Comparison of Observed and Predicted KR–85 Air Concentrations

Yildiran, M.; Miller, Charles W.

doi:10.1016/s0166-1116(08)72105-8

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…parameterxMiller et al (1 980) compared predictions using the PG and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) dispersion parameters with measured concentrations of fluorescein particles released from a height of 56 m. They found that predictions using the PG values gave better agreement with the observed concentrations than did predictions based on the BNL values. The PG predictions had fewer extremes of underprediction and overprediction and more values of the predicted-to-observed ratio clustered near unity compared with the BNL values Yildiran and Miller (1983). compared predictions…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

“…These comparisons have been analyzed in terms of the ratio between the predicted and observed air concentrations. The frequency distributions of these ratios, as well as their geometric means and variance, have Fields et al 1980Little et al 1982Miller and Cotter 1982Fields et al 1983Yildiran and Miller 1983 …”

Section: Determination Of Atmospheric Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, all methods of specifying stability performed reasonably well with the Julich (100-m) parameters, and the use of the (u, DTDZ) methodology improved the accuracy of the other dispersion parameters considered in the study. For the 56-m releases, Yildiran and Miller (1983) found that the much-maligned DTDZ method gave the best results for their zinc sulfide particles (Table 3), but found that the SD procedure gave the best results for both PG and BNL diispersion parameters.…”

Section: Determination Of Atmospheric Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During the last decade, ORNL scientists have documented a number of comparisons between Gaussian plume model predictions and field, IL 62704. measured air-concentration data from the Hanford site (Miller et al 1979;Fields et al 1981;Little et al 1982;Miller and Cotter 1982;Fields et al 1983;Yildiran and Miller 1983). The purpose of this paper is to summarize the results of these individual studies, and to briefly discuss possible future model validation studies using the results of various Hanford dispersion tests.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Examination of the Uncertainty in Air Concentration Predictions Using Hanford Field Data

Miller

Fields²,

Cotter³

1988

Health Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The accuracy of an environmental transport model is best determined by comparing model predictions with environmental measurements made under conditions similar to those assumed by the model, a process commonly referred to as model validation. Over the past several years, we have done a variety of validation studies with the popular Gaussian plume atmospheric dispersion model using data from tests conducted on the Hanford site. Data for short-term releases of small particles for a range of release heights from surface level to 111 m have been used. Downwind distances examined have ranged from a few hundred meters to 12.8 km, depending on the particular data used. Measured and predicted ground-level centerline, crosswind-integrated, and 22.5 degrees sector-averaged air concentrations have been compared. Up to six different sets of atmospheric dispersion parameters and three different atmospheric stability class specification schemes have been examined. Overall, dispersion parameters based on measurements made near Jülich, Federal Republic of Germany, give the best comparisons between observed and predicted air concentrations. The commonly used vertical temperature gradient method for determining atmospheric stability class consistently gives poor results. The accuracy of air concentration predictions improves when dry deposition processes are included in the model. Further validation studies using various Hanford data sets are planned.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 83%