 339.4
157S 339.0
1321 338.6
1479 338.1
1431 337.6
1383 337.0
1333 336.4
1287 333.8
1240 335.1
1192 334.4
1149 333.6
109* 332.7
1031 331.7
1003 330.7
939 329.6
913 328.3
868 326.9
823 329.4
779 323.7
736 321.8
694 :19.7
632 317.2
613 314.5
574 311.4
538 307.9
504 303.8
473 299.2
443 294.0
421 288.2
403 281.8
389 274.8
382 267.4
382 259.9
388 252.5
400 245.5
418 238.9
440 233.0
467 227.6
498 223.0
532 218.8
x.
.0
.0
.0
.1
.2
.4
.5
.9
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.8
2.5
3.1
3.8
4.5
5.1
6.1
6.8
6.6
7.5
9.7
11.6
11.7
17.1
22.7
27.1
31.0
34.8
42.6
50.6
56.9
61.4
54.6
43.2
36.8
34.2
38.1
47.7
61.3
76.9
64.3
33.9
41.5
24.6
4.5
1.8
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
vertical Profile
(SO
o a res . )
2
-------
Period 4-83, 8L =177.5° (normal) Period 4-83, 9L =183.1° (normal)
COKOOM.'13 XV
Ralca
R«l«a
•• Ratal
•• Haiaat
DUCZD OIL
44.3 9/a
: Suriaca
yo« pxorxus ?.
rlod » 4
Aziautli 177.4
Horizontal Profile
(30.3 a raa.)
fjlm) p xS
-17
33
13
133
133
233
233
333
313
433
433
333
333
633
433
733
713
333
333
933
913
1033
1013
1133
1133
1233
1213
1333
1313
1433
4.1
36.2
53.1
36.1
30.1
52.1
31.9
55.1
63.9
64. 6
63.1
62.1
31.9
30.4
49.3
49.9
31 . 7
27.3
24.6
23.9
23.4
20.1
11.6
6.2
3.2
,1
. 2
'.a
. 0
.0
C3MDQR5
3«i««»«
Ralaa»«
.'S3 JWTSACEO Oil
Rata: 44.3 g/»
H«ight: Suriaca
roc ?Rorrus p«riod » 4
Aziauta 113.1
Horizontal ?ra£iia
t 3u. j a r«a. )
TjOn) p(m) 5,0 Xi
1623
1675
1723
1773
1125
1173
1325
1973
2023
2073
2123
2173
2223
2273
2225
2373
2425
2473
2325
2373
2625
2673-
2725
2773
2125
2173
2925
2973
3025
3075
3125
3175
3225
3273
3325
3375
3425
3475
3525
3373
3625
3(75
3723
3T73
3125
3173
3925
3973
4023
4073
2447 337.2
2402 336.7
2351 336.1
2313 333.6
22S9 333.3
2225 334.4
2111 333.1
2131 333.1
2093 332.4
2032 331.7
2039 331.3
1967 330.2
1925 329.4
1114 321.5
1343 32T.7
1303 3:4.7
1763 325.3
1723 324.3
1534 323.7
164( 322.6
1601 321.4
1571 320.2
1535 319.0
149* 317.6
14(5 31*. 2
1431 314.1
1391 313.2
1367 311. 6
133* 310.0
1307 301.2
1279 30«.4
1252 304.5
1227 302.5
1203 300.4
1J.11 291.2
1161 29«.0
1142 293.7
1123 291.3
1111 211.1
109* 2*4. 3
10** 2*3.1
10*0 2*1.2
1074 271.3
1070 273.9
10(9 273.2
1070 270.5
1374 2(7.1
13*0 295.2
131* 262.6
1091 2(0.0
f 2
1.3
2.3
3.7
4.3
3.2
3.4
6.3
7.3
9.4
13.4
14.1
17.4
19.3
22.3
23.6
26.5
27.7
29.4
21.9
27.2
26.9
27.3
33.1'
39.2
41.1
39.7
40.2
42.3
43.6
46.0
44.0
39.2
33.2
31.3
21.4
27.6
24.1
21. (
IS. 4
11.0
15.3
13.4
6.3
4.1
2.1
.5
.0
.0
.3
Varslsal Praflla
(53.0 a
2(m)
•17
"™"^~ T T
J J
33
133
193
233
293
333
333
433
483
533
333
633
633
733
713
333
313
933
913
1333
1013
11 J 3
1113
1233
1213
1333
1313
1433
r«». )
x"
6. 3
31.1
37.4
42.1
43.3
44.3
47.4
31.3
57. S
37. I
SO. 3
67. 1
66.2
31.2
34.2
31.1
41.6
33.9
36.1
33.3
26.9
21.7
13.3
9.4
3.6
4
Q
^ Q
. g
t Q
Table A.I (4-83/177.4° to 183.1°)
-180-
-------
Period 4-83, 9i=^5.0° (normal)
CONDORS
Ralaas*
.'33 AVERAGED OIL
Rat*: 44
H«ignt:
Horizontal
17 (m)
1025
1075
1125
1173
1223
1273
1323
1373
1425
1473
1523
1373
1523
1673
1723
1775
1325
1375
1925
1975
2025
2075
2125
2175
2223
2273
2325
2373
2425
2473
2523
2373
2623
2673
2723
2773
2323
2373
2925
2975
3025
3075
3 US
3175
3223
3273
3325
3375
3425
3475
3525
3575
3625
3675
3725
(50.0 a
/Km)
3100
3060
3020
2931
2941
2902
2364
2326
2738
2730
2713
2677
2641
2605
2370
2533
2301
2467
2434
2401
2369
2338
2303
2278
2248
2220
2192
2165
2139
2114
2090
2066
2044
2022
2002
1982
1964
1947
1931
1916
1902
1390
1873
1368
1360
1352
1346
1342
1338
1336
1336
1336
1338
1342
1347
• 3 ?/»
Surfac*
Profil*
ra».)
0,C)
333.7
333.2
337.5
337.0
336.4
335.3
335.2
334.5
333.3
333.2
332.4
331.7
331.0
330.2
329.4
323.6
327.3
326.9
326.1
325.2
324.2
323.3
322.3
321.3
320.3
319.2
313.2
317.0
313.9
314.7
313.6
312.3
311.1
309.3
303.5
307.2
303.3
304.5
303.1
301.7
300.2
298.7
297.3
295.3
294.2
292.7
291.2
239.6
233.1
236.5
235.0
233.4
231.3
230.3
278.7
FOG PROFILES ?«riod « 4
Aziauc.1 195.0
Yn
.0
.2
.5
1.1
1.5
1.6
1.4
2.3
3.4
4.6
6.5
3.9
11.3
12.4
16.2
20.0
22.2
24.2
25.3
27.3
29.4
31.7
35.5
37.3
37.4
37.1
33.9
39.9
39.5
42.5
43.7
40.2
35.5
34.1
34.0
37.2
37.0
33.5
29.6
25.6
19.3
14.2
3.9
7.4
7.7
7.6
S.7
5.6
3.3
3.1
2.9
1.7
.7
.0
.0
/artical
(50.3
Prostln
3 ras.)
2(m> X,
-17
33
33
133
133
233
233
333
333
433
433
533
533
633
633
733
733
333
383
933
933
1033
1083
1133
1133
1233
1233
1333
1333
1433
15.3
39.5
43.2
43.9
48.4
51.3
53.7
54.4
50.3
60.3
59.3
50.2
39.9
57,1
•3.3
46.1
42.3
33.6
23.3
24.7
19.3
14.9
11.1
7.2
4.0
2.6
1.0
.6
-.4
-.2
Period 5-83, 0L =169.9° (normal)
CONDORS
Ralaasa
Ral»a»«
.'33 AVERAGED OIL
Hat«: 10.2 g/i
Haigt-.t: 236.0 3
rOC PROFILES Pariod I ?
Azisuth
Horizontal Profila
rj(m)
2125
2175
2225
2275
2325
2375
2425
2475
2323
2575
2625
2873
2723
2775
2325
2373
2925
2975
3023
3073
3123
3173
3225
3273
3323
3373
3425
3475
3523
3373
3625
3673
3725
3775
3825
387S
3925
3973
4025
4075
4125
4175
4225
4275
4325
(50.0 a r«a.)
/><«n) 0,0
1931 341.3
1332 341.3
1833 341.1
1733 340.3
1734 340. S
1634 340.3
1633 340.0
1536 339.7
1537 339.4
1488 339.0
1439 333.6
1390 333.2
1341 337.3
1292 337.3
1243 336.
1194 336.
1146 335.
1097 333.
1049 334.
1001 333.
933 332.
90S 331.
338 330.
811 329.
7S4 323.3
713 326.9
672 323.2
627 323.3
583 321.1
340 313.5
4»8 315.6
437 312.0
419 307.3
383 302.3
351 29«,3
323 239.7
302 231.5
287 272.1
231 262.1
233 252.0
294 242.3
313 233.5
338 225.9
3S9 219.5
403 214.0
\jft
.0
.0
.0
.0
-.0
-.0
.0
.0
.1
.5
.3
.4
.6
.5
-.1
.3
2.2
.4
.4
.5
1.5
3.7
6.3
9.4
10.0
7.7
10.9
19.3
40.3
59.3
36.1
62.3
66.0
77.0
116.2
34.4
99.1
92.6
65.4
91.7
10.9
2.1
.0
.0
.0
169.9
Vartical Praiila
(30.3 a
rss. j
2< X;
-17
33
33
133
133
233
233
333
333
433
433
533
533
633
633
733
733
333
333
933
.0
14.6
125.9
30.2
133.2
121.4
133.3
33.5
47.0
50.3
29.4
15.7
10.9
11.3
7.3
10. S
11.2
2.5
.0
.0
Table A.I (4-83/195° to 5-83/169.9°)
-181-
-------
Period 5-83, 0L =174.0° (normal) Period 5-83, gL =178.9° (normal)
CONDORS. '83 AVERAGED OIL
Re lea
Relea
77/«!) £,(•>
1965 337.1
1917 336.7
1369 336.2
1822 333.8
1773 333.3
1727 334.7
1680 334.2
1633 333.6
1386 332.9
1340 332.3
1494 331.5
1447 330.3
1402 330.0
1356 329.1
1311 328.2
1266 327.2
1222 326.2
1178 325.0
1134 323.8
1091 322.5
1049 321.1
1007 319.5
967 317.8
927 316.0
383 314.0
850 311.9
314 309.5
779 306.9
746 304.1
715 301.0
686 297.7
639 294.1
636 290.2
615 236.0
598 281.3
585 276.9
576 272.0
371 267.0
371 262.0
373 257.0
583 232.2
595 247.4
611 242.9
631 238.7
654 234.7
FOG PROFILES
Period « 5
AZiauth 174.0
X
.3
.0
.4
.3
1.0
1.6
1.3
3.2
6.3
4.5
5.3
7.3
8.5
9.4
10.2
12.3
11.7
8.7
10.3
17.3
21.7
24.1
30.4
28.0
39.7
53.5
59.3
46.3
63.4
60.3
41.9
32.7
52.6
66.6
129.8
39.5
26.4
8.5
2.4
.6
.2
.0
.0
.0
.0
Vertical Profile
(30.
ZOn)
-17
33
33
133
133
233
233
333
333
433
433
533
583
633
633
733
733
333
383
933
983
1033
1083
1133
1183
0 a res.)
y/l
.0
104.2
113.0
121.9
132.9
111.2
59.9
S3.0
43.0
40.4
43.1
32.6
29.6
30.3
26.1
24.2
13.9
13.4
2.5
-.3
.3
.3
.0
.0
.3
CONDORS '83 AVE3ACED OIL
Releai
Releai
ie Rate: 10
le Height:
Horizontal
(30.0 a
• 2 ?/»
236.0 a
Profile
re».)
