1

Table of Contents The Plume Rise Equations---------------------------------------39-43

ALJUN Sarren-------------------------------------------------------------------3-9 (A) The Holland Formula.
Health Effects of Air Pollution-------------------------------------3-7 (B) The Stumke Formula.
Vegetation-------------------------------------------------------------7-9 (C) The CONCAWE Simplified Formula
Properties-----------------------------------------------------------------9 (D) The Lucas-Moore-Spurr Formula.
MOCTAR Joshua------------------------------------------------------------10-13 (E) The Rauch Formula.
What is Climate?------------------------------------------------------10
(F) The Stone-Clarke Formula
Effects of Climate Change Today------------------------------10-12
What Controls the Climate?------------------------------------12-13 (G) The Moses-Carson 1967 Formulas for Stability
EDIANO Pearl---------------------------------------------------------------14-19 Classes
Dispersion Coefficient--------------------------------------------14-18 (H) The Briggs Transitional Case.
Air Pollution Dispersion Models--------------------------------18-19 (I) Briggs' Windy Stable Formula
TOLARESA Mark------------------------------------------------------------20-25 (J) Briggs' Neutral and Unstable Formula
Air Pollution Modeling-------------------------------------------20-21 (J.i) for stable with calm condition
Gaussian Plume Model------------------------------------------21-22 (K) Csanady Formula.
Gaussian Plume Equation---------------------------------------22-25 (L) Briggs formula for momentum sources (less than
AUSA Patrick-----------------------------------------------------------------26-32 50 ambient above temperature
Gaussian Approach-----------------------------------------------26-27 (M) Smith equation Momentum sources (less than 50
Calculations of σy and σz---------------------------------------------27 ambient above temperature)
Semi-empirical Calculations-----------------------------------------27 (N) Thomas Formula
Semi-Empirical Calculations Table----------------------------27-32 (O) Whaley’s Equation
DAMASO Varjonessa------------------------------------------------------33-35 (P) Lucas Equation
5 types of Smoke Plumes----------------------------------------33-35 (Q) Morton, Taylor and Turner Equation
ESQUILONA Jeffrey--------------------------------------------------------36-47 (Stable conditions with little or no winds)
Plume--------------------------------------------------------------- 36-37 (R) Under Briggs equation (for hot gas with heat
Basic Segment of an Elevated Plume ------------------------------38 release of 106 cal/s or more)
Factors Influencing Plume Rise---------------------------------38-39
 2

(For momentum dominated, not very hot release)

Terms used in Plume Rise Calculation-----------------------------44
Determination of the Type of Plume --------------------------44-47
(Momentum or Buoyant)

JAIME Brigitte----------------------------------------------------------------48-50
Ground Level Concentration------------------------------------48-50
ORTOUSTE Kim--------------------------------------------------------------51-52
Worst Ground Level Concentration----------------------------51-52
GANZON Rowel-------------------------------------------------------------53-55
Calculating Stack Diameter-------------------------------------53-54
Calculating Stack Height-----------------------------------------54-55
BANTING Jeffrey------------------------------------------------------------56-59
Calculating Stack Draft------------------------------------------56-59
 3

ALJUN Sarren according to the World Health Organization. In December

Health Effects of Air Pollution 2013 air pollution was estimated to kill 500,000 people in
Of all the different mediums of pollution, air pollution China each year. Annual premature European deaths caused
is one of the most impactful and dangerous. Air pollution is by air pollution are estimated at 430,000. An important cause
more impactful than most since air is everywhere, whether of these deaths is nitrogen dioxide and other nitrogen oxides
you’re in the desert, forest or the city, air is there, meaning, (NOx) emitted by road vehicles. Across the European Union,
of all the mediums of pollution, air poses the most danger air pollution is estimated to reduce life expectancy by almost
since it could potentially reach anyone. Air pollution is one of nine months. Causes of deaths include strokes, heart
the most dangerous since most pollutants in the air are so disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),
tiny (ranges from PM 10 and PM 2.5) that they could attach lung cancer, and lung infections.
to the oxygen molecule or the cell carrying the oxygen
through your lungs all the way to your whole body. Heart Disease
Mortality Air pollution is also emerging as a risk factor for
Of all the effects of air pollution, the one we worry stroke, particularly in developing countries where pollutant
about most is the reduction of life expectancy and premature levels are highest. A 2007 study found that in women, air
death. The World Health Organization estimated that in pollution is not associated with hemorrhagic but with
2014, air pollution would cause the premature death of some ischemic stroke. Air pollution was also found to be associated
7 million people worldwide, per year. To cite an example, with increased incidence and mortality from coronary stroke
India has the highest death rate due to air pollution; they also in a cohort study in 2011. Associations are believed to be
have more deaths from asthma than any other nation causal and effects may be mediated by vasoconstriction,
 4

low-grade inflammation and atherosclerosis. Other problems. Short-term exposure to air pollution could cause
mechanisms such as autonomic nervous system imbalance asthma attack frequently due to the particulates you breathe
have also been suggested. In 2004, the American Heart in that attaches to your lungs, causing irritation and
Association issued a scientific statement concluding that inflammation. Long-term exposure could cause chronic
exposure to air pollution contributes to cardiovascular illness obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes
and mortality. A 2010 update elaborated on those risks. diseases such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
Short-term exposure can increase the risk of heart attack, Research has demonstrated increased risk of developing
stroke, arrhythmias and heart failure in susceptible people, asthma and COPD from increased exposure to traffic-related
such as the elderly or those with pre-existing medical air pollution. Additionally, air pollution has been associated
conditions, according to the statement. The risk of death is with increased hospitalization and mortality from asthma
greater from long-term exposure. Current science suggests and COPD.A study conducted in 1960-1961 in the wake of the
air pollution facilitates atherosclerosis development and Great Smog of 1952 compared 293 London residents with
progression, said the scientific panel that worked on the 477 residents of Gloucester, Peterborough, and Norwich,
statement. It also may play a role in high blood pressure, three towns with low reported death rates from chronic
heart failure and diabetes. bronchitis. All subjects were male postal truck drivers, aged
40 to 59. Compared to the subjects from the outlying towns,
Lung Disease the London subjects exhibited more severe respiratory
Long-term exposure to air pollution obviously has symptoms (including cough, phlegm, and dyspnea), reduced
huge effects to our health, but even short-term could also lung function, and increased sputum production and
pose a threat, especially to those who have respiratory purulence. The differences were more pronounced for
 5

subjects aged 50 to 59. The study controlled for age and living close to busy traffic appears to be associated with
smoking habits, so concluded that air pollution was the most elevated risks of these three outcomes --- increase in lung
likely cause of the observed differences. It is believed that cancer deaths, cardiovascular deaths, and overall non-
much like cystic fibrosis, by living in a more urban accidental deaths. The reviewers also found suggestive
environment serious health hazards become more apparent. evidence that exposure to PM2.5 is positively associated with
Studies have shown that in urban areas patients suffer mucus mortality from coronary heart diseases and exposure to SO2
hyper-secretion, lower levels of lung function, and more self- increases mortality from lung cancer, but the data was
diagnosis of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. insufficient to provide solid conclusions. Another
investigation showed that higher activity level increases
Cancer deposition fraction of aerosol particles in human lung and
A review of evidence regarding whether ambient air recommended avoiding heavy activities like running in
pollution exposure is a risk factor for cancer in 2007 found outdoor space at polluted areas. In 2011, a large Danish
solid data to conclude that long-term exposure to PM 2.5 epidemiological study found an increased risk of lung cancer
(fine particulates) increases the overall risk of non- for patients who lived in areas with high nitrogen oxide
accidental mortality by 6% per a 10-microgram/m3 concentrations. In this study, the association was higher for
increase. Exposure to PM2.5 was also associated with an non-smokers than smokers. An additional Danish study, also
increased risk of mortality from lung cancer (range: 15% to in 2011, likewise noted evidence of possible associations
21% per 10 microgram/m3 increase) and total between air pollution and other forms of cancer, including
cardiovascular mortality (range: 12% to 14% per a 10 cervical cancer and brain cancer. In December 2015, medical
microgram/m3 increase). The review further noted that scientists reported that cancer is overwhelmingly a result of
 6

environmental factors, and not largely down to bad luck.

