Hazardous gas model evaluation with field observations

Hanna, Steven R.; Chang, Jimmy; Strimaitis, David G.

doi:10.1016/0960-1686(93)90397-h

Cited by 211 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As noted by Clever et al (2007) for the 611 simulations of large scale dispersions of a liquefied natural gas spill, there appeared to be a degree of 612 consensus that the better of the more, practical models (box or similarity models) should be within a 613 factor of 2 of the observed concentrations for a straight-forward situation within the bounds covered 614 by the experimental data. Similar comments were also reported by Hanna et al (1993) and Daish et al 615 (2000). The agreement between the present predictions and the data averaged over the arcs are indeed 616 within a factor of 0.5.…”

supporting

confidence: 78%

Further development and validation of CO 2 FOAM for the atmospheric dispersion of accidental releases from carbon dioxide pipelines

Wen

Fur

et al. 2016

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 78%

Further development and validation of CO 2 FOAM for the atmospheric dispersion of accidental releases from carbon dioxide pipelines

Wen

Fur

et al. 2016

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This monitored daily average TSPM data and calculated monthly average data were compared with the models' estimated concentrations. Comparison was carried out by measuring some statistical parameters which have been used in earlier studies related to model validation (Fox, 1984;Hanna, 1988;Hanna et al, 1993;Mohan et al, 1995;ASTM, 2000). These parameters include Fractional Bias (FB), Normalized Root Mean Square Error (NMSE), Correlation Coefficient (r), Index of Agreement (d), Geometric Mean (MG), Geometric Variance (VG), Root mean square error (RMSE), Fraction of Predicted concentrations within factor of two of observed concentration (FAC 2 ) and QuantileQuantile Plots.…”

Section: Model Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Evaluation of AERMOD and ADMS-Urban for Total Suspended Particulate Matter Concentrations in Megacity Delhi

Mohan

Bhati

Sreenivas

et al. 2011

Aerosol Air Qual. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regulatory models are useful tools for air quality management. However, application of models without proper evaluation may lead to erroneous conclusions and thus systematic model evaluation studies are essential prior to model application. Often, models are evaluated for a specific source and climatic condition and then find application to another source and climatic condition without this realization. In this context, two well known regulatory models namely; AERMOD (07026) and ADMS-Urban (2.2) are applied throughout the world in various countries without rigorous evaluation procedures. An attempt is made here to undertake performance evaluation of these models for a tropical city such as Delhi in India which is a well known megacity of the world. The models have been applied to estimate ambient particulate matter concentrations for the years 2000 and 2004 over seven sites in Delhi and model evaluation and inter-comparison is performed. Concentrations have been estimated for winter season in both years as the low temperature and low speed wind conditions in this season make it most significant from air pollution point of view. It has been found that though both the models have a tendency towards under-prediction, estimated values by both models agree with the observed concentrations within factor of two. However ADMS-Urban results show better trend correlation with observed values while bias between observed and estimated values is lower for AERMOD Results. The models include all the urban sources (ie. elevated point sources, vehicular traffic, domestic and other sources) in the city. The model validation is discussed in the light of emission inventory, requisite meteorological inputs and statistical performance measures. Performance evaluation of the above models is examined based on boundary layer parameterisations used in these models. Intercomparison of the model performances is envisaged to be useful for application to air quality management and further development of these models.

show abstract

“…Four statistical performance indicators were used in this study. These indicators were recommended by Hanna (1989) [24] and Hanna et al (1993) [25] for evaluating air dispersión models. However they are widely used in different studies.…”

Section: Statistical Performance Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

HySafe SBEP-V20: Numerical studies of release experiments inside a naturally ventilated residential garage

Papanikolaou

Venetsanos

Heitsch

et al. 2010

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work presents the results of the Standard Benchmark Exercise Problem (SBEP) V20 of Work Package 6 (WP6) of HySafe Network of Excellence (NoE), co-funded by the European Commission, in the frame of evaluating the quality and suitability of codes, models and user practices by comparative assessments of code results. The benchmark problem SBEP-V20 covers reléase scenarios that were experimentally investigated in the past using helium as a substitute to hydrogen. The aim of the experimental investigations was to determine the ventilation requirements for parking hydrogen fuelled vehicles in residenKeyujords: tial garages. Helium was released under the vehicle for 2 h with 7.200 1/h flow rate. The leak Hydrogen safety rate corresponded to a 20% drop of the peak power of a 50 kW fuel cell vehicle. Three Garage double vent garage door geometries are considered in this numerical investigation. In each Reléase and dispersión simulations case the vents are located at the top and bottom of the garage door. The vents vary only in Natural ventilation height. In the first case, the height of the vents is 0.063 m, in the second 0.241 m and in the CFD third 0.495 m. Four HySafe partners participated in this benchmark. The following CFD Experiments packages with the respective models were applied to simúlate the experiments: ADREA-HF using k-s model by partner NCSRD, FLACS using k-s model by partner DNV, FLUENT using k-s model by partner UPM and CFX using laminar and the low-Re number SST model by partner JRC. This study compares the results predicted by the partners to the experimental measurements at four sensor locations inside the garage with an attempt to assess and valídate the performance of the different numerical approaches.

show abstract

Hazardous gas model evaluation with field observations

Cited by 211 publications

References 9 publications

Further development and validation of CO 2 FOAM for the atmospheric dispersion of accidental releases from carbon dioxide pipelines

Further development and validation of CO 2 FOAM for the atmospheric dispersion of accidental releases from carbon dioxide pipelines

Performance Evaluation of AERMOD and ADMS-Urban for Total Suspended Particulate Matter Concentrations in Megacity Delhi

HySafe SBEP-V20: Numerical studies of release experiments inside a naturally ventilated residential garage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About