Description and validation of ERAD: An atmospheric dispersion model for high explosive detonations

Boughton, B.A.; DeLaurentis, John M.

doi:10.2172/10183822

Cited by 16 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 132 publications

(178 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The area and distance estimates given above for HE detonation are consistent with a graph presented by Boughton and DeLaurentis (1992), based on an unclassified summary by Shreve and Thomas (1965), of ground contamination levels measured during Operation Roller Coaster at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) in 1963. Under stable meteorology and flat terrain, the graph of results from the Clean Slate 1 shot shows plutonium contamination levels exceeding 10 &m2 (roughly 0.7 pCi/m2) in a cigar-shaped region that extends beyond a distance of 10.4 km from ground zero.…”

Section: Potential Extent Of Contaminationsupporting

confidence: 83%

Site restoration: Estimation of attributable costs from plutonium-dispersal accidents

Chanin¹,

Murfin²

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Potential Extent Of Contaminationsupporting

confidence: 83%

Site restoration: Estimation of attributable costs from plutonium-dispersal accidents

Chanin¹,

Murfin²

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(1), these models also minimize the difference between the adjusted and interpolated wind fields. Thus, any phenomena (such as, in this case separation and recirculation on the leeward side of obstacles) not reflected in the initial observations will not be depicted in the adjusted wind field, as has been noted repeatedly in the literature (e.g., Moussiopoulos, et al (1988), Ross, et al (1988), Boughton and DeLaurentis (1992), , Ratto, et al (1994), and Banta, et al (1996).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…MINERVE has several different interpolation schemes available for generating the initial field from the observations, including one employing inverse distance-squared weighting (the scheme currently used in ERAD (Boughton and DeLaurentis (1992)) and AIRRAD (Sagartz (1997)). The choice of which to use can be made based on the nature or distribution of the observed data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The transport of such material by the atmosphere is heavily dependent on both the mean and fluctuating (turbulent) components of the wind. Among the tools NEST has at its disposal are the Explosive Release Atmospheric Detonation (ERAD) code (Boughton and DeLaurentis (1992)), for modeling the dispersion of radioactive material released by a high explosive (i.e., chemical) detonation, and AIRRAD (Sagartz (1997)), which predicts radioactive fallout patterns resulting from a nuclear detonation. Both ERAD and AIRRAD require as input a three-dimensional (3D) wind field over the entire domain of interest, consisting of the mean wind components u, v, and w defined on a Cartesian grid.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three-Dimensional Wind Field Modeling: A Review

Homicz

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past several decades, the development of computer models to predict the atmospheric transport of hazardous material across a local (on the order of 10s of km) to mesoscale (on the order of 100s of km) region has received considerable attention, for both regulatory purposes, and to guide emergency response teams. Wind inputs to these models cover a spectrum of sophistication and required resources. At one end is the interpolation/ extrapolation of available observations, which can be done rapidly, but at the risk of missing important local phenomena. Such a model can also only describe the wind at the time the observations were made. At the other end are sophisticated numerical solutions based on socalled Primitive Equation models. These prognostic models, so-called because in principle they can forecast future conditions, contain the most physics, but can easily consume tens of hours, if not days, of computer time. They may also require orders of magnitude more effort to set up, as both boundary and initial conditions on all the relevant variables must be supplied. The subject of this report is two classes of models intermediate in sophistication between the interpolated and prognostic ends of the spectrum. The first, known as mass-consistent (sometimes referred to as diagnostic) models, attempt to strike a compromise between simple interpolation and the complexity of the Primitive Equation models by satisfying only the conservation of mass (continuity) equation. The second class considered here consists of the so-called linear models, which purport to satisfy both mass and momentum balances. A review of the published literature on these models over the past few decades was performed. Though diagnostic models use a variety of approaches, they tend to fall into a relatively few welldefined categories. Linear models, on the other hand, follow a more uniform methodology, though they differ in detail. The discussion considers the theoretical underpinnings of each category of the diagnostic models, and the linear models, in order to assess the advantages and disadvantages of each. It is concluded that diagnostic models are the better suited of the two for predicting the atmospheric dispersion of hazardous materials in emergency response scenarios, as the linear models are only able to accommodate gently-sloping terrain, and are predicated on several simplifying approximations which can be difficult to justify a priori. Of the various approaches used in diagnostic modeling, that based on the calculus of variations appears to be the most objective, in that it introduces the fewest number of arbitrary parameters. The strengths and weaknesses of models in this category, as they relate to the activities of Sandia's Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST), are further highlighted.

show abstract

“…The Explosive Release Atmospheric Dispersion (ERAD) model (Boughton and DeLaurentis 1992) is a threedimensional numerical model for simulating atmospheric transport and dispersion. The ERAD code is particularly adept at handling explosive releases into the atmosphere and is being used by the Materials and Accountability Department at the Savannah River Site (SRS) to provide risk e dmates.…”

Section: Executive Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

WJBF TV tower meteorological database for the ERAD Code-1993

Weber¹

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Description and validation of ERAD: An atmospheric dispersion model for high explosive detonations

Abstract: Portions of this document may be in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. illegible SAKD92-2069 Unlimited Release

Cited by 16 publications

References 132 publications

Site restoration: Estimation of attributable costs from plutonium-dispersal accidents

Site restoration: Estimation of attributable costs from plutonium-dispersal accidents

Three-Dimensional Wind Field Modeling: A Review

WJBF TV tower meteorological database for the ERAD Code-1993

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About