FOG PROFILES Period » 3
Azimuth 178.9
•»7
-------
Period 5-83, 6L =183.1° (normal)
CONDOR* '83 AVERACID Oil. TOG PROFILES P«riod » S
3«l»a»« Rat«: 10.2
-------
Period 6-83, 0L =169.9° (normal) Period 6-83, #L =174.0° (normal)
CONDORS '33 AVERAGED OIL FOC PROFITS P«riOg(m) £,<•> X"
1225 2338 342.4 .0
1275 2739 342.2 .2
1325 2740 342.0 .4
1375 2691 341.8 .5
1425 2643 341.5 1.0
1479 2594 341.3 l.l
1525 2545 341.1 1.7
1579 2496 340.8 2.0
1629 2443 340.5 2.3
1675 2399 340.2 2.7
1725 2351 340.3 2.7
1779 2302 339.7 2.0
1325 2254 339.3 1.3
1375 2205 339.0 1.4
1929 2157 338.7 1.1
1979 2109 333.3 1.5
2025 2061 337.9 2.5
2079 2013 337.5 1.8
2125 1965 337.1 3.2
2175 1917 336.7 3.0
2225 1869 336.2 2.2
2275 1322 335.8 2.7
2325 1775 335.2 3.7
2375 1727 334.7 5.1
2425 1680 334.2 3.8
2475 1633 333.6 3.6
2525 1536 332.9 6.7
2575 1540 332.3 22.4
2625 1494 331.5 21.9
2675 1448 330.8 21.2
2725 1402 330.0 20.4
2775 1356 329.1 19.3
2325 1311 328.2 18.4
2375 1266 327.2 21.9
2925 1222 326.2 30.1
2975 1178 325.0 27.6
3025 1134 323.8 23.6
3075 1091 322.5 30.6
3125 1049 321.1 34.0
3175 1007 319.5 31.4
3225 967 317.3 30.8
3275 927 316.0 42.0
3329 aaa 314.0 47.4
3379 850 311.8 76.2
3425 814 309.5 SS.4
3475 779 306.9 52.5
3525 746 304.1 50.9
3575 719 301.0 51.0
3625 636 297.7 48.4
3675 659 294.1 44.6
3725 $36 290.2 33.4
3775 615 236.0 33.9
3825 599 231.5 17.0
3375 585 27S.9 3.7
3925 576 272.3 5.7
3975 572 2S7.0 1.3
4025 571 262.0 .6
4075 575 257.0 .1
4125 533 252.2 .0
4175 595 247.4 -.0
vertical Prom*
(50.0 a raj. )
2(m) X?
-17 i. a
H33 lso-3
33 147.1
133 122.3
133 102.3
233 93.0
233 37.0
333 63.3
333 45.9
433 32.7
483 30.4
533 19.3
583 22.1
S33 13.3
833 13.1
733 13.1
733 13.2
933 10.4
383 4.7
933 4.2
983 .1
1033 -.1
1083 .0
1133 .0
1183 .0
Table A.I (6-83/169.9° to 174°)
-184-
-------
Period 6-83, Q\_ =178.9° (normal) Period 6-83, 0L =183.1° (normal)
CONDORS . ' 43 AVERAGED OIL TOG PROFZ!
R«l«as« R«t»: 9.: ?/*
R«l«a*« K«ight: 286. 0 •
Horizontal Profil*
(50.0 m r««.)
TJlm) pf(m) $,<•) X,
1125 2960 341.0 .0
1173 2913 340.7 .0
1229 2865 340.4 .1
127S 2813 343.1 .2
1325 2771 339.7 .7
137S 2724 339.4 1.0
1425 2676 339.0 1.2
1475 2630 338.7 1.4
152S 2583 338.3 2.3
1575 2534 337.9 2.5
1623 2489 337.5 2.3
1675 2443 337.0 2.7
1725 2397 334.4 1.9
1775 2350 334.1 1.6
1825 2304 335.4 1.9
1375 2259 335.1 2.6
1925 2213 334.6 3.2
1975 2147 334.1 7.3
2025 2122 333.5 8.9
2075 2077 332.9 3.9
2125 2032 332.3 11.0
2175 1988 331.6 13.2
2225 1943 331.0 12.9
2275 1899 330.3 11.4
2325 1856 329.5 10.5
2375 1812 328.3 3.3
2425 1749 327.9 11.2
2475 1724 327.1 23.1
2523 1684 326.2 38.4
2575 1642 325.2 35.2
2425 1601 324.3 35.3
2675 1560 323.2 37.1
2725 1520 322.1 32.4
2773 1430 321.0 33.4
2325 1441 319.7 44.4
2375 1402 313.4 37.0
2923 1345 317.1 33.4
2975 1328 315.4 30.3
3025 1292 314.1 32.3
3075 1257 312.5 29.6
3125 1223 310.3 21.7
3173 1190 309.0 13.1
3225 1159 307.1 17.2
3275 1128 305.1 25.5
3325 1100 303.0 36.7
337S 1072 300.3 39.7
3425 1047 298.5 30.2
347! 1023 296.1 43.6
3525 1001 293.5 41.2
3575 981 290.9 35.7
3623 964 288.1 32.5
3675 948 235.3 28.3
3723 938 232.3 20.3
3773 925 279.3 15.2
3825 913 276.2 5.6
3375 913 273.1 2.4
3923 910 270.0 .2
3975 911 264.8 .0
4025 914 243.7 .0
4075 920 260.4 .0
£3 Period 1 6
Aziautft 178.9
vertical Profila
(50.0 a r«».)
*<•"> x;
-17 11.3
, '33 106.7
33 103.6
133 105.1
133 39.7
233 70.0
233 61.3
333 65.5
333 77.1
433 77.2
433 37.4
533 42.5
583 29.9
633 23.3
633 18.3
733 11.5
733 3.7
333 2.1
333 1.2
933 .2
983 -.0
1033 .0
1083 .0
1133 .0
1133 .0
CONDORS. 'S3 AVERAGES Oil. TOG PRO Til
R«laaa« Rat«: 9.3 g/i
R«laa*« H*i?tit: 286.0 a
Horizontal Profila
(50.0 a r»».)
77t XS
-17 13.5
33 9«.4
33 109.3
133 115.5
133 111.4
233 101.2
233 92.3
333 37.5
333 74.3
433 39.9
433 42.3
533 30. 0
533 21.3
633 14.2
683 12.5
733 3.0
783 3.5
833 2.2
883 1.4
933 .3
983 .3
1033 .0
1083 .0
1133 .3
1133 .0
TAble A.I (6-83/178.9° to 183.1°)
-185-
-------
Fteriod 6-83, 0L=188-0° (normal) Period 7-83, 0L =169.9° (fine)
COHOOR3 '13 AVERK3W OZt, F0« PROFILES Period » 6
Releeee Rate: 9.3 g/e Azimuth 188.0
Release Height: 236.0 •
Horizontal Profile
(30.0 it rea.
77 X$
, -17 14.5
33 50.3
33 36.5
133 32.6
133 74.3
233 33.9
233 37.4
333 39.2
333 32.2
433 74.2
483 S6.5
333 53.0
583 41.5
633 31.0
683 22.7
733 21.3
783 15.1
833 10.2
883 2.9
933 -.0
983 .0
1033 .0
1083 .0
1133 .0
1183 .0
CONDORS. '13 AVZBAGED OIL fW PROFILES Period * V
Releeee Rate: 9.3 ?/• Aiiautft 169.9
Releese Height: 286.0 a
Horizontal Profile
CO. 0 a ree.)
77 pfm) $,(•) X"
2775 1292 337.3 .0
2325 1243 336.3 .0
2373 1193 338.2 -.0
2923 1146 335. « 1.4
2973 1098 333.0 4.1
3025 1050 334.3 4.7
3073 1002 333.3 14.1
3125 934 332.7 27.6
3173 906 331.7 16.5
3225 359 330.7 6.
3273 812 329.5 6.
3323 7«3 328.2 10.
3375 719 326.7 19.
3425 673 325.1 25.
3475 628 323.2 36.
3523 534 320.9 66.
3575 541 313.4 83.
3625 499 315.4 120.
3673 458 311.3 96.
3725 420 307.6 113.
3773 335 302.6 134.
3823 353 296.6 85.
3873 325 289.3 84.
3923 304 281.3 28.
3973 289 272.0 3.
4023 283 262.1 2.
4073 283 252.0 1.
4125 296 242.4 1.7
4173 313 233.7 .5
4223 340 226.1 .4
4275 370 219.7 -.2
4323 404 214.3 -.0
4373 442 209.7 .0
4423 431 203.9 .0
4475 . 522 202.7 .0
Vertical Profile
(25.0 a res.)
'<"»> x;
-30 .0
-S ,2
"~ 20 21.',9
45 50.. 3
73 50,6
95 68,1
120 77.a
143 33.2
170 114.3
193 150.1
220 202.3
245 171.2
270 199.3
293 174.6
320 144.7
343 117.4
370 173.0
393 96.7
420 31.0
445 10.7
470 12.3
493 29.1
320 10.3
343 9.3
370 2.1
595 .0
620 .0
643 .0
670 .0
693 .0
Table A.I (6-83/188° to 7-83/169.9°/fine)
-186-
-------
Period 7-83, 0L =169.9° (normal)
Period 7-83, 0L =174.0° (normal)
COHOORS.'83 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES Period 1 7
Release Rate: 9.3 g/S Azisuttt 169.9
Release Height: 236.0 a
Horizontal Profile
(50.0 » res.)
•7
-------
Period 7-83, 0L =183.1° (normal) Period 7-83, 9L =188.0° (normal)
CONDORS. '33 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES Period » 7
Release 'Rate: 9.3 g/s Azimuth 133.1
Release Height: 286.0 a
Horizontal Profile
(SO. 9 a res.)
77(m) /9s 0,0 X"
212S 2112 323. S .2
2175 2071 327.3 1.7
2225 2030 327.0 6.4
227S 1990 32S.1 S.S
2325 1950 325.2 4.3
2375 1911 324.3 S.7
2425 1872 323.4 9.5
2475 1834 322.4 9.3
2525 1797 321.3 14.3
2575 1760 320.2 13.6
2S25 1723 319.1 24.5
2575 1S38 317.9 31.6
2725 1S53 31S.7 34.3
2775 1619 315.4 27.1
2325 1586 314.1 13. 9
237! 1553 312.7 20.5
2925 1522 311.2 23. S
2975 1492 309.7 22.7
3025 1462 303.1 17.3
3075 1434 306.5 14.1
3125 1407 304.3 21.3
3175 1382 303.0 34.3
3225 1357 301.2 37.2
3275 1335 299.3 40.3
3325 1313 297.4 33.4
3375 1294 295.3 35. 6
3425 1275 293.3 31.9
3475 1259 291.1 42.9
3525 1245 238.9 67.9
3575 1232 23«.7 53.2
3625 1221 234.4 42.5
3675 1212 232.1 54.2
3725 1205 279.3 61.5
377! 1201 277.4 50.3
3325 1198 275.0 39.2
387! 1197 272.6 23.9
3925 1199 270.2 6.3
3975 1202 267.3 .3
402! 1208 265.5 .1
4075 1216 263.1 .0
Vertical Profile
(50.0 a res.)
Z(m> X°r,
-17 11,9
33 152.0
33 139.6
133 171.5
133 136.4
233 102.9
233 33.1
333 45.3
333 41.9
433 32.3
433 19.3
533 6.6
533 3.0
633 3.7*
683 .3
733 .0
733 .0
333 .0
833 .0
933 .0
CONDORS. '83 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES Period » 7
Release- Rat*! 9.3 g/s Azimuth 138.0
Release Height: 236.0 a
Horizontal Profile
(50.0 a r«s.)
I7 £,(•> X"z
1325 2453 329.6 .0
1375 2414 328.9 .0
1925 2375 323.1 .0
1975 '2337 327.4 .2
2025 2299 326.5 1.9
2075 2262 325.7 3.4
2125 2226 324.3 5.2
2175 2139 323.9 7.8
2225 2154 323.0 13.4
2275 2119 322.1 20.3
2325 2C34 321.1 23.5
2375 2050 320.1 29.2
2425 2017 319.0 29.6
2475 1985 317.9 29.5
252! 1953 316.3 29.2
257! 1922 315.6 23.3
2625 1392 314.4 31.0
2675 1363 313.2 37.4
272! 1834 311.9 36.3
277! 1307 310.6 34.0
2825 1781 309.2 40.8
2875 175! 307.3 37.3
2925 1731 306.4 41.0
2975 1708 304.9 31.1
3025 168S 303.4 26.8
307! 166! 301.9 23.6
3125 164! 300.3 25.5
3175 1627 298.6 26.6
3225 1610 297.0 33.3
3275 1594 295.3 22.9
3325 1580 293.5 18.1
3375 1567 291.3 18.7
3425 1556 290.0 17.1
3475 1547 238.2 23.3
3525 ' 1539 286.4 29.1
3575 1532 28*. 5 29.2
362! 1527 282.6 26.6
3675 1524 280.3 26.3
3725 1523 273.9 29.5
377! 1523 277.0 34.6
3825 1524 27!. 1 30.4
3875 1528 273.2 22.1
392! 1533 271.4 11.5
3975 1539 269.5 3.4
4025 1547 267.7 .0
Vertical Profile
(50.0 a res. )
2(m) X$
;17 25.7
33 150.3
33 159. 8
133 133. S
183 117. S
233 93.2
233 35.2
333 75.8
333 49.3
433 32.1
433 13.*
533 13. 3
583 13.3
633 11.3
633 10.3
733 3.5
733 ,2
333 .0
333 .0
933 .0
Table A.I (7-83/183.1° to 188°)
-188-
-------
Period 8-83, 9\_ =168.4° (fine)
Period 8-83, 6L =168.4° (normal)
CONDORS '83 AVtHAOSO OIL FOS PROF!