Maintaining a healthy weight, eating a healthy diet,
minimizing alcohol and eliminating smoking reduces the risk Autism
of developing the disease, according to the researchers. Heavy metal exposure can result in an increased risk
of various neurological diseases. Research indicates that the
Central Nervous System two most neurotoxic heavy metals are mercury and lead.
According to a study conducted by researchers at the The impact that these two metals will have is highly
University of Rochester Medical Center on June 2014, early dependent upon the individual due to genetic variations.
exposure to air pollution causes the same damaging changes Heavy metal exposure, when combined with certain genetic
in the brain as autism and schizophrenia. The study also predispositions, can place individuals at increased risk for
shows that air pollution also affected short-term memory, developing autism. Many examples of CNS pathophysiology,
learning ability, and impulsivity. Lead researcher Professor such as oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, and
Deborah Cory-Slechta said "When we looked closely at the mitochondrial dysfunction, could be by-products of
ventricles, we could see that the white matter that normally environmental stressors such as pollution. There have been
surrounds them hadn't fully developed. It appears that reports of autism outbreaks occurring in specific locations.
inflammation had damaged those brain cells and prevented Since these cases of autism are related to geographic
that region of the brain from developing, and the ventricles location, the implication is that something in the
simply expanded to fill the space. Our findings add to the environment is complementing an at-risk genotype to cause
growing body of evidence that air pollution may play a role in autism in these vulnerable individuals. Mercury and lead
autism, as well as in other neurodevelopmental disorders." both contribute to inflammation, leading scientists to
 7

speculate that these heavy metals could play a role in autism. destroying their leaves, decreasing the nutrients available to
These findings are controversial, however, with many them. The toxic substances released from the soil also poison
researchers believing that increasing rates of autism are a the plants. Acid water dissolves nutrients and other
consequence of more accurate screening and diagnostic important minerals in the soil and washes them away before
methods, and are not due to any sort of environmental plants can consume them.
factor.
Leaf Damage
Vegetation Chemicals such as sulfur dioxide, ozone, fluorides
Air pollution not only harms our health directly, but and peroxyacyl nitrate damage the leaves of plants. If
also indirectly, they do this by harming our food, which in enough leaves are damaged, the entire plant will die. Sulfur
turn harms us. Air pollution leads to losses in crops, trees, dioxide causes changes in the colors of leaf tissue, which may
vegetation and ornamental plants. The effects of air pollution turn white, brown or yellow. Some sulfur dioxide converts to
on plants may be evident in a number of ways. Foliage sulfuric acid, which eats holes in the leaves. Ozone damage
develops injuries that, with time, appear as necrotic lesions. on leaves appears as mottled spots, which may be yellow,
Yellowing of leaves (chlorosis) may also be an effect of black or brown. If the damage by ozone is severe enough, the
acidification. Other symptoms include mottling, bronzing, plant will drop its leaves altogether. Fluoride damages the
reddening and stunted growth. When sulfur dioxide and edges of plants and causes them to turn brown or black.
nitrogen oxides combine with water in the atmosphere, they Peroxyacyl nitrate causes a condition known as silver leaf, in
form acid rain, which intoxicates the soil and waters where it which the underside of the leaves turn silvery white or
falls, causing damage to plants. Acid rain weakens trees by bronze.
 8

concentration of emissions, plants in urban environments

were identified to be at the greatest risk.
Slowed Growth
Dr. Kent reports that nitrogen dioxide can slow the Root Damage
growth of plants. Fortunately, rainfall transforms nitrogen
dioxide into nitric acid, which adds nitrogen to the soil and Whether the source is acid rain caused by sulfur
actually benefits plants. However, carbon monoxide is less dioxide emissions or acidic mine drainage from abandoned
benign. This component of car exhaust is poisonous to mines, acidic soils create a complex scenario that results in
humans and will stunt the growth of plants. Some evergreens plants' failure to thrive. Acidic conditions mobilize aluminum
will drop their leaves completely when exposed to carbon ions, normally present in a non-harmful form in the soil. The
monoxide. mobilized aluminum damages root systems and prevents
calcium uptake. The result is an overall slowing of plant
Delayed Flowering growth from a lack of nutrients. Aluminum and other heavy
metals can further impact plant structure by reducing soil
Exposure to vehicle exhaust impacts plant structure bacteria. A reduction in soil microorganisms prevents the
by delaying the flowering of exposed plants, as reported in a breakdown of organic matter, resulting in a reduction of
study published in the journal "Environmental Pollution." A available nutrients.
stressed plant will not flower but, rather, will use its Stomata Damage
resources to survive the threat. The study also noted an Stomata are the tiny pores found on leaves. Their
increase in senescence or plant aging. Because of the function is to act as sites of gas exchange between the plant
 9

and the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is taken up through the This is primarily evident on statues or building that has been
stomata and oxygen released during photosynthesis. built long ago, and witnessed the spread of industrialization.
Pollution negatively impacts this plant structure by reducing One example is the Taj Mahal of India. “Pollution turning Taj
the size of the stomata, as reported in a 2005 study published Mahal yellow: study” was probably a huge headline in India
in the journal "Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences." When last year. The study was conducted by US universities,
gas exchange is compromised, photosynthesis slows. Georgia Institute of Technnology and University of
Wisconsin, and as well as Indian Institute of Technology
Insect Infestation Kanpur. S.N. Tripathi of IIT Kanpur, one of the authors, said
Air pollution weakens plants and makes them more the team then used a novel approach to estimate how these
susceptible to insect infestation. The University of Colorado deposited particles would impact light reflecting off the
reports that pine trees stressed by air pollution are more marble surface. "We found that black carbon gives a greyish
susceptible to damage from pine bark beetles. A 2008 color to the surface while the presence of brown carbon and
Newsweek story reported that pine beetles had destroyed 22 dust results in yellowish-brown hues," he said. Black carbon
million acres of pine trees in Canada and more than 1.5 is emitted by vehicles and other machines that burn fossil
million acres in Colorado. fuels. Brown carbon is typically released through burning of
biomass and garbage, a common practice in the region.
"Results indicate that deposited light absorbing dust and
Properties carbonaceous particles are responsible for the surface
Air pollution not only harms humans, but also discoloration of the Taj Mahal," the study concludes.
properties like historic and cultural heritage monuments.
 10

MOCTAR Joshua world, but global warming is causing Earth's average global
temperature to increase. The amount of solar radiation, the
What is Climate?
chemistry of the atmosphere, clouds, and the biosphere all
affect Earth's climate.
The climate where you live is called regional climate. It is
the average weather in a place over more than thirty
Effects of Climate Change Today
years. To describe the regional climate of a place, people
often tell what the temperatures are like over the seasons, Over 100 years ago, people worldwide began burning more
how windy it is, and how much rain or snow falls. The climate coal and oil for homes, factories, and transportation. Burning
of a region depends on many factors including the amount these fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and
of sunlight it receives, its height above sea level, the shape other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These added
of the land, and how close it is to oceans. Since the equator greenhouses gases have caused Earth to warm more
receives more sunlight than the poles, climate varies quickly than it has in the past (Bergman J, 2016).
depending on distance from the equator (Johnson R, 2013).
How much warming has happened? Scientists from around
While the weather can change in just a few hours climate the world with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
change over longer timeframes. Climate events, like El Nino, Change (IPCC) tell us that during the past 100 years, the
happen over several years, small-scale fluctuations happen world's surface air temperature increased an average of 0.6°
over decades, and larger climate changes happen over Celsius (1.1°F). This may not sound like very much change,
hundreds and thousands of years. Today, climates are but even one degree can affect the Earth. Below are some
changing. Our Earth is warming more quickly than it has in effects of climate change that we see happening now.
the past according to the research of scientists. Hot summer
days may be quite typical of climates in many regions of the
 11

