Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Comparisons of Transport and Dispersion Model Predictions of the Joint Urban 2003 Field Experiment

Steve Warner Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia

Search for other papers by Steve Warner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Nathan Platt Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia

Search for other papers by Nathan Platt in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Jeffry T. Urban Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia

Search for other papers by Jeffry T. Urban in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
James F. Heagy Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia

Search for other papers by James F. Heagy in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
01 Jul 2008
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAMC1802.1
Page(s):
1910–1928
Restricted access

Abstract

For a hazardous material release in a city or densely populated area, effective mitigation requires an understanding of the transport and dispersion of these hazards in the complex urban environment. Improved characterization and understanding of urban transport and dispersion will allow for more robust modeling. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency has developed a Hazard Prediction Assessment Capability (HPAC) that includes features to address hazardous releases within an urban environment. During the summer of 2003, a series of tracer gas releases were carried out in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and extensive meteorological and tracer concentration measurements were collected in a field experiment known as Joint Urban 2003 (JU03). This analysis uses the observations of JU03 to evaluate “Urban HPAC.” Twenty sets of simulations, or “predictions,” using four Urban HPAC modes and five meteorological input options, were created and compared using a variety of metrics. Strong consistency was found between the conclusions of this study and those of two previously reported Urban HPAC evaluations. For example, improved predictions were associated with the inclusion of a simple empirically based urban dispersion model within HPAC, whereas improvements associated with the inclusion of a more computationally intensive urban wind module were not found. In this study, two new results are reported. First, there was a substantial difference in the performance of Urban HPAC as a function of release time—day or night—that was not discovered earlier because the previously examined urban field experiments focused on nighttime releases only. Daytime releases tended to be underpredicted and nighttime releases tended to be overpredicted. Second, and with respect to the under- and overpredictions described above, the inclusion of the new “Micro” Stationary Wind Fit and Turbulence (SWIFT) “SPRAY” (MSS) Urban HPAC mode typically led to less underprediction during the day and less overprediction at night than the other Urban HPAC modes. In addition, predictions that included MSS typically resulted in the least scatter between observations and predictions. These improvements warrant further investigation to determine whether this conclusion can be extended to other urban environments.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Steve Warner, Institute for Defense Analyses, 4850 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1882. Email: swarner@ida.org

Abstract

For a hazardous material release in a city or densely populated area, effective mitigation requires an understanding of the transport and dispersion of these hazards in the complex urban environment. Improved characterization and understanding of urban transport and dispersion will allow for more robust modeling. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency has developed a Hazard Prediction Assessment Capability (HPAC) that includes features to address hazardous releases within an urban environment. During the summer of 2003, a series of tracer gas releases were carried out in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and extensive meteorological and tracer concentration measurements were collected in a field experiment known as Joint Urban 2003 (JU03). This analysis uses the observations of JU03 to evaluate “Urban HPAC.” Twenty sets of simulations, or “predictions,” using four Urban HPAC modes and five meteorological input options, were created and compared using a variety of metrics. Strong consistency was found between the conclusions of this study and those of two previously reported Urban HPAC evaluations. For example, improved predictions were associated with the inclusion of a simple empirically based urban dispersion model within HPAC, whereas improvements associated with the inclusion of a more computationally intensive urban wind module were not found. In this study, two new results are reported. First, there was a substantial difference in the performance of Urban HPAC as a function of release time—day or night—that was not discovered earlier because the previously examined urban field experiments focused on nighttime releases only. Daytime releases tended to be underpredicted and nighttime releases tended to be overpredicted. Second, and with respect to the under- and overpredictions described above, the inclusion of the new “Micro” Stationary Wind Fit and Turbulence (SWIFT) “SPRAY” (MSS) Urban HPAC mode typically led to less underprediction during the day and less overprediction at night than the other Urban HPAC modes. In addition, predictions that included MSS typically resulted in the least scatter between observations and predictions. These improvements warrant further investigation to determine whether this conclusion can be extended to other urban environments.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Steve Warner, Institute for Defense Analyses, 4850 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1882. Email: swarner@ida.org

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

  • Allwine, K. J., and J. E. Flaherty, 2006: Joint URBAN 2003: Study overview and instrument locations. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Rep. PNNL-15967, 92 pp. [Available online at http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-15967.pdf.].

  • Allwine, K. J., J. H. Shinn, G. E. Streit, K. L. Clawson, and M. Brown, 2002: Overview of URBAN 2000: A multiscale field study of dispersion through an urban environment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83 , 521–536.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Allwine, K. J., M. J. Leach, L. W. Stockham, J. S. Shinn, R. P. Hosker, J. F. Bowers, and J. C. Pace, 2004: Overview of Joint URBAN 2003—An atmospheric dispersion study in Oklahoma City. Preprints, Symp. on Planning, Nowcasting, and Forecasting in the Urban Zone, Seattle, WA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., J7.1. [Available online at http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74349.pdf.].

