7 views

Uploaded by Anonymous XD5arpEmr

Nivou origin

Nivou origin

© All Rights Reserved

- 4.80 S.E Mechanical Engineering
- StarCCM Tutorial
- Seminar Report on MHD
- Fluid Dynamics
- 081 Flow of Natural Gas 100pc Methane in Pipe Inch Wc v02
- ES912_exampp_07x
- Modeling Turb. Flow with Fluent
- ASHRAE_Final_Operating_Room.pdf
- Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics
- Hot Water Cooled Heat Sinks for Efficient Data Center Cooling
- Fire smoke venting.pdf
- 2. an Engine Research Program Focused on Low Pressure Turbine
- Fm Lesson Plan Improved
- The Thermodynamics of an Isolated Particle
- ICengine
- 3D Model Gass Spreding
- 29-03-2011CFD Modelling by DHI SoQ
- 289-1109-2-PB
- Boundary Layer Theory
- Fluid Mechanics and Machinery

You are on page 1of 21

4 2 3 4 3

from a ground-level source in a turbulent boundary layer

By J. C. R. HUNT

Department of Applied Mathematics and

Theoretical Physics,

Silver Street, Cambridge

and

A. H. WEBER

Environmental Damport Division,

Savannah River Laboratory,

E. I. du Pont de Nemours et Cie. Inc.,

Aiken, S.C. 29801, U.S.A.

SUMMARY

A Lagrangian statistical analysis is proposed for the motions of a single particle and the growth of a

small cloud released from the ground in a turbulent boundary layer, essentially by considering the fluctuating

as well as the mean vertical Lagrangian velocity, by noting that its integral time scale is much smaller than the

travel time of a particle from the source and by estimating (quite conventionally) the Lagrangian statistics

in terms of the measured Eulerian statistics of atmospheric surface layer turbulence, in neutrally stable

conditions.

Comparing the results with a 1968 analysis by P. C. Chatwin based on a diffusion equation, the same

value is obtained for the dispersion of the vertical displacement of a particle as a function of its mean travel

time; however, a small but physically significant difference is predicted for the growth of a cloud released at

ground level.

The validated diffusion equation is then used to relate the concentration of a cloud to that of a continuous plume. It is shown that the index, s, used in the exponential formula exp( --Azs) to describe observations of the concentration in a plume, varies slowly with distance downwind of a source. Diffusion measurements in the atmospheric boundary layer and in wind tunnels are shown by the theory to be consistent with

turbulence measurements. The theory suggests the kind of further turbulence and diffusion measurements

that ought to be made.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Lagrangian similarity theory for the vertical displacement of fluid particles from a

ground-level source has been extended in a number of directions, with the addition of

new assumptions, since its first introduction by Batchelor (1964) (or see Pasquill 1974,

pp. 116-123). The main result of this theory (summarized in section 3 of this paper), based

on physical and dimensional arguments and assumptions about the self-preserving nature of

the diffusion, is the prediction of the mean rate at which particles rise and travel parallel to

the surface.

Without additional assumptions the theory does not predict the dispersion about the

mean of the vertical displacement of the particles. Nor does it predict how these statistics of

one-particle motions can be related to the motion of two particles and thence the behaviour

of a cloud of particles released at the ground. Predictions of both these aspects of diffusion

have been made by the use of a diffusion equation after making a suitable assumption about

the diffusivity, K, (Chatwin 1968). The disadvantage of this method is that it is impossible

to relate unambiguously the value of K to the turbulence statistics, whether observed or

calculated.

In this paper we show how a close look at the Lagrangian statistics of particle motion

in the wall or surface region of a turbulent boundary layer, and a plausible assumption

about the connection between these statistics and Eulerian statistics (for this particular

flow), enables the dispersion of the displacement of a single particle, Z , and the relative

vertical displacement of two particles, 2, - Z 2 , to be predicted in terms of measured quantities.

In practical terms this means that after calculating 2 2 we can estimate the vertical

423

424

width of the envelope outlining the cloud's motion,* and after calculating (2,-Z2)2we can

estimate the mean vertical width of the cloud at time T after the cloud leaves its source.

These two quantities are different because the cloud is wafted around by large eddies and

widened by small eddies.

To then predict the rise and spread of a continuous plume from a statistical analysis

of particle displacements would require the evaluation or estimation of the higher-order

moments and crossed moments (e.g. X ) .A more practical solution is to describe the plume

by a diffusion equation using the same diffusivity, K,, as for the cloud. Since the statistical

analysis effectively determines K, for a cloud in terms of measured turbulence statistics, it

then follows that plume growth can also be described in terms of turbulence measurements.

This, of course, has been straightforward for elevated sources using G . I. Taylor's theory

(1921). But it has not been possible hitherto for ground-level sources. This is the procedure

adopted in section 4. In section 5 predictions for plume growth and concentration are

compared with atmospheric and wind tunnel measurements of plumes using measured

turbulence statistics.

The analysis described here was developed with a view to providing a completely

statistical theory for the dispersion from ground and elevated sources in the surface layer.

This work is in progress.

2. STATISTICAL

DIFFUSION THEORY

AND

LAGRANGIAN

CORRELATIONS

Consider the vertical displacement, Z , above the plane and horizontal displacement, X ,

of an ensemble of particles (referred to as 'marked' particles) which are continually released

from a source S at height h in a turbulent boundary layer. The origjn of the time coordinate

is such that T = 0 when the particle is released (see Fig. ](a)). By the definition of velocity

d(Z-h)/dT = w L ( T ) ;

d X / d T = uL(T), .

(2.1)

where w L ( T ) ,u L ( T )are the vertical and horizontal components of the velocity of a particle

e n s e m b l e mean

particle .path

velocities

z;),"

Ira,ecloryof c e n t r o i d of

each plume cross s e c t i o n

,{

(P)

Figure 1. (a) The motion of particles 1 , 2 released at x = z = 0 at T = 0. The 'clouds' shown are contours,

at fixed intervals of time T, of constant values of the probability that a particle is found within the contour.

This contour actually approximatesto the envelope of small clouds released instantaneously on the ground.

(b) Plume from a continuous source at x = y = z = 0. Note how the plume parameters are defined in

terms of the concentration in the plume cross-section at x.

The wind tunnel measurements of time-delayed correlations of temperature by Dumas, Arzoumanian and Fulachier (1977)

from an instantaneous heat source at the bottom of a turbulence boundary layer give considerable insight into how a cloud grows.

425

at time T after leaving S. Thence the ensemble average of the mean and the mean square

horizontal and vertical displacements relative to the source are given by

WL, d ( Z -

loT

This overbar does not denote a time average.

In a turbulent shear flow the mean path of particles released from a source differs from

the mean stream line through the source There is nothing intrinsically mysterious about

this: out of a cloud of particles released on the surface, some particles eventually rise above

the surface, so the mean height of all the particles is increasing. (For some of the theoretical

d(Z)/dT=

(a)

Figure 2. Fluctuating velocities and displacements in a turbulent boundary layer. (a) Velocity seen by a

fixed observer (Eulerian) as a function of time: (i) z = h z o ;(ii) z N zo.Note the different scales of motion.

