iensions for alcoa davenport works · of an ebd study reviewed and approved by the epa (approved in...

WIND TUNNEL MODELING TO DETERMINE

EQUIVALENT BUILDING Dll\IENSIONS FOR ALCOA DAVENPORT WORKS

CPP Project 4556

January 2009

Prepared by:

Ronald L. Petersen, Principal, Ph.D., CCM Anke Beyer-Lout, Atmospheric Scientist

CPP, INC. WIND ENGINEERING AND AIR QUALITY CONSULTANTS

1415 Blue Spruce Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80524

Prepared for:

Alcoa 4879 State Street

Bettendorf, lA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .......................... ...... .. ........ .. ... ... .......... ......... ....... ........ ... .. ... .............................. v

LIST Of TABLES ......... .. ............................ ...... .... .. ......... .... ........................................................ vii

LIST Of SYt\1BOLS ... ................................ .................... ..... ..... ..... ................ ... ........................... ... ix

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. .................................................. ........... .. ..... .. .. !

2. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ......... .. ... .. ............................... ......................... ..... ............ 3 2. 1 Determination of Equivalent Building Dimensions ........................................ .. .... .............. 3 2.2 Sitnilarity Requirements ... ..... ................................. ..... .............. ... ...................................... .4

2.2.1 General ........... ........................................................ ..... ..... ..... ..... ........................ ....... . 4 2.2.2 Modeling Plume Trajectories .. ..... .... .. .. ....................... .............................................. .4 2.2.3 Modeling the Airnow and Dispersion ...................... .... .... .... ...... .... ...... ................ ...... 5 2.2.4 Summary ....................................... .... ..... ................ ... ................................................. 5

2.3 Emission Rates ........................... .......... ............... ... .. ... ...... ..... ... ...... ... .... .... ............ ... .. .. .. .... 6 2.4 Surface Roughness ..... .. .. .. ... ........... ........ .. .. ... ... ... .. ............ ... .. ..... ........................................ 6 2.5 Test \Vinci Speed .. .. ... ....................................................... ..... .... ......... ... .. ... .. .... ... ...... .... ...... 6

3. .EXPERIMENTAL METHODS .... ..... ..... .......... .... ....... ... .. ..... .......... ........ ..... ........ ... .... .............. 9 3.1 Model Construction .............................................................. .. .................................. .. ... .. .... 9 3.2 Data Acquisition .............................................................. .. .................... ................ ........ .. .. IO 3.3 Evaluat ion of Simulated Boundary Layer ................................ .............. .................... ....... ! 0 3.4 Quality Control ........................................................ .. .. ... ... ............ ........ ... .. ..... .................. l2

4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... .... . I3 4.1 Reynolds Number Independence Tests .................... .. .......... ............ ............ ...... .......... .... . I 3 4.2 EBD Results .. .... ............... .............................................................. ..... ..... .................... ..... 13

4.2.1 StackS 071 .... ............................ .. ........ .... .............. .... .. ........................ ............ ........ 14 4.2.2 Stack S 288 ......................................... ......... ....... ........... ............ ..... ........ ............... .. 15 4.2.3 Stack S 289 .. ........... .................. ....................................... .... .... ................................ 15 4.2.4 Stack S 344 ................................... ............... ... ...... ........... ... ... .. .. .. ............................ 15 4.2.5 Stack S 349 ....... ... ............ .. ... ............. .. .. ..... ........... ......... ..... .................................... 15

4.3 Flow Visualization .... ............................ ... .... ... .. ... .. ... .......................... .. .. ...... ... .... .. .. ...... ... 15

5. REfERENCES .. ..... ...... .. ........................ .. ... ................ ..... ........... ... ................... ...................... 17

FIGURES .... .. ... .. ... ... .......... ......................................................... ............. .. .............. ................... ... 19

TABLES .. ......... .................... ..... .. ................ ..... ..... ............ .... ... ... ....................... ............... ..... ........ 45

iii

Appendix A Wind tunnel Similarity Requirements .. .. oo oooo ooo .. .. o .. ooo oo oo ooo ooo ooo ooo oo ooo ooo oooo oo oooooo ooo .. .. A- 1

Appendix B Experimental Methodsooo oooooooo oo ooo oo ooooo ooo ooooooooooooo oo oooo oo oooooooo ooooo oooo oo ooo ooo oo oooo ooo ooo ooo oooo B-1

Appendix C Technical Paper- "Improved Building Dimension Inputs for AERMOD Modeling of the Mirant Potomac River Generating Station" oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o C-1

Appendix D Concentrat ion Data Tabulat ions 00 0 0000 00 00 00 00 00 0000 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 000 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0000 00 0 0 00 0 000 0 0 00 0 000 00 0 0000 0 000 D-1