Releaia Sat*: 23. J g/«
Release Height: 284.1 a
Horizontal Profile
(29.0 a r«».)
•»7(m) pjm) 0,0 X"
3313 239 310.9 .0
3838 269 307. S .0
3863 251 303.9 .0
3888 234 299.6 .0
3913 218 294.7 20. S
3933 204 239.0 232.4
3963 193 282.6 344.3
3988 184 273.5 279.9
4013 178 267.7 344.0
4038 176 2S9.7 429.5
4063 177 251.6 ' 134.
4038 182 243.7 31.
4113 190 236.4 3S.
4138 200 229.7 121.
4163 213 223.8 23.
4138 228 218.7 2.
4213 245 214.2 .0
4238 263 210.3 .0
4263 232 206.9 .0
4288 302 203.9 .0
LZS Period 1 8
Aziauta 168.4
vertical Profile
(12.5 a sum.)
'""> x;
164 .0
176 .0
139 5.0
201 115.8
214 235.6
226 302.9
239 230.4
251 556.7
264 363.5
276 293.3
239 456.5
301 874. 7
314 372.3
326 325.6
339 95.5
351 1.7
364 .0
376 .0
389 .0
401 .0
CONDOM. '33 AVESACID OIL FOG PROFII
Raleaie Rat*: 23.5 g/«
Release Height: 266.1 a
Horizontal Profile
(50.0 a ree.)
77
-------
Period 8-83, 0L =172.3° (normal)
COJJOOM 'S3 AVtRAMD Oil. TOO PROFILES Period » 9
Releaa* R*t«J 1 3. 3 ?/• Azimuth 17:.:
Release Height: 268.1 a
Horizontal Profile
(50.0 a rea.)
i7,§ £(•) X°z
3213 1051 313.1 .0
3238 1033 312.2 .0
3263 1015 311.2 -.0
3288 997 310.2 .0
3313 980 309.1 -.0
3338 963 308.0 .1
3363 947 306.9 .1
3388 931 305.7 .2
3413 915 304.5 .2
3438 900 303.3 .1
3463 885 302.0 • -.0
3488 870 300.7 .0
3513 856 299.3 .1
3538 843 297.9 1.5
3563 830 296.4 4.1
3538 318 294.9 6.8
3613 806 293.3 3.4
3638 795 291.7 13.7
3663 784 290.1 28.2
3688 774 238.4 56.4
3713 763 286.7 105.3
3738 757 284.9 104.4
3763 749 283.1 95.7
3788 742 281.2 88.4
3813 736 279.4 80.2
3338 731 277.4 122.0
3363 726 275.5 137.7
388* 723 273.6 223.1
3913 720 271.6 162.4
3938 718 269.6 156.6
3963 717 267.6 134.8
3981 717 265.6 92.4
4013 717 283.6 78.0
4038 719 261.6 57.4
4063 . 721 259.6 47.6
4088 724 257.7 35.3
4113 729 255. 7 25.3
4138 733 253.8 20.7
4163 739 251.9 29.3
4188 746 250.0 25.3
4213 753 243.2 6.3
4231 761 246.4 1.5
4263 770 244.7 .3
4288 779 243.0 . 1.
4313 789 241.3 .0
4338 800 239.7 .0
4363 . 312 238.1 -0
4338 824 236.6 .0
4413 836 235.1 .0
4438 350 233.6 .0
Vertical Profile
!25.o a res. )
2(m) XJ|
-30 .0
-3 .0
20 .3
43 1.3
70 12.9
93 2S. 6
120 H.l
145 7.6
170 16.6
195 69.5
220 140.3
245 142.1
270 133.4
293 123.0
320 130.0
343 127.0
370 134. 2
395 205.0
420 209.5
445 140.3
470 61.4
495 33.6
S20 60.7
345 53.3
570 40.2
595 21.2
620 16.0
645 13.0
670 3.2
695 .1
7;(m) /?s(m) £,<•) X"
3873 724 274.3 205.*
3925 719 270.6 159.5
3973 717 266.6 113.6
4025 718 262.6 67.7
4075 723 258.7 41.5
4125 731 254.8 23.0
4173 742 251.0 27.3
4225 757 247.3 3.9
4273 774 243.3 .2
4325 793 240.5 .0
4375 818 237.3 .0
4425 843 234.3 .0
2
-------
Period 8-83, 0L =178.9° (normal)
CONDORS
Releaie
Releace
.'83 AVERAGED OIL
Rate: 23.5 g/e
Height: 266.1 a
FOG PROFILES
Period * 3
Aziauth 178.9
Horizontal Profile
i7,<«") £,<•)
1619 315.4
1535 314.1
1353 312.7
1522 311.2
1491 309.7
1462 303.1
1434 306.5
1407 304.3
1331 303.0
1357 301.2
1334 299.3
1313 297.4
1293 295.3
1275 293.3
1259 291.1
1244 233.9
1232 236.7
1221 284.4
1212 282.1
1203 279.7
1201 277.4
1198 273.0
1197 272.
1199 270.
1203 267.
1208 263.
1216 263.
1226 260.
1237 23».
1231 236.3
1266 234.2
1283 232.1
1302 230.9
1322 248.0
• 1344 246.1
X"
Ar
.0
.0
.1
.2
.1
.3
.3
.4
.5
.2
.3
2.2
5.2
4.5
11.7
35.2
43.9
40.1
54.7
93.3
90.5
70.
80.
93.
93.
94.
73.
35.
34.
19.
7.7
4.8
7.4
.7
.0
Vertical Profile
(50.
ZCm)
L -1?
33
33
133
133
233
233
333
333
433
433
333
333
633
633
733
733
333
333
933
0 a res. )
y"
Aij
l.S
«4.1
$3.6
55.3
41.4
79.2
106.0
113.6
93.6
S7.1
65.6
93.6
32.3
45.4
13.6
4.1
-.3
.0
.0
.0
•»7
15*0
1593
1610
1627
1646
1663
1686
1709
1732
1736
1782
1303
1336
1864
1393
1924
1953
1986
2019
2052
2086
0,0
262.3
260.6
238.9
257.2
253.6
254.0
252.5
251.0
249.5
248.0
246.7
245.3
244.0
242.7
241.5
240.3
239.1
238.0
236.9
235.9
234.3
V"
*Z
23.5
23.7
24.3
23.5
19.1
5.5
3.9
6.1
10.1
8.1
2.3
-.0
-.2
-.2
-.1
-.2
.4
.6
.0
.0
.0
z(m> X$
Table A.I (8-83/178.9° to 188°)
-191-
-------
Period 9-83, 9L=168.4° (fine)
Period 9-83, Q\_ =168.4° (normal)
CONDORS '33 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES Period * 9
Releai* Rate: 24.9 9/1 Aziautn 188.4
Release Height: 266.1 a
Horizontal Profile
(12.S a res.)
TjCm) /3(m) £,<•) X"
3356 254 305.1 .3
3369 245 303.1 .3
3381 237 301.0 .0
3394 229 298.7 .0
3906 221 296.2 .3
3919 213 293.5 -.1
3931 206 290.7 .1
3944 200 237.6 4.1
3956 194 284.4 127.1
39«9 189 231.0 666.7
3981 134 277.4 ,476.0
3994 181 273.7 559.5
4006 178 269.8 495.9
4019 176 265.8 338.2
4031 175 261.7 32S.O
4044 174 257.6 165.1
4056 175 253.5 225.6
4069 176 249.5 292.9
4081 179 245.5 18J.7
4094 132 241.7 60.8
4106 186 231.0 16.3
4119 191 234.5 7.0
4131 196 231.1 4.3
4144 202 22S.O 2.3
4156 209 225.0 .0
4169 216 222.2 .0
4131 223 219.7 .0
4194 231 217.2 .0
420S 240 21S.O .0
4219 249 212.9 .0
vertical Profile
(12.5 a res.)
ZCm) X?
164 .0
176 .0
139 .0
201 .3
214 .6
226 5.1
239 99.5
251 308.9
264 414.1
276 1350.9
239 546.3
301 343.3
314 619.4
326 272.2
339 33.0
351 1.3
364 .0
376 .0
339 .0
401 .0
CONDORS .'S3 AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFILES Period » "9
Relaas* Rate: 24.9 g/s Aziautft 168 4
Release Height: 266.1 a
Horizontal Profile Vertical Profit
(50.3 a res.) (SO.O a re«. )
77(m) /jCm) 0,0 Xl Z Xn
3375 241 302.1 .0 193 " ' 3
3925 210 292.1 1.0 233 13:1.3
3975 187 279.2 457.3 293 6«3.3
4025 175 283.3 343.6 333 232 6
4075 173 247.5 190.5 333 "
-------
Period 9-83, 0i =176.1° (normal)
CONDORS
Release
Release
.'33 AVERAGED OIL
Ratet
Height
26.8 g/s
: 266.1 a
FOG PROFILES Period * S
Aziauth 176.1
Horizontal Profile
(50.0
a ree . )
ij /J/m) 6,0 X"
3375
3425
3475
3535
3575
3435
3475
3735
3775
3335
3875
3925
3975
4025
4075
4125
4175
4225
4275
4325
4375
4425
4475
4S25
4375
939
903
873
850
325
301
730
742
747
735
734
720
718
719
724
732
743
758
774
794
319
844
871
901
932
306.3
303.9
301.3
298.
295.
392.
389.
235.
282.
278.
274.
270.
266.
262.
258.
354.
251.
247.
243.
240.
337.
234.
231.
229.0
226.5
.0
.0
1.6
4.2
6.6
4.4
4.7
24.7
41.5
93.0
104.3
113.4
149.7
144.5
71.8
29.7
25.7
34.6
44.4
27.4
8.7
7.3
1.8
.0
.0
Vertical
(50.0 a
z(m)
-17
33
33
133
133
233
283
333
383
433
483
333
533
633
483
733
733
833
383
933
Profile
res. )
Y"
.0
30.1
28.4
48.0
59.3
122.1
152.3
110.3
41.1
71.7
123.1
100.5
67.3
26.1
13.0
1.5
-.0
.0
.0
.0
Period 9-83, 0L=178.9° (normal)
CONDORS
Relea**
Release
.'83 AVERAGED
OIL FOG PROFILES Period 1 9
Rate: 36.3 ?/• AZiBUtn
178.9
Height: 24«.l a
Horizontal Profile
77 On)
3235
3275
3325
3375
3425
3475
3535
3575
3«35
3475
3725
3775
3325
3875
3925
3975
4025
4075
4125
4175
4225
4275
4335
4375
4425
4475
4535
4575
4425
4475
(SO.o a re«.
/o(m) #,<•
) X^
1159 307.1 .0
1129 305.1 .0
1100 303.0 .1
1073 300.
1047 398.
1023 294.
1002 293.
982 290.
944 288.
949 285.
934 282.
924 379.
918 274.
913 273.
911 249.
912 24«.
915 243.
921 240.
929 357.
940 354.
954 351.
970 348.
981 244.
1009 243.
1031 240.
1056 238.
4.3
9.0
5.
4.
3.
13.
31.
44.
51.
137.
178.
139.
108.
103.
34.
12.
14.
17.
18,
30.
13.
7.
5.
1082 234.3 7.
1110 234.1
1139 232.
) .0
1170 230.1 .0
vertical Profile
(!0.o a
Z(m)
-17
33
33
133
133
233
283
333
333
433
433
S33
583
433
483
733
783
333
883
933
res.)