(b) Velocity of a particle (Lagrangian) as a function of travel time: (i) released at z = h zo; (ii) released

at zo. Note that the fluctuating velocity &(T) is larger than the mean PL;and note the increasing time

>

>

scale of the fluctuations. (c) Displacement of a particle from an elevated and from a ground-level source.

426

explanation see, e.g., Batchelor 1964; Hunt and Mulhearn 1973.) Thus for the case h = 0

there is a mean upward velocity for this particular ensemble of particles, i.e. W L ( T ) > 0.

Then it is useful to express wL as a mean W L ( T ) and a fluctuating component fiL(T):

w L ( T ) = %L<T)+&(T)

(2.3)

where $,(T) = 0.

Usually in the study of turbulence the Eulerian velocity measured at a point is separated

into mean and fluctuating components. The distinctive feature of this analysis is to separate

the velocity of a particle (the Lagrangian velocity) into mean and fluctuating components,

an idea developed in the study of turbulent channel flows by Sullivan (1971 p. 568).

Figures 2(a) and (b) show the difference between the fluctuating velocity w(x,t) as a

function of time measured at a point and fluctuating velocity wL(T) as a function of the

travel time of a particle. Figure 2(c) shows how the displacement of a particle varies with

time for a source near ground level (h w zo) and for one at a higher level (h S z), where

zo is the roughness length. Substituting(2.3) into (2.2) produces an expression for the

dispersion in terms of the Lagrangian autocovariance:

Figure 3 shows the difference between the Lagrangian autocovariances of the total

velocity, &( T,T + r ) = wL( T) wL( T + z) , and that of the fluctuating velocity, fitL).

Since there is a mean component of vertical velocity of a particle, pLL)(T,T+z) does not

(a)

-T

f-

..

-7

1imvessource

TE

T-

Note the finite correlation at t = -Twhen the

particle leaves the source, because w ( T ) contains a mean component. (b) Lagrangian and Eulerian (fixed

frame) autocorrelations of the fluctuating components, $ , ( T ) and w(x,r). Note that f i c ) ( T , T + t ) =

a: f i p ( T , T + t ) .

tend to zero when T = - T or T + 00. As we shall see in section 3, when the particles have

In the

travelled a large distance the mean upward drift has a large effect even if EL 6

next section we give estimates for fit and j3LL).

If a cloud of particles is released at T = 0 near the ground, then the mean rate of

growth of the vertical width of the cloud can be estimated (Pasquill 1974 pp. 140-142) from

the rate of increase of the vertical displacements (Zl, 2,) of an ensemble of pairs of fluid

(g)).

421

particles (l), (2) starting at Z1(T = 0), Z,(T = 0) (Fig. I(a)). As with one-point diffusion,

Z , -2, can be expressed in terms of EL and i3L :

d ( Z , -Z,)/dT = (~L,-@L,)+(i3L,-fiL2).

(2.5)

Then

+d(Z1 -Z#/dT

-@L,)(T)~~+S_~~~~(ZT+T)~T+

0 (@L,-@JT)(@Ll

where @LL*lz) = f(i3LI( T ) i3L2( T + T ) fiL2(T ) QLi( T + T ) ) , and fiLL*), p$-) are defined

by (2.4) for particles (1) and (2).

If an ensemble includes all relative initial positions of 2, and Z , in a spherical cloud,

then (Batchelor 1952, see especially section 5)

J:!LLslz)(ZT+~)d~

lr

~Ll(T>8,,(T+zjdt.

The rate of growth of the cloud depends on the distance apart of the particles at T = 0 as

well as on the properties of fiL and SL.

For a point source, the lateral diffusion in the y direction or displacement y of particles

is required. Since the turbulence is homogeneous in the y direction and there is no shear in

the y direction in the surface layer there is no mean Lagrangian velocity, VL. Consequently,

(2.7)

where vL is the Lagrangian velocity in the y direction.

3. DIFFUSION

OF INDIVIDUAL PARTICLES AND A

( i ) One-particle statisfics. For particles released from a source in homogeneous

turbulence, the mean square Lagrangian and Eulerian velocities are the same (Lumley 1962) :

w ~ ( T=

) 0;

(3.1)

where 0; is the variance of w(x,t) measured at any point. Although these two quantities are

equal when I = 0 in allflows, they are likely to differ considerably in inhomogeneous

turbulent flows, because wz( T ) is the ensemble average of the vertical velocity of just those

marked particles emanating from the source. In an inhomogeneous flow this biased sample

has mean value of wz at time T different from that of the ensemble of all particles (not just

the marked particles) arriving at the centre of the cloud. But in the surface layer, or constant

stress region, of a turbulent boundary layer, the turbulence is only weakly inhomogeneous

in the sense that only the integral scales of the turbulence change with z whereas the variance

does not. It is therefore plausible to assume that the mean square Lagrangian and Eulerian

vertical velocities are approximately equal, so

$(T)

where we take

=,

:a

(3.2)

- -

0;

428

After separating wL into its mean and fluctuating components, as in (2.3), then (3.2)

becomes

6f = a:-w;

(3.3)

There are two kinds of argument to derive F,, both essentially derived from dimensional reasoning, one based on the assumption of self-similarity of diffusion from a groundlevel source and dimensional reasoning (Batchelor 1964), and the other the solution of the

diffusion equation (Pasquill 1974 p. 116). Both conclude that the mean Lagrangian velocity,

W,< T), of particles released from the ground (z = 0) in a turbulent boundary layer should

be constant, while the particles remain in the surface layer (say T < T,) and should be

proportional to the surface friction velocity, u*, so that for all T T,

-=

W,

= blue,

0,

= b2~*

(3.4)

where b, is a universal, but experimentally determined, constant (now thought to be about

0-4), and u* = (- UW)*, where u is the fluctuating horizontal velocity component parallel to

the mean wind.

In the atmospheric surface layer it is found that the vertical turbulence is proportional

to the friction velocity so that

(3.5)

where measurements of 6 , are typically 1.3f0-1, so that from (3.3) and (3.4) the r.m.s.

fluctuating Lagrangian velocity can be estimated :

(3.6a)

where

(3.6b)

Note that since w)L = (b3/b,)iV,, w; does not vary with Tfor T < T , . Since bJb1 N 3.1, the

Lagrangian fluctuating velocity is much larger than the mean. Note that (3.6a) is consistent

with Lagrangian similarity, in that w t does not vary with Tin the surface layer (T < T,) and

fii/wL is constant, equal to b3/b,.