  • Berg, L. K., S. F. J. De Wekker, W. J. Shaw, R. L. Coulter, and K. J. Allwine, 2004: Observations of boundary-layer winds in an urban environment. Preprints, Fifth Conf. on the Urban Environment, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 3.18. [Available online at http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/80323.pdf.].

  • Biltoft, C. A., 2002: Customer report for Mock Urban Setting Test. Dugway Proving Ground Rep. WDTC FR-01-121, 58 pp. [Available from Meteorology and Obscurants Division, West Desert Test Center, U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah, 84022-5000.].

  • Britter, R. E., and S. R. Hanna, 2003: Flow and dispersion in urban areas. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 35 , 469–496.

  • Brown, M. J., and Coauthors, 2004a: Joint URBAN 2003 street canyon experiment. Preprints, Symp. on Planning, Nowcasting, and Forecasting in the Urban Zone, Seattle, WA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., J7.3. [Available online at http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74033.pdf.].

  • Brown, M. J., H. Khalsa, M. Nelson, and D. Boswell, 2004b: Street canyon flow patterns in a horizontal plane: Measurements from the Joint URBAN 2003 field experiment. Preprints, Fifth Conf. on the Urban Environment, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 3.1. [Available online at http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/80299.pdf.].

  • Burrows, D. A., R. Keith, S. Diehl, and E. Hendricks, 2004: A fast running urban air flow model. Preprints, 13th Conf. on the Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology with the Air and Waste Management Association/Fifth Conf. on the Urban Environment, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 6.1. [Abstract available online at http://ams.confex.com/ams/AFAPURBBIO/techprogram/paper_80478.htm.].

  • Burrows, D. A., E. A. Hendricks, S. R. Diehl, and R. Keith, 2007: Modeling turbulent flow in an urban central business district. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 46 , 2147–2164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chang, J. C., S. R. Hanna, Z. Boybeyi, and P. Franzese, 2005: Use of Salt Lake City URBAN 2000 field data to evaluate the urban Hazard Prediction Assessment Capability (HPAC) dispersion model. J. Appl. Meteor., 44 , 485–501.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Cionco, R. M., 1972: A wind-profile index for canopy flow. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 3 , 255–263.

  • Cox, R. M., J. Sontowski, and C. M. Dougherty, 2005: An evaluation of three diagnostic wind models (CALMET, MCSCIPUFF, and SWIFT) with wind data from the Dipole Pride 26 field experiments. Meteor. Appl., 12 , 329–341.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 2001: The Hazard Prediction and Assessment Capability (HPAC) user’s guide version 4.0.3. Rep. HPAC-UGUIDE-02-U-RAC0, prepared for DTRA by Science Applications International Corporation, 602 pp. [Available from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201.].

  • De Wekker, S. F. J., L. K. Berg, K. J. Allwine, J. C. Doran, and W. J. Shaw, 2004: Boundary-layer structure upwind and downwind of Oklahoma City during the Joint Urban 2003 field study. Preprints, Fifth Conf. on the Urban Environment, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 3.20. [Available online at http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/80355.pdf.].

  • Diehl, S. R., D. T. Smith, and M. Sydor, 1982: Random-walk simulation of gradient-transfer processes applied to dispersion of stack emission from coal-fired power plants. J. Appl. Meteor., 21 , 69–83.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Diehl, S. R., D. A. Burrows, E. A. Hendricks, and R. Keith, 2007: Urban dispersion modeling: Comparison with single-building measurements. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 46 , 2180–2191.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Grimmond, C. S. B., H-B. Su, B. Offerle, B. Crawford, S. Scott, S. Zhong, and C. Clements, 2004: Variability of sensible heat fluxes in a suburban area of Oklahoma City. Preprints, Symp. on Planning, Nowcasting, and Forecasting in the Urban Zone, Seattle, WA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., J7.2. [Available online at http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/67542.pdf.].

  • Hall, D. J., A. M. Spanton, I. H. Griffiths, M. Hargrave, and S. Walker, 2002: The Urban Dispersion Model (UDM): Version 2.2. Defense Science and Technology Laboratory Tech. Doc. DSTL/TR04774, 106 pp.

  • Hendricks, E. A., D. A. Burrows, S. Diehl, and R. Keith, 2004: Dispersion in the downtown Oklahoma City domain: Comparisons between the Joint Urban 2003 data and the RUSTIC/MESO models. Preprints, 13th Conf. on the Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology with the Air and Waste Management Association/Fifth Conf. on the Urban Environment, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Amer. Meteor. Soc., J2.3. [Available online at http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/80494.pdf.].