V"
A^
.0
40.7
43.5
37.4
62.7
31.6
113.1
151.7
151.3
80. 1
SO. 3
43.4
52.9
38.1
18.3
4.1
3.3
.3
.0
.0
Period 9-83, 0L =183.1° (normal) Period 9-83, 0L =188.0° (normal)
COHOORS '8} AVERAGED OIL FOG PROFI3
Release Rate: 24.3 g/s
Release Height: 244.1 a
Horizontal Profile
(50.0 a ree.)
i7(m) /»t(m) £<•) X,
3125 1404 304.3 .0
3175 1381 303.0 .5
3225 1357 301.2 .4
3275 1334 299.3 4.3
3335 1312 297.4 40.3
3375 1293 295.3 41.4
3425 1275 293.3 37.8
3475 1258 291.1 23.9
3525 1244 283.9 15.8
3575 1231 284.7 20.5
3425 1220 284.4 20.1
3475 1211 282.1 31.2
3725 1205 279.7 43.7
3775 1200 277.4 42.3
3825 1197 275.0 107.0
3875 1197 272. 112.0
3925 1198 270. 93.3
3975 1202 267. 65.2
4025 1207 265. 54.9
4075 1215 263. 49.2
4125 1235 240. 24.5
4175 1236 258. 40.3
4225 12SO 356. 46.2
4275 1365 354. 11.9
432S 1282 253.0 9.5
4375 1301 250.0 12.0
4425 1321 348.0 17.1
4475 1343 346.1 5.3
4535 1367 244.2 .5
4575 1392 242.4 .0
-E3 Period I 9
Aziauth 183.1
Vertical Profile
(50.0 a ree.)
Z(m) X$
-17 2.9
33 142.3
33 92.5
133 90.5
133 70.9
233 121.3
283 109.2
333 57.7
383 40.3
433 43.2
483 52.7
533 34.7
583 17.0
633 19.5
483 23.8
733 35.1
783 37.4
333 3.4
383 .0
933 .0
CONDORS. '83 AVERAGED OIL FOG PRO Pi:
Release Rate: 24.8 g/s
Release Height: 266.1 a
Horizontal Profile
(50.0 a res.)
i7 X^
-17 1.1
~ 33 45.1
33 66.0
133 101.3
133 90.1
233 98.
233 96.
333 31.
333 62.
433 52.
483 60.
533 49.
583 64.
633 40.
683 34.
733 31.0
733 15.9
333 3.0
883 .4
933 .0
Table A.I (9-83/176.1° to 188°)
-193-
-------
Period 9-83, 0L =195.0° (normal)
CONDORS. '83 AVCTASKJ Oil.
Raleai
Releai
ie Kate i
ie Heigm
26.8 ay*
:: 266.1 a
FOG PROFILES Period » 9
Aziauea 193.0
Horizontal Profile
(30.0
• re*. )
/> ^y"
2823
2873
2923
2973
3023
3073
3123
3173
3223
3275
3323
3373
3423
3473
3323
3375
3623
3673
3733
3773
3323
3873
3933
3973
4023
4073
4123
4173
4223
4273
4323
4373
4423
4473
4323
4373
4623
4673
4723
4773
2092
2076
2060
2046
2033
2021
2010
2001
1992
1983
1979
1974
1971
1969
1963
1968
1970
1973
1977
1983
1989
1997
2006
2017
2023
2041
2033
2070
2086
2103
2121
2140
2KO
2181
2203
2226
2230
2373
2300
2326
304.3
303.5
302.2
300.9
299.5
298.1
296.8
293.4
293.9
292.3
291.1
289.6
288.2
236.7
283.3
283.3
282.4
230.9
279.3
278.0
276.6
273.2
273.8
272.4
271.0
269.6
268.3
267.0
263.7
364.4
363.1
361.9
260.7
239.3
338.3
337.1
356.0
234.9
253.8
252.8
.0
.1
.4
2.8
4.5
3.9
3.4
4.2
9.1
20.3
26.6
22.9
20.4
30.1
35.0
33.1
36.1
47.3
49.6
53.7
62.3
52.2
43.3
39.0
48.4
56.1
53.2
47.9
35.0
42.8
39.3
24.9
15.2
10.8
5.8
3.4
4.3
3.3
.0
.0
Vertical
(30.0
2(m)
-17
33
83
133
183
233
283
333
333
433
483
533
583
633
683
733
783
833
383
933
Profile
a res. )
Vn
At,
4.1
53.7
64.9
70.9
68.4
66.3
66.4
63.3
82.9
85.7
64.4
44.5
43.6
54.3
54.6
45.2
33.3
20.7
6.1
.1
Period 10-83, 0L =172.3° (normal)
CONDORS
&•!••••
R*lMM
'83 AVZHAGZO OIL
Rate: 71.3 g/»
Helgftt: Surface
FOG PHOFILZ3
Period 110
AziautA 172.3
Horizontal Profile
;so.3 a re*.)
77 (m) />t(m) #,{•} Xi
2525
2575
2623
2673
2723
2773
2823
2873
2923
2973
3323
3073
3123
3175
3223
3273
3323
3373
3425
3473
3323
3573
3623
3673
3733
3773
3825
3373
3923
3973
4025
4073
4123
4173
4223
4273
4323
4373
4423
4473
4335
4575
4623
4673
4733
4773
4333
4373
4923
4973
1472 339.3
1423 338.8
1374 338.4
1326 337.3
1277 337.3
1229 336.7
1181 336.3
1133 335.3
1036 334.6
1033 333.7
991 332.8
944 331.8
897 330.7
351 329.4
303 323.0
760 326.3
715 324.7
671 322.8
628 320.5
536 318.0
343 313.0
307 311.6
470 307.6
436 303.0
403 297.6
373 291.4
337 284.4
341 276.3
332 263.2
331 259.5
337 251.0
350 242.9
370 233.6
393 229.1
424 223.4
457 213.5
493 214.3
331 210.7
571 207.6
613 204.9
633 202.3
699 200.3
743 198.7
739 197.0
334 193.6
880 194.3
927 193.2
974 193.1
1031 191.2
1068 190.3
.0
.3
.3
.0
.3
.3
.6
9.9
11.1
6.1
4.3
4.8
3.5
S.9
13.3
16.8
16.4
19.1
24.6
50.4
41.5
22.4
38.4
52.6
62.1
137.9
159.0
36.8
32.8
46.7
9.7
9.0
14.1
21.8
17.0
3.4
6.0
3.9
.9
.3
.3
-.0
.3
.3
-.0
.0
.0
.3
.3
.3
Vertical Profile
:!0.
3 • re« . )
2 Cm) X!)
-L7
~~33
93
133
133
233
233
333
383
433
483
533
383
«33
633
733
733
333
383
933
983
1033
1383
1133
1133
. 3
142.2
LS7.S
159.6
140.;
39.3
37.3
37.8
49.2
43.3
29.5
16.9
a.
3.
7.
13.
13.
25.
9.
.5
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
Table A.I (9-83/195° to 10-83/172.3°)
-194-
-------
Period 10-83, Oi=175.Q° (normal) Period 10-83, 0L =178.9° (normal)
CONDORS '83 AVEBACJO OIL TOG PROflLSS Period 110
a*!**** Rates Ti.t g/» AtlaucA 173.0
Releacc Hei X"
192! 2030 340.6 .3
1973 2031 340.2 .0
2023 1983 339.8 .0
2073 1933 339.3 .1
2123 1384 339.0 .1
2175 1333 333.6 .2
2225 1791 333.2 .2
2275 1743 337.7 .2
2323 1695 337.2 .2
2373 1643 336.7 .1
2423 1600 336.1 .2
2473 1533 333.3 .1
2325 1306 334.9 .2
2375 1439 334.2 .3
2625 1412 333.5 .6
2673 1384 332.7 .9
2725 1320 331.9 1.2
2775 1274 331.0 1.3
2825 1229 330.0 4.7
2373 1133 329.0 10.5
2923 1139 327.9 17.1
2975 1094 326.7 14.9
3025 1051 323.4 18.6
3073 1003 324.0 23.0
3123 963 322.5 33.3
3175 923 320.3 36.5
3225 832 319.0 28.3
3273 342 317.0 25.9
3325 304 314.3 25.3
3373 766 312.4 21.6
3423 730 309.7 22.3
3475 696 306.3 22.1
3525 663 303. t 27 . S
3575 634 300.0 30.3
3625 606 296.2 33.6
3675 532 292.0 36.6
3723 341 287.4 36.9
377] 344 232.3 95.4
3325 531 277.4 30.2
3375 323 272.0 31.7
3925 519 266.3 52.2
3975 520 261.3 41.1
4023 526 235.6 27.5
4075 536 250.3 22.6
4125 351 245.3 19.3
4175 570 240.5 13 4
4225 392 236.1 15.2
4275 618 232.0 12.6
4329 647 228.3 9.6
4375 678 224.9 9.2
442S 711 221.9 11.7
4475 748 219.0 10.4
4525 783 216.5 3.3
4575 321 214.2 1.5
4623 360 212.1 1.1
4875 901 210.2 1.3
4725 942 208.4 1.3
4773 984 208.8 .9
4825 1027 205.3 .2
4873 1070 204.0 -.0
vertical Profile
(50.3 a ree.)
Z(mJ X?
-17 .2
33 SI. 4
33 100.7
133 103.1
133 131.6
233 107.4
283 54. 6
333 49.3
383 36.5
433 54.3
433 29.5
333 27.3
333 33.
«33 38.
683 23.
733 32.
733 30.
333 30.
383 13.5
933 1.8
933 .1
1033 -.3
1083 .3
1133 .3
1133 .3
CONDORS '33 AVTSAGID OIL TOG PROFITS Period 110
Release R«t«: 71.3 (m) #,(•) Xj
2023 2023 336.1 .0
2073 1982 333.5 .3
2125 1936 335.0 .3
2175 1390 334.3 -.0
2223 1343 333.7 .3
2273 1800 333.0 .1
2325 1733 332.3 .1
2373 17H 331.6 .2
2425 1666 330.3 .2
2475 1622 329.9 .3
2525 1579 329.1 .4
2375 1336 328.1 1.3
2625 1493 327.1 2.2
2473 1431 326.1 1.9
2725 1409 325.0 2.3
2773 1388 323.3 3.0
2825 1327 322.6 10.3
2875 1287 321.3 19.3
2923 1243 319.9 26.2
2973 1210 313.4 27.4
3025 1172 316.3 17.5
3073 1135 313.1 29.1
3123 1100 313.3 29.1
3173 1086 311.4 28.3
3223 1032 309.3 33.4
3273 1001 307.1 32.6
3325 971 304.8 22.4
3375 942 302.4 16.8
U23 916 299.7 16.6
3473 891 297.0 21.2
3525 989 294.1 24.7
3575 343 291.0 26.5
3625 811 237.3 41.1
3675 316 284.3 54.1
3723 304 231.1 69.9
3773 793 277.5 34.0
3825 789 273.9 28.9
3873 784 270.3 27.0
3925 787 266.7 26.3
3975 790 263.0 32.6
4025 797 239.5 43.3
4075 307 254.0 45.7
4123 819 252.6 44.3
4175 835 249.3 34.7
4225 853 244.1 25.1
4275 87] 243.1 20.0
4323 394 240.2 15.2
4373 921 237.3 12.1
4429 949 234.9 3.3
4473 977 232.5 6.2
4525 1008 230.2 6.0
4575 1040 223.0 3.6
4629 1073 226.0 1.9
4673 1108 224.1 1.3
4723 1144 222.3 1.1
4773 1181 220.7 .4
4825 1218 219.1 .2
4875 1257 217.6 -.0
4925 1294 216.2 .0
4973 1334, 214.9 .3
vertical Profile
(50.0 a ree.)