Appendix E- Concentrat ion Profiles Used to Determine EBD for Stack S _ 07 1 0 00 0 00 00 000 0 0 0 00 0 000 00 00 E-1

Appendix F- Concentration Profiles Used to Determine EBD for Stack S_288 ooo ooo ooo ooo oo ooo oo oooo o F- 1

Appendix G - Concentration Profi les Used to Determine EBD for Stack S_289oooo oo ooooooo ooo ooooooo G- 1

Appendix H - Concentration Profiles Used to Determine EBD for Stack S_344oooooooooooooooo oooo ooo H- 1

Appendix I - Concentrat ion Profi les Used to Determine EBD for Stack S_349 .......................... 1- 1

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

I. Site maps : a) site location and project anemometer .. ...... ........ .... .. ........ .. ........ ...... ...... ............ .... ........ .. .... 20 b) extents of n1odel turntable ... .. ...... .. .. ........... ... ... .. .. ......... ...... ............. .. .. ... ...... ... .... ...... .. ... .. .. 21

2. AERMOD idealized building and stack configuration and EBD wind tunnel setup ..... ........ .. 22

3. Typical results from the DPW equivalent building determination study. The figure shows the maximum concentration versus downwind distance with 20 percent error bar with the site structures in place, a horizontal line at 0.9 times the maximum concentrat ion with si te structures in place, and maximum concentration values versus distance for various equivalent buildings ... ... .......................................................... ................... ..... .......... ............... 23

4. Percent time indicated wind speed is exceeded at the Moline Airport anemometer ........ ...... .. 24

5. Plan view of: a) the area modeled with building heights ..... ............ .. .. .... .... ...... .. .......... .......... .............. .... .. .. 25 b) the DPW faci lity with tier heights and source locations .. ........ .. .. .. .... .. .. ........ .. .. .... .. ...... .... .. 26

6. Photographs ofthe model looking from: a) the soutlnvest ............ .. ................. .. .. ..... ..... .... ......... .. ........................ .................................. . 27 b) the southeast .. ........... .. .. .............. ... .......................... ........ ... ......................... ... ... ............... ... 27 c) the northeast .... .... .. ...... .. .. .... .... ... ... ... ..... .... ...... .. ... .. ... .. .... ..... .... .... ...... ... ...... ............ .. .. ...... ... 28 d) the northwest .... .. .............. ........ ....... .... ...................... ..... ............. ...................... .... .. ........... . 28

7. Close-up photographs of the model looking from: a) the southwest ......................................... ... ...... ... .......... .................... ... ... .. ... .................. ... .... 29 b) the northeast .... .. ............................................................................................. ........ .......... .... 29

8. Typica l ground-level concentration sampling grid .......... .. .... ........ ...... .. ...... .. .. ...... .. .. .. .... ........ 30

9. CPP's open-circuit wind tunnel used for test ing ........ .... ...... .. .. ...... .. .. ................ .. .. .... .. ............ 31

I 0. Photographs of the wind tunnel configurations: a) low roughness approach (zo = 0.08 m) .... .. ........ .. .................... .. .......................................... 32 b) high roughness approach (zo = 0.74 m) .. .. .......... .... ...... .. .. .. ...... .. ................ .. ...................... 32

I I. Low roughness approach wi nd tunnel setup for: a) tests with all site structures in place .. ............................................ ........................ .. ............. 33 Figure ... ...... .... .. ..... ...... .. .. ...... ....... ..... ............. .......... ......................... .. ... ........... ... ...... ...... ... .. ... 34 b) EBD tests with uniform roughness in place ............................ .. ........ .. ...... .. .................. .. .... 34

12. High roughness approach wind tunnel set up for: a) tests with all site structures in place ...... .... ...... .. ...... ................ .. ........................................... 35 Figure ......... ... ..................................... ..... .. .......... ................ ........ .............. ......... .. ..... ........ ..... .. 36 b) EBD tests with uniform roughness in place ...... ........ .... ........ .......... .. .......... ...... ............ ...... 36

13. Mean longitudinal veloci ty and turbulence intensity profiles approaching model for: a) low roughness approach ..... .... ..... .. ... .. ... .. .. ...... .. ... .............. ... .. .................. .. ......................... 37 Figure .. .. .. .... .... ... .. .. ..... ..... ... ..... .. ...... .. ........ ............... ............ ..... .... ..... .. .. .. ... ........... ... ... ........... 38 b) high roughness approach ..... .......... ........ .......... ............. .... ... .... .... .... .... .... ... ... ...... ... ... .. .... .... 38

