You are on page 1of 20

atmosphere

Article
Validation Study for an Atmospheric Dispersion
Model, Using Effective Source Heights Determined
from Wind Tunnel Experiments in Nuclear
Safety Analysis
Masamichi Oura 1 , Ryohji Ohba 2, * ID
, Alan Robins 3 and Shinsuke Kato 2
1 Nikkenn Sekkei Ltd., Tokyo 102-8117, Japan; masamichi.oura@gmail.com
2 Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 153-8505, Japan; kato@iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp
3 Faculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK;
a.robins@surrey.ac.uk
* Correspondence: ohba@iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp; Tel.: +81-3-5452-6431

Received: 14 February 2018; Accepted: 14 March 2018; Published: 18 March 2018

Abstract: For more than fifty years, atmospheric dispersion predictions based on the joint use of a
Gaussian plume model and wind tunnel experiments have been applied in both Japan and the U.K.
for the evaluation of public radiation exposure in nuclear safety analysis. The effective source height
used in the Gaussian model is determined from ground-level concentration data obtained by a wind
tunnel experiment using a scaled terrain and site model. In the present paper, the concentrations
calculated by this method are compared with data observed over complex terrain in the field, under
a number of meteorological conditions. Good agreement was confirmed in near-neutral and unstable
stabilities. However, it was found to be necessary to reduce the effective source height by 50% in
order to achieve a conservative estimation of the field observations in a stable atmosphere.

Keywords: Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling; wind tunnel experiment; nuclear safety analysis

1. Introduction
Prior to the construction of a nuclear power station, electric power companies in Japan evaluate
potential public radiation exposure by using a combined atmospheric dispersion model, based on a
Gaussian plume model and wind tunnel experiments. For over fifty years, this approach to nuclear
safety analysis has been followed, based on the nuclear regulatory rules [1]. Similar methods have
been applied elsewhere, for example in the U.K. [2].
Because the basic Gaussian plume model assumes atmospheric dispersion over flat terrain,
an effective source height (He’), which is different from the conventional effective stack height
(He = stack height + plume rise), has been used in nuclear safety analysis in Japan and the U.K. to
account for terrain and building effects. Concentration data obtained in wind tunnel experiments with
a scaled terrain model provide one basis for determining He’ [3]. Other adjustments that are applied
include the determination of the effects of plume rise on the effective plume height, either by applying
semi-empirical rise formulae, or again, from wind tunnel simulations. However, here we concentrate
on the terrain correction.
The validity of applying the combined Gaussian plume and wind tunnel modelling to dispersion
over complex terrain has not been extensively tested by field dispersion experiments under
general meteorological conditions (especially non-neutral atmospheric stabilities), because there
are very few observed data on concentrations over complex terrain under non-neutral atmospheric
conditions. To help remedy the situation, we compared predictions from the combined methods with

Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111; doi:10.3390/atmos9030111 www.mdpi.com/journal/atmosphere


Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 2 of 20
Atmosphere 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 20

atmospheric
observed conditions.
data from To help remedy
field dispersion the situation,
tests around we compared
Mt. Tsukuba, predictions
near Tokyo, Japanfrom the combined
[4]. This allowed us
methods with
to evaluate observed
the validity ofdata from field
the method fordispersion
regulatorytests
usearound
under aMt. Tsukuba,
range near Tokyo, Japan
of meteorological [4].
conditions:
This allowed us to evaluate
neutral, stable, and unstable. the validity of the method for regulatory use under a range of
meteorological conditions: neutral, stable, and unstable.
2. The Effective Source Height Gaussian Plume Model
2. The Effective Source Height Gaussian Plume Model
2.1. Japanese Experience
2.1. Japanese Experience
The Gaussian plume model can be derived from the fundamental equation of gas dispersion,
under theTheassumption
Gaussian plume model
of a steady can be derived
emission from air
into uniform theflowfundamental equation
and turbulence offlat
over gasterrain,
dispersion,
giving:
under the assumption of a steady emission into uniform air flow and turbulence over flat terrain,
2 2
" ( ) ( )#
giving: Q

y2

(He0 + z) (He0 − z)
C= exp − − exp − + exp − (1)
2π Uσy σz 2σy 2 (He′ +2σ)z 2 (He′ − ) 2σz 2
= exp − exp − + exp − (1)
2 2 2 2
where
where CCis isthethepollutant concentration, Q
pollutantconcentration, Q the
the emission rate,UUthe
emission rate, themean
meanwind
wind velocity, σthe
velocity, y the
lateral plume spread,
lateral plume spread, σ z the vertical plume spread,
the vertical plume spread, y the lateral distance from plume axis,
the lateral distance from plume axis, z z height
above ground,
height above and He’ and
ground, the effective source height.
He’ the effective Note that
source height. Note (1)that
contains one reflection
(1) contains termterm
one reflection (at the
ground), but can be
(at the ground), butwritten with multiple
can be written reflections,
with multiple to include
reflections, a treatment
to include of reflection
a treatment at both
of reflection at
theboth
ground
the ground and an elevated inversion. An illustration of the Gaussian plume model isby
and an elevated inversion. An illustration of the Gaussian plume model is provided
Figure 1. Simple
provided adaptations
by Figure 1. Simple ofadaptations
the methodoftreat deposition
the method treatprocesses.
deposition processes.

Figure 1. The Gaussian plume model, illustrating the basic concentration distribution.
Figure 1. The Gaussian plume model, illustrating the basic concentration distribution.
At this level of modelling, the plume spreads, and , depend on downwind distance, x,
At this level of modelling, the plume
and the atmospheric stability, and are defined through spreads, σ y and
chartsσz , (as
depend on downwind
in Figure distance,
2) or as empirical
x, formulae
and the atmospheric stability,
[5]. The Gaussian plumeand model
are defined through
has been widely charts
used(asworldwide
in Figure for
2) or
theaspractical
empirical
formulae [5]. The
calculation Gaussian plume
of atmospheric modelas
dispersion, hasinbeen widely used
environmental worldwideoffor
assessments airthe practical
quality calculation
or the safety
assessment ofdispersion,
of atmospheric hazardous as materials. For nuclearassessments
in environmental safety assessment, it has or
of air quality been
theused
safetyforassessment
regulatory of
calculations
hazardous of public
materials. Forradiation exposure,
nuclear safety and for this
assessment, it hasit been
is necessary
used fortoregulatory
treat the entire annual of
calculations
hourly
public meteorological
radiation exposure, conditions
and for this(e.g., 24necessary
it is h × 365 days = 8760
to treat thecases
entireper year).hourly
annual The computational
meteorological
implications
conditions of 24
(e.g., thishrequirement
× 365 daysare that fast-running
= 8760 cases per year).models The arecomputational
essential, and for that reasonofthe
implications this
conventional Gaussian model is used for nuclear safety assessment work.
requirement are that fast-running models are essential, and for that reason the conventional Gaussian The Pasquill-Gifford
scheme
model shown
is used forinnuclear
Figure 2safety
remains widely used
assessment for The
work. operational purposes, scheme
Pasquill-Gifford when few meteorological
shown in Figure 2
data are available; the discrete classification of the atmosphere then proves more
remains widely used for operational purposes, when few meteorological data are available; the discrete practical.
When buildings and terrain exist on and around a nuclear power station site, the actual plume
classification of the atmosphere then proves more practical.
height generally becomes lower than the release height, due to the combined effects of
When buildings and terrain exist on and around a nuclear power station site, the actual plume
inhomogeneous mixing, downwash, and wake effects. Gaussian plume models used for nuclear
height generally becomes lower than the release height, due to the combined effects of inhomogeneous
safety analysis in regulatory assessments in Japan use the effective source height, He’, in these
mixing, downwash, and wake effects. Gaussian plume models used for nuclear safety analysis in
Atmosphere
Atmosphere 2018,
2018, 9, 9,
111x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of320
of 20
Atmosphere 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 20
situations, where He’ is determined from wind tunnel measurements of axial ground level
concentration.
regulatory
situations, where He’He’
assessments is defined
in
is Japan to be
usethe
determined theminimum
effective
from windrelease
source height
height,
tunnel ofHe’,
the experimental
measurements dataground
in theseofsituations,
axial over
wherelevelHe’
level
is terrain that
determined corresponds
from wind to results
tunnel beyond
measurements the boundary
of axial of the
ground nuclear
level
concentration. He’ is defined to be the minimum release height of the experimental data over level power station
concentration. site
He’ over
is the
defined
to terrain
be the
terrain model.
minimum
that In the
corresponds example
release illustrated
height
to results of the by
beyond Figure
experimental
the 3, thedata
boundary boundary
over
of the of theterrain
level
nuclear nuclear
power power
that station
corresponds
station site overisthe
to
at
results1 km,
terrain beyond and
model. In He’
thethe is 90
boundary m, although
exampleofillustrated the actual
the nuclearbypower release
Figure station height
3, thesite is 102 m.
over theofterrain
boundary In a similar
model.power
the nuclear way, He’
In the station is is
example
at determined
illustrated
1 km, and for
He’each
by Figure wind
is3,90
them, direction
boundary
althoughof andthefor
the two release
nuclear
actual powerheights
release height(one
station is for
is at102 normal
1 km,
m. and operations
In aHe’ is 90 m,
similar and
way, the is
although
He’
the other
determined for accidents).
actual release
for eachheight The effective
windis direction
102 m. Inandsource height
a similar
for two way, method is
He’ heights
release thus
is determined designed
(one for to
fornormal provide
each wind a slightly
direction
operations andandthe
for conservative
twofor
release estimate
heightsThe of the
(one foraxial
normal ground level concentration
operations over complex terrain. Comparing
other accidents). effective source height andmethodthe other
is thusfor designed
accidents). toThe effective
provide source
a slightly
wind tunnel data, with and without terrain, provides a consistent methodology, which is unaffected
height methodestimate
conservative is thus designed
of the axialto provide
grounda level slightly conservativeover
concentration estimate
complexof theterrain.
axial ground
Comparinglevel
by any differences that might exist between wind tunnel and Gaussian model dispersion over level
concentration
wind tunnel data, overwith
complex
and terrain.
withoutComparing wind tunnel
terrain, provides data, with
a consistent and without
methodology, terrain,
which provides
is unaffected
terrain.
abyconsistent methodology,
any differences which
that might is unaffected
exist between wind by any differences
tunnel that might
and Gaussian exist dispersion
model between wind overtunnel
level
and Gaussian model dispersion over level terrain.
terrain.

