• Title/Summary/Keyword: Plume meandering

Search Result 3, Processing Time 0.017 seconds

A Diagnostic Model for Dye Plume Meandering in Oceanic Waters (해양에서의 염료 플럼의 사행에 대한 모델)

  • Ro, Young-Jae
    • Journal of Korean Society of Coastal and Ocean Engineers
    • /
    • v.2 no.4
    • /
    • pp.200-207
    • /
    • 1990
  • This study is concerned with the meandering of plume axis in oceanic waters. The process is understood that it is a consequence of the differential contribution by the multiple harmonics of local velocity field to variances of center of mass of crossplume as a function of distance from the source point. A diagnostic model is proposed which is aimed to delineate the eddying motions and furthermore the amplified meandering of plumeaxis. From the data base of dye plumes, wave lengths of meandering eddies are estimated to range between 5.5 to 60.3 (m) in coastal surface waters. A numerical simulation is conducted to predict the concentration field of meandering plume.

  • PDF

Evaluation of One-particle Stochastic Lagrangian Models in Horizontally - homogeneous Neutrally - stratified Atmospheric Surface Layer (이상적인 중립 대기경계층에서 라그랑지안 단일입자 모델의 평가)

  • 김석철
    • Journal of Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment
    • /
    • v.19 no.4
    • /
    • pp.397-414
    • /
    • 2003
  • The performance of one-particle stochastic Lagrangian models for passive tracer dispersion are evaluated against measurements in horizontally-homogeneous neutrally-stratified atmospheric surface layer. State-of-the-technology models as well as classical Langevin models, all in class of well mixed models are numerically implemented for inter-model comparison study. Model results (far-downstream asymptotic behavior and vertical profiles of the time averaged concentrations, concentration fluxes, and concentration fluctuations) are compared with the reported measurements. The results are: 1) the far-downstream asymptotic trends of all models except Reynolds model agree well with Garger and Zhukov's measurements. 2) profiles of the average concentrations and vertical concentration fluxes by all models except Reynolds model show good agreement with Raupach and Legg's experimental data. Reynolds model produces horizontal concentration flux profiles most close to measurements, yet all other models fail severely. 3) With temporally correlated emissions, one-particle models seems to simulate fairly the concentration fluctuations induced by plume meandering, when the statistical random noises are removed from the calculated concentration fluctuations. Analytical expression for the statistical random noise of one-particle model is presented. This study finds no indication that recent models of most delicate theoretical background are superior to the simple Langevin model in accuracy and numerical performance at well.

Influence of Modelling Approaches of Diffusion Coefficients on Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (확산계수의 모델링방법이 대기확산인자에 미치는 영향)

  • Hwang, Won Tae;Kim, Eun Han;Jeong, Hae Sun;Jeong, Hyo Joon;Han, Moon Hee
    • Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
    • /
    • v.38 no.2
    • /
    • pp.60-67
    • /
    • 2013
  • A diffusion coefficient is an important parameter in the prediction of atmospheric dispersion using a Gaussian plume model, and its modelling approach varies. In this study, dispersion coefficients recommended by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (U. S. NRC's) regulatory guide and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's (CNSC's) regulatory guide, and used in probabilistic accident consequence analysis codes MACCS and MACCS2 have been investigated. Based on the atmospheric dispersion model for a hypothetical accidental release recommended by the U. S. NRC, its influence to atmospheric dispersion factor was discussed. It was found that diffusion coefficients are basically predicted from a Pasquill- Gifford curve, but various curve fitting equations are recommended or used. A lateral dispersion coefficient is corrected with consideration for the additional spread due to plume meandering in all models, however its modelling approach showed a distinctive difference. Moreover, a vertical dispersion coefficient is corrected with consideration for the additional plume spread due to surface roughness in all models, except for the U. S. NRC's recommendation. For a specified surface roughness, the atmospheric dispersion factors showed differences up to approximately 4 times depending on the modelling approach of a dispersion coefficient. For the same model, the atmospheric dispersion factors showed differences by 2 to 3 times depending on surface roughness.