The evaluation of the integral in (2.4) of the autocovariance is most easily accomplished

in terms of a Lagrangian autocorrelation coefficient defined by

by expressing fit)

j$,!,L(T,T+r)= w i ( T ) w Z ( T + t ) h L L ) ( T , T + z ) ,

(3.7a)

In an inhomogeneous flow the Lagrangian integral time scale may be defined by

T,(T> = (z(T))lfmpLL)(T,T+~>d~

0

Physical arguments (Corrsin 1963)for homogeneous turbulence suggest that the Lagrangian time scale is proportional to the integral length scale so that

T,(T) = af i z ) (T)/a ,

(3.10a)

429

where c1 is a constant of order 1, and L!:) is the Eulerian integral length scale for w evaluated

0, Z), defined by

at the centre of the cloud, (X,

In grid turbulence Snyder and Lumley (1971) found that a = 1.0, whereas in the surface

layer Pasquill (p. 90) concluded that a varies from 0-35 to 0.8. He also reports (p. 57) that

measurements of the w spectra at various heights, z , above the ground indicate that in

neutral conditions I-$") is proportional to z so that

fit)

= 0.672

(3.11)

The ratio L!:)/z has been found to be as high as 2.2 and as low as 0-4. (Theoretical support

for (3.1 I), at least for the larger eddies, can be derived from the analysis of turbulence near a

surface by Hunt and Graham (1978).) Consequently, if we take a typical value for a of 0.5,

by combining (3.1 1) with (3.10) we get

TL = b,z/a, = ( b 4 / b 2 ) ~ / ~ .*

(3.12)

It follows from (3.4) that the travel time for particles from the source to reach a mean

height, Z , is (Batchelor 1964 Eq. 3.3)

T(Z) = ( l / b , ) Z / u * ,

(3.13)

so, from (3.12), T(Z) = (bz/blb4)TL(Z) N lOT,(Z). Thus for most of the particles in the

cloud the correlation is effectively zero between the fluctuating Lagrangian velocity Q L ( T )

and its value at the source $ L ( T = 0 ) , i.e. pkL)(T,O) = 0.

Thence from (2.4), (3.4)and (3.12) the vertical dispersion from a ground level source is

given by

dZ2/dT = 2[Wz T + z T L ] , .

(3.14)

(F)*= [ b t + ( b : - b : ) b l b 4 / b z ] * ~ * T

0.56u*T = 0*43t~,T.

(3.15)

Note that i?: is O.l.Z, yet the terms contribute equally to the diffusion.

The dispersion of the plume about its mean height, Z , follows from (3.14):

d(Z-Z)'/dT

%:TL.

(3.16)

This is the standard result for diffusion in any inhomogeneous flow where the turbulence is

varying slowly. Thus the rate at which particles are dispersed about their mean position at

time T depends only on the mean height at T ; it does not depend on the local mean velocity

or the history of the motion (Chatwin 1968). (This would not be the case if T, was of the

same order as T.)

The actual value of (F)*/u*T we predict from the turbulence data turns out to be

exactly the same (to 2 decimal places) as that derived by Chatwin from the solution for the

concentration, C,in the diffusion equation

aC/aT + U ( z )a q a x = a/az(b,u*z

acpz)

(3.17)

Chatwin points out, (3.17) necessarily implies that (?)* = J2.Z, whereas the statistical

analysis suggests how, as the statistics change, this ratio might be expected to change. The

strikingly similar results from these two quite different analyses certzinly suggest that the

430

use of a diffusion equation approach for ground-level sources is justifiable, and provides

further evidence that the diffusivities of matter and momentum are equal in the neutral

surface layer.

(ii) Two-particles statistics. So far our statistical analysis has been developed only for

the motion of a single particle. This indicates the distribution of the mean concentration at

time T after the release of a cloud at ground level; for example

( 0 2 ) )=~ ( Z - Z ) ' ( T )

=l(Z-Z)2C(X,T)dX/IC(X,T)dX,

(3.18a)

where the integrals are taken over all space. But the magnitude of the ensemble mean

concentration in the cloud can be estimated only by knowing the size of the cloud; which is

why we are also interested in the dispersion of two particles in the cloud or, more precisely,

the ensemble mean square separation over all pairs of particles in the cloud, i.e.

g = (Z,-Z,)Z(T)

='

- z2)2c(x1

,T )C(X2,T )dX, dX2

(3.18b)

j j C ( X 1 , T )C(X2,T)d X , dX2

T after an infinitesimal spherical cloud is released from x = y = z = 0. CCX,,T)

. - ,C(X,,T) is

proportional to the joint probability that particles in the cloud lie at X 1 and X, (see Batchelur

1952 Eq. 5.7). The important difference between (3.18a) and (3.18b) is that u?) is the width

of the envelope relative to fixed axes of the ensemble of all the clouds whereas Zzis the

ensemble mean vertical width of each cloud relative to the centre of that particular cloud.

In homogeneous turbulence, when the two particles have travelled for a time T very

much greater than TL(N L';")/o,) the displacements of the particles become uncorrelated,

because they are a large distance apart compared with the integral scale ,$"). In other words,

given a cloud released at z = 0 in homogeneous turbulence, when T/T, + 00,

(Z, - Z ) ( Z 2 -2) = 0,

(3.19a)

= 2(Z-Z)Z.

(3.19b)

so that

(Z1-Z2)2

In homogeneous turbulence and, as we have shown in section 3(a)(i),for a groundlevel source in a turbulent boundary layer, the statistical analysis and the diffusion equation

solution give the same result for the width of the cloud envelope {2(2-Z)2}*. Also the

diffusion equation gives the ensemble mean width of the cloud, C,, at time T as equal to the

width of the cloud envelope u2u':).This can be true only if (3.19a) is satisfied, which is the

case in homogeneous turbulence, but, Qu. 1, is (3.19~)valid for a ground-level source in a

turbulent boundary layer ?

The statistical analysis begins with (2.5). We consider an ensemble of pairs of particles

released close together, say within a distance of order zo. For each particle in the pair the

mean Lagrangian vertical velocities will be the same, i.e. iijLl = iijL2. Using the expressions

in (2.4) and (3.14) for

(Z,-ZZ)'(T)

= 2(Z1-Z)'-4

T',T' + T ) dT dT'

(3.20)

This reduces to (3.19b) when or if the cross-correlation of the velocities of particles 1 and 2

)

negligible for an

becomes zero. In other words, Qu. 2, does j 3 C * 1 2 ) ( T , T + ~become

instantaneously released ground-level cloud ?

43 1

small compared with their mean

Consider the two particles to have a spacing ~Z1--Z2~,

vertical displacement f ( Z , + Z 2 1 ;then similarity arguments on the form of the structure

function suggest, following Batchelor (1952 p. 354), that

dlZ, - Z 2 I 2 / d T a (lZl -Z2I2)*&*,

(3.21)

where E is the local dissipation at height 312, +Z,I. But f(Zl + Z 2 ) = b,u,T; so in the

surface layer the dissipation as seen by a rising cloud is given by E ( Z ) a u:/Z cc u:/T.

Thence [(lZl -Z212)3<T)-(1Z1-Z2/2)*(T = O)] cc u$T* and so at large times (i.e. T B

p,4

= O>/U*)

Izl--2,12a ( u , ~ ) K

Z2.

(3.22)

Thus, however small the initial cloud, because of the infinitesimal turbulence length scale

at the surface, eventually the cloud grows so as to have vertical scale -u*T.