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Pasquill-Gifford chart of plume spreads [5]. (a) Lateral plume spread; (b) Vertical plume
spread. (a) (b)
Figure 2. Pasquill-Gifford chart of plume spreads [5]. (a) Lateral plume spread; (b) Vertical plume
Figure 2. Pasquill-Gifford chart of plume spreads [5]. (a) Lateral plume spread; (b) Vertical plume spread.
spread.

80 m

80 m

Downwind distance X (km)

Figure 3. An example determination of effective source height (He’) [4].


Figure 3. An example determination of effective source height (He’) [4].
Downwind distance X (km)
Wind tunnel experiments and the calculation of public radiation exposure have been conducted by
electric power companies for all nuclear power stations in Japan, following the “Meteorology guideline
Figure
for Nuclear Power 3. An example
Facilities determination
Safety Analysis” of effective
[1] defined source height
by the Nuclear Safety (He’) [4].
Commission. Details of
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 4 of 20

the conditions in wind tunnel experiments are set out in the “Code for Wind Tunnel Experiments to
Calculate the Effective Height of Emitting Source for Nuclear Power Facilities Safety Analysis” [3]
produced by the Atomic Energy Society of Japan.

2.2. Summary of the U.K. Experience


The effective source height concept was extensively used in the U.K. in conjunction with the
dispersion model recommended in the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) “Report R91”,
hereafter referred to as the “R91” model. This Gaussian dispersion model [6] was designed for
the assessment of the dispersion of radioactive emissions at complex sites, such as nuclear power
stations or process plant. Indeed, R91 was developed as a dispersion model for the U.K. nuclear
industry. The effective source height, He’, was derived either from simple empirical formulae,
theoretical models, or wind tunnel tests with a site model [7]. A common approach to building
effects on stack emissions was the so-called “two and half time rule” discussed, for example,
in Robins [8]. Early U.K. nuclear power was based on gas-cooled reactors, largely without stacks,
so the analysis of stack emissions was largely irrelevant for U.K. nuclear power plants but was actually
commonplace for fuel processing facilities.
Robins et al. used wind tunnel experiments to investigate the relative importance of the
parameters in a Gaussian plume model when applied to a complex site, and amongst other things
concluded that, “In adapting Gaussian plume models to building wake dispersion the most important
property to predict accurately is the plume height ...” [9]. Some guidance [10] was provided for
doing this—for example, how best to represent a group of buildings using a single effective
building. A number of largely unpublished field experiments was carried out to test the use of
Gaussian dispersion models with building effects (e.g., see Robins and Hill, [11]).
Hill et al. [12] compared air concentrations of krypton-85 released from the British Nuclear Fuels
Ltd. (BNFL) Sellafield reprocessing plant with predictions from the R91 and atmospheric dispersion
modelling system (ADMS) [12] dispersion models, using the effective stack height approach with the
former. ADMS is an advanced dispersion model, which includes modules that treat building effects
and terrain. The work concluded that R91 could perform to the same standard as ADMS, provided
that the effective stack height was well-chosen. The data used in this work was compiled to provide an
extensive database for use in evaluating models that treat dispersion from stacks at complex sites [13].
Effective source heights can be determined from ground-level, center-line concentrations,
or ground-level, cross-wind integrated concentrations. The former has been used in Japan and the
latter in the U.K. Lateral spread in the atmosphere is influenced both by boundary layer turbulence and
wind direction unsteadiness (dependent on average time and wind speed); however, only the former
can be simulated in the wind tunnel. Consequently, an effective height based on the axial profile of
ground-level concentration is, in part, making an adjustment for effects in addition to the aerodynamic
influence of the terrain and buildings on stack plume height. The problem can be demonstrated by
adapting Equation (1), which gives the following expressions for the axial distributions of ground level
concentration, C(x,0,0), and cross-wind integrated concentration, CI (x,0,0).

He02
 
Q
C ( x, 0, 0) = exp − 2 (2)
πUσy σz 2σz
Z ∞
He02
r  
2 Q
C I ( x, 0, 0) = C ( x, y, 0)dy = exp − 2 (3)
−∞ π Uσz 2σz
Use of CI only requires that the wind tunnel simulation provides a good representation of vertical
spread, which is indeed the case, and therefore CI is more reliable. Lateral spread in the atmosphere
reflects not only turbulence conditions but also wind direction unsteadiness, and the latter is not
reproduced in wind tunnel simulations. This inadequacy in wind tunnel modelling then leads to
errors in the effective source height determined from the wind tunnel data. Complex terrain frequently
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 5 of 20

leads to enhanced plume spread due to meandering, especially in light wind conditions. The reduced
ground level concentrations that result can lead to an effective source height from Equation (2) that is
greater than the value required simply to treat flow deflections.
In the analysis that follows, He’ is determined based on the axial ground level concentrations of
Equation (2) in order to evaluate the scheme used in Japan.

2.3. Computational Fluid Dynamics-Based Approaches


Although not the focus of this paper, it must be noted in passing that computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) simulations have recently been shown to be as reliable as wind tunnel modelling in
treating dispersion in the presence of site buildings (e.g., [14]). To achieve this requires high-quality
CFD work and, inevitably, high-power computing resources. Ensuring quality in CFD work in general
has been seen as key to the uptake of the technology in many industrial sectors; e.g., see the European
Research Community on Flow, Turbulence and Combustion (ERCOFTAC) guidelines [15]. In Japan,
new guidelines for using CFD simulations to obtain effective source heights at nuclear power
facilities have been established by the Japan Atomic Power Society [16]. As discussed in Section 2.1,
the extent of the calculations needed in nuclear safety assessment implies that CFD methods
(or wind tunnel methods, for that matter) are far too computationally resource-intensive for practical
applications. Assessments require a radiation dose as an end-point, and the need to treat the effects
of radiation and decay in three-dimensional space makes it inevitable that final environmental
assessments remain based on relatively simple Gaussian models, making use of parameters such
as effective source height derived from CFD or wind tunnel simulations.

