1 views

Uploaded by Vesko Ilijazi

ATMOSFERA...

ATMOSFERA...

© All Rights Reserved

- Modeling Contaminant Transport With Aerobic Biodegradation in a Shallow Water Body
- simulation of air flow on a car
- Ies Reference Book for Mechanical Engg
- Pumping Stations Design Recommendations Flygt
- Wind Pressures and Buckling of Cylindrical Steel1
- Progress Presentation 2
- Numerical Analysis of Ship Motion
- Chapter-6
- vol1no3-3_XuD
- DNV Marine Operations Rules for Subsea Lifts
- Design and Operation of Tunnel Ventilation System Under Fire Scenario
- CHAM Brochure03
- 2014_14.content.080705
- 10.2514@6.2017-0969
- ESP I
- HW11_solution
- Petro-market Civilization _ Philosophers for Change
- CFD of combustion
- External Geaqr Pump
- p010530

You are on page 1of 20

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

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 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

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.

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.

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].

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)

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)

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

• 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

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

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.

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:

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

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. )

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:

(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 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 -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/).

- Modeling Contaminant Transport With Aerobic Biodegradation in a Shallow Water BodyUploaded byZaid Hadi
- simulation of air flow on a carUploaded bykaushikp07
- Ies Reference Book for Mechanical EnggUploaded byGURURAJ C
- Pumping Stations Design Recommendations FlygtUploaded byjosegabrielrosas
- Wind Pressures and Buckling of Cylindrical Steel1Uploaded byARNOUX
- Progress Presentation 2Uploaded byزهديابوانس
- Numerical Analysis of Ship MotionUploaded byAbhi
- Chapter-6Uploaded bykaren
- vol1no3-3_XuDUploaded bySandra Powers
- DNV Marine Operations Rules for Subsea LiftsUploaded byAnonymous ugCWo0Acz3
- Design and Operation of Tunnel Ventilation System Under Fire ScenarioUploaded bydenichez
- CHAM Brochure03Uploaded bykumar_chemical
- 2014_14.content.080705Uploaded byAnonymous K48Tgvi
- 10.2514@6.2017-0969Uploaded byEray Koç
- ESP IUploaded byAnonymous DKv8vp
- HW11_solutionUploaded byeugenio1100
- Petro-market Civilization _ Philosophers for ChangeUploaded byInigo Garciandia
- CFD of combustionUploaded byGulshan Kumar Sinha
- External Geaqr PumpUploaded byKanniappan Raman Kannan
- p010530Uploaded byMos Essu
- ponencia_39114164442Uploaded bylrodriguez_892566
- introcfdUploaded byRenato Al
- Microsoft Word - KMSCFDWeb M1INTRO Lecture1 GeneralIntroToCFDUploaded bySachin Thorat
- Ada 323498Uploaded byIsaac Kocherla
- Abstracts of Some JournalsUploaded byashishkumar14
- Tugas CFDUploaded byRhizkyAriyansyah
- AcousticsAstralia 2010Uploaded byE Vachan Rao
- FDSdispersionUploaded byBidyut De
- Analytical ExpositionUploaded bySidqi Mubarok
- AG-WindTunnel-0109Uploaded byabhiarvind

- AIR_POLLUTANT_CONCENTRATION_MODELS-libre.pdfUploaded byRebenciucNarcis-Cristian
- RAD MasovicSaracevicNOVOUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- 00 NASLOVUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- Docslide.us Whats New in i2 Analysts Notebook 6055 UkUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- PlumeUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- Chapter 7Uploaded byVinay Mathad
- GaussianUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- Matlab uputstvo 2018Uploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- Anziam Book FinalUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- fluids-03-00020-v2Uploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- DesaiUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- bruno (1)Uploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- Uma_PC.pdfUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- Ams04 BaliUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- 1 s01 Application for Project Programme SupportUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- Vdocuments.site Modelling of the Dispersion and Deposition of Coarse Particulate Matter UnderUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- Matlab - Gui ElektronikaUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- Air Modeling Gauss11111Uploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- Plume Dispersion Coefficients-KLASE STABILNOSTIUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- Dispersion_Handout.pdfUploaded byArcangelo Di Tano
- 2.2_INOGATE-_Software_for_consequence_modelling.pptxUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- p4c_Matlab.pdfUploaded byJaime Feliciano Hernández
- AirPollutionExamples2.pdfUploaded byVesko Ilijazi
- Good Practice for Atmospheric Dispersion ModellingUploaded byMartin Delfin
- Toxic Release and Dispersion ModelsUploaded byRajat Mishra

- Energy Scenario of IndiaUploaded byuvgopal
- ROPEWORK.pptUploaded byAnonymous hF1hhmInm3
- 3 2 3 a FluidPowerPracticeProblemsUploaded byAlex Solis
- A Short Masonic History Being v1 1000000283Uploaded byFisus Laura
- Sensing Spaces Education GuideUploaded byaujalanaveed
- Scrierile Lui EDLUploaded byRadu Petrica
- VGOT-darrieusUploaded byMisael Guttman
- CAM4-6-1861Uploaded byĆatke Tkeća
- andrographis refUploaded byapi-243687619
- ADAUploaded bySalvador Cervantes
- Burden y Saturación TCUploaded byDaniel M
- RAP-14 CopyUploaded byAltin Cero
- VA-241-09-RP-0280-172Uploaded bysebascian
- Septage TechUploaded bySumayyah Tsabitah
- Proposal FypUploaded bynaien89
- Catalogo general de cargadora sobre ruedasUploaded byElvis Eberth Huanca Machaca
- BTEC LEVEL 3 ICT Original.docxUploaded byWalkerslsrp
- Milk Based Food Specialties of Kashmir Mohammad Ashraf PaulUploaded byMohammad Ashraf Paul
- Kurzweil SP76-SP88 ManualUploaded byAngel Hadziconstanti
- Class III Malocclusion With Unilateral Posterior Crossbite and Facial Asymmetry Oct 2010Uploaded byNat Alborés
- VISHWA BHANU August-2011Uploaded byVivekananda Kendra
- GAS ----AMPZILLA originalUploaded byDOMINO66
- 2sc5902 de panasonic .pdfUploaded byRandall Chinchilla
- Nx Motion Simulation[1]Uploaded byRoman Kerbel
- Biology Project XiiUploaded byUma Mouna
- Bio Lesson Plan - Terrestrial BiomeUploaded byJahlen Tuvilleja
- nso_sample_paper_class-7.pdfUploaded byManju Agarwal
- Hirschmann PAT EI65 Link Belt Service ManualUploaded bymohamed
- hsc 630 arm elbow and forearmUploaded byapi-416838644
- TP943Uploaded byyamahdiadrekni