But the integral scales of the vertical velocity are also proportional to z, and so as the

two particles rise they continuously meet larger eddies which to some extent correlate their

=k 0 as the cloud rises to the surface layer, so our

velocities. Therefore, in principle, j3LLULl2)

answers to Qu. I and Qu. 2 are Nu! However, a rough estimate of the effect of this correlation suggests it is small. Assuming that

(9

then

(3.23)

Thus jj?(Li12)d~

is a fixed proportion of p dz as T increases, which we would expect

ALL

anyway from similarity theory.

Therefore the statistical theory has shown that the ensemble mean square vertical

width of the cloud is given by

(3.24)

so that the ensemble mean vertical width C, remains a constant fraction (which we estimate

to be about 0.8) of the mean width of the envelope, a?). In physical terms, as the cloud

grows it continues to be wafted around to an appreciable extent by the ever-increasing size

of eddies it encounters as it_ rises up through the surface layer; quite unlike homogeneous

turbulence where the sizes of eddies along the plume path are fixed and where, when T 9

TL, the cloud can no longer be wafted around because it becomes larger than the largest

eddies.

Another conclusion of our analysis is that, as in homogeneous turbulence (when

T/TL B l), the diffusion equation provides an estimate for the width of the cloud envelope.

But unlike in homogeneous turbulence the equation must overestimate the ensemble mean

vertical width of the cloud.

(iii) CZoudgrowth with distance downwind. It is useful to note here the implications for

the rate at which the mean particle displacement Z (i.e. approximately the centre of the

cloud) increases with distance x downwind. We separate the horizontal velocity u*(x,i)into

its time mean and fluctuating components and note that, by definition of velocity, dZldT =

432

the source at x = y = z = 0 (each particle being at X(T)),

Since

d(Z-Z)/dX

w ~ / V ( Z ) u*/U(Z), ud(Z-Z)/dX

N

(3.25)

-u:/U,

because of the non-uniform velocity profile, can only be estimated with the aid of further

assumptions. By assuming a self-preserving form for the probability distribution of 2

(Batchelor 1964 p. 666), or deducing this from a diffusion equation assumption (Chatwin

1968), it is found that the cloud moves at a speed equal to the mean velocity U at a height

cZ, which is below the centre of the cloud. Chatwins analysis suggests that the constant

c = 0.56. Then

dX/dT

b,u,

(3.26)

The rate of growth of the cloud derived in (3.14) can be expressed in terms of x, as

Ci(c,Z)d(Zi)f/dx = d(F)/dT = 0 * 5 6 ~ , , .

(3.27)

particular calculations imply

C,

= c = 0.56,

(3.28)

In the surface layer, for the y component of turbulence it is a consequence of surface

layer similarity that the variance

is constant with height (Lumley and Panofsky 1964).

It is also observed that I-!;) is approximately constant with height (Pasquill 1974). These are

the reasons for assuming that v L ( T ) can be regarded as a stationary random function of

time, so that G. I. Taylors (1921) theory can be applied to lateral diffusion. Thus, for the

ensemble of particles released from a source at T = 0,

Yz(T)=

(T-T)Ra)(T)dT

0

:

s

(3.29)

where

Ra( T) =

t7L(

T ) uL( T

+T)/u:.

To find ? when x = X we use the solution for (3.26) for the distance travelled by the

centre of the cloud X(T). (Note that since VL = 0, the Eulerian and Lagrangian variances

are equal.)

Since the probability distribution of lateral velocity fluctuations is found to be approximately Gaussian, the distribution of the mean concentration is found to be approximately

Gaussian. So at time T from the release, the ensemble mean concentration is given by

/ o m / ~ m C ( x , y , z , T )dz

d x a exp(-y2/(2p))

(3.30)

The result (3.29) is consistent with the solution of a diffusion equation only if the

diffusivity Ky is a function of T, the time of travel of the cloud from the source, or of X,the

distance the cloud has travelled from the source. In that case

K y ( T ) = K,,(X) = + ( d P ( T ) / d T )

(3.31)

433

where T ( X ) is the solution to (3.26). (The transverse width a?) of a cloud of particles as a

function of T can be calculated as in homogeneous turbulence. To find a?)(x), also use

(3.26).)

4. DIFFUSION

FROM

The differences between the analyses of the diffusion of a cloud of particles released at

one time and that of a continuous line source are often blurred, particularlywhen it comes

to applying Batchelors Lagrangian similarity arguments. There is no rigorous mathematical

argument for using the result for GL,Eq. (3.4), to infer the rate of increase with x of the

mean height or depth of a vertical slice of the plume, Z(P),a!p), at a given value of x defined

by

where C(p)is the mean concentration at (x,z), see Fig. l(b). However, it is commonly

supposed (e.g. Pasquill 1974 p. 120; Shlien and Corrsin 1976) that arguments, based on

dimensional analysis and the assumption of self-preserving forms for the concentration

distribution, similar to those us& for Z ( T ) and $ ( T ) for instantaneous sources, can be

applied to finding Z(p(x) and Z z ( p ) ( x ) for the plume. We adopt the slightly different approach of attempting to make this connection between the analysis of the cloud and the

plume by developing and comparing the solutions to the diffusion equation (3.17) for the

cloud and the plume.*

In developing the solution, for analytical simplicity, we express U(z) as a power law

profile

U ( 2 ) = (v,/z;)z

(4.2a)

where n, U,and z1 are chosen so that U(z/z,) is approximately equal to the logarithmic

profile over the width of the plume. If n 4 1,

U(Z) = U,exp{nIn(z/z,)} = U,{1 +nln(z/z,)+O(n2)}

(4.2b)

So if the log profile is expressed in terms of the velocity at the mean height of the

cloud and the perturbation to it, i.e.

~ ( z=

) (u,/K)ln(z/z,) = (u,/K)ln(Z/zo) +(u*/lc)ln(z/Z),

(4.3)

U,

(u,/rc)ln(Z/zo); n = ( ~ ( Z / Z ~ ) z1

- ~=

; Z

(4.4)

to Calder (1949 p. 163).

To demonstrate the plausibility of this analysis we first show that Chatwins results for

the cloud in a logarithmic profile can be obtained (albeit more heuristically) using (3.17)

and (4.2a). Integrating (3.17) w.r.t. x, gives

Similar analytical results (although unpublished) have been obtained by Dr Van Ulden of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. Only his computations and general conclusions. and not his analysis, are presented in his paper (Van Uldcn 1978).

434

to which the solution for the integral of the concentration in the cloud at time T from

release is

J-wmC(~,T) dx = (b u* T) - lexp{ -z/( b, u* T ) } ,

(4.5)

the same as Chatwins Eq. (14). Thence the components of the velocity of the centroid,

(X,Z)(T),of the cloud can be found. Defining

dZ/dT = ~ o m z ~ ( b l ~ , z ~ ~ ~ w w=Cblu,

Jx)dz

and

dX/dT = d ( j o m d z (-jwmxCdx))/dT

(4.6)

/omU(z)(/m- 0 0 C d x ) dz.

(4.7)

Since if n

< 1, T(n+ 1)

(4.8)

b,u,T = Z ( T ) ,

dX/dT

= U(cZ) where c

(4.9a)

-- e-?,

(4.9b)

the same as Chatwins Eq. (16). Thus combining (4.4) and (4.9a),

n = {ln(b,u*T/z,)}-.