3. Field Experiment
Mt. Tsukuba is an isolated hill of 876 m (Elevation Level) near Tokyo. The field dispersion
experiments were conducted by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) in 1989 and 1990 [4] under
a wide range of meteorological conditions (wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability),
as shown in Table 1. Ground level concentrations were measured at 35 points within a range of 10 km
from the source. The perflurocarbon (PFC) tracer gas was released from a balloon at a height of
around 100 m. The release and sampling times were both 30 min. Meteorological data, including wind
velocity, turbulence intensity, temperature, and solar radiation flux, were obtained at ground and upper
levels. Atmospheric stability was categorized by wind speed and solar radiation flux measurements,
as shown in Table 2.
Examples of concentration distributions that characterize the full set of results are shown in
Figure 4, for a 30 min average time. The source point was located near the upwind foothill of
Mt. Tsukuba.
Run No. 89-3 was a neutral (category D) case, and the distribution was nearly symmetrical and
Gaussian. Run No. 90-5 was a stable (category F) and calm wind case, resulting in a concentration
distribution that was extremely complex, with tracer gas observed in all directions around the
source. High concentration appeared near the source point, due to effects of the stagnant air flow
caused by the stable stratification. Run No. 90-8 was an unstable (category B) case, and the distribution
was seen to be very broad. Meteorological conditions, defined by wind speed and temperature
profile, varied widely over the full set of experiments. All observed data were included in the JAERI
(Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute) report ([4], in Japanese). The wind tunnel experiment was
conducted under the standard neutral condition recommended by the Atomic Energy Society of Japan
for wind tunnel experiments in nuclear safety assessments [3].
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 6 of 20

Table 1. Experimental conditions for the gas release and meteorology corresponding to the near-neutral and the non-neutral stabilities in the field experiments [4].

Experimental Condition for the Gas Release and Meteorology Corresponding to


Run No. Near-Neutral Stability in the Field Experiments the Non-Neutral Stability in the Field Experiments
89-1 89-2 89-3 89-5 89-7 90-4 90-5 90-6 90-8
14 November 15 November 15 November 17 November 20 November 11 November 12 November 13 November 15 November
Year/Month/date
1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1990 1990 1990
Sampling time (Japanese
14:00–14:30 11:00–11:30 15:30–16:00 12:00–1230 15:30–16:00 21:00–21:30 20:00–20:30 14:30–15:00 12:00–12:30
standard time)
Release height (m) 116 89 102 90 119 102 130 107 109
Wind speed (m/s) 4.5 5.2 4.5 3.0 3.6 1.5 0.1 2.3 2.0
Wind direction (deg.) 98 69 76 47 323 324 239 149 134
Atmospheric stability D D D D C F F B B
Fluctuation of wind
direction (deg.) for 16.6 28.8 21.0 37.1 25.1 45.3 92.7 27.9 43.1
sampling time (30 min)

Table 2. Categorization of atmospheric stability [5].

Radiation Flux in Daytime (kw/m2 ) Radiation Flux in Nighttime (kw/m2 )


Wind Speed (m/s)
>0.60 0.30 ~0.60 0.15 ~0.30 0.15> −0.02> −0.04 ~−0.02 −0.04>
<2 A B B D D F F
2~3 B B C D D E F
3~4 B C C D D D E
4~6 C D D D D D D
6< C D D D D D D
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 7 of 20
Atmosphere 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure Figure 4. Contour


4. Contour map of 30 map
minof 30 min ground
averaged averaged ground
level level concentrations
concentrations (ppt)
(ppt) [4]. (a) Run No.[4]. (a)(D);
89-3 Run
(b) RunNo.
No.89-3
90-5(D);
(F); (b) RunNo.
(c) Run No.90-8
90-5(B).
(F); (c) Run No. 90-8 (B).

4. Wind
4. Wind Tunnel
Tunnel Experiments
Experiments
The
The windtunnel
wind tunnelexperiments
experiments were
were conducted
conducted inin the
the year
year2000
2000by
bythe
theJapan
JapanAtomic
Atomic Energy
Energy
Agency, Tokai, Japan and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., Nagasaki, Japan, using a
Agency, Tokai, Japan and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., Nagasaki, Japan, using a scaledscaled terrain
terrain
model of Mt. Tsukuba, as shown in Figure 5. The outline of the experimental conditions are
model of Mt. Tsukuba, as shown in Figure 5. The outline of the experimental conditions are as follows: as
follows:
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 8 of 20

Atmosphere 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20


Atmosphere 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20
• Model scale: 1:5000
 Model
•  Wind scale:
scale:61:5000
speed:
Model m/s (free-stream), turbulence intensity: 2.5% (in upper layer), boundary layer
1:5000
 Wind speed:
 thickness: 800 m
Wind speed: 66 (full
m/s
m/s (free-stream),
scale), power turbulence
(free-stream), intensity:
law exponent:
turbulence 1/7 2.5%
intensity: 2.5% (in
(in upper
upper layer),
layer), boundary
boundary layer
layer
• thickness:
Plume spread
thickness: 800
800 m (full
without scale),
m (full terrain: power law exponent:
σy (category
scale), power 1/7
D~F) and
law exponent: 1/7 σz (C~ D)
 Plume spread without terrain: (category D~F) and (C~D)
•  Wind
Plume spread
tunnel testwithout
section:terrain:
3 m width,(category D~F)
2 m height and
and (C~D)
25 m length.

 Wind
Wind tunnel
tunnel test
test section:
section: 33 m
m width,
width, 22 m
m height
height and
and 25
25 m
m length.
length.
Wind tunnel experiments were conducted to validate the effective source height method under
Wind
Wind tunnel
tunnel experiments
experiments were
were conducted
conducted to
to validate
validate the effective source
source height method under
the same conditions of wind speed and wind direction as inthe
theeffective
field experiment. height
Themethod
boundary underlayer
the
the same
same conditions
conditions of
of wind
wind speed
speed and
and wind
wind direction
direction as
as in
in the
the field
field experiment.
experiment. The
The boundary
boundary
profile
layerwas determined from the “Code for Wind Tunnel Experiments to Calculate the Effective Height
layer profile
profile was
was determined
determined from from the
the “Code
“Code forfor Wind
Wind Tunnel
Tunnel Experiments
Experiments to to Calculate
Calculate thethe
of Effective
Emitting Source for Nuclear Power Facilities Safety Analysis” [3],Safety
not the field data. The windfield
tunnel
Effective Height of Emitting Source for Nuclear Power Facilities Safety Analysis” [3], not
Height of Emitting Source for Nuclear Power Facilities Analysis” [3], not the
the field
profiles
data. of wind velocity and turbulence intensity are shown in Figure are 6, and theinplume spread in
data. The
The wind
wind tunnel
tunnel profiles
profiles of
of wind
wind velocity
velocity and
and turbulence
turbulence intensity
intensity are shown
shown in Figure
Figure 6,
6, and
and
Figure
the 7. Atmospheric stability conditions in the wind tunnel were neutral, i.e., there was a uniform
the plume
plume spread
spread in
in Figure
Figure 7.7. Atmospheric
Atmospheric stability
stability conditions
conditions inin the
the wind
wind tunnel
tunnel were
were neutral,
neutral, i.e.,
i.e.,
temperature
there was aprofile.
uniform temperature profile.
there was a uniform temperature profile.

Figure5.5.1:5000
1:5000 scalemodel
model of Mt.
Mt. Tsukuba
Tsukuba installed
installedin
inthe
thewind
windtunnel
tunnel[4].
Figure 5. 1:5000scale
Figure scale model of
of Mt. Tsukuba installed in the wind tunnel [4].
[4].

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 6. Vertical profiles of mean wind speed and turbulence in the wind tunnel flow ahead of the
Figure 6. Vertical profiles of mean wind speed and turbulence in the wind tunnel flow ahead of the
Figure Vertical
6. model
terrain [4].profiles
(a) Windof velocity
mean wind speed andintensity.
(b) Turbulence turbulence in the wind tunnel flow ahead of the
terrain model [4]. (a) Wind velocity (b) Turbulence intensity.
terrain model [4]. (a) Wind velocity (b) Turbulence intensity.
Vertical
Vertical plume
plume spread
spread corresponds
corresponds well
well with
with category
category CC to
to DD of
of neutral
neutral stability,
stability, as
as shown
shown inin
Figure 7b,
Vertical
Figure while
7b, plume lateral spread
spreadspread
while lateral corresponds
corresponds with
well with
corresponds category
withcategory D
categoryCDtototo F.
D F. The
of The implication
neutral stability,isasthat
implication is the
shown
that the in
standard
Figure
standard deviation
7b, while of
lateral
deviation horizontal
of spread wind
wind direction
corresponds
horizontal in
in the
the wind
with category
direction D totunnel
wind F. Thewas
tunnel smaller
smaller than
implication
was the
is that
than standard
thethe standard
standard
three-minute
deviation of field average
horizontal wind value associated
direction in the with
wind the Pasquill-Gifford
tunnel was smaller
three-minute field average value associated with the Pasquill-Gifford chart. chart.
than the standard three-minute
field average value associated with the Pasquill-Gifford chart.
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 9 of 20
Atmosphere 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20

(a)

(b)
Figure 7. Plume spreads over a flat terrain obtained from wind tunnel simulations [4]. (a) Lateral
Figure 7. Plume spreads over a flat terrain obtained from wind tunnel simulations [4]. (a) Lateral
plume spread; (b) Vertical plume spread.
plume spread; (b) Vertical plume spread.