 Sea level is rising. During the 20th century, sea level  The temperatures of large lakes are warming. The
rose about 15 cm (6 inches) due to melting glacier ice temperatures of large lakes world-wide have risen
and expansion of warmer seawater. Models predict that sea dramatically. Temperature rises have increased algal
level may rise as much as 59 cm (23 inches) during the 21st blooms in lakes, favor invasive species, increase
Century, threatening coastal communities, wetlands, stratification in lakes and lower lake levels.
and coral reefs.  Heavier rainfall cause flooding in many
 Arctic sea ice is melting. The summer thickness of regions. Warmer temperatures have led to more intense
sea ice is about half of what it was in 1950. Melting ice may rainfall events in some areas. This can cause flooding.
lead to changes in ocean circulation. Plus melting sea ice is  Extreme drought is increasing. Higher temperatures
speeding up warming in the Arctic. cause a higher rate of evaporation and more drought in
 Glaciers and permafrost are melting. Over the past some areas of the world.
100 years, mountain glaciers in all areas of the world have  Crops are withering. Increased temperatures and
decreased in size and so has the amount of permafrost in extreme drought are causing a decline in crop productivity
the Arctic. Greenland’s too. around the world. Decreased crop productivity can mean
food shortages which have many social implications.
 Ecosystems are changing. As temperatures
warm, species may either move to a cooler habitat or
 Sea-surface temperatures are warming. Warmer
die. Species that are particularly vulnerable include
waters in the shallow oceans have contributed to the death
endangered species, coral reefs, and polar animals.
of about a quarter of the world's coral reefs in the last few
Warming has also caused changes in the timing of spring
decades. Many of the coral animals died after weakened by
events and the length of the growing season.
bleaching, a process tied to warmed waters.
 12

 Hurricanes have changed in frequency and The Sun Affects Climate

strength. There is evidence that the number of intense
Climate can change if there is a change in the amount of
hurricanes has increased in the Atlantic since 1970
solar energy that gets to Earth. Changes to the cycle of solar
Scientists continue to study whether climate is the cause.
activity , called the 11-year solar cycle, can cause a small
 More frequent heat waves. It is likely that heat waves
impact on climate, too small to be the cause of recent climate
have become more common in more areas of the world.
change. Over thousands of years, changes in the way Earth
 Warmer temperatures affect human health. There
orbits the Sun can cause large changes in climate.
have been more deaths due to heat waves and more allergy
attacks as the pollen season grows longer. There have also
Volcanic Eruptions Affect Climate
been some changes in the ranges of animals that carry
disease like mosquitoes. When volcanoes erupt they spew more than hot
 Seawater is becoming more acidic. Carbon dioxide red lava and ash. They release tiny particles made of sulfur
dissolving into the oceans, is making seawater more acidic. dioxide into the atmosphere too. These particles get into the
There could be impacts on coral reefs and other marine life. stratosphere and reflect solar radiation back out to space.
This causes cooling. The cooling is temporary, lasting
What Controls the Climate?
usually a year or two.

Some of the factors that have an affect on climate, like

Greenhouse Gases Affect Climate
volcanic eruptions and changes in the amount of solar
energy, are natural. Others, like the addition of greenhouse Greenhouse gases have a strong effect on climate. These
gases to the atmosphere, are caused by humans. Some of gases trap heat through a process called the greenhouse
the main ones are listed below (Gardiner L, 2008). effect. While greenhouse gases are a natural part of the
 13

atmosphere, the amount has increased over the past 150

years as fossil fuels have been burned and the amount of
forests, which naturally take up the greenhouse gas carbon
dioxide during photosynthesis, has shrunk.

Snow and Ice Affect Climate

Because the snow and ice of the cryosphere are light in

color, they have a large albedo – the ability to reflect most
solar radiation back out to space. When snow and ice melt
as Earth’s climate warms, less energy is reflected and this
causes even more warming.

There are also other aspects of our planet that have an

impact on climate too. Scientists are studying the impact of
clouds and the impact of aerosols on climate. Scientist are
studying the oceans too because melting Arctic sea ice
could change ocean circulation, causing regional climate to
change.
 14

EDIANON Pearl topographical conditions (Sharan & Yadav et. al).. It is governed by
the following dominant mechanism.
INTRODUCTION
1. Mean airflow that transports the pollutants downwind and
In this era, we lived in a generation wherein high technology
2. Turbulent velocity fluctuation that dispersed the pollutants in
and innovative industries dominates. We have running cars,
all direction
manufacturing factories, operating plants, chemical industries and
many more. The latter samples gives us satisfaction in supplying our The downwind concentrations are function of Atmospheric Stability
wants and needs yet, they possess great impact potential in harming Air,Temperature Lapse Rates, Atmospheric Air Inversions
or threatening our environment which we human being are also Atmospheric, Mixing Height, Dispersion from Point Emission
affected. One of the said great impacts that harm our environment is Sources, Dispersion Coefficients. Moreover, during dispersion
the contamination of air, which commonly known as air pollution. pollutants undergo a wide array of changes and transfers. Dilution
The effects of air pollution has been tackled and elaborated from the occurs owing to mixing into the air. Separation or accumulation of
previous discussions and as a respond, national environmental pollutants occurs on the basis of physical characteristics of the
standards, heightened public awareness of air quality issues driven pollutant. Chemical reactions occur, breaking down the original
largely by a strong need for action on ambient levels of particles in pollutant or converting it into new compounds. Some pollutants can
most parts of the country, the standards lay the foundation for an also be removed from the transporting medium through deposition,
effective air quality management framework (Ministry for the for example, by settling out under the effects of gravity, by rainwash
Environment, 2004). or by interception (scavenging) by plants and other obstructions.
Air pollutants that are released from different sources as
aforementioned, affects man and environment (directly, indirectly). Dispersion Coefficient
They are transported, dispersed or deposited by meteorological and A measure of the spreading of a flowing substance due to the
nature of the porous medium, with its interconnected channels
 15

distributed at random in all directions. The magnitude of Stab x < 1 x > 1

the y and z dispersion coefficients can be estimated using Clas km km
the equations s

z = cxd + f ; y = axb a c D f c D F

y = horizontal dispersion coefficient A 21 440. 1.04 9. 459 2.0 -

1 3 8 1 27 .7 94 9.6
z = vertical dispersion coefficient
B 15 106. 1.14 3. 108 1.0 2.
2 6 6 9 3 .2 98 0
These y and z dispersion coefficients (sometimes called standard
C 10 61. 0.9 0. 61 0.9 0
deviations) have units of meters and correspond to an air pollutant
3 4 0 11 0 .0 11 .0
sampling time of 10 minutes. The dispersion coefficients are function
of the atmospheric stability class and the downwind distance x from D 68 33. 0.72 - 44. 0.5 -

the air pollutant emission source. 4 2 5 1.7 5 16 13.0

E 50 22. 0.67 - 55. 0.3 -
Values for 4 of the stability dependent constants (a, c, d, and f) are 5 .5 8 5 1.3 4 05 34.0
given in the table. Note that there are different values for the F 34 14. 0.74 - 62. 0.1 -
downwind distance x less than 1 km and x greater than 1 km. b is 6 35 0 0.35 6 80 48.6
always = 0.894. The units of x are in kilometers.

From the previous discussion, Stability classes which is developed

Mr. Frank Pasquill is defined in the table below.
 16

Key to Stability Categories horizontal and vertical dispersion coefficient is achieved. See tables
below.
Approximate values of y as a function of downwind distance x
in km are shown in the table below.
Downwind y Values (meters)

Distance A B C D E
x (km)
0.1 27 19 13 8 6
0.2 50 36 23 15 11
0.4 94 67 44 29 21
0.7 155 112 74 48 36
1.0 215 155 105 68 51
2.0 390 295 200 130 96
4.0 550 370 245 180
7.0 890 610 400 300
10.0 1190 840 550 420
20.0 2150 1540 1000 760

Using the values of dependent stability constant shown above,

applying it to the given equation, estimated magnitude values of
 17

Approximate values of z as a function of downwind distance x in Air pollutants or toxins emitted from sources such as industrial plants,

km are shown in the table below: vehicular traffic or accidental chemical releases is estimated or
predicted through dispersion models. This is done in order to :
 protect and manage the ambient air quality
Downwind z Values (meters)
 supply information to assist in the design of effective control
Distance A B C D E F
strategies to reduce emissions of harmful air pollutants
x (km)
 used for emergency planning of accidental chemical releases
0.1 14 11 7 5 4 2
 To determine the consequences of accidental releases of
0.2 29 20 14 8 6 4
hazardous or toxic materials.
0.4 72 40 26 15 11 7
0.7 215 73 43 24 17In order to
11 get the estimated value of concentration of air pollutants
1.0 455 110 61 32 21at some 14
distance downwind, the value of vertical and horizontal
2.0 1950 230 115 50 34dispersion
22coefficient must be known. It has been said that, Air
4.0 500 220 77 49pollutants31is estimated dispersion coefficient models. One these
7.0 780 360 109 66models are
39 Gaussian models, which is to be discussed next to this
10.0 1350 510 135 79topic. The
46 model has an equation which vertical and horizontal
20.0 2900 950 205 110dispersion
60coefficient is needed.