(4.9c)

The diffusion equation for a steady release of Q units of pollutant per second per unit

length of span is

U(z)dCP)/dx = d/dz(b,u,z X p / J ~ )

(4.10)

If V(z) = V,(z/zl), then the exact solution to (4.10) for a plume subject to

JFgU(z)ep)dz= Q and zlJC(p)/i?z= 0 for z

is

PP)

= (Q/(b,u,x(l

0,z

+ 00

(4.1 1)

+n))}exp[(-t/(x(l +n)2))(U,zn/(blu*zS))]

= {Q/(biu*x(l+n))}ex~{-zU(z)/(biu*x(l +n)))

(4.12)

The solution (4.12) has been obtained by assuming n constant, whereas in fact n varies

slowly with x. By substituting (4.12) into (4.10) and using (4.9) to define n, it can be shown

that (4.12) is the correct first-order solution to (4.10), if n(x) is taken at its local value (as

defined by (4.9~)and (4.14b)), and if {ln(Z(P)/zo))- or n 4 1. (The error is O{ln2(Z(p)/zo))- .)

This procedure was justified by the equivalence of (4.8) to Chatwins asymptotic result. The

solution (4.12) is almost identical to that proposed by Calder (see Pasquill p. 1 1 l), although

without the slow variation of the coefficients with x. Note that C(p) varies with z like

exp( -

+))whereas

rm

Our primary object in developing this solution is to show how the plume height ZP)

and depth CT~P)and their ratio vary with downstream distance. These parameters ase defined

in (4.1). Substitution of the solution (4.12) into (4.1) yields

435

or

x = Z(p'u(CZ'p')/b,U*.

(4.14a)

(Note that the relation between the mean displacement X and the mean height of aparticle,

= z = 0 follows from (4.9a) and (4.9b) and is given by

Z, released from x

Z[U(cZ)- U(ez,)]/b,u,

(4.14b)

cf. Batchelor (1964).) Thus Z(p)(x)is less than Z(x) by a factor (2ln(c~/z,)}- I , in fact

Z(p)(x) = Z(x)[ 1 - {21n(cZ/z0)}- +O(ln--2(Z/zo)].*

(4.15)

( ~ 2 )=) [xz;b,u,(

~

whence

( +-:;:)Ir(1 - *yn)

1 -tn)2/U,]2/(1+T 1

(4.16)

x = ap)U(co$")(1 +&n)/J2.bIu,.

ground-level releases to express them in the form

C(X,Z)= G(x,i = 0)exp{ -(Az/cQ')s}

(4.17)

A(S) =

[rp/~)/r(i/~)]*.

.

(4.18)

@)/Z(p)

= {r(3/s)r(ijs))*jr(2js)

(4.19)

It is usually assumed, though seldom (if ever) precisely observed, that s, and therefore

are the same at all values of x downwind of tlie source. However, from (4.14) and

(4.16) our theory indicates that

ULP)/Z(~),

a ~ p ) / Z ' p )-h

J2.(1 -in)

J2.C 1 - (4ln(Z(~f/z~)>-'],

(4.20)

so that this ratio increases slowly with distance downwind of the source. Comparing (4.19)

and (4.20), it follows that, when

In(Z(P)/zo)% 1, s

~ + { I n ( Z ( p ) / z ~ ) ] - .~ .

(4.21)

The mean concentration c(p)(x,y,z)

of a continuous point source can be described by

a diffusion equation only if the diffusivity Kyis a function of x , as explained in section 3(a).

Then C(p)will approximately be given by the solution to

V(z) ~?C(~)/dx

= d/dz(K, dC(P)/dz)+K,(x) d2C'p)/dy2,

(4.22)

where K,(x) is the same as the diffusivity K,(X) of a cloud when its centre, X,defined by

(3.26), is at x . There is no known way of defining these diffusivities exactly.

The solution to (4.22), valid when (In(z/z(P))(< I , is.over the greater part of the

(4.23)

Note added in proof,

(4.15). (Smith 1978.)

.%P)/Zhas recently been c.ornputed using numerical solutions to (3.17) and the results agree well with

436

x

c(P) is a constant of order one, and)'$t

definition :

satisfies the

dP)is specified by the condition that (4.23) must satisfy the integral of (4.22) when multiplied by yz, i.e.

whence

d(dP))'/dx = 2K,(x)/U(cZ),

(4.25a)

so that c(P) = c. Thus the cross-wind plume width, up)(x),in (4.23) is approximately the

same as the expression in (3.29) for u,,(T), if T(x) is defined by

dT/dx = l/U(cb,u,T),

(4.25b)

x = (u,T/K)[ln(cblu*T/zo)- 13.

whence

Until recently the conversion of a,(T) into up)(x)has been given without justification as

to the height at which the relevant wind speed is taken and is not related to the vertical

growth of the plume, at least not explicitly (e.g. Pasquill 1974 p. 359). But there must be

such a relation because the greater the vertical growth the greater the wind speed of the

centre of the plume and the larger x for given T, as Pasquill has also pointed out (Pasquill

1974 p. 194; Pasquill 1975 p. 40).

From (4.12), (4.23) and (4.25) we deduce the form of the downstream variation of the

ground-level concentration on the plume centre line; we find that for a line source when

z-z>>z,

C ( P ) ~ * ~ Occ/ Q

((Tu,/z,)In(Tu,/z,)}-'

a l/x,

(4.26)

Batchelor's (1964) result. For a point source, the results depend on T/T@)where T@)is the

Lagrangian time scale of the transverse fluctuation. In homogeneous turbulence and in

wind tunnel simulations (Robins 1977), (3.10) can be applied, so T@)= tlfi$/~,, where fi:)

is the Eulerian length scale. (3.10) does not appear to be applicable in the atmospheric

surface layer (Pasquill 1974 p. 197), where it has been suggested that U(z = 2m)Te) = 103m

effectively defines TP).

When T % Tf)

(4.27)

when T 9 TI")

C(P)u,zi/Q cc { (fi~)/zo)*(Tu*/zo)~ln(Tu~/zo)}-l

a (~~)/zo)-'(x/zo)-*In+(x/zo)

(4.28)

Note that if the surface layer is, say, 50m deep, the time it takes the plume to leave the

layer, T,, -50/0*4u, seconds, whereas since Tf) N 103/U(z = lorn),

TIT?)

~0111(10/~~)/0*16

x lo3.

0-03m. The results (4.27) and (4.28) show that a simple power law does not describe the

437

decay of a ground-level point source, and that the roughness height has an important effect.

Computations of Czt,z,/Q are presented in Fig. 4.

Note that if the mean velocity profile U(z) is represented by a power-law profile

U ( z ) = Ul(z/z,)" where n 4 1, then explicit expressions for T(X), Z(x) can be obtained,

+

"('+").

Therefore, the results for

e.g. from (4.8) T = W 1 / ( l + " ) [ ( nl)z;/(U,(cb,u,)"]

C(P)(T)in (4.27) and (4.28) become:

T 4 TP):

T

c(P)

Tt): C(P)

X-(2+n)/(l+n):

(4.29)

X-(n+*)/(l+n).