Ground level concentration was measured at about 400 points, over a full scale range of 10 km
Ground
from level Some
the source. concentration
exampleswas measured at distributions
of concentration about 400 points, over ainfull
are shown scale8 range
Figure (solid of 10 km
lines),
from the source.
compared Some
with the examples
field data (dashedof concentration distributions
lines). It is apparent are 8a–c
in Figure shownthatinlateral
Figure 8 (solid
plume lines),
spread
compared
in the windwith the field
tunnel data
is less than (dashed lines).
in the field It isThis
data. apparent indifferences
reflects Figure 8a–cbetween
that lateral plume spread
the fluctuations in in
thewind
winddirection
tunnel isinlessthe than
windintunnel
the field
anddata. This
in the reflects
field. differences
The mean between the
wind direction fluctuations
in the wind tunnel in wind
is
steady, and
direction in the as wind
a result the tracer
tunnel and ingasthe
distribution
field. The is narrower
mean windthan in thein
direction field
thedata.
windMeandering of
tunnel is steady,
andtheaswind direction
a result the tracer in the
gas field (previously
distribution discussed
is narrower thanin inSection 2.2)data.
the field is the main cause
Meandering of the
of the wind
enhanced lateral spread. Under the stable condition of Run No. 90-5 (category
direction in the field (previously discussed in Section 2.2) is the main cause of the enhanced lateral F), this discrepancy
becomes
spread. greater
Under thedue to the
stable additional
condition of meandering
Run No. 90-5 related to theF),
(category stagnant regions appearing
this discrepancy becomes around
greater
the foothills of the mountain. It should also be noted that the field experiment
due to the additional meandering related to the stagnant regions appearing around the foothills of the returned a single
realization
mountain. It of dispersion
should also be behavior
noted thatin conditions where significant
the field experiment variability
returned a singlecould be expected.
realization of dispersion
It should be noted that extensive meteorological data was observed around Mt. Tsukuba on
behavior in conditions where significant variability could be expected.
the ground and by pilot-balloon. These does not be shown in the analysis, as the purpose of this
It should be noted that extensive meteorological data was observed around Mt. Tsukuba on the
study was to validate the use of the effective source height scheme—i.e., the end point was
ground and by pilot-balloon. These does not be shown in the analysis, as the purpose of this study was
concentration levels. Consequently, there were no flow field measurements over the scaled model
to validate the use of the effective source height scheme—i.e., the end point was concentration levels.
in the wind tunnel.
Consequently, there were no flow field measurements over the scaled model in the wind tunnel.
Previous work (e.g., [17]) has shown how the variance of the wind direction fluctuation (σθ)
andPrevious
the lateral work
plume(e.g., [17]) has
spread (σy) shown
in field how the variance
conditions increaseofwith
the wind direction
the average timefluctuation (σθ ) and
of the observed
thedata,
lateral plume in
as shown spread
Figure (σ9.
y ) The
in field conditions
original Pasquill increase
chart [5]with
wasthe averagefrom
compiled timefield
of the observed
data averaged data,
asover
shown in Figure 9. The original Pasquill chart [5] was compiled
just a few minutes. Therefore, in environmental assessments, the average time of the windfrom field data averaged over
just a few minutes. Therefore, in environmental assessments, the average time of the wind tunnel
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 10 of 20

Atmosphere 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20


experiment and basic Gaussian plume model have been generally considered to be equivalent to
tunnel
3 min. experiment
Because and basic
the average time Gaussian
of the fieldplume model at
experiment have
Mt. been generally
Tsukuba was 30considered to be
min, it is necessary to
equivalent to 3 min. Because the average time of the field experiment at Mt. Tsukuba was 30 min,
consider corrections based on a meandering factor M, defined in Equation (4), in order to use the wind it
is necessary
tunnel data andtoGaussian
consider corrections
plume model based on a meandering
together factor
in estimating theM, defined in Equation
concentration (4), inThe use
in the field.
order to use the wind tunnel data and Gaussian plume model together in estimating the
of the meandering factor is explained below in the Section 5.2.
concentration in the field. The use of the meandering factor is explained below in the Section 5.2.
σθ30
M== (4) (4)
σθ3

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 8. Comparison of concentration contour maps from the wind tunnel (solid lines) and field
Figure 8. Comparison of concentration contour maps from the wind tunnel (solid−2 lines)6 and field
(dashed lines) [4], where numerical values indicate normalized concentrations, UC/Q (m ) × 10 . (a)
(dashed lines) [4], where numerical values indicate normalized concentrations, UC/Q (m−2 ) × 106 .
Run No. 89-3 (Neutral: D); (b) Run No. 90-5 (Stable: F); (c) Run No. 90-8 (Unstable: B).
(a) Run No. 89-3 (Neutral: D); (b) Run No. 90-5 (Stable: F); (c) Run No. 90-8 (Unstable: B).
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 11 of 20
Atmosphere
Atmosphere 2018,
2018, 9, x 9,
FORx FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 11 20
11 of of 20
Atmosphere 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20