Significance of Dispersion Coefficient

ground level concentration at some

Where Cx =
distance x downwind (g/m3)
 18

Q = average emission rate (g/sec) dispersion of air pollutants over an air shed because the assumption

u = mean wind speed (m/sec) of homogeneous pollutant distribution is much too simple.
2. Gaussian model — The Gaussian model is perhaps the
H = effective stack height (m)
oldest (circa 1936) and perhaps the most commonly used model type.
standard deviation of wind direction in
σy = It assumes that the air pollutant dispersion has a Gaussian
the horizontal (m)
standard deviation of wind direction in distribution, meaning that the pollutant distribution has a normal
σz =
the vertical (m) probability distribution. Gaussian models are most often used for
y = off-centerline distance (m) predicting the dispersion of continuous, buoyant air pollution plumes
e = natural log equal to 2.71828 originating from ground-level or elevated sources. Gaussian models
may also be used for predicting the dispersion of non-continuous air
pollution plumes (called puff models). The primary algorithm used in
Air Pollution Dispersion Models
Gaussian modeling is the Generalized Dispersion Equation For A
There are five types of air pollution dispersion models, as well
Continuous Point-Source Plume.
as some hybrids of the five types:
3. Lagrangian model — a Lagrangian dispersion model
1. Box model — The box model is the simplest of the model
mathematically follows pollution plume parcels (also called particles)
types. It assumes the airshed (i.e., a given volume of atmospheric air
as the parcels move in the atmosphere and they model the motion of
in a geographical region) is in the shape of a box. It also assumes that
the parcels as a random walk process. The Lagrangian model then
the air pollutants inside the box are homogeneously distributed and
calculates the air pollution dispersion by computing the statistics of
uses that assumption to estimate the average
the trajectories of a large number of the pollution plume parcels. A
pollutant concentrations anywhere within the air shed. Although
Lagrangian model uses a moving frame of reference as the parcels
useful, this model is very limited in its ability to accurately predict
move from their initial location. It is said that an observer of a
Lagrangian model follows along with the plume.
 19

4. Eulerian model — an Eulerian dispersions model is

similar to a Lagrangian model in that it also tracks the movement of
a large number of pollution plume parcels as they move from their
initial location. The most important difference between the two
models is that the Eulerian model uses a fixed three-
dimensional Cartesian grid as a frame of reference rather than a
moving frame of reference. It is said that an observer of an Eulerian
model watches the plume go by.
5. Dense gas model — Dense gas models are models that
simulate the dispersion of dense gas pollution plumes (i.e., pollution
plumes that are heavier than air). The three most commonly
used[citation needed][dubious – discuss] dense gas models are:
The DEGADIS model developed by Dr. Jerry Havens and Dr.
Tom Spicer at the University of Arkansas under commission by
the US Coast Guard and US EPA.
The SLAB model developed by the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, the US
Air Force and the American Petroleum Institute.
The HEGADAS model developed by Shell Oil's research
division
 20

TOLARESA Mark Air pollution models play an important role in science,

Air Pollution Modeling because of their capability to assess the relative importance of

Air pollution modeling is a numerical tool used to the relevant processes. Air pollution models are the only

describe the causal relationship between emissions, method that quantifies the deterministic relationship between

meteorology, atmospheric concentrations, deposition, and emissions and concentrations/depositions, including the

other factors. Air pollution measurements give important, consequences of past and future scenarios and the

quantitative information about ambient concentrations and determination of the effectiveness of abatement strategies.

deposition, but they can only describe air quality at specific This makes air pollution models indispensable in regulatory,

locations and times, without giving clear guidance on the research, and forensic applications (The Arab School for

identification of the causes of the air quality problem. Air Science and Technology, 2007).

pollution modeling, instead, can give a more complete The concentrations of substances in the atmosphere are

deterministic description of the air quality problem, including an determined by: 1) transport, 2) diffusion, 3) chemical

analysis of factors and causes (emission sources, transformation, and 4) ground deposition. Transport

meteorological processes, and physical and chemical phenomena, characterized by the mean velocity of the fluid,

changes), and some guidance on the implementation of have been measured and studied for centuries. For example,

mitigation measures (Builtjes, 2003). the average wind has been studies by man for sailing purposes.
 21

The study of diffusion (turbulent motion) is more recent (Taylor, What conditions affect atmospheric stability?

1921). 1. Wind 2. Day/Night thermal effects (solar radiation)

Gaussian Plume Model Stability Categories

A computer model used to calculate air pollution A = unstable atmospheric condition (pollution will

concentrations. The model assumes that a pollutant plume is spread out)

carried downwind from its emission source by a mean wind and B = stable atmospheric condition (pollution will stay

that concentrations in the plume can be approximated by together)

assuming that the highest concentrations occur on the

horizontal and vertical midlines of the plume, with the

distribution about these mid-lines characterized by Gaussian or

bell-shaped concentration profiles (McCracken, 2005).

Gaussian Dispersion

- concentration at any point is related to the probability that the

particle will disperse there

- the spread of pollution is vertical and horizontal

Atmospheric Stability
 22

Gaussian Plume Equation

 23

Atmospheric stability is a parameter that characterizes the

turbulent status of the atmosphere. This parameter ranges
from “very stable”, class F, to “neutral”, class D, up to “very
unstable”, class A.
24
25
 26

AUSA Patrick Expanded Equation: C(x, y, z)=

−1(△𝐶𝑊2 ) −1(𝑧𝑠 −ℎ+𝑧𝑟 )2
Gaussian Approach 𝑄 2(𝜎𝑦 )2 2(𝜎𝑧 )2
𝑒 𝑒
Gaussian plume model is the most common air pollution 𝜋𝑢𝜎𝑦 𝜎𝑧

model. It is based on a simple formula that describes the

three-dimensional concentration field generated by a point
Where:
source under stationary meteorological and emission
C(x,y,z) = concentration of pollutant (g/m3)
conditions.
Q = Mass emission rate (g/s)
It was formulated under the following assumptions:
u = velocity (m/s)
 Steady state conditions
h = effective stack height (m)
 Constant eddy diffusivity
σy , σz = disk area in simple model (dimensionless)
 Constant windspeed with height
Gaussian “Point” Source Plume Model
 Mass is conserved

−1(𝑦2 ) −1(𝑧−ℎ)2
𝑄 2(𝜎𝑦 )2 2(𝜎𝑧 )2
General Equation: C(x, y, z)= 𝑒 [𝑒 +
2𝜋𝑢𝜎𝑦 𝜎𝑧

−1(𝑧+ℎ)2
𝑒 2(𝜎𝑧 )2 ]
Stationary State/ Inhalation Equation: C(x, y, z)=
−1(𝑦2 ) −1(𝑧−ℎ)2
𝑄 2(𝜎𝑦 )2 2(𝜎𝑧 )2
𝑒 𝑒
𝜋𝑢𝜎𝑦 𝜎𝑧
 27

Plume sigma formulas from EPA’s ISC Model

• Vertical distribution: σz = axb

x is in kilometers
σz is in meters
a, b depend on x
• Cross-wind distribution: 465.11628(x)(tan ѳ ); ѳ =
0.017453293(c - d ln(x))

x is in kilometers
Calculations of σy and σz : σy is in meters
There are two ways to solve for σy and σz : ѳ is in radians
1. Non-dimensional Sy and Sz functions of Gaussian Semi-Empirical Calculations Table:
2. Semi-empirical Calculations

Semi-empirical Calculations
Allows the computation of σy and σz from the use of
atmospheric stability class and downwind distance. The
stability class may be Pasquill or Turner method.
28
29
30
 31

Sol’n: @groundlevel: z=0, y=0 because there is no value

given for cross-wind nor parameters for solving cross-wind
dispersion.
−1(02 ) −1(0−100)2
1 2(2∗2.5∗160)1 2(2∗2.5∗160)1
C/Q = 𝑒 𝑒
5∗𝜋(2∗2.5∗160)

C/Q = 1.536x10-7s/m3

2. Given: Q = 10 grams/sec; h = 50m; x = 500 m = 0.5

km; u100 = 6 m/s; Stability Class “D” Compute: C(500,
0, 0) ,i.e., the ground level concentration at plume
center line, 500 meters downwind.