(4.30)

power-law profile, n is a function of downstream position: n = {ln(Z/z0))-' N

[In{O~16x/[zoln(O~16x/z,)])]- l , consequently if the variation of C ( P ) with downstream

distance is expressed as a power law, x - ~ then

,

k may be expected to vary slowly with

downstream position.

5. COMPARISON

WITH EXPERIMENTS

AND DISCUSSION

The only measurements that are detailed enough to compare with the theory of

turbulent diffusion from ground-level sources are those downwind of steady sources. Pasquill

(1974) has reviewed the data from field experiments and derived formulae that describe most

of the more reliable measurements (see p. 359). He finds, firstly, that at a given value of x,

C(P)(z) is usually found to be proportional to

exp[ -(A(s)z/aip)')"],

where A(s)

[l-(3/s)/r(l/s)]*.

(5.1)

Z(p)

(5.2)

ap)/1.3.

Secondly, Pasquill notes that the observed growth of such plumes is adequately described

by the theoretical limiting form when In(Z(P)/zo)9 1 :

G?'

where

0*52~,T(~)(x),

ZtP)(x)= 0.4u,TfP'(x)

(5.3)

= 04x{u,[In(0.4cu,T(P'/zo)

- 13)-

and c = 0.6.

Essentially these are conclusions about the form of C(P)(z),the exponents and, indirectly,

the Batchelor constant b,.

In the three major sets of measurements referred to by Pasquill: s = 1.15 (Porton

1923); 1.5 (Cardington 1931); 1.49_+0*28(Prairie Grass 1956). In these experiments the

values of (Z(P)/zo)at the observation stations (100, 229, 100 m downwind, respectively) were

approximately 100, 200, 300 (assuming zo N 0-03m), so that according to the prediction in

(4.20), s is expected to be about 1-22and a!p)/Z(P)to be about 1-35. This lies in the range of

the observations.

It is interesting to note that the values of osP)/Z(P)in the experiments lay between 1.37

and 1.30, whereas on the basis of the variations in measured turbulence statistics, discussed

in section 3, (?)*/Z for a cloud might be expected to vary between 1.27 and 1-6,so that for

a plume, when Z(p)/zoN 100, O!~)/Z(~)

might be expected to vary between 1.21 and 1.52, a

range that straddles all diffusion observations.

438

Given the form of the Lagrangian autocorrelation function R;)(.r) and the integral

time scale of the cross-wind velocity fluctuations, TI), the magnitude of the cross-wind

diffusion, afp)(x), can be calculated from (3.29) and (4.25b). Taking a typical form for

RLL)(z), namely RLL)(z)= exp( - 7/Tc)), then

ap)(x) = (a,/u*)(u,Tp))[2(T- 1 +exp( - T)}]*,

(5.4)

where T = T/Tp). Note that in the limit of T/TP)< 1 (or very large integral scale)

nsp(x) = (~V/U*)T(X)U*, .

(5.5)

where x = (u,T/O~4)[ln(0~224u,T/z0)-11.

To be consistent with the Lagrangian similarity theory used throughout this paper, it is

assumed that

does not vary with height z above the ground.

However, Pasquill (1974 pp. 81-83) has suggested that the measurements do not

conclusively support this corollary of similarity theory. If one assumes that a,/U(z)+ is

roughly constant along a plume as it rises through the surface layer, and if one assumes that

the variation of U(z) is insignificant, then oie deduces from the statistical theory (3.29) that

(5.6)

where x = x / Y xand YX,= U ( z = 2 m)TP), is the distance over which the fluid travels from

the source in a time TP).

The ratio ap)/a, calculated from (5.6) can be compared with the measurements in the

field experiments quoted by Pasquill (1974 Fig. 4.12) where zo N 0.01 m. As Pasquill found

(using a slightly different form for RiL)(r)),the best agreement with the data is found when

YX= 103m. If the same value of U ( z = 2 m)Tp) = 103m is taken, then the prediction for

01) in (5.5) also lies within the scatter of the data; it only disagrees with our (5.6) or Pasquills computations to about 20 % over a range of x from 10 to 103m.(5.5) agrees slightly

better with the data if UTP) = 3 x 103m,showing that the difference between the observed

value of Tp) inferred from diffusion experiments and the value inferred from the hypothesis

(3.10) may be even greater than has been suggested up to now.

For a list of wind tunnel measurements of dispersion from ground-level and elevated

sources see Shlien and Corrsin (1976). We simply refer here to those aspects of wind tunnel

measurements which related to the theory of this paper.

( i ) The mean height of the plume. For continuous ground-level line sources on a

smooth wall, recent experiments by Shlien and Corrsin (1976) and analysis of previous

increases approximately linearly with

experiments by Poreh and Hsu (1971) find

distance, with the constant b being 0.4. These measurements provide only a rough confirmation of the theory; Shlien and Corrsin were rightly criticized by Chatwin (1978) for their

assertion that these measurements were a good confirmation of the theory.

However, a good test of the theory proposed here is provided by Robinss (1977) recent

measurements of concentration profiles (and turbulence profiles) downwind of a source on a

rough surface in a deep wind tunnel boundary layer (thickness N 1 m). Robins found that

within the experimental error ZfP)(x)N Z(x), where Z(x) is defined by (4.14b). Our predicted

difference between Z(p)(x)and Z(x) in (4.15) could just about have been observed, but was

not. The measurements certainly provided strong confirmation for values of b = 0-4 and

c = 0.56.

z(p)

t Usually denoted by 0 8 , the standard deviation of the direction of the horizontal components of the wind.

439

(ii) The plume thickness. Shlien and Corrsins measurements showed that for a

ground-level source (Z-Z(P))2 is proportional to x/h and not (x/h) as similarity or our

statistical theory suggests. They imply something is wrong with the theory. A more likely

explanation is the following: when Z is of the order of the height of the roughness elements,

z,, or the buffer layer on a smooth wall (thickness zb = 30v/u,, where v is the kinematic

viscosity)

TP(Z)

0 . 3 3 ( ~ t?Z,)/O,

Or 0 3 ( Z

+ lzb)/aw

(5.7)

z, or zb, one

would find from (3.14) that CT?is proportional to [ l ~ , T ( P ) + b ~ u * T ( ~ )This

/ 2 ] ~is. not

inconsistent with Shlien and Corrsins data when

is of the order of zb. Chatwins

objection to Shlien and Corrsins conclusions was based on the lack of a constant stress

region over which the diffusion measurements were made.

Robins measured concentration profiles at various positions downwind and found that

they had the form

zCp)

c = C,(x)exp[

-(Az/a!P)>-y2/2(a~))].

Two kinds of atmospheric boundary layer were simulated, one urban and one rural. The

diffusion measurements were made over the range 10 c x/zo < 2 x lo3; 20 < Z(p)/zo <

2 x 10 (urban); and 2 x lo4 < x/zo < 3 x lo5; lo3 < Z(p)/zo< lo4 (rural). In the latter

case the plume lies in the surface layer for Z@)/z0< 2 x i03. The values of s were about 1-6

for the urban and 1.5 for the rural layers.