Figure 9. The dependence of the variance of wind direction on average time [17].
Figure
Figure
Figure 9.
The
9.9.The The dependence
dependence
dependence of
ofofthe the
the variance
variance
variance of wind
ofofwind
wind direction
direction
direction on average
ononaverage
average time
time
time [17].
[17].
[17].
5. Analysis
5.Analysis
Analysis
5.5.Analysis
5.1. Terrain Effect
5.1.
5.1.5.1.Terrain
Terrain
Terrain Effect
Effect
Effect
As already explained in the Introduction, the effective source height determined from wind
AsAsAs already
already
already explained
explained
explained in
in the Introduction,
inused
the the Introduction,
Introduction, the effective
the source
effective height
source determined
height from wind
determined from tunnel
wind
tunnel experiments has been to calculate the effective
ground source
level concentrations height determined
for regulatoryfrom wind
purposes
experiments
tunnel
tunnel experiments
in Japan, has
experiments been
and to ahas used
has
been
lesser to
been calculate
used
usedintothe
degree to ground
calculate
calculate
U.K. In groundlevel concentrations
ground
the U.K.,level level for
concentrations
concentrations
this method regulatory
has beenfor for purposes
regulatory
regulatory
mainly associated in Japan,
purposes
purposes
with
inand toeffects
inthe
Japan, aand
Japan, lesser
andof complex site buildings, whereas the effects of terrain have been a focus in Japan, effects
to degree
ato a
lesser in
lesser the
degree U.K.
degree in In
in
the the
U.K. U.K.,
U.K.
In this
In
the themethod
U.K.,
U.K., this has
this been
method
method mainly
has has
been associated
been mainly
mainly with the
associated
associated with
and with
of complex
the effects
the effects
this paper site
of
of complex buildings,
complex
addressessite sitewhereas
buildings,
thebuildings, the
latter use.whereas effects
whereas
The aim the of
here, terrain
the effects
effects haveof
of terrain
therefore, been
terrain
is nothave a focus
have in
been Japan,
been a data
to compare a focus
focusfromand in
in Japan,this paper
Japan,
the wind andand
addresses
this
this tunnelpaper
paper and the latter
addresses use.
field directly,
addresses The
the
the latter aim
latter
butuse. here,
use. therefore,
The
to determine
The aim here,aim is not
here,
the validity to compare
therefore,
therefore, is data
not
of aiscalculation from
to
not to compare the
compare
schemedata wind tunnel
data
usingfrom from
the the and
the
effective
windfield
wind
directly,
tunnel
tunnel andbut
source and tofield
height,
field determine
directly,
He’,
directly, the
in nuclear
but validity
but
to site of a assessments.
to determine
safety
determine calculation
thethevalidity scheme
validityof ausing
Theaofdata thescheme
calculation
analysis
calculation effective
scheme
scheme source
is using theheight,
summarised
using the He’,
effective
in
effective
in nuclear
source
Table site
height,
3: safety
He’, assessments.
in nuclear The
site data
safety analysis
assessments. scheme The is
source height, He’, in nuclear site safety assessments. The data analysis scheme is summarised in in summarised
data analysis in Table
scheme 3:
is summarised
(1)Table
Table (1)3:
3: wind tunnel ground-level concentration data are compared between cases with and without
First,
First, wind tunnel ground-level concentration data are compared between cases with and
(1) terrain.
First, The
(1) First, wind terrain.
without wind effective
The
tunnel
tunnel source
effective height
ground-level
ground-level source He’ is derived
height
concentration
concentration He’ data fromarethese
is derived
data arefrom comparisons.
these comparisons.
compared
compared between
between casescaseswith withandand
(2)
(2) withoutSecond,
without
Second, calculated
terrain.
TheThe
calculated
terrain. results
effective
results
effective using
using
source the
source
the effective
heightHe’He’
effective
height source
issource
derived height
is derived
height
from He’
from
He’ are
thesethese
are compared with
comparisons.
compared
comparisons. the field
with the field
(2) observation
Second, dataunder
calculated under neutral
results using stability.
the effective source height He’ are compared with
observation data neutral stability.
(2) Second, calculated results using the effective source height He’ are compared with thethe field
field
(3) Finally,
observation
(3) observation
Finally, calculated
data
calculated results
under
results using
neutral
using the effective
stability. source height He’ are compared
the effective source height He’ are compared with the field with the field
data under neutral stability.
observation data under non-neutral stability. The evaluation is based on comparing Result-1
(3) Finally, calculated results using thethe
(3) Finally,
observation calculated
data underresults using
non-neutral effective
stability.
effective The source
sourceevaluationheight
height is
He’ He’
areare
based on compared
comparing
compared with withthethe
Result-1 field
and
field
and Result-2
observation with
data ground-level
under non-neutralconcentration
stability. field
Thedata measured
evaluation isat Mt.
based Tsukuba.
on comparing Result-1
Result-2 with
observation dataground-level
under non-neutral concentration fieldThe
stability. data measuredisatbased
evaluation Mt. Tsukuba.
on comparing Result-1
andand Result-2
Result-2 withwith ground-level
ground-level concentration
concentration fieldfield
datadata measured
measured
Table 3. Schematic representation of the calculation scheme for nuclear safety assessment.
at Mt.
at Mt. Tsukuba.
Tsukuba.
Table 3. Schematic representation of the calculation scheme for nuclear safety assessment.
Table
Table 3. Schematic
3. Schematic representationWithout
representation
of the Terrain
of the calculation
calculation scheme
scheme for for With
nuclear
nuclear Terrain
safety
safety assessment.
assessment.
Tools
NeutralWithoutNon-Neutral
Terrain Neutral
WithWith Non-Neutral
Terrain
Tools Without
Without Terrain
Terrain With Terrain
Terrain
Tools
Tools Wind Tunnel-1 Wind Tunnel-2
Wind tunnel Neutral
Neutral Non-Neutral
Non-Neutral Neutral
Neutral Non-NeutralNon-Neutral
Neutral Non-Neutral Neutral Non-Neutral
experiment Wind Tunnel-1
Wind Tunnel-1 Wind
Wind Tunnel-2
Tunnel-2
Wind tunnel Wind Tunnel-1 Wind Tunnel-2
He’
Wind tunnel
Wind tunnel experiment
Calculation of Gaussian
experiment
experiment Result-2
plume model He’He’
He’
Result-1
Calculation
Calculation of Gaussian
of Gaussian
Calculation of Gaussian Result-2
Result-2
Result-2
plume
Results
plume model
plume modelwith the Gaussian plume model, using the
calculated
model Result-1source
effective
Result-1
Result-1 height, were
compared with the field data for ground-level, plume axis concentrations, as shown in Figure 10.
Two Results calculated
calculated
Results profiles with
arethe the
shown Gaussian plume
in eachplume
case: one model,
usingusingusing
the thethe
effective effective source
sourcesource
height He’height,
(dashedwere
Resultscalculated
calculatedwith with Gaussian
the Gaussian model,
plume model, using effective
the effective height,
source were
height,
line),
compared
compared and the
withwithother
the
thewith the
field actual
field
datadata release
for for height
ground-level,H
ground-level,0 (solid line).
plume
plume axis
axisplume concentrations,
concentrations, as shown
as shown in Figure
inasFigure 10.
were compared the field data for ground-level, axis concentrations, shown10.in
Two Two calculated
calculated profiles are shown in each case: one using the effective source height He’ (dashed
Figure 10. Twoprofiles are shown
calculated profilesinareeach case: in
shown one using
each theone
case: effective
usingsource height source
the effective He’ (dashed
height
line),
line), and and
thethe
otherother
the the actual
actual release
release height
height H H0 (solid line).
0 (solid line).
He’ (dashed line), and the other the actual release height H0 (solid line).
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 12 of 20
Atmosphere 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 10. Plume axis concentration distribution for each atmospheric stability. Predictions with
Figure 10. Plume axis concentration distribution for each atmospheric stability. Predictions with actual
actual source height (solid line); effective source height (dashed line). (a) Run No. 89-3 (neutral: D);
source height (solid line); effective source height (dashed line). (a) Run No. 89-3 (neutral: D); (b) Run
(b) Run No. 90-8 (unstable: B); (c) Run No. 90-5 (stable: F).
No. 90-8 (unstable: B); (c) Run No. 90-5 (stable: F).

It is apparent from Figure 10 that the calculated results using either He’ or H0 overestimate the
It isdata,
field apparent
exceptfrom
in Figure
the case10 that the calculated
of stable atmosphericresults using (category
stability either He’F,orRun
H0 overestimate
No. 90-5). Athe
field data, except
conservative in the case
estimate is a of stable atmospheric
necessary condition for stability (category
regulatory nuclear F, Run
safetyNo. 90-5). A conservative
assessment purposes,
estimate
and in is a necessary
that sense the condition
use of eitherfor He’
regulatory nuclear
or H0 would safetyadequate
appear assessment purposes,
for neutral andand in that
unstable
sense the use of
atmospheric either He’
stabilities. The or H0 reason
main wouldfor appear adequate
the degree for neutral in
of overestimation and unstable
these cases isatmospheric
the wind
directionThe
stabilities. meandering effect for
main reason discussed earlier.
the degree ofInoverestimation
the stable case, underestimation
in these cases isresults because
the wind the
direction
model does
meandering not capture
effect discusseddrainage
earlier.flow or stable
In the other stability effects over theresults
case, underestimation surfacebecause
of the mountain
the modeland does
the stagnant region near the foothills. These issues are discussed below.
not capture drainage flow or other stability effects over the surface of the mountain and the stagnant
region near the foothills. These issues are discussed below.
5.2. Meandering Effect
5.2. Meandering Effect
The treatment of meandering is based on the hourly-averaged field data observed by
The treatment
Sagendorf [18] andofformulated
meandering is based
in the on theRegulatory
U.S. Nuclear hourly-averaged field data
Guide NUREG 1.145observed
[19] as a by
Sagendorf [18] and formulated in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Guide NUREG 1.145 [19] as
correction factor, M1, as shown in Figure 11. Each curve in the figure was determined from a correction
the
factor, M1,
minimum of the envelope of the observed data, and thus provides a conservative estimateofofthe
as shown in Figure 11. Each curve in the figure was determined from the minimum
envelope of the observed data, and thus provides a conservative estimate of concentration. It is found
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 13 of 20

Atmosphere 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20


from Figure 11 that the correction factor in stable conditions (categories E, F, or G) becomes larger
concentration.
than It is found
in neutral (category from
D). TheFigure 11 thatfactor
correction the correction factor
for unstable in stable conditions
conditions (categories
is very nearly E, is not
1.0, and
F, or G) becomes larger than in neutral (category D). The correction factor for unstable conditions is
actually defined in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Guide NUREG 1.145 [19]. It seems that the correction
very nearly 1.0, and is not actually defined in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Guide NUREG 1.145 [19].
becomes small when turbulence diffusion is large under unstable conditions. Note that the US-NRC
It seems that the correction becomes small when turbulence diffusion is large under unstable
useconditions.
the term “correction factor” instead of “meandering factor”, partly because the effects of nuclear
Note that the US-NRC use the term “correction factor” instead of “meandering factor”,
power
partlystation buildings
because wereofincluded
the effects nuclear in the data.
power As buildings
station discussedwere
in [12,20,21],
included the meandering
in the data. As factor
discussed in [12,20,21], the meandering factor depends on wind velocity, stability, release M1,
depends on wind velocity, stability, release height, terrain, etc. The meandering factor, from the
height,
U.S.terrain,
Nuclearetc.Regulatory
The meanderingGuide NUREG
factor, 1.145
M1, from the[19],
U.S.was derived
Nuclear from aGuide
Regulatory number of field
NUREG experiments
1.145 [19],
wasa derived
under range offrom a number ofconditions
meteorological field experiments
at actualunder a range
nuclear powerof stations,
meteorological conditions
and has at
been extensively
actual
used nuclear
for the power
nuclear stations,
safety and has been extensively used for the nuclear safety assessment.
assessment.