Sol’n: @groundlevel: z=0, y=0 because there is no value

Examples:
given for cross-wind nor parameters for solving cross-wind
1. What is the C/Q at a location 800m downwind of the
dispersion.
stack where:
C(500,0,0) =
u = 5 m/s Soving for sigma y and z: @ “D” class stability
h = 100m σz = axb = 32.093(.5)0.081066 = 18.3
k = 2.5 m2/s σy = 465.11628xtan(ѳ)
*C/Q at the ground. ѳ = 0.017453293(8.333-.072382ln(0.5)) = 0.1542 radians; note
Ans: 1.536 x 10-7 s/m3 that ѳ is set in radians.
 32

σy = 465.11628(0.5)tan(0.1542) = 36.1
−1(𝑦2 ) −1(𝑧−ℎ)2
𝑄 2(𝜎𝑦 )2 2(𝜎𝑧 )2
C(500,0,0) = 𝑒 𝑒
𝜋𝑢𝜎𝑦 𝜎𝑧

−1(0) −1(0−50)2
10 2(36.1)2 2(18.3)2
C(500,0,0) = 𝑒 𝑒
6𝜋∗36.1∗18.3
Ans: 1.92 x 10-5 g/m3
 33

DAMASO Varjonessa classified by Church into five types and later Hewson added

An algorithm for calculating the altitude that a plume will more type.

raise is due to momentum and buoyancy forces before reaching

an equilibrium height. Plume rise increases with higher 1. Coning plume

buoyancy or momentum of the plume and decreases with It is most likely to occur during cloudy or windy periods.

increasing wind speed or vertical temperature gradient in the It is calculated that when horizontal wind velocity

atmosphere. The rate of rise is fastest at the point of emission exceeds 32km/hour and under the condition of cloud

and decreases due to the entrainment of ambient air, which has blocking solar radiations at day time and terrestrial

minimal momentum and generally lower temperatures than the radiation at night, neutral plume tends to form cone like

original plume. The plume is considered to be at its final height structure known as coning plume. Under sub-adiabatic

when the rate of rise decreases to a point where it is equivalent conditions (ELR < ALR), when there is limited vertical

to vertical velocities generated by turbulence in the mixing and environment is slightly stable, the plume also

atmosphere. The diffusion or dispersion of pollutants into the attains cone like structure and is coning plume.

atmosphere is governed by the Environmental Lapse Rate (ELR)

as well as Adiabatic Lapse rate (ALR). The smoke plumes were

 34

2. Fanning plumes It is of wavy character and occurs in super adiabatic

It spreads out horizontally but do not mix vertically. environment (ELR>ALR), which produces highly

Fanning plumes take place when the air temperature unstable atmosphere because of rapid mixing. In an

increases with altitude (inversion). The plume rarely unstable atmosphere, rapid air movements take place

reaches the grounds level unless the inversion is broken vertically, both upward and downward and the plume

by surface heating or the plume encounters a hill. At becomes a looping plume. As a result of this, high

night, with light winds and clear skies, fanning plumes concentrations of pollutants may occur near the ground.

are most probable. Under extreme inversion condition To disperse these pollutants, it is advisable to design high

(due to negative lapse rate), fanning plume is obtained. stack where atmosphere is generally super adiabatic.

Under condition of inversion, stable environmental

condition exists just above the stack and plume does not 4. Neutral plumes

move upwardly but horizontally. It occurs in neutral atmospheric conditions (ELR=ALR).

Such type of plume rises vertically in an upward

3. Looping plumes direction. The upward lifting of the plume will continue
 35

till it reaches a height where density and temperature of 6. Fumigation plumes

surrounding air are equal to it. It causes the high pollutant concentration plume reaching

the ground level along the length of the plume and is

5. Lofting plumes caused by a super-adiabatic lapse rate beneath an

It diffuses upward but not downwards and occurs when inversion. The super-adiabatic lapse rate at the ground

there is a super-adiabatic layer above a surface inversion. level occurs due to the solar heating. This condition has

A lofting plume will generally not reach the ground been favored by clear skies and light winds. Fumigating

surface. The upward mixing of plume is very rapid and plume is just opposite to lofting plume. It is under

turbulent, but downward mixing is less because the conditions of negative lapse rate (inversion) just above

downward movement is prevented by inversion. The the stack and strong super adiabatic lapse rate below the

dispersion of pollutants therefore becomes rapid and stack. Under these set of conditions, the pollutants cannot

pollutants cannot come down to the ground. Such kind of escape above the stack, rather they come down near the

a plume is ideal for dispersion of air pollutants and ground due to turbulence and mixing. Fumigating plume

protection of living beings to a great extent. is therefore extremely bad for dispersion of pollutants.
 36

ESQUILONA Jeffry also under the propulsion of momentum (inertia). Such plume is
more properly categorized as buoyant jet or forced plume. What
Plume
drives a plume is its heat flux, defined as the amount of heat
This topic describes several distinct structures that fluids
(expressed in joules) being discharged through the exit hole per
develop in reaction to localized inputs of buoyancy. A punctual
unit time. Since it is more practical in later mathematical
and sustained source of buoyancy usually creates a continuous
developments, this quantity is divided by ρoCp (the fluid’s
rise of lighter fluid through the ambient denser fluid, with
reference density and heat capacity at constant pressure) and
mixing occurring along the way. Such structure is called
then multiplied by αg (the fluid’s thermal expansion coefficient
plume. Buoyant jets are plumes with the added propulsion of
and the gravitational acceleration), giving rise to the buoyancy
momentum, and buoyant puffs are fluid that rises under the
flux F:
combined action of buoyancy and momentum.
𝛼𝑔 Heat
Plumes are common features in environmental fluids, F=
𝜌𝑜𝐶𝑝 Time
which occur whenever a persistent source of buoyancy creates a Note that because heat per time is expressed in J/s, the buoyancy
rising motion of the buoyant fluid upward and away from the flux is measured in units of m4/s3.
source. A common example of this is those stack plants from the
industries that release dark color smoke. Another occurrence is
the rising of freshwater from the bottom of the sea at submarine On the other hand when we say of plume rise it is usually
springs in Karstic regions such as along the Dalmatian Coast of defined as the height above the stack orifice that the plume
Croatia, where such features are called vrulje. The common centerline rises due to the momentum and buoyancy of the stack
urban smokestack plume is, however, somewhat different gases. The state of art of predicting height-of-rise from
because the warm gas rise not only under its own buoyancy but
 37

meteorological and stack data at present is quiet poor. The

number of formulas for calculating plume rise appears to vary
inversely with our understanding of the processes involved.
Over twenty such formulas have been proposed and several new
ones have been appeared annually. Some are based on
theoretical considerations including dimensional analysis,
others on strictly on empirical grounds. None is universally
accepted primarily because it has been impossible to establish
the validity of any from the quality and quantity of available
plume rise and meteorological data.

Figure: Plume rise from the stack exit

 38

Basic Segment of an Elevated Plume Transition phase

 Plume's internal turbulence levels have dropped enough
so that the atmospheric eddies in the inertial sub range
determines the plume's growth.
Diffusion phase
 The plume's own turbulence has dropped and energy
containing eddies of atmospheric turbulence determine
the growth of plume.