A fair comparison with the theory can be made in this case because the turbulence

intensity, aw,and the integral scale, Zc),

were measured. It was found that a,/u* = 1.26,

10

10

1o3

lo4

XlZ,

1 o5

106

Figure 4. Comparison of the ground-level Centre line concentrations downwind of a point source as

measured in a wind tunnel boundary layer 2m deep by Robins (1977) and as predicted by statistical theory.

For details of the wind tunnel turbulence measurements see section 5(b).

440

= b, = 0.33. Consequently, from (3.15) (F)*/(u*T)= 0.56; so

= 1.41, and therefore from (4.12),when z(p)/zoN lo2, lo3 the predicted values of

O!P)/Z(~)are I .35, 1.36, whereas Robinss observed values are 1.29, 1.30. Consequently, the

predicted values for s are 1.22 and 1.20, compared with 1.6 and 1.5.

The statistical theory based on assuming u,/u* is constant (i.e. equation (5.4)) also

provides an adequate description of Robinss cross-wind diffusion measurements. In this

case, as well as uv,the value of fii) was measured (being 50m when scaled up to the atmospheric surface layer) so that TP) could be calculated from (3.10). One reason why this

prediction for T(LV) works in a wind tunnel is the absence of the large slow fluctuations

in wind direction that occur in the atmosphere, but are not described by short duration

quantities like L?). (Indeed, this point about wind tunnels has repeatedly been made

by Professor R. S. Scorer to question their use.)

Finally the variation of C,(x), = (?p)(x,y = 0,z = 0), with x is compared with Robinss

measurements in Fig. 4. Without any adjustable constants, the theory predicts the large

observed variation of Co(x) with the change in roughness to within 20 %.

(??)*/Z

6 . CONCLUSIONS

1. We have shown that vertical diffusion from a ground-level source can be predicted

in terms of measurable statistics of turbulence, by assuming the validity of some conventional hypotheses about Lagrangian and Eulerian statistics. An important idea in theory is

to concentrate on the fluctuating and mean components the Lagrangian velocity.

2. Using typical turbulence statistics the variance of the particle displacements, 3,

is

found to be the same as that predicted by the time-dependent diffusion equation. The

corollary is that the variation in the turbulence statistics suggests the kind of variation in

K, to be expected.

3. Analysis of two-particle statistics has shown that the vertical envelope of a cloud is

greater than the vertical depth of the cloud because it continues to be wafted around by

eddies of the same order as the size of the cloud, as the cloud grows. One consequence of

this is that, unlike in homogeneous turbulence, the diffusion equation yields the cloud

envelope but does not yield the mean cloud depth.

4. The solution to the diffusion equation for a plume using the same diffusivity K, as

for a cloud, has shown that the concentration distribution has the form

where s varies slowly with distance (s N l+{ln(Z(p)/zo)}-l).It has often been assumed

(e.g. Pasquill 1974; Townsend 1965) that C P ( ~ , y , has

t ) a self-preserving form which

would imply that s is a constant. The essential reason for the variation of s is that the plume

is rising up through a logarithmic velocity profile, which can be thought of as a power-law

profile with a variable exponent.

5. Cross-wind diffusion has also been calculated using the similarity theory assumption that uv/u* is constant with height. If this is true then the lateral growth as a function of

distance must be a function of the vertical growth, because as the plume grows vertically the

convection speed increases. This differs from Pasquills approach, where a,/U(z) is assumed

to be constant. For best agreement with the observations, the length scale U ( z = 2m)Tp)

is found to be about 3000 rather than 1000 m using Pasquills theory.

6 . The theory is compared with a number of field and laboratory measurements. In

both of Robinss wind tunnel studies agreement is better than with the field measurements,

and the observations of exponents in the vertical profile are greater (1.5 cf. 1.2) than the

441

prediction. The difference between the field measurements and the theory is less than the

scatter in the turbulence data from which the predictions are made.

7. In summary, the theory in this paper is an attempt to combine the statistical and

Lagrangian similarity theories of diffusion in a boundary layer, and to indicate the connection with the diffusion equation. We hope that the theory will stimulate more detailed

measurements of Lagrangian statistics in the surface layer, and will encourage atmospheric

turbulence measurements to be made when diffusion experiments are undertaken.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are very grateful to Drs F. Pasquill and P. C. Chatwin for trenchant criticism of

various drafts of this paper and to Dr S. P. S. Arya for some helpful conversations about

the atmospheric surface layer.

This work was begun while JCRH was a visiting associate professor at the Department

of Geosciences N.C.S.U. with support from the Environmental Protection Agency under

Grant number R805595.

REFERENCES

Batchelor, G. K.

I964

1952

Calder. K.L.

1949

Chatwin, P. C.

1968

1978

Corrsin, S.

1963

Fulachier, L.

1977

Hunt, J. C. R. and

Graham, J. M. R.

Hunt, J. C. R. and Mulhearn, P. J.

1978

Lumley, J. L.

1962

Pasquill, F.

1964

1974

1973

1975

Poreh, M. and Hsu, K. S.

1971

Robins, A.

1977

Archiv Mechaniki Stosowanj, 3, 661-670.

Diffusion in a field of homogeneous turbulence., I1 The

relative motion of particles, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 48,

345-362.

Eddy diffusion and evaporation in flow over aerodynamically

smooth and rough surfaces; a treatment based on

laboratory laws of turbulent flow with special reference

to conditions in the lower atmosphere, Quart. J. Mech.

App. Math., 2, 153-176.

The dispersion of a puff of passive contaminant in the

constant stress region, Quart. J. R. Met. SOC.,94,

350-360.

Comments on Dispersion measurements in a turbulent

boundary layer, Int. J. Ht. Mass Transfer, 21,367-368.

Estimation of the relation between Eulerian and Lagrangian

scales in large Reynolds number turbulence, J. Atmos.

Sci.,20, 115-1 19.

Probabilities conditionelles spatio tem porelles des fluctuations de temperature dans une couche limite turbulente,

C.R. Acad. Sci (B), 284,487.

Free stream turbulence near plane boundaries, J. Fluid

Mech., 84, 209-235.

Turbulent dispersion from sources near two-dimensional

obstacles, Ibid., 61, part 2, 245-274.

The mathematical nature of the problem of relating Eulerian

and Lagrangian statistical functions in turbulences,

Mecanique de la Turbulence, Edition due CNRS, Paris,

17-26. A. Favre (ed.) 1962. English edition: The

mechanics of turbulence, Gordon and Breach, New

York, 1964.

The structure of atmospheric turbulence, Wiley.

Atmospheric difusion, 2nd ed. Chichester, Ellis Horwood

Ltd., New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Some topics relating to modelling of dispersion in boundary

layer, U.S.E.P.A. Rpt 650147-5-015.

Diffusion from a line source in a turbulent boundary layer,

Znt. J. Ht. Mass Transfer, 14, 1475-1483.

Plume dispersion from ground-level sources in simulated

atmospheric boundary layers, C.E.G. B. report

RIMIR.245.