10
D
Correction Factor M (-)

E
F
G

1
1 10
Wind speed (m/sec)

Figure 11. Correction factor, M1, defined by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Guide (NUREG) 1.145 [19].
Figure 11. Correction factor, M1, defined by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Guide (NUREG) 1.145 [19].

In the Mt. Tsukuba field experiments, the variance of wind direction was measured over the
In the Mt. Tsukuba
concentration sampling field experiments,
time (30 the variance
min.) by an ultrasonic of wind lifted
anemometer, direction was measured
by a balloon to the sameover the
concentration
height as thesampling time
gas release, as (30 min.)
shown by an1.ultrasonic
in Table anemometer,
The data were analysed lifted by athe
to obtain balloon to the same
meandering
factor,
height M2,gas
as the from Equations
release, (4) andin
as shown (5); the standard
Table 3-min
1. The data average
were deviation
analysed of wind
to obtain the direction
meandering factor,
M2, from Equations (4) and (5); the standard 3-min average deviation of wind directionspread
was not observed, so it was calculated from the 3-min average lateral plume σθ3 was not
at 1000
observed, so itmwas
on the Pasquil chart
calculated from in
theFigure
3-min7.average
The meandering factors
lateral plume M2, were
spread found
σy3 at 1000tombeonmuch
the Pasquil
larger than the correction factor M1 from Figure 11, especially under stable conditions, as shown in
chart in Figure 7. The meandering factors M2, were found to be much larger than the correction factor
Table 4.
M1 from Figure 11, especially under stable conditions, as shown in Table 4.
2= (4)
σ
M2 = θ30 (4)
180 σθ3 (5)
= ∙ /1000

180
σθ3 = ·σy3 /1000 (5)
Table 4. Correction factors M2 usedπfor the calculation of concentrations.

Lateral Plume Spread


Table 4. Correction factors M2 used for the calculation
Meanderingof concentrations.
Correction
Run No. Stability (m)
Factor (M2) Factor (M1)
σy3 σy30 σθ30
89-1 D
Lateral
76.3
Plume
299.5
Spread
16.6
(m) Meandering
3.9 1.4Correction
Run No. Stability
89-2 D 76.3
σ y3 508.2
σ y30 28.8σ θ30 Factor
6.7 (M2) 1.2Factor (M1)
89-3 D 76.3 374.2 21.0 4.9 1.4
89-1 D 76.3 299.5 16.6 3.9 1.4
89-5 D 76.3 651.7 37.1 8.5 1.75
89-2 D 76.3 508.2 28.8 6.7 1.2
89-7 C 104.9 450.2 25.1 4.3 1.0
89-3 D 76.3 374.2 21.0 4.9 1.4
90-4 F 38.1 791.2 45.3 20.7 4.0
89-5 D 76.3 651.7 37.1 8.5 1.75
90-5 F 38.1 1617.5 92.7 42.4 4.0
89-7 C 104.9 450.2 25.1 4.3 1.0
90-6 B 152.6 510.0 27.9 3.3 1.0
90-4 F 38.1 791.2 45.3 20.7 4.0
90-8 B 152.6 767.2 43.1 5.0 1.0
90-5 F 38.1 1617.5 92.7 42.4 4.0
90-6 B 152.6 510.0 27.9 3.3 1.0
90-8 B 152.6 767.2 43.1 5.0 1.0
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 14 of 20
Atmosphere 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 20

These factors
These werewere
factors thenthen
usedused
to reduce the predicted
to reduce ground
the predicted levellevel
ground concentration values,
concentration andand
values, the
comparison with the data was repeated. Example results based on the resulting effective source
the comparison with the data was repeated. Example results based on the resulting effective source heights
are shown
heightsinare
Figure
shown 12.inThis confirmed
Figure 12. This that:
confirmed that:

(1) (1) Calculated


Calculated results
results basedbased
on theon the effective
effective sourceand
source height height and including
including the meandering
the meandering correction
correction
factors M1 or M2factors
agreeM1 or M2 agree
reasonably wellreasonably welldata,
with the field withexcept
the field data,
under except
stable under stable
conditions,
(2) The conditions,
results using M1 overestimate the field data (i.e., are conservative), except under
(2) The
stable results using M1 overestimate the field data (i.e., are conservative), except under stable
conditions.
conditions.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 12. Comparison of the field data with the model predictions, based on the effective stack
Figure 12. Comparison of the field data with the model predictions, based on the effective stack height,
height, and including corrections for meandering (i.e., using M1, solid line, or M2, dashed line). (a)
and including corrections for meandering (i.e., using M1, solid line, or M2, dashed line). (a) Run
Run No. 89-3 (D); (b) Run No. 90-8 (B); (c) Run No. 90-5 (F).
No. 89-3 (D); (b) Run No. 90-8 (B); (c) Run No. 90-5 (F).

It can be said from these comparisons between M1 and M2 that M1 is suitable under
It can be saidstability
near-neutral from theseforcomparisons
nuclear safety between M1 andwork,
assessment M2 that M1 is
where a suitable underestimation
conservative near-neutral
is
stability for nuclear
necessary. safetyitassessment
However, is necessary work, where athe
to consider conservative
scheme to estimation is necessary.
adjust the effective However,
source height
it is necessary
under stable to conditions,
consider the likescheme
those oftoRun
adjust
No. the
90-5.effective source height under stable conditions,
like those of Run No. 90-5.
5.3. Effects of Stable Conditions
5.3. Effects of Stable Conditions
A number of special flow phenomena can arise in stable flows over terrain, particularly when
A number
winds are of special
light [19].flow
As phenomena
the degree of canstratification
arise in stable flows over
increases, theterrain,
verticalparticularly
displacement when
of
winds streamlines decreases,
are light [19]. As theuntil
degreetheyofgo around three
stratification dimensional
increases, terrain horizontally
the vertical displacement inof
very strongly
streamlines
decreases, until they go around three dimensional terrain horizontally in very strongly stable flows
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 15 of 20

Atmosphere 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20

around three-dimensional terrain. There is also the likelihood that, at certain critical conditions,
stable flows around three-dimensional terrain. There is also the likelihood that, at certain critical
internal wave
Atmosphere 2018,motions can REVIEW
9, x FOR PEER be triggered, in which case large deflections can occur, often associated 15 of 20
conditions, internal wave motions can be triggered, in which case large deflections can occur, often
with rollers (regions of recirculating flow) downwind [22,23]. A further class of flows is associated
associated
stable with rollers (regions of recirculating flow) downwind. [22], [23] Athat,
further class ofcritical
flows
with
is the flows
associated
around
downslopewith the
three-dimensional
drainage
downslopeof cool air terrain.
drainagecloseof
There
tocool
theair is also the
surface,
close termed
to
likelihood
the katabatic
surface,
at certain
flow.
termed Both classes
katabatic flow. of
conditions,
flow can internal
include regionswaveof motions
stagnant can beupwind
flow, triggered, or in which caseoflarge
downwind the deflections
terrain. The can occur, often
consequences
Both classes
associated of flow
with can(regions
rollers includeofregions of stagnant
recirculating flow)flow, upwind[22],
downwind. or downwind of the
[23] A further terrain.
class Thefor
of flows
effective source height
consequences evaluation
for effective sourceof Gaussian
height plumeofmodel
evaluation Gaussian are plume
clearlymodel
likely are
to be difficult
clearly likelyunder
to
is associated with the downslope drainage of cool air close to the surface, termed katabatic flow.
these
be stable conditions.
difficult under these stable conditions.
Both classes of flow can include regions of stagnant flow, upwind or downwind of the terrain. The
ForFor
example,
example, Ohba
Ohbaetetal.source
al.[24]
[24]conducted
conducted flow
flow visualisation
visualisation studiesof ofplume
plumebehaviour
behaviour passing
consequences for effective height evaluation of Gaussianstudies
plume model passing
are clearly likely to
over a three-dimensional
over a three-dimensional hill hill
in a inthermally
a stratified
thermally wind wind
stratified tunnel.tunnel.
FigureFigure
13 shows13 images
shows obtained
images
be difficult under these stable conditions.
under neutral
obtained andneutral
under
For example,
stable
Ohba et
stabilities.
and stable
al. [24]
In particular,
stabilities.
conducted flow
it can be seen
In visualisation
particular, that
it studies
can the
be of
seenheight of the
thatbehaviour
plume the plume
height of the
passing
axis
plumea to
descends
over axisthedescends to the
surface upwind,
three-dimensional hillsurface upwind,low
anda remains
in thermally and remains
downwind
stratified low
wind downwind
of tunnel.
the hill due of
to the
Figure the hill dueimages
13 drainage
shows toflow
the in
drainage
theobtained
particularflow in
stable the particular
conditions stable conditions
simulated. simulated.
under neutral and stable stabilities. In particular, it can be seen that the height of the
plume axis descends to the surface upwind, and remains low downwind of the hill due to the
drainage flow in the particular stable conditions simulated.