*<«"> X,
-17 .2
_Z33 44.3
93 94.0
133 132.1
133 74.3
233 44. 9
233 47.3
333 41.6
333 42.1
433 49.6
433 51.3
533 52.2
383 46.1
633 42.7
S83 37.2
733 43. S
783 55.9
833 57.7
883 37.2
933 13.3
983 2.6
1033 .5
1383 -.3
1133 .3
1183 .3
Table A.I (10-83/175° to 178.9°)
-195-
-------
Period 10-83, 0L =183.1° (normal) Period 10-83, 0L =190.0° (normal)
CONOOM '13 AVtRAGZO OIL TOO PROFILES P«riOd »10
RalMM a«t«: 71.1 f(m) £,(•> X"
1725 2331 336.1 .3
1773 2313 333.6 .0
1133 2349 335.0 .1
1175 2223 334.4 .1
1923 2111 333.1 .1
1975 2131 333.1 .1
2023 2095 332.4 .2
2075 2052 331.7 .3
2123 2009 331.0 .4
2175 1967 330.2 .2
2225 1925 329.4 .3
2273 1114 321.5 .4
2325 1143 327.7 .1
2373 1103 326.7 .7
2423 1763 325.1 .9
2475 1723 324.1 1.2
2323 1614 323.7 1.1
2375 1646 322.6 2.1
2623 1601 321.4 4.6
2675 1371 320.2 7.4
2723 1533 319.0 6.1
2773 1499 317.6 1.2
2125 1465 316.2 10.1
2173 1431 314.1 16.0
2923 1391 313.2 14.3
2975 1317 311.6 13.2
3025 1336 310.0 17.4
3075 1307 301.2 22.2
3123 1279 306.4 24.2
3173 1232 304.3 26.7
3223 1227 302.3 30.7
3273 1203 300.4 34.7
3323 1111 291.2 34.3
3373 1160 296.0 32.3
3425 1142 293.7 23.3
3475 1125 291.3 21.5
3523 1111 211. S 23.4
3373 1091 286.3 31.6
3625 1011 213.1 36.4
3675 1010 211.2 41.6
3723 1074 271.5 50.1
3775 1070 275.9 46.4
3133 1069 273.3 69.7
3175 1070 270.3 57.3
3923 1074 267.1 32.3
3975 1079 265.2 21.1
4023 1011 262.6 20.5
4073 1091 260.0 20.2
4133 1110 237.5 20.1
4173 1123 235.0 21.1
4233 1141 232.7 11.9
4273 1160 230.3 19.1
4323 1110 241.1 16.0
4373 1202 243.9 13.2
4425 1225 243.9 12.3
4475 1231 241.9 13.1
4323 1277 239.9 12.5
4573 1303 231.1 1.7
4625 133.- 236.3 4.6
4675 1J«5 234.7 2.4
4723 1397 233.1 1.6
4773 1429 231.5 1.2
4123 1443 230.1 1.0
4173 1491 231.7 .3
4935 1333 237.3 .1
4973 13«» 22'. 1 .2
5023 1606 324.1 .2
5073 1644 223.7 .3
5123 1613 222.6 .0
5173 1721 221.3 .3
vertical Pro*ll«
(50.3 a r«». )
2 X,
r--17 '*
f 33 26.7
33 37.3
133 53.2
133 61.0
233 65.2
213 79.0
333 31.3
313 61.3
433 52.4
413 53.2
533 58.9
513 42.1
633 39.4
613 41.1
733 53.1
713 51.1
133 63.7
313 47.7
933 11.2
913 3.2
1033 -3
1013 --0
1133 .3
1113 .0
COXDOM '13 AVBUUSXD OIL FOG PROFILES Pvrieut »10
RalMM iUt«: 7l.| ?/• A*i*uth 190.0
R«lM*« Haior&t: Surraca
Horizontal Profila
(50.0 a r«>.)
i7(m) 0,C) X"
1925 2315 321.9 .3
1975 2271 321.1 -.0
2025 2241 327.2 .2
2075 2204 326.4 .4
2123 2161 323.5 .1
2175 2133 324.5 1.2
2225 2091 323.5 1.2
2275 2064 322.5 1.3
2325 2031 321.5 .1
2375 1991 320.4 .9
2425 1966 319.3 1.3
2475 1933 311.2 .3
2525 1904 317.3 .9
2375 1175 31S.I 1.3
2625 1346 314.5 2.3
2675 1111 313.2 2.2
2723 1791 311.9 2.3
2773 1763 310.5 3.1
2125 1740 309.1 6.3
2175 1717 307.6 10.3
2925 1694 306.1 11.1
2975 1673 304.6 10.2
3023 1633 303.0 12.9
3075 1634 301.4 16.6
3123 1616 29».7 20.7
3173 1600 291.0 21.0
3235 ISIS 294.3 19.3
3275 1373 294.6 20.6
3323 1580 292.1 22.0
3375 1550 291.0 26.4
3423 1541 219.2 29.0
3475 1534 217.3 32.7
3535 1539 213.5 31.1
3573 1333 213.6 33.7
3623- 1332 211.7 31.4
3675 1523 279.1 32.4
3723 1533 277.9 32.1
3773 1333 276.1 33.6
3823 1530 274.2 39.6
3173 1533 272.3 41.2
3933 1343 270.3 31.0
3973 1353 261.7 37.1
4033 1543 264.9 40.2
4073 1373 263.1 44.6
4123 1311 263.4 40.0
4173 1603 261.7 31.2
4223 1620 260.0 35.3
4275 163t 231.3 30.2
4323 1637 256.7 27.2
4375 1677 253.2 22.7
4423 1699 233.6 11.5
4475 1732 252.1 14.5
4525 1745 250.7 10. I
4575 1771 249.3 .4
4623 1797 247.9 .1
4675 1334 246.6 .9
4723 1133 243.3 .1
4773 1111 244.0 .7
4133 1910 243.1 .2
4173 1941 241.6 .2
4933 1973 240.5 .2
4973 2003 239.4 1.0
3023 2031 231.3 ,1
5073 2071 237.3 .3
5123 2103 236.3 1.1
5175 2140 235.3 .9
5223 2174 234.4 .1
5275 2212 233.5 .0
5325 2241 232.6 .0
5375 2215 231.1 .0
v«retcal Profila
(30.3 a r«».)
2
-------
Period 10-83, 0L=205.0° (normal) Period 11-83, 0L =172.3° (normal)
COROORS '»3 AVZJUOZD OIL, roc PROFILES ?«nod »io
&•!•••• R*t«: 71.1 ?/• Azlxuttt 203.0
R«1*«M S«is&t: 5urftc«
Horiaon-eal Profil*
(30.0 a r«*.j
rj(mj pjm) £,<•) X"
1323 2499 309.3 .0
5373 24*7 308.4 .0
2623 2473 307.3 .0
2673 2443 304.2 .1
272S 243< 303.0 .6
2773 244* 303.9 I.I
2(29 2441 302.7 2.3
2173 2433 301.3 6.4
2923 242* 300.4 3.4
2973 2429 299.2 8.4
3023 2422 291.0 3.3
3073 2420 29«.l 4.3
3123 2419 293.6 5.3
3173 2419 294.5 7.0
3229 2420 293.3 8.0
3273 2423 292.1 9.0
3323 2423 290.9 13.2
3373 242» 2*9.7 10.7
3423 2434 288.4 IS. 9
3473 2440 217.4 23.1
3323 2447 2*6.2 21.9
3373 2436 2*3.1 20.9
3423 2443 2*3.9 23.3
3473 2473 2*2.1 24.0
3723 24*« 2*1.7 23.3
3773 249* 210. « 21.1
3*23 2311 279.4 33.2
3*73 2323 27*. 4 3S.4
3929 2339 277.3 40.1
3973 2333 274.2 42.0
4023 2372 273.2 44.0
4073 23*9 274.1 43.1
4123 2607 273.1 41.2
4173 2626 272.1 38.1
4223 2646 271.1 37.7
4273 2667 270.1 36.3
4329 26aa 269.1 34.1
4373 2711 251.2 31.3
4423 2733 267.2 27.4
4473 2737 266.3 27.7
4323 27(1 263.4 27.1
4373 2*06 264.3 24.2
4623 2*32 263.7 21.9
4673 213* 263.1 23.0
4723 2113 262.0 17.9
4773 2913 261.1 11.1
4*23 2941 260.3 4.4
4*73 2970 239.3 6.0
4923 2999 29*. 1 3.7
4973 3039 25*. 0 6.3
3029 3039 297.2 6.6
5073 3090 256.5 6.3
3129 3122 259.1 5.5
5173 3153 255.1 5.1
5223 3116 254.4 5.2
5279 3219 293.7 5.4
3329 3293 253.1 3.0
3373 3213 233.4 4.6
5423 331* 231.1 3.7
3473 3334 231.2 3.6
3939 3319 230.5 3.0
3373 3424 249.9 2.6
5623 343* 249.4 1.1
3679 3499 24*.* 1.0
3729 3933 24*. 2 .0
v«rttc«l ProJil*
(SO.o a r««. >
ZCmJ XS
-17 .7
33 34. a
33 44.1
133 41.6
113 73.|
233 41.2
213 66.3
333 63.0
313 61.1
433 37.3
413 50.5
333 31.7
313 34.4
433 47.3
613 41.4
733 32.6
783 49.0
333 42.6
313 33.1
»33 9.7
913 -.9
1033 .0
1013 .0
1133 .0
1113 .0
CONDORS '13 AVBUaXD OIL FOG PROFILES P«riod 111
JU1««>« !Ut«l 69.3 ?/* Aziautft 172.3
«•!«««« H«l^at: Surfic*
Horizontal ProCil*
(50.0 a r««.)
TjOn) /3) XS
-17 .3
~ 33 178.2
33 243.7
133 231.1
133 129.3
233 37.3
283 37.7
333 27.4
383 13.4
433 11.3
413 9.9
533 11.3
513 13.2
433 4.9
613 4.3
733 6.2
713 5.2
833 .7
883 .3
933 .3
Table A.I (10-83/205° to 11-83/172.3°)
-197-
-------
Period 11-83, 0L =175.0° (normal) Period 11-83, 0^ =178.9° (normal)
CONDORS '33 AVZRAGZD OIL FOG PHOriLZS Period til
Releaee flat*: 49.3 cj/i XziaucA L75.0
Releae* Height: Surface
Horizontal profile
(50.0 a ree.)
rj(m) /?
-------
Period 11-83, 0L =183.1° (normal)
CONDORS '13 AVnUGEO OIL FOG PROFILES P«riOd 811
?•!•••• Rat«: S9.2 <}/• AJiautt 183.1
R«l*aM H«i?n«: Surfaca
Horizontal Profile
(50.0 • r««.)
77(m> /><«.) 5,0 X?
2929 1399 313.2 .0
2973 1347 311.6 .0
3023 1316 309.9 .0
3073 1307 303.2 .0
3125 1279 304.4 .1
3173 1252 304.4 .2
3223 1227 302.3 .3
3275 1201 100.4 .1
3325 1131 298.2 .8
3373 1141 296.0 2.4
3423 1142 293.7 3.3
3473 1124 291.3 4.4
3523 1111 233.8 6.4
3373 1099 236.3 3.4
3635 1088 233.8 10.2
3473 1080 281.2 14.1
3723 1074 278.3 19.0
3773 1071 273.9 23.4
3823 1070 273.2 33.4
3373 1071 270.3 41.3
3929 1074 247.3 47.0
3979 1080 243.2 44.7
4029 1088 242.6 43.8
4075 1091 260.0 53.9
4123 1111 257.5 61.9
4175 1125 235.1 63.9
4225 1142 252.7 79.6
4273 1150 230.4 70.2
4323 1180 248.1 53.7
4373 1202 246.0 48.3
4423 1224 241.9 39.9
4475 1231 241.9 34.7
4323 1273 240.0 34.3
4373 1304 213.1 31.0
4623 1333 236.4 24.9
4473 1166 234.7 20.0
4723 1397 233.1 15.3
4778 1410 231.5 11.1
4829 1464 210.1 8.0
4173 1498 228.7 6.4
4923 1514 227.3 4.6
4975 1370 226.1 3.1
5023 1607 224.9 3.0
5073 1644 221.7 2.9
5125 1683 223. 2.4
3173 1732 221. 1.1
5225 1761 220. .3
5275 1801 219. .6
5325 1841 218. .4
3373 1832 217. .2
3423 1924 216. -0
3475 1964 216.1 .0
3525 2008 213.3 -0
3573 2030 214.6 .0
3629 2093 211.9 .0
v«rcis«l frati.it
(50.3 • r««.)
r(m) XS
-i7 .0
33 39.2
33 50.4
133 36.6
183 S7.0
233 73.6
233 67.3
333 59.8
333 61.4
433 61.3
481 63.5
533 «S.a
333 60.4
611 53.1
S81 49.0
733 48.3
711 43.4
113 40.1
313 25.3
933 3.6
983 .0
1031 .0
1031 .0
1131 .0
1131 .0
Period 11-83, 0L =190.0° (normal)
CONDORS 'S3 AVtSACXD OIL FOC PROFILES P«Tiod 111
»•!••*• fcat»: 69.2 ?/• Aziauth 190.0
R«1«M« H«i?at: Jurfac*
Horizontal Prof 11 •
(30.0 m r««.)
