Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Treatment of Interfaces in Random Walk Dispersion Models

D. J. Thomson Meteorological Office, Bracknell, Berkshire, United Kingdom

Search for other papers by D. J. Thomson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
W. L. Physick Division of Atmospheric Research, CSIRO, Aspendale, Australia

Search for other papers by W. L. Physick in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
R. H. Maryon Meteorological Office, Bracknell, Berkshire, United Kingdom

Search for other papers by R. H. Maryon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Sep 1997
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1997)036<1284:TOIIRW>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
1284–1295
Restricted access

Abstract

The problem of how to formulate random walk dispersion models in situations where the flow properties vary discontinuously across an interface is considered. It is shown how the dispersion model can be made consistent with the assumptions made about the turbulence. The approach does not lead to a unique model, but it is argued that in many cases the rate of diffusion through the interface is limited not by the detailed physics of the interface but by the rates of diffusion on either side of the interface and, in such situations, results may be insensitive to which of the consistent models is chosen. Some simulations are presented to illustrate these ideas.

Corresponding author address: Dr. David J. Thomson, Meteorological Office, Room 171, London Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 2SZ, United Kingdom.

Abstract

The problem of how to formulate random walk dispersion models in situations where the flow properties vary discontinuously across an interface is considered. It is shown how the dispersion model can be made consistent with the assumptions made about the turbulence. The approach does not lead to a unique model, but it is argued that in many cases the rate of diffusion through the interface is limited not by the detailed physics of the interface but by the rates of diffusion on either side of the interface and, in such situations, results may be insensitive to which of the consistent models is chosen. Some simulations are presented to illustrate these ideas.

Corresponding author address: Dr. David J. Thomson, Meteorological Office, Room 171, London Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 2SZ, United Kingdom.

Save
Cover Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology
Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology

  • Baerentsen, J. H., and R. Berkowicz, 1984: Monte Carlo simulation of plume dispersion in the convective boundary layer. Atmos. Environ.,18, 701–712.

  • Boughton, B. A., J. M. Delaurentis, and W. E. Dunn, 1987: A stochastic model of particle dispersion in the atmosphere. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,40, 147–163.

  • Durbin, P. A., 1983: Stochastic differential equations and turbulent dispersion. NASA Reference Publ. 1103, 69 pp. [Available from NASA Lewis Research Center Library, 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, OH 44135.].

  • Eastman, J. L., R. A. Pielke, and W. A. Lyons, 1995: Comparison of lake-breeze model simulations with tracer data. J. Appl. Meteor.,34, 1398–1418.

  • Hurley, P. J., and W. L. Physick, 1993: A skewed, homogeneous Lagrangian particle model for convective conditions. Atmos. Environ.,27A, 619–624.

  • Leclerc, M. Y., G. W. Thurtell, and G. E. Kidd, 1988: Measurements and Langevin simulations of mean tracer concentration fields downwind from a circular line source inside an alfalfa canopy. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,43, 287–308.

  • Luhar, A. K., and R. E. Britter, 1989: A random walk model for dispersion in inhomogeneous turbulence in a convective boundary layer. Atmos. Environ.,23, 1911–1924.

  • ——, and K. S. Rao, 1993: Random-walk model studies of the transport and diffusion of pollutants in katabatic flows. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,66, 395–412.

  • Maryon, R. H., F. B. Smith, B. J. Conway, and D. M. Goddard, 1991: The UK NuclearAccident Model. Prog. Nucl. Energy,26, 85–104.

  • Physick, W. L., J. A. Noonan, P. C. Manins, P. J. Hurley, and H. Malfroy, 1992: Application of coupled prognostic windfield and Lagrangian dispersion models for air quality purposes in a region of coastal terrain. Air Pollution Modelling and Its Application, Vol. IX, H. van Dop and G. Kallos, Eds., Plenum Press, 725–729.

  • Ryall, D. B., R. H. Maryon, R. G. Derwent, and P. G. Simmonds, 1997: Modelling long range transport of CFCs to Mace Head, Ireland. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., in press.

  • Thomson, D. J., 1987: Criteria for the selection of stochastic models of particle trajectories in turbulent flows. J. Fluid Mech.,180, 529–556.

  • ——, and M. R. Montgomery, 1994: Reflection boundary conditions for random walk models of dispersion in non-Gaussian turbulence. Atmos. Environ.,28, 1981–1987.

  • Uliasz, M., 1993: The atmospheric mesoscale dispersion modeling system. J. Appl. Meteor.,32, 139–149.

  • Weil, J. C., 1989: Stochastic modeling of dispersion in the convective boundary layer. Air Pollution Modeling and Its Application, Vol. VII, H. van Dop, Ed., Plenum Press, 437–449.

  • Wilson, J. D., 1980: Turbulence measurements in a corn canopy and numerical simulation of particle trajectories in inhomogeneous turbulence. Ph.D. thesis, University of Guelph, 175 pp. [Available from University of Guelph, Guelph, N1G 2W1 ON, Canada.].

  • ——, and T. K. Flesch, 1993: Flow boundaries in random-flight dispersion models: Enforcing the well-mixed condition. J. Appl. Meteor.,32, 1695–1707.

  • Yamada, T., and S. Bunker, 1988: Development of a nested grid, second moment turbulence closure model and application to the 1982 ASCOT Brush Creek data simulation. J. Appl. Meteor.,27, 562–578.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 716 243 13
PDF Downloads 206 40 2