Initial phase
 Vertical Jet : Effluents are not deflected immediately
upon entering the cross flow if (Vs / U > 4 )
 Bent-Over Jet Section: Entrainment of the cross flow is
rapid because by this time appreciable growth of vortices Factors Influencing Plume Rise
has taken place. Three sets of parameters control the behavior of a smoke
 Thermal Section : Self-generated turbulence causes plume ejected into the atmosphere from a stack. These are stack
mixing and determines the growth of plume. engineering factors, meteorological conditions, and nature of
 39

effluent itself. Stack design parameters which influence the Δhc=f(Vs, d, U, Qh )

plume include height of the stack above the ground and Where
surrounding buildings, speed and temperature of the effluent, Δhc is computed plume rise
terrain and buildings near the stack (which creates mechanical Vs is stack effluent velocity
turbulence and whose effect usually varies with the wind U is wind speed
direction), local heat sources which create convective Qh is heat emission rate and
turbulence, the shape of the stack, and the number of stacks in d is stack diameter.
the area. Atmospheric turbulence controls both the rate of The stack parameters are Vs' d, and Qh' Some authors
mixing of the plume with outside air and the motion of the plume have included Hs' the stack height (Stone and Clarke, 1967) of
after mixing has reduced the buoyancy and momentum of the importance but not included in the formulas are such factors as
effluent to near zero. Wind speed, terrain roughness, and static the number of stacks, shape of stacks, and the location of the
stability are the primary factors determining the intensity and stack with respect to both the building it services and other
spectrum of turbulence. Large particles tend to fall to the ground structures nearby.
short distances from the stack; very small liquid and solid
particles with negligab1e fall velocities in still air follow almost The Plume Rise Equations
exactly the motions of the air in which they are imbedded. Several plume rise formulas, described in detail, were used. The
Evaporation of water in the plume cools the plume and thus appropriate stack and meteorological data were inserted into
reduces its buoyancy. each of the formulas, and the predicted plume rise, Δhc,
Expression relating plume rise with stack and environmental computed for each of the 711 observations. To facilitate
parameters are of the forms:
 40

comparisons, a uniform set of symbols, using meters, seconds, S=stability parameter (Csanady; Briggs)
kilocalories and degrees K, was adapted as presented below: (A) The Holland Formula.
Δho= observed plume rise, m Holland (1953) presented the following empirical
Δhc= calculated plume rise, m equation for predicting plume rise:
Vs=stack exit velocity, m/s 1.5Vs∗d+0.04Qh
Δhc=
𝑈
d=stack diameter, m
This expression is based on wind tunnel tests and data
U or Us= mean wind speed at top of stack, m/s
from three stacks, two operated by Oak Ridge and one by T.V.A.
Qh= heat emission rate, kilojoules/sec
This formula contains both momentum and heat flux terms. Note
For Heat emission rate, KJ/s; Qh=ṁCp (Ts-TA)
𝑃𝑅 that plume rise is proportional to heat flux, Qh' to the first power.
Stack gas mass flow rate Kg/s; ṁ= ∏d /4*(Vs
2
)
𝑇𝑠 Since the height of plume rise also depends on stability, Holland
Hs=height of stack, m suggested that 10% to 20% of the rise given by the equation be
TA=air temperature, K added for unstable conditions and an equal amount subtracted
Θ= air potential temperature, K for inversions. In this comparison, 20% corrections have been
Ts=stack gas temperature, K applied for stability.
L= horizontal distance from point of emission
K, x, y= regression coefficients (B) The Stumke Formula.
Q=release rate, gm/s Stumke (1963) later introduced an empirical
λ= concentration, gm/m3 modification of the Holland formula:
F= buoyancy flux parameter (Csanady, 1961; Briggs, 1965) 1
Δhc = [1.5Vs *d+ 65d2/3 (Ts−Ta) 1/4
]
𝑈 Ts
 41

The momentum term was not changed, but the thermal computed from two stacks in Germany. His equation is:
term depends on buoyancy to One-fourth power. Δhc= 47.2 (Qh1/4 /U)
(C) The CONCAWE Simplified Formula.
The CONCAWE Working Group on Stack Height and
Atmospheric Dispersion made an analysis (using 438 plume (F) The Stone-Clarke Formula.
rise observations) to fit an equation of the form: Plume rise studies conducted by the Central Electricity
(Qh)^x
Δhc= K (U)^y
Generating Board in England show that: plume rise depends in
part of the height of the stack itself. The higher the stack, the
Where K, x and y were determined based on their results from
greater too rise due to the decrease in turbulence intensity and
their observations x=1/2, y=2/3, and K=2.71
slower mixing, especially above 100 meters (Stone and Clarke,
(D) The Lucas-Moore-Spurr Formula.
1967). They proposed the following, a modification of the Lucas
These authors (1963) showed that plume rise
Moore- Spurr formula,
measurements from two United Kingdom power plants could be
reconciled with the theoretical results of Priestley (1956), the Δhc= [(104.2+0.171Hs) Qh1/4 /U]
equation having the form: Stone and Clarke emphasized that this is a tentative

Δhc= K (Qh1/4 /U) for K=135 formula, and that the coefficient for Hs may be under-estimated.
They also state that exit speed and chimney diameter should
(E) The Rauch Formula.
enter the expression.
Rauch (1964) proposed a plume rise equation of same
(G) The Moses-Carson 1967 Formulas for Stability Classes.
form as the Lucas-Moore-Spurr expression, with the value of K
Vertical momentum & thermal buoyancy, based on 615
 42

observations involving 26 stacks. This equation is commonly (I) Briggs' Windy Stable Formula
used in solving Effective Stack Height or the height above Again by dimensional analysis, Briggs (1965) suggested
ground at which the plume begins to travel downwind the that plume rise in a stable atmosphere is given by:
effective release point of the pollutant and the origin of its 𝐹
Δhc=2.6( ) 1/3
𝑈𝑆
dispersion.
𝑔 𝜎𝜃 𝜎𝜃
Unstable (Superadiabatic) Δhc= 3.47 (Vs*d/U) +5.15 Where S is stability parameter =
𝑇𝑎 𝜎𝑧
; where
𝜎𝑧
is the ambient
(Qh1/2 /U) 𝜎𝜃 𝛥𝑇
potential Temperature but =( )-Гd; where Гd= -0.0098K/m
Neutral Δhc=0.35 (Vs*d/U) +2.64 𝜎𝑧 𝛥𝑧
(J) Briggs' Neutral and Unstable Formula.
(Qh1/2 /U)
In a neutral atmosphere, mixing of stack effluent with
Stable (Subadiabatic) Δhc=-1.04 (Vs*d/U) +2.24
ambient air will never reduce buoyancy to zero. Therefore, the
(Qh1/2 /U)
plume will continue to rise. Briggs (1965) suggested that the
(H) The Briggs Transitional Case.
final plume rise would be greater than (150 F/U3). In this paper,
Briggs (1965) by dimensional analysis techniques
using his suggested relationship, the formula tested was.
suggested the following formula for the rise of a bent-over
Δhc=150[F/U3]
plume:
(J.i) for stable with calm condition
Δhc=2.0[(F1/3*L2/3)/U]
Δhc=5.0(F) 0.25/S0.375
Where F is the buoyancy flux = 0.038 Qh and L is the distance
Where F= gVs(d/2)2(Ts-TA)/TA
downwind of the stack at which Δho measured. Note that plume
As a function of downward distance x
rise is proportional to Qh 1/ 3 and U-1.
 43

Δhc=1.6(F).333*(x).666/U (O) Whaley’s Equation

(K) Csanady Formula. Δhc=262*(Qh) 0.24/U

Csanady (1961), also using dimensional analysis and data (P) Lucas Equation
from stacks in Canada suggested. Unstable and Neutral conditions Δhc= ((60+5Hc)/U)*(Qh)
Δhc=250[F/U3] 0.25

This formula, except for the no dimensional constant, is For average meteorological conditions Δhc=
similar to Briggs' neutral windy case. ((275+2Hc)/U)*(Qh) 0.25
(L) Briggs formula for momentum sources (less than 50
For Stable and Low wind speeds Δhc= (116/U)/ (Qh) 0.25
ambient above temperature)
For stable and high wind speeds Δhc= (160/U)*(Qh) 0.25
Δhc=1.5(Vs/U)*d
(Q) Morton, Taylor and Turner Equation
(M) Smith equation Momentum sources (less than 50
(Stable conditions with little or no winds)
ambient above temperature)
Δhc=5.0(F0.25)/ (S0.375)
Δhc=d (Vs/U) 0.4