(a) (b)
Figure 13. Images of gas dispersion around a hill in a thermally stratified wind tunnel (flow is from
Figure 13. Images of gas dispersion around a hill in a thermally stratified wind tunnel (flow is from
(a)stability; (b) Stable stability.
left to right). (a) Neutral (b)
left to right). (a) Neutral stability; (b) Stable stability.
Figure 13. Images of gas dispersion around a hill in a thermally stratified wind tunnel (flow is from
Below, in Figure 14, we compare ground level concentrations, calculated using two effective
left to right). (a) Neutral stability; (b) Stable stability.
Below, in Figure 14, we compare ground level concentrations, calculated using two effective
source height options, with data observed in the field under stable conditions:
source height options, with data observed in the field under stable conditions:
Below,
Option in Figure source
1) Effective 14, we height
compare = ground level concentrations,
He’ (determined from neural calculated using experiments),
wind tunnel two effective
source
Option 1) height options,
meandering
Effective with data
factor,
source M1observed
height = 4.0 in(determined
the fieldfrom
(determined
= He’ under stable
NUREG
from conditions:
1.145),
neural wind tunnel experiments),
Option 2)
Option Effective
Effectivesource
1)meandering height
factor,
source M1 ==4.0
height 50 m
He’(approximately
= (determined 0.5 × original
from from
(determined NUREG sourcetunnel
1.145),
neural wind height),experiments),
meandering
factor, M1
Option 2) Effective
meandering = factor,
4.0 height
source as above.
M1 = 50 m
= 4.0 (approximately
(determined 0.5 × original
from NUREG 1.145), source height), meandering
Option 2)factor, M1 source
Effective = 4.0 asheight
above.= 50 m (approximately 0.5 × original source height), meandering
factor, M1 = 4.0 as above.

(a) (b)
Figure 14. Comparison of calculated concentrations with field data under stable conditions
(a)
(category F); option 1 is represented by a solid line, option 2 by a dashed(b)
line. (a) Run No. 90-4 (F);
(b) Run No. 90-5 (F).
Figure 14. Comparison of calculated concentrations with field data under stable conditions
Figure 14. Comparison of calculated concentrations with field data under stable conditions (category F);
(category F); option 1 is represented by a solid line, option 2 by a dashed line. (a) Run No. 90-4 (F);
option 1 isfound
It was represented
that thebyresults
a solidcalculated
line, option 2 byOption
with a dashed line. (a) Run the
2 overestimated No. field
90-4 data
(F); (b) Run a
beyond
(b) Run No. 90-5 (F).
No. 90-5 (F).
downwind distance of 1 km, whereas those with Option 1 under-predicted almost all of the
It was found that the results calculated with Option 2 overestimated the field data beyond a
downwind distance of 1 km, whereas those with Option 1 under-predicted almost all of the
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 16 of 20

It was found that the results calculated with Option 2 overestimated the field data beyond
a downwind distance of 1 km, whereas those with Option 1 under-predicted almost all of the
observations. Clearly the effective source height in these cases is closer to 50 m than the value derived
for neutral conditions.
Following the Verification and Validation Standard defined by the American Society of Mechanical
Engineering (ASME) [25], and considering a safety factor of two, it is recommended that a conservative
estimate, such as Option 2, should be used for the assessment of nuclear plants, not Option 1.

6. Acceptability Criteria
Although a conservative estimation of ground level concentrations is an important condition in
nuclear safety assessment, the prediction must remain a good estimate. This can be demonstrated
by testing the performance of the calculation procedures against acceptability criteria. Hanna [26]
proposed a number of such criteria for the application of dispersion models in rural and urban areas,
and here we apply two of these criteria, as used in the European Cooperation of Science and Technology
(COST)-ES1016 research project, jointly conducted by 19 European countries [27]. The criteria are
based on:

(a) Fraction of calculated values (FAC2) (Cc ) within a factor of two of observed values (Co. )

FAC2 = (fraction where 0.5 < Cc /Co < 2) (6)

(b) Fractional mean bias (FB)


FB = 2(Co − Cc )/(Co + Cc ) (7)

Hanna [26] suggested the following classes of acceptability criteria from comparison studies of
several atmospheric dispersion models and field data:

(a) Rural area: Absolute value of FB 6 0.30, FAC2 > 0.50


(b) Urban area: Absolute value of FB 6 0.67, FAC2 > 0.30

We argue that the Mt. Tsukuba area is similar in complexity (from a fluid mechanics point of
view) to an urban area, rather than a rural area with flat terrain, and therefore applied criteria (b) for
an urban area. The result of the analysis is shown in Figure 15, with calculations being based on the
combined effective source height and meandering factor (M1 and M2) procedures.
Figure 15 confirms that the calculated results are close to satisfying the urban acceptability criteria
of FAC2 and FB under neutral and unstable stratification conditions, but not under stable ones (Run
No. 90-4 and 90-5). Use of the meandering factor M1 is desirable to ensure conservative estimation
of doses in nuclear safety assessments; the FB for M1 is negative, which implies a conservative
overestimation. An effective source height, equal to 50% of the actual release height, and use of the
meandering factor (M1) defined by NUREG 1.145 is necessary to achieve the same end result in the
special features of stable flow over Mt. Tsukuba (Run No. 90-4 and 90-5). The FB for Runs no. 90-4 and
90-5 then become conservative, with values of −1.77 and −1.27, respectively.
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 17 of 20
Atmosphere 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 20

1.2 Acceptable criteria


1 FAC2≧0.30(Urban)
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
89-1(D) 89-2(D) 89-3(D) 89-5(D) 89-7 (C) 90-4(F) 90-5(F) 90-6(B) 90-8(B)

M1 M2

(a)

2.5 Acceptable criteria


2 -0.67≦FB≦+0.67(Urban)
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5 89-1(D) 89-2(D) 89-3(D) 89-5(D) 89-7 (C) 90-4(F) 90-5(F) 90-6(B) 90-8(B)
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5

M1 M2

(b)
Figure 15. Comparison
Figure 15. Comparisonofofcalculated
calculated results
results withwith acceptability
acceptability criteria,
criteria, wherewhere
no barno
at abar
runatnumber
a run
number means
means zero. (a) zero.
Factor(a)2 Factor
(FAC2);2 (b)
(FAC2); (b) Fractional
Fractional mean
mean bias (FB).bias (FB).

7. Discussion
7. Discussion
It is concluded from the present study that
It is concluded from the present study that
(1) Conservative estimation of ground level concentrations under both neutral and unstable
(1) Conservative estimation of ground level concentrations under both neutral and unstable
conditions can be achieved by using the effective source height He’, determined from wind
conditions can be achieved by using the effective source height He’, determined from wind
tunnel experiments and the meandering factor defined by NUREG 1.145.
tunnel experiments and the meandering factor defined by NUREG 1.145.
(2) To satisfy the conservative estimate under stable conditions, a reduced effective source height
(2) isTorequired
satisfy the
toconservative
account for estimate under
the special flowstable conditions,
features a reduced
that arise effective terrain,
over complex source height
such asis
required to
stagnant account
regions andforslope
the special
winds.flow features
From that arise over
the viewpoint complex terrain,
of engineering such
design as stagnant
with a safety
regions and slope winds. From the viewpoint of engineering design with a
factor of two, and following the recommendations of the ASME Verification and Validation safety factor of two,
Standard [25], use of a conservative value, such as 50% of the actual source height,[25],
and following the recommendations of the ASME Verification and Validation Standard is
use of a conservative
recommended. value, such as 50% of the actual source height, is recommended.