77 (m) p
-------
Period 11-83, 0L=205.0° (normal)
CONDORS
*•!•**•
MlMM
'13 AVBU6SO OIL
JUt«: 49
Height:
.2 ?/«
Surf tea
FOG PROFILES
P«riod 111
Aliautft 205.0
Horizontal Protila
17
2420
3422
3423
2439
2434
2440
2441
2436
2463
2*75
2416
2491
2511
2325
2340
2533
2372
2319
2607
2627
2646
26«7
2619
3711
2734
2737
2712
2107
2132
2S59
2M«
2913
2941
2970
2999
3029
30(0
3090
3122
3154
31«<
3219
3232
32(6
3320
3334
3319
3424
3460
349<
3332
3561
3603
3443
3610
371»
3736
3794
3*33
3172
3911
3931
3990
4030
4070
4111
4131
4192
4233
4274
4315
4337
4391
4440
4412
r««.)
0,0
293.3
292.1
290.9
2(9.7
211.6
2(7.4
2«.2
2(5.1
2(3.9
2(2. (
2(1.7
2(0.6
279.4
278.4
277.3
276.2
273.2
274.1
273.1
272.1
271.1
270.1
269.1
26(.2
267.2
26«.3
265.4
264.5
263.7
262. (
262.0
261.1
260.3
259.5
25(.(
25(.0
257.2
236.5
255. (
253.1
254.4
253.7
253.1
232.4
231. (
231.2
230.6
230.0
249.4
24*. «
24(.2
247.7
247.1
246.6
246.1
245.6
245.1
244.6
244.1
243.7
243.2
242. (
242.3
241.9
241.3
241.1
240.6
240.3
239.9
239.3
239.1
23(.7
23S.4
231.0
237.7
V"
AI
-.0
.0
.2
1.
2.
4.
6.
7.
11.
12.
13.
IS.
17.
20.
22.
24.
27.
26.
26.
26.
27.
27.
27.
30.
30.
29.
29.
23.
24.
23.
23.
22.
21.
21.
21.4
21.4
21.2
20.7
20. (
U.I
17.9
17.7
17.9
17.0
13.7
11. (
10.0
10.1
10.0
10. (
11.2
10.9
11.1
10.2
(.7
7.6
7.1
3.9
4.4
4.1
.9
.2
.1
.1
.2
1.8
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.2
.6
.2
.0
vertical Profil*
(50.
Z
.1
23.4
43.4
43.5
49.1
53.2
59.3
63.9
64.7
67. (
72.9
71.7
71.1
69.9
67.0
63. (
39.2
39.2
12.4
2.3
-.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
Table A.I (11-83/205°)
-200-
-------
Fig. A.I. Plots of lidar scans showing concentration profiles
listed in Table A.I. See caption of Fig. 3.7 for parameters
presented in the plots. Shown chronologically by period, within
periods by increasing lidar azimuth. Subfigures referenced by
(period number/azimuth).
-201-
-------
««MC( 7 V.IM *»•»
l*2f.M :tf«'. »t JM«:MJ^M' ••
6m**Ze «i«rcn>
Period 1-82, 8L =150.0° (fine)
Period 1-82, 0L =150.0° (normal)
«*MCI I LIM*
Period 1-82, 0L =154.9° (fine)
Period 1-82, 0L =154.9° (normal)
•UCMCI I UIOMi K>«l
I2t«. M '<»«7 M **
Slsrwct
-------
« I. IBM SC«M
MKMCt « LI OX !t««
20M. a* 2914. M
flifcS. .A'ffiff Sii:* '"•"
Period 2-82, 6L =154.9° (fine)
Period 2-82, 0L =154.9° (normal)
MICMCI !• LIDM KAHS
Period 2-82, 0L =162.5° (normal)
Period 2-82, 9L =176.6° (normal)
WCMCC 17 UOA*
:»» JIM M
Period 3-82, 0L =147.8° (fine)
o'siiSet iilsf'iis™
Period 3-82, 6L =147.8° (normal)
•UCMCI 14 U»ll
-------
•UCMU II IIMM 9CMM
Period 3-82, 0L =154.9° (normal) Period 3-82, 0L =165.0° (normal)
II IIDM SCM9
M*.M>
4H.W
Period 4-82, 0L =150.0° (normal) Period 4-82, 0U =154.9° (normal)
.tffftff »«-
Period 4-82, 0L =159.7° (normal) Period 5-82, 0L =150.0° (fine)
•UCMCf l« LIM*
it LIOIM ic«m
Period 5-82, 0L =150.0° (normal) Period 5-82, 0L =154.9° (normal)
Fig. A.I (3-82/154.9° to 5-82/154.9°)
-204-
-------
Period 5-82, 6L =159.7° (normal)
WUKt 7 UOM SCW4J
Period 1-83, 0L =169.9° (fine)
7 LI»W SCIW5
Period 1-83, 9L =169.9° (normal)
> LICM SMNS COHOMi '•]. MO TOUCH
Period 1-83, 0L =174.0° (fine)
Period 1-83, 0L =174.0° (normal)
Fig. A.I (5-82/159.7° to 1-83/174°)
-205-
-------
WCMCC 9 L10A* SCAM
Period 1-83, 0L =181.1° (normal) Period 1-83, 0L =190.0° (normal)
S I.IOM SCWH
9 4-0,fl0-
Fire smoke/\not removed
Period 1-83, 0L=200.1° (normal) Period 1-83, 6L =200.1° (normal)
Period 2-83, 0L =169.9° (fine)
LI DM SCANS
IST&MLE 'iiETEPS •
Period 2-83, 9L =169.9° (normal)
Period 2-83, 0L =174.0° (fine)
Period 2-83, 0L =174.0° (normal)
Fig. A.I (1-83/181.1° to 2-83/174°)
-206-
-------
Period 2-83, 9L =181.1° (normal)
Period 2-83, 0L =190.0° (normal)
9 IIMO KM
Period 2-83, 6L- 200.1° (normal) Period 2-83, 0L=210.0° (normal)
Period 3-83, 6L =169.9° (fine)
Period 3-83, 0L =169.9° (normal)
Period 3-83, QL =174.0° (fine)
Period 3-83, 9L =174.0° (normal)
Fig. A.I (2-83/181.1° to 3-83/174°)
-207-
-------
MM
BtfTW
Period 3-83, 0L =181.1° (normal) Period 3-83, 0L =190.0° (normal)
auCMGC 1< IIDM >•<«• MM (
Period 4-83, 0L =177.5° (normal) Period 4-83, 0L =183.1° (normal)
Fig. A.I (3-83/181.1° to 4-83/183.1°)
-208-
-------
I M ilMT •• MM M
DltTHCX IPVtCni
11M •* I7M M
3««* M 3
oirrwct
-------
Period 6-83, 0L =178.9° (normal) Period 6-83, 9L =183.1° (normal)
Period 6-83, 0L =188.0° (normal)
Period 7-83, 0L =169.9° (fine)
Period 7-83, 0L =169.9° (normal) Period 7-83, 0L =174.0° (normal)
tl L19M KM
Period 7-83, 0L =178.9° (normal) Period 7-83, 6L =183.1° (normal)
Fig. A.I (6-83/178.9° to 7-83/183.1°)
-210-
-------
Period 7-83, 0L =188.0° (normal) Period 8-83, 0L =168.4° (fine)
14 11 DM *C*M»
Period 8-83, 0L =168.4° (normal) Period 8-83, 0L =172.3° (fine)
3VM *• 4*MT M *
: (Wtftti
Period 8-83, 8L =172.3° (normal)
Period 8-83, 8L =176.1° (fine)
14 IIDM SOW
Period 8-83, 9L=176.1° (normal) Period 8-83, 0L=178.9° (normal)
Fig. A.I (7-83/188° to 8-83/178.9°)
-211-
-------
Siij-«.t uiitm-
Period 8-83, 0L =183.1° (normal)
Period 8-83, 0L=188.0° (normal)
•KKMCS 1 LltM* >C«X
" iiff.
Period 9-83, 0L =168.4° (fine)
Period 9-83, 0L =168.4° (normal)
I) LIDM 1C««
«-Itt«Ct II UM* 5CI
Period 9-83, 6L =172.3° (fine) Period 9-83, dL =172.3° (normal)
I] UM» « '•'••••
Period 9-63, 0L=176.1° (normal) Period 9-83, 0L =178.9° (normal)
Fig. A.I (8-83/183.1° to 9-83/176.1°)
-212-
-------
«"t»»Cf i} IIM» sewn
Pisr«i«te .KTEBS)
Period 9-83, 0L =183.1° (normal) Period 9-83, 0L =188.0° (normal)
outpace « IE DA*
i:
H 6M.9
Period 9-83, 0L =195.0° (normal)
WCMCC I« LI9M *C*M«
Period 10-83, 0L=172.3° (normal) Period 10-83, 0L =175.0° (normal)
!• L1DM SCA
i» LIDMI SCANS
Period 10-83, 0L =178.9° (normal) Period 10-83, 0L=183.1° (normal)
Fig. A.I (9-83/183.1° to 10-83/183.1°)
-213-
-------
Period 10-83, 0L=190-°0 (normal) Period 10-83, 0L=205.0° (normal)
Period 11-83, 0L =172.3° (normal)
Period 11-83, 0L =175.0° (normal)
Period 11-83, 0L =178.9° (normal) Period 11-83, 0L =183.1° (normal)
Period 11-83, 0L =190.0° (normal) Period 11-83, 0L=205.0° (normal)
Fig. A.I (10-83/190° to 11-83/205°)
-214-
-------
Table A.2 Adjustments to vertical profile of oil fog
near-surface r for CONDORS 82 and CONDORS 83
n
Period
1-82
2-82
3-82
3-82
3-82
4-82
4-82
4-82
5-82
5-82
5-82
5-82
1-83
1-83
1-83
1-83
1-83
2-83
2-83
2-83
2-83
2-83
3-83
3-83
3-83
3-83
3-83
4-83
4-83
5-83
5-83
5-83
5-83
6-83
6-83
6-83
Azimuth
176.6
176.6
150.0
150.0
154.9
150.0
154.9
159.7
150.0
150.0
154.9
159.7
169.9
169.9
174.0
174.0
181.1
169.9
169.9
174.0
174.0
181.1
169.9
169.9
174.0
174.0
181.1
169.9
173.0
174.0
178.9
183.1
188.0
169.9
174.0
178.9
Height
(m)
38
38
26
38
38
38
38
38
26
38
38
38
20
33
20
33
33
14
33
20
33
33
14
33
20
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
Additional
Value
62.7
34.4
7.2
3.6
5.3
13.7
1.4
0.5
17.1
8.6
3.3
0.7
263.9
132.0
49.2
24.6
7.9
416.8
104.2
38.7
19.3
12.0
260.4
65.1
123.0
61.5
12.6
49.5
14.9
35.7
10.1
9.9
10.8
11.4
27.0
7.0
-215-
-------
Table A.2 Adjustments to vertical profile of oil fog
near-surface Xn for CONDORS 82 and CONDORS 3 ont
n K "u/
Period
7-83
7-83
7-83
7-83
8-83
8-83
8-83
9-83
9-83
9-83
9-83
9-83
10-83
10-83
10-83
10-83
10-83
10-83
11-83
11-83
11-83
11-83
11-83
11-83
Azimuth
(°)
169.9
169.9
174.0
178.9
178.9
183.1
188.0
176.1
178.9
183.1
188.0
195.0
172.3
175.0
178.9
183.1
190.0
205.0
172.3
175.0
178.9
183.1
190.0
205.0
Hei ght
(m)
20
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
Additional
Value
13.6
6.8
26.1
14.0
3.9
4.9
3.2
12.1
11.3
9.4
3.5
1.3
67.5
19.6
10.4
5.4
6.0
10.1
59.4
40.7
20.3
9.3
15.2
10.6
-216-
-------
Table A.3 Near-surface profiles of the dilution factor (i.e., inferred
x/Q) for the oil fog. Distance and azimuth from the source are p and
9 , respectively. Profiles tabulated chronologically by period, within
periods by increasing lidar azimuth. Azimuths containing no resolvable
oil fog concentrations near the surface are omitted.
-217-
-------
o
CO
cci
as
CM"
oo
CM
•a
o
o
in
CM
CO
CD
c\T
°P
CM
•a
.o
I
Ujrt*
io"
£-c
a e 3
2°-S
M
J 4
W
(X • a
D
I • •
UI
Z
w
«D C
2*
o •
a. a
u
« a
c o
0 •
-* in
0 ~
X
•f
%
-.