442

Shlien, P. J. and Corrsin, S.

1976

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 19,

Smith, F. B.

1978

1971

Sullivan, P. J.

1971

Taylor, G. I.

1921

A comparison of analytic solutions and Lagrangian similarity solutions of the diffusion equation in the neutral

surface layer of the atmosphere, Met. Office(Met.0. 14)

Note T.D.N. 96.

Some measurements of particle velocity auto-correlation

functions in a turbulent flow, J. Fluid Mech., 48.41-71.

Longitudinal dispersion within a two-dimensional shear

flow, Ibid.,49, 551-576.

Diffusion by continuous measurements, Proc. b e d . Math.

Townsend, A. A.

1965

changes in surface conditions, J. Fluid Mech., 22, 799-

Van Ulden, A. P.

1978

ground, Atmos. Emir., 12,2125-2129.

285-295.

832.

APPENDIX

A

(Numbers refer to the defining equation)

constant in the mean concentration profile, (4.7), (5.1)

constant defining W,, (3.4)

turbulence parameters, (3.5), (3.6), (3.12)

constants defining advection speeds for clouds and plumes, (3.26), (3.27),

(4.24)

mean concentration in cloud or plume

source height

horizontal and vertical diffusivities

Eulerian integral scales for horizontal and vertical velocities, (3. lob)

distance moved in a Lagrangian time scale, (5.6)

velocity profiie exponent, (4.2)

flux from line or point source

autocorrelation coefficient, (3.29), (3.7b)

exponent defining the concentration profile, (4.17)

time

time since a particle left its source

velocity and mean and turbulent velocity components in x direction

surface friction velocity

turbulent velocity component in y direction

turbulent velocity component in z direction

X = ( X , Y,Z) vector displacement of a particle, and Cartesian components

x = (x,y,z) displacement of a point, and Cartesian components

ZO

roughness length

ci

constant defining TL

&)

Dirac delta function

dissipation of turbulent energy per unit mass

E

K

von Khrmhns constant

r

gamma function

Pw

(L) PAw( L )

autocovariances for the total and fluctuating Lagrangian vertical velocity

components, (2.4)

variances of the Eulerian turbulent velocity components

o w2 , at

r.m.s.

particle displacements or widths of plume or cloud envelope

oy

9

oe

Xz

TP),Ti")

z

ensemble cloud width relative to cloud centre

Lagrangian time scales for 0 , fi

time delay in correlations

r.m.s. value

Lagrangian fluctuating value

ensemble mean value

Lagrangian quantity

reference to single particle (l), (2)

refers to both particles (1) and (2)

cloud

plume

Subscript

(

)L

Lagrangian variable

443

- 4.80 S.E Mechanical EngineeringUploaded byJaya Rajesh Raaj
- StarCCM TutorialUploaded byJuan Ignacio González
- Seminar Report on MHDUploaded byanjus438
- Fluid DynamicsUploaded byZS
- 081 Flow of Natural Gas 100pc Methane in Pipe Inch Wc v02Uploaded bylutfi awn
- ES912_exampp_07xUploaded bygetsweet
- Modeling Turb. Flow with FluentUploaded byHaimendra Rajput
- ASHRAE_Final_Operating_Room.pdfUploaded bypalitha1902
- Fundamentals of Fluid MechanicsUploaded byPethuraj
- Hot Water Cooled Heat Sinks for Efficient Data Center CoolingUploaded byEdwin Bongaesbengasbengis
- Fire smoke venting.pdfUploaded bySrki Men
- 2. an Engine Research Program Focused on Low Pressure TurbineUploaded bygurunath_gvs
- Fm Lesson Plan ImprovedUploaded byPragya Shahdeo
- The Thermodynamics of an Isolated ParticleUploaded byJosé Luis Gómez Ramírez
- ICengineUploaded bySudharsant
- 3D Model Gass SpredingUploaded byMadushanka Sugath
- 29-03-2011CFD Modelling by DHI SoQUploaded byharsh4u
- 289-1109-2-PBUploaded byMilan Bojovic
- Boundary Layer TheoryUploaded byTushar Goyal
- Fluid Mechanics and MachineryUploaded byTanoj Patro
- lec10.pdfUploaded byYASH GUPTA
- Eulerian Model Fluent TutorialUploaded bybjhamnani
- A29_IJMA_2013Uploaded byBilel Ben Amira
- A29_IJMA_2013.pdfUploaded byBilel Ben Amira
- (1998)Dynamic Wind EffectsUploaded byHakan Keskin
- Sommerfeld Lecture3Uploaded byCepa Ugol
- Section 6.4Uploaded bydrdoak123
- InstructionsUploaded byVaibhav Sarin
- Abs Trac 1Uploaded bySayeRuzana
- lgkhgkjfUploaded bykoushikthephoenix1

- eeu205unitlessonplan3Uploaded byapi-298940946
- Physical GeographyUploaded byGunjan10001
- Physical GeographyUploaded bydivyamittalias
- ISBI - Volume II.pdfUploaded byLeonardo Alves
- The Project Gutenberg eBook of Meteorology_ the Science of the Atmosphere, By Charles Fitzhugh Talman_ - CopyUploaded byJanKennette Mangaccat
- Talihina Sky (Chap 1-9)Uploaded bySubzero232
- element of climateUploaded byPEkar Kus-kus
- Formato banco de Preguntas 2Uploaded bymanfra79
- Agricultural Meteorology - Model Question PapersUploaded byMaruthavanan Ganapathy
- Beyond the Light Barrier - E.klarer - PDF - 0Uploaded bybeattomahawk
- Fronts 1Uploaded byFarhan Sami
- UNIT IIIUploaded bymarshel007
- Mary Jacobus - Cloud Studies The Visible Invisible.pdfUploaded byJavi
- Orgonics Wilhelm Reich Orgone Accumulators and ProductsUploaded byJCM
- Old-Time Country Wisdom & LoreUploaded bymwtrial01
- Lightning and the Gravitational CapacitorUploaded byFrederick David Tombe
- 1-s2.0-S0034425715300973-mainUploaded byJoel E Valencia
- New Microsoft Word DocumentUploaded bySafeer Ullah Shah
- AClass Aviation English Vocab Weather ExerciseUploaded byMaltesers1976
- Earths Changing EnvironmentUploaded byRistić Marko
- What causes lightning.docxUploaded byCamille Comia
- Atpl - Meteorology SetUploaded byHamidK.Farhat
- Cloud, Precipitation, And WindUploaded byRosemarie Kholoma
- K. a. Emanuel, Roger K. Smith - The Physics and Parameterization of Moist Atmospheric ConvectionUploaded byvladislav
- Expository Text StructureUploaded byflon123
- Verbal Ability - Critical ReasoningUploaded byamithbalu
- Weather in the ClassroomUploaded bynewson6
- Study of Macro and Micro ClimateUploaded byAnshuman Samantaray
- Atmospheric Refraction of EM WavesUploaded byRocco Rameša
- Discussion 2.3 - Moisture, Clouds, And WeatherUploaded byAria Carino