  • Hendricks, E. A., S. R. Diehl, D. A. Burrows, and R. Keith, 2007: Evaluation of a fast-running urban dispersion modeling system using Joint Urban 2003. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 46 .2165–2179.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kaplan, H., and N. Dinar, 1996: A Lagrangian dispersion model for calculating concentration distribution within a built-up domain. Atmos. Environ., 30 , 4197–4207.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Leach, M. J., J. H. Shinn, R. Leif, and G. Keating, 2004: Urban near-field dispersion. Preprints, Symp. on Planning, Nowcasting, and Forecasting in the Urban Zone, Seattle, WA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., J5.3. [Available online at http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/71502.pdf.].

  • Lim, D., D. S. Henn, and R. I. Sykes, 2003: UWM version 0.1 technical documentation. Prepared for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency by Titan Research and Technology Division, Titan Corporation, 42 pp. [Available from Titan Corporation, ARAP Group, P.O. Box 2229, Princeton, NJ, 08543-2229.].

  • Moussafir, J., O. Oldrini, G. Tinarelli, J. Sontowski, and C. M. Dougherty, 2004: A new operational approach to deal with dispersion around obstacles: The MSS (Micro SWIFT SPRAY) software suite. Proc. Ninth Int. Conf. on Harmonisation within Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes, Vol. 2, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research (IMK–IFU), 114–118.

  • Pardyjak, E. R., and M. J. Brown, 2001: Evaluation of a fast-response urban wind model comparison to single-building wind tunnel data. Los Alamos National Laboratory Rep. LA-UR-01-4028, 6 pp.

  • Pol, S. U., and M. J. Brown, 2006: Flow patterns at the ends of a street canyon: Measurements from the Joint Urban 2003 field experiment. Preprints, Sixth Symp. on the Urban Environment, Atlanta, GA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., J5.12. [Available online at http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/104238.pdf.].

  • Pol, S. U., P. Ramamurthy, E. R. Pardyjak, and J. C. Klewicki, 2004: Structure of turbulence in an urban street canyon. Preprints, Fifth Conf. on the Urban Environment, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Amer. Meteor. Soc., J3.3. [Available online at http:// ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/80137.pdf.].

  • Ramamurthy, P., S. Pol, E. Pardyjak, and J. Klewicki, 2004: Spatial and temporal variability of turbulent fluxes in the Joint Urban 2003 street canyon. Preprints, Fifth Conf. on the Urban Environment, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 3.4. [Available online at http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/79844.pdf.].

  • Röckle, R., 1990: Bestimmung der Strömungsverhältnisse im Bereich komplexer Bebauungsstrukturen (Determination of the flow rates in the vicinity of complex housing structures). Ph.D. thesis, Vom Fachbereich Mechanik, der Technischen Hochschule Darmstadt, Germany, 150 pp.

  • Sykes, R. I., and D. S. Henn, 1989: Large-eddy simulation of turbulent sheared convection. J. Atmos. Sci., 46 , 1106–1118.

  • Sykes, R. I., S. F. Parker, and R. S. Gabruk, 1996: SCIPUFF—A generalized hazard dispersion model. Preprints, Ninth Joint Conf. on the Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology, Atlanta, GA, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 184–188.

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tinarelli, G., and Coauthors, 1994: Lagrangian particle simulation of tracer dispersion in the lee of a schematic two-dimensional hill. J. Appl. Meteor., 33 , 744–756.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Vandenberghe, F., and Coauthors cited. 2006: The Global Climatology Analysis Tool. [Available online at http://128.117.192.211/projects/global/references/GCAT_description_short.htm.].

  • Warner, S., N. Platt, and J. F. Heagy, 2004a: Comparisons of transport and dispersion model predictions of the URBAN 2000 field experiment. J. Appl. Meteor., 43 , 829–846.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Warner, S., N. Platt, and J. F. Heagy, 2004b: User-oriented two-dimensional measure of effectiveness for the evaluation of transport and dispersion models. J. Appl. Meteor., 43 , 58–73.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Warner, S., N. Platt, and J. F. Heagy, 2005: Comparisons of transport and dispersion model predictions of the European tracer experiment: Area- and population-based user-oriented measures of effectiveness. Atmos. Environ., 39 , 4425–4437.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Warner, S., N. Platt, J. F. Heagy, J. E. Jordan, and G. Bieberbach, 2006: Comparisons of transport and dispersion model predictions of the Mock Urban Setting Test field experiment. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 45 , 1414–1428.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Warner, S., N. Platt, J. T. Urban, and J. F. Heagy, 2007: Comparisons of T&D model predictions of the Joint Urban 2003 field experiment. Institute for Defense Analyses Paper P-4195, 244 pp.

  • Williams, M. D., M. J. Brown, B. Singh, and D. Boswell, 2004: QUIC-Plume theory guide. Los Alamos National Laboratory Rep. LA-UR-04-0561, 21 pp.

  • Zajic, D., H. J. S. Fernando, M. Princevac, and R. Calhoun, 2004: Flow and turbulence in urban canopies. Preprints, Fifth Conf. on the Urban Environment, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 6.2. [Available online at http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/80122.pdf.].

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 2348 1913 97
PDF Downloads 366 72 0