(R) Under Briggs equation (for hot gas with heat release of
This two equations above can be applied where exit
106 cal/s or more)
velocity of flue gases are high, preferable above 20m/s and stack
0
Δhc=0.84*(12.4+0.09*Hc)*(Qh0.25)/U
gas temperature below 100 C.
(For momentum dominated, not very hot release)
Δhc=3Vsd/U
(N) Thomas Formula
Terms used in Plume Rise Calculation
Δhc=4.71(Qh) 0.444/ (U) 0.694
 44

 Buoyancy Flux (F): g = Acceleration

due to gravity Determination of the Type of Plume (Momentum or
Vs = Stack exit Buoyant)
velocity Crossover Temperature (DTc)
d = Exit gas Unstable or Neutral case
diameter 2/3
Ts = Stack gas Tc  0.0297*Ts Vs1/3 for F  55 m4 / sec3
ds
exit temperature 1/ 3
Ta = Ambient air Tc  0.00575*Ts Vs2/3 for F  55 m4 / sec3
temperature
ds
Buoyancy rise if DT >= DTc or is assumed to be Momentum
T  Ts Ta
Stable case T  0.019582*Ts Vs S
C

The above calculations are valid for cases with stack exit
 Momentum Flux (Fm): temperature Ts greater than or equal to ambient temperature Ta.
Plume under Calm Condition
Fm  (Ta / Ts ) *Vs2 * d 2 / 4  For Calm Conditions

For wind speeds < 1 m/sec

Analytical Solutions  The plume rise for a jet is computed as follows:
 Momentum Sources ∆h = 4.0 Fm 1/4 S -1/4
1/ 4
For Unstable and Neutral conditions h  5.0 F
S 3/8
3 d Vs
h   forVs /U s  4
Us
For Stable conditions
1/ 3 3d V
S 1/ 6 h  U  forVs /U s  4
  s
V 2 d 2 T 
h  1.5  s a
 4 Ts Us 




s
 45

Basic formula of plume rise: Ex b

h  a
u
46

Examples:
1.) Calculate the buoyancy flux of a source for the following
conditions:
Vs 19 m/s
ds 3m
Ts 400 °K
 47

Estimate the plume rise. If the stack has a geometric height of

Ta 283 °K
40m, what is the effective stack height?
Solution:
Step 1: ΔT = Ts – Ta
Step 2: Buoyancy Flux F = (g * Vs * ds² * ∆T)/ (4 * Ts)
Solution:
Answer: F = 122.67 m4/s3
2.) Determine the plume rise from a 40 m high stack if the
Step1: Use Carson and Moses Equation for neutral condition to
buoyancy flux from the source is 50 m4/sec3 and the wind
get Δh
velocity is 5 m/sec. The atmospheric condition is slightly
Step2: Get H= Δh+Hg(Geometric Height)
unstable.
Answer: 78.7m
Solution:
Step 1: Determine if the plume is buoyant or momentum.
Step 2: x* = 14 F 5/8 when F < = 55 m4/sec3; x* =
161.43

Step 3:
Answer: 80.5703m
3.) A power plant has a stack with a diameter of 2 m and emits
gases with a stack exit velocity of 15 m/s and a heat emission
rate of 4,800 kJ/s . The wind speed is 5m/s. Stability is neutral.
 48

JAIME Brijitte

Ground Level Concentration

Ground level concentration is the concentration in air of a
pollutant, to which a human being is normally exposed, i.e. between
the ground and a height of some 2 meters above it (European
Environment Agency, 2015). Ground level concentration of an air
pollutant is obtained using the Gaussian Plume Model which has been
already discussed by the previous reporters. The Gaussian Plume
Model provided the primary method for calculation concentration of
non-reactive pollutants. However the effective stack height H of the
pollutant has been considered as a function of the ground level
coordinates x and y ((Embaby, M. et. al, 2011). Due to the initial
kinetic energy of the released plume and its thermal energy when the
plume temperature is above ambient air temperature, there will be an
increase in the emission height, H, of the plume. This increase is
known as the plume rise h. In order to predict ground level
concentration of pollutants the plume rise should be considered.
Pasquill (1971) and Ragland (1975) and others have obtained the
maximum ground level concentration taking into account a constant
plume rise h with the downwind distance.
 49

u - is the downwind velocity is taken along the x-axis

(positive direction) (m/sec),

Q - is the source strength (g/sec),

H - is the effective stack height (m),

σy and σz are given by equation are the standard

deviations of plume concentration distribution in the
horizontal and vertical directions respectively.

The ground level concentration is obtained by setting z = 0 (Embaby,

M. et. al, 2011).
The ground damps out vertical dispersion and pollutants
reflect back up from the ground. The equation use in here accounts
for the reflection of gaseous pollutants back into the atmosphere. The
In order to solve the ground level concentration we will used
concentration of pollutants is equal to the contribution of both plumes
the Gaussian Plume equation. The concentration distribution at some
at ground level.
point above the ground is given by the Gaussian Plume Model as:
Example:
1.) Nitrogen dioxide is emitted at 110 g/s from stack with H = 80
m
Wind speed = 5 m/s
where: Plume rise is 20 m
Calculate ground level concentration 100 meter from
x - is the downwind distance from the source (m), centerline of plume (y)
Assume stability class D so σy = 126 m and σz = 51 m
y - is the crosswind distance from the source (m),
Given:
z - is the vertical distance above the ground (m),
Q= 110 g/s
H= 80m
χ - is the concentration of pollutant (g/m3),
 50

U= 5m/s 3.
h= 20 m   ( Z  H )2 
exp  
y=100m  2 z 
2

σy= 126 m
σz= 51 m   (0  100)2 
exp  2
  0.1465
Required: C  2(51) 
Solution: 3
C ( x, y,0)  5.4488 x10 4 (0.7298)2(0.1465)  1.1651x10 4 g / m3or116.51g / m

Solving by parts:
1.
Q
2 y z u
110 g / s
 5.4488 x10 4
2 (5m)(126m)(51m)
2.
  y2 
exp  2 
 2 
 y 

  (100m) 2 
exp    0.7298
 2(126) 2 
 
 51

ORTOUSTE KIM U = worst case wind speed at

height z = 10 m, usually 1 m/s W
Worst Ground Level Concentration = worst case cloud width [m]
(usually assume W = 0.1x, where x is
In choosing an air dispersion model, several levels of model are distance from the source)
available, with progressively increasing levels of mathematical H = worst case cloud depth
sophistication, input data requirements and user expertise required. At the (usually assume H = 50 m in worst case)
low end of the scale are the gross screening models, which require only a
hand-held calculator, nomograph, or spreadsheet. They may treat only one This equation is essentially a statement of the conservation of pollutant
source at a time (e.g., a single elevated stack) and provide some sort of mass, but it illustrates many of the basic parameter dependencies in
worst-case prediction based on relatively primitive meteorological dispersion modeling. Referring to Figure 2, we assume a uniform
information. It is often wise to apply such a model prior to using the more concentration in the plume passing through the downwind plane HW.
advanced models, where the flow of information is more difficult to follow.

Gross Screen Analysis

It is often useful to perform a simple screening analysis before applying
a more refined computer analysis. A gross screening analysis will quickly
identify the order of magnitude of the expected concentrations and may even
show that no problem exists, in which case more advanced modelling is
unnecessary.

A useful formula for estimating worst case mean concentrations downwind

of a point source is the following equation suggested by Hanna et al. (1996):

109 Q
C
wc = (1)
UH
wcWwc Equation (1) follows from the fact that the flux of pollutant through any
plane must equal the source rate Q. Equation (1) illustrates several important
dependencies that should be satisfied by all plume models:
where: 1. The mean concentration is inversely proportional to mean wind
Q = source strength or emission rate speed.
of gas or particulate [kg/s] Cwc = worst 2. The mean concentration is directly proportional to the release
case concentration [µg/m3] rate.
 52

3. The mean concentration is inversely proportional to the plume

cross-sectional area.

