You are on page 1of 21

Quart. J. R. Met. SOC.(1979), 105, pp.

4 2 3 4 3

551.51 1.61 519.23

A Lagrangian statistical analysis of diffusion

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


Environmental Damport Division,
Savannah River Laboratory,
E. I. du Pont de Nemours et Cie. Inc.,
Aiken, S.C. 29801, U.S.A.

(Received 3 February 1978; revised 14 August 1378)


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
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.


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
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

J. C . R.HUNT and A. H. WEBER


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.



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), .
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


Ira,ecloryof c e n t r o i d of
each plume cross s e c t i o n



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.



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 -

h)/dT = 2 w L ( T > wL( T ) dT, dX/dT = i i L ( T ) . (2.2)

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


l o w speed sinking motions

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.

J. C. R. HUNT and A. 1% WEBER


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)


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:

where b t ) ( T,T + r ) = fiL( T ) fiL( T r ) .

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









Figure 3. (a) Lagrangian autocovariance p!.LL<T,T+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




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).


+d(Z1 -Z#/dT


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)




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,
where vL is the Lagrangian velocity in the y direction.



(a) Vertical difsusion

( 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;


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

where we take



- -


as measured at the centre of the cloud, ( X , Z ) .


J. C. R. HUNT and A. H. WEBER

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

6f = a:-w;


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,



= blue,


= b2~*

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

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 :

b, = (bg-bf)* = (1-32-0*42)*= 1.24.


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 ) ,


which in the surface layer becomes

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

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

In the surface layer, given (3.7b), this definition becomes

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 ,




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


= 0.672


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 ) ~ / ~ .*


where b, 1: 0.33( k0.15).

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 * ,


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 ] , .


which on integration becomes

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

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


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):



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



for an instantaneous ground-level line source (defined by C = d(z)d(x)d(T)) if 6 , = 0.4. As

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

J. C. R.HUNT and A. H. WEBER


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 )



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


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

where C(X,,T)C(X,,T) is the cross-correlation of the concentration at X , and X , at a time

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,


= 2(Z-Z)Z.


so that

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

f i L , ( T + z ) d z it follows from (2.6) that

= 2(Z1-Z)'-4

T',T' + T ) dT dT'


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

The following similarity and dimensional argument provides a plausible answer.

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)*&*,


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


= O>/U*)

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



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

j3(L*12dT [$lf(T) $i2)(T)]TL



Thus jj?(Li12)d~
is a fixed proportion of p dz as T increases, which we would expect
anyway from similarity theory.
Therefore the statistical theory has shown that the ensemble mean square vertical
width of the cloud is given by

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
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 =

J. C. R. HUNT and A. H. WEBER


u*dZ/dx = u*dZ/dX.Taking the average displacement of particles at time T after leaving

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

dZ/dT = dZ/dT = { U ( Z ) u(X,T)}d(Z Z - Z)/dX



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



which is much smaller, by O(u,/U(Z)),than V(Z)dZ/dX.This is the largest term and,

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


V(cZ) and U(cZ)dZ/dx = dZ/dT



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 ~ , , .


where c, is another constant depending on the probability distribution of Z . Chatwins

particular calculations imply

= c = 0.56,


(b) Horizontal transverse diffusion

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,






Ra( T) =


T ) uL( T


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))


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 )




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


(a) A line source

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

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


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)}


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),


then (4.2) is equivalent to (4.3) if


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


over a range of z defined by Iln(z/Z)I 4 1 or z Zexp{ -ln(Z/zo)}, an idea originally due

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).


J. C. R. HUNT and A. H. WEBER

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 ) } ,


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

then using (4.5)

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

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


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


Thenw from (4.1), (4.2a), (4.5) and (4.6)

Since if n

< 1, T(n+ 1)

dW/dT = Ulz;(blu,T)T(n+ 1).


e- where y = 0.577. . . , and since

b,u,T = Z ( T ) ,

= U(cZ) where c


-- e-?,


the same as Chatwins Eq. (16). Thus combining (4.4) and (4.9a),
n = {ln(b,u*T/z,)}-.


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 ~ )


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

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


+ 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)))


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( -



C d x varies like exp( - z) in (4.5).

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




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


(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,


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)].*


The plume depth is given by

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

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

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


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

It is usual in describing measurements of the concentration profiles of continuous

ground-level releases to express them in the form
C(X,Z)= G(x,i = 0)exp{ -(Az/cQ')s}


where o:p)is defined by (4.1), so that

A(S) =



Then, from its definition in (4.1), Z(p)is related to asp) by


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


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


a ~ p ) / Z ' p )-h

J2.(1 -in)

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


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 ~ ) ] - .~ .


(b) Concentration downwind of a continuous point source

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,


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
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


J. C. R. HUNT and A. H. WEBER

where U ( ~ ( ~ ) Z ) a p ) d a p )=/ dK,(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.


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

where c = e-"Y = 0.56,


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),


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


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

C ( P ) ~ * ~ Occ/ Q

a l/x,


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)

C(P)u*~$Q ((Tu,/z0)*In(Tu,/zo)}- a (x/z0)-' ln(x/zo),


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)


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),

x lo3.

Therefore (4.28) is unlikely to be observed in its surface layer since T, cy 1*8T',"),if zo N

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



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):


Tt): C(P)





We have seen in section 4(a) that, if the logarithmic profile is approximated by a

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.



(a) Pusquill's collation of atmospheric data

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)



A typical value of s is 1.5, when A ( s ) = 0.859, and we find from (4.19)




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 :


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


P"(x) = x[U(cZ(p))- U(ezo)]- l

= 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.


J. C. R. HUNT and A. H.WEBER

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)}]*,


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*, .
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

up)(x) = a,Yx[2{x - 1 +exp( -x)}]*,


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.

(b) Wind tunnel measurements

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.


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



(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

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

Or 0 3 ( Z

+ lzb)/aw


where 2 is an unknown constant, presumably of order 1. In that case when Z

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


c = C,(x)exp[


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,





1 o5


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).


J. C. R. HUNT and A. H. WEBER

and if ct = 0.5, TLW)aw/z

= 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 %.


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,
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



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.

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.
Batchelor, G. K.


Calder. K.L.


Chatwin, P. C.


Corrsin, S.


Dumas, R., Arzoumanian, E. and

Fulachier, L.


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


Lumley, J. L.


Lumley, J. L. and Panofsky, H.

Pasquill, F.



Poreh, M. and Hsu, K. S.


Robins, A.


Diffusion from sources in a turbulent boundary layer,

Archiv Mechaniki Stosowanj, 3, 661-670.
Diffusion in a field of homogeneous turbulence., I1 The
relative motion of particles, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 48,
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,
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

J. C. R. HUNT and A. H. WEBER

Shlien, P. J. and Corrsin, S.


Dispersion measurements in a turbulent boundary layer,

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 19,

Smith, F. B.


Snyder, W. H. and Lumley, J. L.


Sullivan, P. J.


Taylor, G. I.


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.


The response of a turbulent boundary layer to abrupt

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

Van Ulden, A. P.


Simple estimates for vertical diffusion from sources near the

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


Soc., 20, 196-211.


(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),
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 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
roughness length
constant defining TL
Dirac delta function
dissipation of turbulent energy per unit mass
von Khrmhns constant
gamma function
(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
particle displacements or widths of plume or cloud envelope




r.m.s. fluctuation of the direction of the horizontal wind component

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)


Lagrangian variable