The effective source height procedure investigated here is one of a number of adaptations of
the basic Gaussian plume models to complex dispersion conditions. As here, the general intent is
that resulting predictions of ground-level concentrations should be “best estimates”, yet somewhat
on the conservative side—i.e., avoiding serious under-estimation. To a degree, this intent biases the
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 18 of 20

The effective source height procedure investigated here is one of a number of adaptations of
the basic Gaussian plume models to complex dispersion conditions. As here, the general intent is
that resulting predictions of ground-level concentrations should be “best estimates”, yet somewhat
on the conservative side—i.e., avoiding serious under-estimation. To a degree, this intent biases the
performance relative to acceptability criteria. Nevertheless, the results discussed above clearly show
the value of the effective source height approach to dispersion over complex terrain in windy (i.e.,
near-neutral) conditions. Analysis of the stable flow cases demonstrates that additional algorithms
need to be introduced to represent the special flow phenomena associated with stable flow over terrain.
A wide range of phenomena is observed in stable flow over hills [23], and this will be reflected in
the choice of effective stack height (i.e., each case may need to be treated on its own merits).
Finally, it should be noted that the data from the field experiment at Mt. Tsukuba were also used
for the verification study of the System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information
(SPEEDI) by Chino and Ishikawa of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute [28].

Acknowledgments: We appreciate with the kind advices given by H. Nagai of Japan Atomic Energy Agency,
S. Hanna of Harvard University, W. Snyder of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and J. Sagendorf of
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Author Contributions: M. Oura conducted the fundamental calculation of dispersion model, R. Ohba analyzed the
calculated wind tunnel and field data, A. Robins provided the chapter on the U.K. scheme, and S. Kato summarized
all of the study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviation
UK United Kingdom
NRPB National Radiation Protection Board (UK)
ADMS Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System
BNFL British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (now Sellafield Ltd.)
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
ERCOFTAC European Research Community On Flow, Turbulence And Combustion
JAEA Japan Atomic Energy Agency
NUREG Nuclear Regulatory Guide (US)
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineering
COST European Cooperation of Science and Technology
FB Fractional Bias
FAC2 Factor 2

References
1. Nuclear Safety Commission. Meteorology Guideline for Nuclear Power Facilities Safety Analysis; Nuclear Safety
Commission: Tokyo, Japan, 1982. (In Japanese)
2. Fulker, M.J.; Singh, S. The role of wind tunnel dispersion measurements in critical group dose assessments
for new plant. In Air Pollution II Volume 2: Pollution Control and Monitoring; Baldasano, J.M., Brebbia, C.A.,
Power, H., Zannetti, P., Eds.; Computational Mechanics Publications: Southampton, UK, 1994; pp. 499–506.
3. Atomic Energy Society of Japan. Code for Wind Tunnel Experiments to Calculate the Effective Height of Emitting
Source for Nuclear Power Facilities Safety Analysis; Atomic Energy Society of Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 2009.
(In Japanese).
4. Hayashi, T.; Chino, M.; Yamazawa, H.; Nagai, H.; Moriuchi, S.; Ishikawa, H.; Adachi, T.; Kojima, H.;
Okano, H.; Odagawa, H.; et al. Effective Stack Heights Obtained from Wind Tunnel and Atmospheric Diffusion
Experiments; JAERI-Tech 2001-034; Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute: Ibaraki, Japan, 2001; (In Japanese).
Available online: http://jolissrch-inter.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/pdfdata/JAERI-Tech-2001-034.pdf (accessed on
14 February 2018).
5. Paquill, F.; Smith, F.B. Atmospheric Diffusion, 3rd ed.; Ellis Horwood Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 1983.
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 19 of 20

6. Clarke, R.H.; National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The First Report of a Working Group on Atmospheric
Dispersion: A Model for Short and Medium Range Dispersion of Radionuclides Released to the Atmosphere; NRPB Report
R91; Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling Liaison Committee (ADMLC): Didcot, UK, 1979.
7. Jones, J.A.; National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The Fifth Report of a Working Group on Atmospheric
Dispersion: Models to Allow for the Effects of Coastal Sites, Plume Arise and Buildings on Dispersion of Radionuclides
and Guidance on the Value of Deposition Velocity and Washout Coefficients; NRPB Report RI57; Atmospheric
Dispersion Modelling Liaison Committee (ADMLC): Didcot, UK, 1983.
8. Robins, A.G.; Macdonald, R. Review of Flow and Dispersion in the Vicinity of Groups of Buildings, Annex B,
Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling Liaison Committee; Annual Report 1998/99, NRPB Report R322; Atmospheric
Dispersion Modelling Liaison Committee (ADMLC): Didcot, UK, 2001.
9. Robins, A.G.; Castro, I.P. A wind tunnel investigation of plume dispersion in the vicinity of a surface
mounted cube (II): The concentration field. Atmos. Environ. 1977, 11, 299–311. [CrossRef]
10. Robins, A.G.; Hayden, P. Dispersion from elevated sources above obstacle arrays: Modelling requirements.
Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 2000, 14, 186–187. [CrossRef]
11. Robins, A.G.; Hill, T. Borne on the Wind? Understanding the Dispersion of Power Station Emissions; Power Technology:
Nottingham, UK, 2005.
12. Hill, R.A.; Lowles, I.; Teasdale, I.; Chambers, N.; Puxley, C.; Parker, T. Comparison between field
measurements of 85-Kr around the BNFL Sellafield reprocessing plant and the predictions of the NRPB R-91
and UK-ADMS atmospheric dispersion models. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 2001, 16, 315–327. [CrossRef]
13. Robins, A.G.; McHugh, C. Development and evaluation of the ADMS building effects module. Int. J.
Environ. Pollut. 2001, 16, 161–174. [CrossRef]
14. Hill, R.; Arnott, A.; Hayden, P.; Lawton, T.; Robins, A.; Parker, T. Evaluation of CFD model predictions of
local dispersion from an area source on a complex industrial site. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 44, 173–181.
[CrossRef]
15. European Research Community on Flow, Turbulence and Combustion (ERCOFTAC). Quality and Trust in
Industrial CFD: Best Practice Guidelines, version 1.0; European Research Community on Flow, Turbulence and
Combustion: Prague, Czech Republic, 2000.
16. Atomic Energy Society of Japan. Code for Numerical Model to Calculate the Effective Height of Emitting Source for
Nuclear Power Facilities Safety Analysis; Atomic Energy Society of Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 2011. (In Japanese)
17. Ohba, R.; Ukeguchi, N.; Kakishima, S.; Lamb, B. Wind tunnel experiment of gas diffusion in stably stratified
flow over a complex terrain. Atmos. Environ. 1990, 24, 1987–2001. [CrossRef]
18. Sagendorf, J.E.; Dickson, C.R. Diffusion under Light Wind Speed in Inversion Conditions; NOAA Technical
Memorandum ERL ARL-53, ARL; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Idaho Falls,
ID, USA, 1974.
19. US-Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence
Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants; Regulatory Guide 1.145; US-Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Washington, DC, USA, 1979.
20. Yee, E.; Chan, R.; Kosteniuk, P.R.; Chandler, G.M.; Biltoft, C.A.; Bowers, J.F. Incorporation of internal
fluctuations in a meandering plume model of concentration fluctuations. Bound. Layer Meteorol. 1994, 67,
11–39. [CrossRef]
21. Turner, D.B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates: An Introduction to Dispersion Modelling, 2nd ed.;
CRC Press LLC: New York, NY, USA, 1994; p. 179.
22. Hunt, J.C.R.; Britter, R.E.; Puttock, J.S. Mathematical models of dispersion of air pollution around buildings
and hills. In Mathematical Modelling of Turbulent Diffusion in the Environment; Harris, J., Ed.; Academic Press:
London, UK, 1979; pp. 145–200.
23. Hunt, J.C.R.; Snyder, W.H.; Lawson, R.E. Flow Structure and Turbulent Diffusion around a Three-Dimensional Hill;
US EPA Report EPA-600/4-78/041; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1978.
24. Ohba, R.; Hara, T.; Nakamura, S.; Ohya, Y.; Uchida, T. Gas diffusion over an isolated hill under neutral,
stable and unstable conditions. Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 5697–5707. [CrossRef]
25. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Standard for Verification and Validation in
Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer. Available online: https://www.asme.org/shop
(accessed on 23 April 2016).
Atmosphere 2018, 9, 111 20 of 20

26. Hanna, S.; Chang, J. Acceptable criteria for urban dispersion model evaluation. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 2012,
116, 133–146. [CrossRef]
27. COST ES1006 Best Practice Guideline. 2015. Available online: http://www.elizas.eu/index.php/documents-
of-the-action (accessed on 7 January 2016).
28. Chino, M.; Ishikawa, H. Experimental Verification Study for System for Prediction of Environmental
Emergency Dose Information: SPEEDI, (III). J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 1989, 26, 365–373. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).