As an example of the above, suppose a small amount (1-kg) of ammonia is

released over a period of 30 minutes in an accidental release. Assuming a
light wind of 1 m/s, does this release pose any risk to the occupants of a
hospital located 5 km downwind? For this example the estimate of the plume
width is Wwc= 0.1 × 5000 = 500 m, thus,

109 Q (109 µ g / kg) × (1kg /1800s) µg

Cw = = = 22.2
c UH W 1m / s × 50m × 500m m3
min
min

This concentration turns out to be equivalent to 0.032 ppm (and is, in fact,
1500 times below the personal exposure limit (PEL) associated with
negative health effects due to prolonged exposure to ammonia). Therefore,
we can safely say that there is no risk. In such a case there is also no need
to perform any advanced modelling to assess the risk.

A ground level accidental release of 0.5 g/s occurs at a 4 m height in

terrain with a roughness length of z = 0.01m. Assuming a wind
o
speed of 1 m/s what is the maximum ground level concentration 4
km downwind estimated from the gross screening method and from
the gaussian plume equation?
 53

GANZON Rowel on waste stream conditions. The stack height is more difficult to arrive

at, as it is influenced by several site-specific variables. Nonetheless,

Introduction
ample guidance has been developed to allow the estimator to

Historically, the basic function of smoke stacks has been to determine an acceptably accurate stack height

provide natural draft for combustion. Under these conditions, stack

design was primarily concerned with the draft to be produced, the Calculating Stack Diameter
frictional pressure loss, the structural design of the stack itself, and
Because most stacks have circular cross-sections, the stack
foundation and selection of suitable construction materials. With the
diameter (Ds, ft) can be calculated via the duct diameter formula:
introduction of mechanical draft systems, the function of stacks has
1
 Qc  2
markedly changed to one of controlling air pollution through effective Ds  1.128 
 Uc 
effluent dispersal.
Qc = exit volumetric flow rate (actual ft3/min)
Fortunately, for study cost-estimating purposes, the only two
Uc = stack exit velocity (ft/min)
stack design parameters that need to be determined are: (1) the stack
It should be noted that the stack diameter in this formula is
diameter and (2) the stack height. The other variables (e.g., wall
measured at the stack exit, not at the entrance. That is because, for
thickness) are incorporated into the equipment cost correlations. The
structural reasons, the diameter at the bottom of the stack typically is
stack diameter is relatively easy to determine, as it depends primarily
larger than the top diameter. Also note that the stack exit velocity does
 54

not necessarily equal the duct transport velocity. Finally, Qc may be temperatures; the height, shape, and arrangement of the nearby

different from the volumetric flow rate used to size the ductwork. structures and terrain; and the composition of the stack outlet gas.

Because the stack always follows the control device, the flow rate Some of these variables are straightforward to determine, while others

entering the device may not equal the flow rate entering the stack, (such as the dimensions and layout of nearby structures) are difficult

either in standard or actual ft3/min terms. For instance, in a thermal to determine without performing on-site modeling and monitoring

incinerator, the outlet standard waste gas flow rate is almost always studies.

higher than the inlet flow rate due to the addition of supplemental fuel. The stack design height has two components: the height of the stack

The stack exit velocity, Uc, affects the plume height, the itself (Hs) and the plume rise height (Hpr) . Together these

distance that the plume rises above the top of the stack once it exits. components comprise the effective stack height (He). That is:

In a well-designed stack, Uc should be 1.5 times the wind speed.

He  Hs  Hpr
Typically, design exit velocities of 3,000 to 4,000 ft/min are adequate.

This range corresponds to wind speeds of 34 to 45 mi/hr.

However, the cost of the stack is a function of Hs alone. The
Calculating Stack Height
plume rise is a function of the stack exit velocity. It also depends on
Estimating the stack height is more difficult than calculating
the temperature differential between the stack gas and the ambient air.
the stack exit diameter. The stack height depends on several variables:
Specifically, a 1°F temperature difference corresponds to
the height of the source; the stack exit velocity; the stack and ambient
approximately a 2.5-ft. increase in Hpr.
 55

For those sources subject to State Implementation Plans that ensures that stack emissions do not cause excessive pollutant

(SIPs), the stack height (Hs) should be determined according to “good concentrations from atmospheric downwash, wakes, eddy effects.,

engineering practice” (GEP). etc; or (3) the height determined by the following equation:

GEP is defined as “the height necessary to insure that

Hs  Hb  1.5L
emissions from the stack do not result in excessive concentrations of

any air pollutant in the immediate vicinity of the source as a result of

atmospheric downwash, eddies, or wakes which may be created by

Where
the source itself, nearby structures, or nearby terrain obstacles.”

In this respect, GEP establishes the maximum allowable stack

Hs = GEP stack height, measured from the ground level
height credit for purposes of calculating the ambient air quality impact
elevation at the stack base (ft)
of the emitting source. A source may build a stack to any height, but
Hb = height of nearby structure(s) measured from this ground
only a certain amount of stack height will be allowed in determining
level elevation (ft)
environmental impacts.
L = lesser dimension (height or projected width of nearby
For stacks constructed after January 12, 1979, the GEP stack
structure(s))
height shall be the greater of: (1) 65 meters (213 ft); (2) the height

demonstrated by an approved fluid model or field study

 56

Stack Design:

Stack Effect Draft and Example Calculation

The combustion flue gases inside the flue gas stacks are much

hotter than the ambient outside air and therefore less dense than the

ambient air. That causes the bottom of the vertical column of hot flue

gas to have a lower pressure than the pressure at the bottom of a Figure 1: Illustration of stack effect

corresponding column of outside air. That higher pressure outside the

chimney is the driving force that moves the required combustion air Calculating Stack Draft
into the combustion zone and also moves the flue gas up and out of
 1 1 
the chimney. That movement or flow of combustion air and flue gas SPs  0.034Hs  Hbr  p  
 Tamb Tsa 
is called "natural draft", "natural ventilation", "chimney effect", or
Hbr = height of stack breaching (inlet duct connection) above
"stack effect". The taller the stack, the more draft is created.
stack base (ft)

P = barometric pressure(in. w.c.)

 57

Tamb = ambient temperature (°R) Solution:

Tsa = average stack gas temperature (°R)
Exit velocity :

Uc  1.5( windspeed )
Example:
 mi  5280 ft  1hr 
The waste gas from a thermal incinerator has an outlet flow rate and Uc  1.5 42   
temperature of 21,700 actual ft3/min. and 550°F, respectively. The  hr  1mi  60 min 
ft
Uc  5544
maximum wind speed in the vicinity is 42 mi/hr, while the stack exit

and ambient temperatures are 450°F and 70°F, in turn. The barometric min
pressure is 1 atm. (29.92 in. Hg). The incinerator is near a 35-ft tall

brick building, while the “projected width” of an adjacent building is Calculating the Stack diameter:
40 ft. For a stack to disperse the incinerator offgas, calculate the The exit volumetric flow rate is measured at the stack exit
required: (1) exit velocity, (2) diameter, (3) height, and (4) draft. temperature, namely 450°F. However, the above flow rate was

measured at 550°F, the incinerator outlet temperature. Correcting to

the stack exit temperature, we obtain:

 58

Qc 

21,700  450  460   19,551.5
Clearly,
actualft 3 this Hs is less than the GEP maximum height (213 ft), so it

will be used in this example.

550  460 min
Calculating Stack draft:
Solve for Stack Diameter:
All of the inputs needed to compute the stack draft are known except
1
 Qc 
the stack breaching height, Hbr. However, a minimum of 5 ft is
2
Ds  1.128 
 
recommended for this parameter. Also, the average stack temperature
Uc
1 is:
 19,551.5 
450  550460  960 R
2
Ds  1.128 
 5544  Tsa 
2
Ds  2.12 ft

Finally, the barometric pressure expressed in inches of water is:

Calculating Stack height:
13.6in.water
As a first approximation, estimate the GEP stack height, where the p  29.92in.Hg   406.9in.w.c
in.Hg
variables Hb and L are 35 ft and 40 ft, respectively:

Hs  Hb  1.5L Solve for Stack Draft:

Hs = 35 + 1.5(40) = 95 ft.
 59

 1 1 
SPs  0.034Hs  Hbr  p  
 Tamb Tsa 
 1 
SPs  0.03495  5406.9
1
 
 70  460 960 
SPs  1.05in.wc.