CD"
E
cC
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
UUlUlUIUIMUIUMUUIUIUUUIUlUIUIhlCdUIUlUUUUIUIUIUtUUlUUIUIUUIUI
III 1
****** + *««**<***** to******. <*0 <* + ***<*****>•***
SSSSS5S335SS5SSaS55S3SS5SSSSSSSSSS3S3S
U f*
u*
O£ O
a.-*
U
82
U <
o
u
(J
<<
en r* pi
t • •
5m a
Ul
I i
wu
S C X
-x r
1 *
a
o
o
-.
I
1
o"*
0 O O O
o a o o
o o o o
f^ 03 m o
in r>» o ai
Of jS«3S
i
•p"
*
« o in (-»
O 0 0 -t
O
CO
T
CD
CM
CO
•o
o
1
3"-
IL FOG PROFI
Period 1
Azimuth 141
o
o
£
« a a
D
I • •
1 fl
W Ul
« e x
-XX
o •
u *
0. »
-J 0
U
c o
o •
N O
-4 in
0 ""
X
in*
£
m
i
^
03"
^
*
O O 0 0
o o o o
o o o o
0^*-
* n r- >o
<*0« —
o
o
o
m
CM
CO
"O
o
i
Ul n 0
IL FOG PROFI
Pa clod f
Aziautn 150
ui r* M
W C X
** XX
0* *
3'
M O
O
X
^
6
vt
i
y
CD"
"S
*.
«
o
o
Lf)
CM
00
I
o
O
OJ
T"™
II
CD
CM"
CO
•a
o
fll
s.
0
a
d
m
1?
CD
CM"
co
•^
o
1
U f* «
I!2
T* u
H
•J <
o
u
u
;..
5ns
Ul
z
1 •
U Ul
rt
0 C X
-XX
W — 0
l-i » 0
O "O —
a: o
[L FOG P
Peri
Azimuth
o
u
!::
i • *
oJ rt CD
jV -H <-)
u
u u
« C X
on -» *
^-« r x
o •
u •
cu «
« fl
§o
.
M O
-* «n
u —
i
*
U 01
a. «
"w a
So
o -
M O
--* in
o
in"*
E
§
y-
CD"
nr
*""5»
~H"
fO*
i
E
1
aT*
CD"
•s
*
o o o o
o o o o
~««
u
O T3 -^
as o
(9*3
o a. a
u* — •
o
Ul
u
U.
oe a •
D
5SS
u
z
1 fl
Ul U
Of
• ex
2xx
ruT^T
M •» n
Ut iO
8* a
0. tl
Ui -4
N
0
u
u,
a: a a
D
Ul ft W
W
z
1 1
wu
a c x
<3* -H fl
-XX
*
fl
*
0
m
X
at
u
a
0
o
in
X
in""*
E
§
£
CD"
•g
^p
t!^
6
w
1
£
««.* o;^*
oir,o.r.r.ci«c«r.«NM«M^
9«iataf-tt*-Nm-vr«^o — «f
vOr*-r-r-r-«««a>cne»o1'OO
o o o o o o o o o o o
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 I 1
uuuuu u u u u u w
1
^.n^0»a.07r<.n..«
ssssssssssssss
in m in m in
D m ^ *t M
»* rM M M c«
M l^f 0( IM M
•* -0 OM-.I-
o en n v ot
D o — — —
en
CD
CM
oo
CM
•a
o
0)
OL
o
q
T\
CD
CM
ao
CM
TD
Q
rtj
UNI»
SI"
N
U <
o
Ul
u.
CC 0 B
I • •
2*22
u
2 . „
fl •
U Ul
at C X
-XX
U oi 0
i-l
U. in
o -o -
CC 0
O* —* £
0*3
N
u <
o
UI
(J
i..
1 • •
at n «
Ul
2 • •
• 1
Cd Ul
01
a c x
01 -* «
- XX
*
1 VI
u
o a
0
m
X
*
0 ~
£ S
c o
-4 m
U 1—
o
X
1
E
§.
<^
CD"
?
^^
in in
O o O O
o o o o
O O O O
rt O « W
oi M r« IN
9 o^r-
r- f- r- as
CM
00
ro
•
«C
-------
o
p
g
II
vn
•a
o
I
0)
in
c\j
CO
•a
o
3^
b. m
gii .
(X B B CO
3 O •
t/1 a>(3
Pp*rtM»NMC«(M«*^'^"
b. -^ r-<
§=:
M O
U M
rt
vex
p ^ r- * o * '
4 r> O
• O O
« »n o
0
en
IO
II
^ j
CJ
in
•o
o
w
1^
u vn o\
i-t -m IT
U e 3
N
o
U
o
£
K • e
3
Ul •*« 4
- r x
«-* -»
L. «
0. «
U
c o
o •
M 0
-^ ,n
0 ~
X
E
J2
?
CD'
<
1
b
M
§
5~
CD-
?
"*•
ooooooooooooo
1 1 1 1 1 Ill
WUIUIblUUblUhlUMblM
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
UUUbJUblUUUUUUU
O«J*iMr«r^r«)«off«iot(N
^o^i
O
*
U">
i— *
C^
CO
urt
o
o
o^
o
O
CD
c\f
00
CO
•a
o
1
m
II
CD
cvf
CO
CO
•a
o
1982 NEAR-SURFACE OIL FOG PROFILE
Min El. - 14.2 B Period 1 J
Max El. - 44.2 B Azimuth 165.0
Horizontal profile
(50.0 B rea.)
n
E
tft
I
•"*
CD"
ooooooooooooooooaoooooo
i i i i i t i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
UUbJUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUhlUUWM
1
SURFACE OIL FOG PROFILE
i B Period 1 I
1 B Azimuth 124.9
< n m
*, ,
u U
M
a c X
contal Profile
>.Q m rea. )
u —
o
3:
'E
?
ooaooooooooooo
1 1 1 1 t t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
aiubiuwbjucauitauuuiu
r.r>v«wn«in«ininin
O
a>
*n
CD
CM"
oo
T3
0
£
o
q
CD
CM"
CO
"O
o
RFACE OIL FOG PROFILE
• Period I 4
a Azievuth 154. 9 1
t • •
Oj O 0
oo C X
e
VI — ,
O •
Li M
O. «
U
* a
c o
o ~
X
1
?
CD
J
^t
ooooooooooooo
t 1 1 t 1 t 1 1 1 1 t 1 1
UhiaiUUbltauUblblUbl
SURFACE OIL FOG PROFILE
. m Period I 4
I • Azimuth 150.0
i • •
u
U til
0 C M
Eontal Profile
3,0 a res.)
0 ""
X
'E
i
CD
3
oooooooooooo
t 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1
UUIUUIblUUUUUblU
CO
I
en
en
-219-
-------
o
0
^t
r^
1\
_i
3S
CO*
00
•a
o
k.
rf
o
q
CO
T-*
II
_l
35
C*3~
00
•a
o
t_
(3D
a:
PROFILE]
lod 1 1
h 174.0
8» 3
a. •
-j <
O
Ul
^
* « m
a
oC r+ r-
-:-*••
Ul
2
I i
Ul Ul
• CM
o» — • «
— xac
'oa PROFILE]
Period 1 1
•UCh 169. 9j
j 3
o
u
u
4
b.
a! • •
3
v» *o «
i • .
Of *N (N
•< 1M »
U
z
1 1
Ul M
<0 C *
2x3
It4l PtQttU
• r««.)
a -
U '—
o
X
*
0 "^
u •
0. •
u
"•I •
tJ
o •
M O
u —
o
X
*?
£
i
B
•p
^
•*
CO'
*™s»
q^
«r>r^'«A«im«^'«>0m)nin
ooooooaooooaooa
i i i i i t i i i i i r i i t
UUUIUIUUUIUUWUIUUUU
AF^iomrtrto^tftrtori-iottftQ
*
^-*0i/ir4O
** —
oooooooaoooooo
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 t I
UlUUhlUUbJUtUUUWUtUI
O«^^*01««*0'^"O^'0'«O
m ^ ,-» — * f. •«»'O'rtW-«a»o«affa
^r*^ — ^^**^-*o
o
T~
00
IT
_1
CD
CO"
CO
TJ
o
Ita.
(Ti
«£
-OC PROFILE
P.rlod t 1
MUtn Ul.l
-J <
»-i
0
u
CJ
i.<
a
Cft « <•
5p« n
Mr*
u
u w
• ex
— XX
•
0 ~
i:
« M
Horiro
(50.
•n
i
1
-_»
<33
-3
h
o**f*>
OOOOOOOQOOOOOO
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1
UIMWUUhJWWUIUMUUU
3ir»« — o»»^«-»» *-»mnio
a,r*>a<4«vimmv*
^ >d Wl ^^rl*^rt^^ir»p««O^*
-4OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
UIUUUIMUUUMWUUUMU
or* "t*-*«^ — tn««-j-»fNoB-*
M-^-*---«-*^OOOOO»0»»»
o
4.J
O
LO
evi
a:
i
LO
o
ps.
05
O
IT
_1
CD
CM
CO
ib
•a
o
£
W
§
•^
03-
1
<
1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(
-220-
-------
o
03
erf
op
eg
T3
O
U
U
r
Ul Ul
OCX
2 z z
o "^
0. 0
4 B
JJ
CO
Li —
O
£
^T
£
J2
^
o
OD"
"e
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
UlUlhlblUIhlUlbJUUklUUUUUlUUWUlUUUUUUCaU
0
CD
CD
~
oo
eg
•a
o
U "
"§
Q.
OOOOOOOOOQOO
1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
aa>vDM4kn«i*'i^*tO'-4O
ro
co
i
CVJ
o
o
01
O
o
o
eg
11
_i
CD
co"
00
T3
O
S.
0
O
O
a>
•r™
II
_J
CD
n
op
•a
o
4
M -4 -»
1-1
M «• O
S1~
0.-* J=
U -4J
W * 3
o a. s
(u -^
u <
O
U
U
I**
i • •
OSr- ct
< l •*
14
Ul M
(OCX
0i — * «J
-la:
w^o
M — 0
O T»^
a o
CU -4 J3
U 4J
§« 3
CM -4
M
i-J
« r- 1-
< m
u
2
1 1
r-4 o-4
U U
r>
CP •** fl
r-t z; x
>ntal Profile
0 a res.)
u —
o
X
antal Profll
0 m res . )
N O
-4 (ft
U v
0
X
rn~*
E
M
§
^
03
-&
0*
of
"6
Q,
OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOQCOOOOOOOOOOOG
1 1 1 1 1 < 1 1 t 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ) 1 1 1
UUUUUU UUUUCUMUklUUUJUUbltdMUUUUUJblMUHUtt
1 1 1
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
' I ' i i i i < i i I i r I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I I
HUMMUCMUWUUUUUUUUblHUHUUblMUUUUUIUbJMUUUCa
Or*om««m-«r»r*f-tmQnnm-<4)<-iioio~4-*0i<'«r*o
O ^
1 |
Ul W
1
cc
Oi
JS,
IT3
-221-
-------
o
q
o
CO"
00
CVJ
CM
QD
W I i I i I I i f r i i i i
blUUlUfalUUWblUCaWbtWUMUUUUlUUUCUtMUWUWUUUUUUUUblUUUUIMMUUUUU
c,.c.S~~™~ „„„ „««»«««««»««« ~^™ c,
o o o o o o
u u u w w u
o
a
-»j
o
r"^
•
f-H
CO
o
q
§
CD"
°9
c\j
T3
g
I
co
oo
C r-. t-i r» « (-• r^ o n M n c* ct ry fN r« «^f>*^---H-*oooocft«a»«o»w»oooo
3 0
1
•1 U
1C.-*
- at o
n m \o
00
evj
CO
«
<:
01
jC
as
-222-
-------
_
O
,;i
1^
-.
/V
U.,0
l~t * O
O D -•
£3*
O • 3
°°"S
U) o«Jr.«in»»nn^^,r.^-i-iooom»mcooco^r~^c-.xJ«««>i)'0«i«i^al«l«i«i»iSIIinm:;i:I'SSS
-.-.__
co
op
CO
s:^
ii-
§23
N
-J <
O
u
h*
K • •
t • •
fl *
.
^
n
u
a
o
K^*
E
JIJ
^
O
<£
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
i i i i I i I i I I I i i I i i I t I I I I i i i t I i I i I r i I I I i I i f I I t I
aJUUUUUUUUUUUNUUUUblMblMUWUUUUUUMWUMblUUMUUUedWMU
1 1
o
o
o
01
VO
CO
CO
co
•a
O T3 'H
« O
** **
823
g-
00
*£
-------
05"
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I I I I I I I
1 t 1 t 1 1 1 1
MMMWMUMMMUUUUUUUMUfclUUWbtUMMMMMMUMMWMWMMUUMW
or*»^|**»i***«^««»'flf"^-*r*"*'ft*|''*11*^*rtl*'1'i»«*^*»'^offi**«'n*«»«Ort
_ ." *irt^«f»»^ow<»^> sO*4ttptvf>*i"t«4QQ^«9r^f»'*>M>«^nr*r*'«OQA*r«f^<«r»r4r«ni™r«f*r«r«r»rv^MMr«rvnr«oir*rvnr«rvf«<*rtf«r«rvf>*r'«<*r*
SS3?S32S;333S3SSS = 2?S!SSS3SS3S:SSS5SSSS5S3S2
r«r»r»r>r-«»« r* «
* p* f*
£~
E
M
or
§
o/
1
*
05"
1
1 1 t 1 1 1 1 t t 1 t 1 1 t 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1
MUUMMUUMWUMMUMMMUMMMMWM
ii,HmieHEE«n«»
3""«*«wwr?a?i*-«'>*ttr»*
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS5
oaoooaooooooooaoQOQooa
i i i i t i i i i i i t i i i i i i i i i i
UUMMMUMblblMUMMUUMblMMMMH
;sss5ss:2;s:ssf:ss2sss5s
i i i > i i i t * i
UHMMWMHUMM
1
sssssssssss
ra««nM«i*>onia«
ooooooooooo
i ( i i i i i i i t >
UHMUUHHHMMH
aoooo«aiat«t«i«
O
O
0
*J
C
o
u
o
o
CO
00
1
"-*
01
J3
1—
-224-
-------
EooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOoooooao
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I t I I 1 1 I f I I I I I t I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I
-i -" i. UbIMUblbJUUIUUUWUUUUUUbJUMbJUUbJblblMUCiJWUUUUWUUUbJUIUUW
O u u «* o-^«i«>i*rt^o*r»int^in^iinm'-'O»wOcflO*-*'»-*1OOiflr^m^-.riiO'**r^^r^mij*mo'*rvO
7 v 3 ^** otfi^Or*r^o»^r^'^c3'*<^l^'"'l'i'*'Nr^'**^^"fNr*'O*nr-'-t(N-H.^(-i^tf>r^(N(-4^t'O^-^-*O
§
6
II
CD s
>*rf a • •
p-»a«r*1«>«n*'-*<<»-«O3'c.>««*<-*-*o«««**«toW'O«-«qiyjr»»-*««no
QQ K™™ 12 CO
Tt _
I I
•a
* M u *p p*r*a»ri(jiin-4aJtnr*oif*-in^''^<-i«<^*«««-4tn*in^«r->or^cnp«r^in^^r«.ii^4a)aiO*omO
1 ^, ^O»n^1«ri»«Dr»tf(iOO1O«>'W^tO^>iN«l»Or-r«(j»i43i-io*«)r»Or-inr*o«W*f»-*Otc9aB*^r*«>f^
s.
Ill
o»j^ C SoooSoSooobb6666ooooc3oc3ooo6oooooooo6oobbbbooo
20 i i i i i i i r i i i i i i < ' i i i i t t i i i i i ( t i i , i ) i i i i i i ) i i i i
^£ ^1 UUUUbJUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMUUUUWWUUUWUUUUU
<3 • 3 ^
g-J i ,0
N- ^J <
TT o
II u
— ^ ^"' (jtoi«aar*r^t#v)in^vri«f>irif«4OQia}r*4tfi^f>«»*a*a>'C^fNO9'^l1*'irtrii^«N(^MMMrir«cic*(*4r«('*
»votn-4f^(Nap«piar^aB«or*nbr.«>-<«i0«n^naiaaaaeHp
£"^ 0 C X
01 -* «
.-"cx I I
CO
<—i
O
4J
O
o
q
oo
co"
co
•a
o
FOG PRO
Period
imuth 1
bl U
rt
« C M
225
o
O5
CT)
CO
CD
co"
oo
•a
o
1
ILE
| 4
9.9
E OIL FOG
Pe
Azimu
• •
3r* r*
r» in
a u
C M
1 -W «
» Z X
s a oo o ^
00
«3-
«C
QJ
Cb"
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
i i i i i i i r i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i > i i i f i i i i i i i i i i i i i
UUUUUUUbJUUUUUUUUtdUUUUUUUUUUUuUMWUUWUCdUlUhlUU
p*«*««>afi"r'«iw«o^rt'»inr*o»^'»r'
-225-
-------
S
CD
00
in
TJ
I
o
CD
eo"
co
uS
ujtnm
t-t *fc CO
a*~
01 -US
U. -*
j 5
M
O
u
o
£
« a a
i * •
o: n n
< M in
M
Z
1 I
U U
a c M
u m o
i-l
O T3 -»
£5*
U 4J
E « 3
U- -t
N
<-4 <
M
O
M
O
<
a a a
a; M M
< M *1
s, ,
f-t <-«
u u
a c M
w ft «
•H XS
ntai ProfilA
0 m res.)
u — •
0
X
-4
H-i ^^
O •
L* 01
O* 0
Vi
^H
a S
*J
c o
u --
o
S
KP
M
O
ctT
1
"''0">"1
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
i I I 1 i t i i i i 1 r '< i t t I I I I I I i I i i I I r i i I I
bJtilUIUWUUbJbJMUU --. iJUUUUMUUUbJhJUblWWUblblblUW
O O O
1 1 t
U U U
1
•N 01 (N r< o*
*-i .-t
00
CO
CO
i
O
ir>
en
— J
CO
CD
^™^
ooooooooooooo
fltiiiiiiitii
u u u u u u w u u u u u u
oooooooo
I I I I I I I I
CO
oo
i
en
OJ
-Q
fO
O
O
•
o>
^T
CD
•a
g
I
cocx
O •
b a
"• «
Lj
Xs
^*
ooooooooooooooooooo
I I I 1 t I I I I I I I I ( I i I I I
UUUUMUUUUUUUUUUUWUU
-
ooo
I I I
UUW
oooo
I I I I
UUUU
ooooo
I I I I 1
UUUUW
ooooooo6bbb
1 I I I t I I I I I (
WUCilUUHUUEdUH
-
oo o o o
I I I I I
UM u u ca
-226-
-------
O
p
M « O
b. I-
Cb -4 £
§• 3
a •
u
O r-»
O O
O <"l
O O
1 I
u u
O O <
U U I
«0 •» <
r- m •
nirtin*>«'O«otn»nin«>
o
F-4
•
CO
CO
CO
<
-------
o
O5
oi
CO
II
CD
erf
oo
^^
T3
0
i?
o
q
CO
co
on
CO
•o
0
if
Ot)-'
0. -* G
§2S
IM •**
-J <
O
u
O'*r»O'^i»o»-i^|OOr^tn«o«ntny>r^rfnf^rir^rnr^n^f'^'^nofM^p*r««<«r*r«r>«r«r4v4«4»«^4«4H«>4ac>OOOOOt9tCltO*Otco*r>ic*nio«Nnr«t«inriir«nr«nr«Mr«r«rfn^4M*^^r^«^^.
U. r-
g-g-4
D.--4 £
823
CM -^
i..
3
U W
Sex
MUUUMWWUMUUUMfdHUUCdUWUI4HUUUUUWMblMMIIdUhlUUUUU
pptflAntf^l^mcnArtr^r^af^^vaOmwoiinr^oi^^wmwO-Hmiectntfi^ri-cQmo
O •
U *
a. «
u —
i
i»r
ctT
-------
p
CO
r™
II
_l
CO
^^
•o
'CT
0
CO
T\
_l
co"
N-
•O
g
"w
19fl3 NEAR-SURFACE OIL FOG PROFILE
Min El. - 12.6 a Period I 7
Max El. - 62-6 a Azimuth .88-0
U r- -*
J
U, 0
o -o ^
o: o
a. -H j:
^ *j
U « 3
N
-^
|U
u
2
* *
n
L Horizontal Profile 1
(50.0 m res.) |
in"*
'E
e
1
i i i i i i t i i i i t i i i • i i i i i t i i < i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
bJUUWUUUlblUUJUUUUUJUMUUWUUUUUUJUUUUUUUUUUUUUbJbJU
^rtS5MM"S^ooo"mwS«SS™f^"°3««S5SS«IS«S««i5i2tr*'M'>'
« ^ •*
antal Profila
0 • res. )
o ~
X
KT*
J^
"§
<£
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-t
t i i i i i i i i i i t i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i t i t i i i i i
UUUUUlJUUblUUUUUCUUUUUUJUUUUUlUUUUUUUUUUCiltdUM
a
00
CO
o
4->
O
O
O)
T—
II
_J
co"
CO
^^
•a
o
o
rr
r^
Tl
_i
r^-
•o
o
n°
1983 MEAH-SURFACE OIL FOG PROFILE
Hin El. - 22.6 m Paries 1 7
Max El. - 57.6 m Azimuth _7a.9
3ntal Prorile
0 a res.)
N 0
U ~-
O
X
m
£
^
H
i t i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
UUUUUUUUlblUUUUUJCUUUlUUMUItUUUUUUUUblUUtUUlUUU
JHFACE OIL FOG PROFILE
a Period I 7
m Azimuth 174.0
X (N n
< IN r-
2:
9 *
m c X
meal Profile
0 ID res.)
o
i*r*
•
v»
§
r*
1
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I I i i I I i i i i i i t i i i i i i i i i i t I I r I i I i i I i I
1
00
I
r-.
CO
•
««
0)
s
(T3
-229-
-------
"«*
oo 5SS S"
co g
•a
.2 33 1
aj S53
a. bli
o
00
00
o
o
CO
CO
eg
N-
_
CD
co"
CO
CO
•a
o
c?
CO
co
oo
06
•o
g
1
OG PROFILE
Pericd 1 8
muth 17J.3
SUR
6 B
6 a
1983
Min E
Max E
E
8
4
FOG PRO
Period
iBUth 1
AR-SUR
7.6 a
32.6 •
98
Min
Max
co"
Cb"
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
o o o o
o o o o
O
0)
03
CD
co"
00
GO
•o
o
£
CD
r-
_
CD
erf
CO
CO
•a
g
c?
OIL FOG P
Peri
AziBUth
SUR
6 IB
6 m
196
Min
Max
CD"
CO
CO
CO
CO
•
«c
aDa)a)<7ia}
-------
o
o
00
CO
1\
CD^
co"
s
•a
g
1
0
T—
CO
oo
T—
II
CD'
co"
co
Cn
•o
g
RfACE OIL FOG PROFILE
• Period 1 9
• Aileuth laa.o
I • •
UI
z
U fal
r*
« c x
2SS
mtal Profile
0 a res.) ]
0
«"*
'E
v>
1
CO
1
-4OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 I 1 1 | 1 I 1
UblblWUfaJUUUbJblUblbJbeUUUUUUbJblblUbtbl
1
1983 NEAR-SURFACE OIL FOG PROFILE
Mln El. - 12.6 » Period 1 9
Max El. - 62.6 • Azimuth 1B3.1
(Horizontal profile
(50.0 • rea.)
«**
'e
1
CD"
?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I i i I I I I 1 I i I < I t i i I I I 1 1 I
O
CO
CO
co
on
eo
o
CO
oi
II
1
CD
CO
oo
cn
•a
g
t?
o
rf
3
n
CD
co"
00
cn
T3
O
s.
J
i, i-
o -o • «
a. o
U JJ
u. *
»4 -e
o
u
u
oe a fl
3
1 • •
Q£ r^ r*
Z
N 1
U bl
<0 C X
-• r s
31^
S^^
Ci. -*
O
u
u
u,
a a a
3
Ul \O V)
1 • .
eer- <•>•
•< 0
U
2
1 1
U bl
OCX
& — * *j
— Z Z
o •
i* n
a. «
-*
1 B
C 0
a •
N 0
U •—
o
X
in
6
VI
1
y»
co"
-=
"<
o o o o
o o o o
0 0 O 0
r- r« M o
in o v a)
co a r- «
fi r* M IN
O n O r*
"""
o ~
1-1 |