14. Maximum C/Q (J..Iglm3)/(g/s) versus distance for various wind tunnel speeds-demonstrates Reynolds number independence ........ ... .. .. .... .. .... ..... ................ ... .................... ... 39

v

15. Photographs of selected exhaust plume flow visualizations for stack S_289: a) site structures in place for a wind direction of 100 degrees ................................................ .40 b) si te structures in place for a wind direction of 140 degrees ................................................ .40 c) EBD tests: no building in place ............ .......... .............. .............................. ........ ................ .41 d) EBD tests: EBD 6 ( I :4: I) with a full scale height of24 min place .................................... 4 1

16. Photographs of selected ex haust plume flow visualizations for stack S_349: a) site structures in place for a wind direction of I 00 degrees ................................. .. .............. 42 b) site structures in place for a wind direction of 140 degrees ........................................ .. ...... .42 c) EBD tests: no building in place .... .................... .... ...... .. ..................................... .................. 43 d) EBD tests: EBD 4 ( 1 :2: I) with a full scale height of 16m in place .................................... 43 e) EBD tests: EBD 5 ( I: I :2) with a full scale height of20 min place .................................... 44

vi

LIST OF TABLES

I . full-scale Exhaust and Model ing lnfonnation ........................................................................ .46

2. Surface Roughness Values Determined by /\ERSURFACE and Values Used in Wind 'l 'unncl Si n1u lations ............................. .................. ................... .... ........................... .... ............. 47

3. Concentration l'vkasurcmcnt Test Plan ... ................ ......... .. ...................................................... 48

4. Stun mary of E8D Values ........ ............ .... ............. ..................... ............ ..... ... ............... .. .... .... .. 50

vii

AGL

A

B B., c c,

c,

E

Fr

g

h

H

H,

H, ! ,

Ihg

k L ).

Mo II

v

Q Pa

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Above Ground Level

Calibration Constant

Calibration Constant Buoyancy Ratio

Concentration Tracer Gas Source Strength Maximum Measured Concentration

Concentration of Calibration Gas Concentration Estimate for Full-scale Sampling Time, t_. Concentration Estimate for Wind tunnel Sampling Time, tk

Difference Operator Potential Temperature Difference Boundary-Layer Height Stack Diameter Voltage Output

Froude Number Acceleration Due to Gravity Stack Height Above Roof Level

Stack Height Above Local Grade Terrain Height Building Height Gas Chromatograph Response to Calibration Gas Gas Chromatograph Response to Background

von Karman Constant

Length Scale Density Ratio Momentum Ratio Calibration Constant, Power Law Exponent Kinematic Viscosity

Emission Rate Density of Ambient Air

Density of Stack Gas Effluent Velocity Ratio Richardson Number Building Reynolds Number

Roughness Reynolds Number Effluent Reynolds Number

ix

(m)

(-)

(-) (-)

(ppm or Jlglm3)

(ppm or Jlglm3)

(ppm or Jlglm3)

(ppm or jlg/m3)

(JlglmJ) (JlglmJ)

(-) (K)

(m)

(m)

(Volts) (-)

(m/s2)

(m) (m)

( m)

(m)

(Volts) (Volts)

(-)

(m)

(-) (-)

(-)

(m2/s)

(g/s) (kg/m3

)

(kg/m3)

(-) (-)

(-) (-) (-)

T (,

lk

Ua UH u, u., u, u U'

v v,. z

Zo

z,.

z"'

Subscripts

111

f

Mean Temperature Full-scale sampling time Wind tunnel sampling time

Wind Speed at Anemometer Wind Speed at Stack Height Wind Speed at Reference Height Location

Free Stream Wind Velocity

Friction Velocity Mean Velocity Longitudinal Root-Mean-Square Velocity Volume Flow Rate Exhaust Velocity Height Above Local Ground Level Surface Roughness Factor Reference Height

Free Stream Height - 600 m above ground level

pertaining to model pertaining to full scale

X

(K)

(s) (s)

(m/s) (m/s) (m/s)

(m/s)

(m/s) (ntis) (m/s) (m3/s) (m/s) (m) (m) (m)

(m)

1. INTRODUCTION

This report documents the wind tunnel study conducted by CPP, Inc. for for Alcoa Davenport

Works (DPW) located as shown in figures I a and I b. The DPW is a complex of low, large

attached structures located adjacent to the Mississippi River near Davenport, lA. The plant has a

length of about 1700 meters parallel to the river and 600 meters perpendicular to the river. The

building heights are generally about 15-20 meters above grade. The surrounding terrain to the

west rises about 30 meters above the plant elevation. There are five locations where short stacks

on the facility are predicted to cause the largest contributions to the highest calculated

concentration fields. These stacks are designated S-071, S-288, S-289, S-344 and S-349. The

large concentration contributions are caused by building downwash using the PRIME algorithm

in AERMOD. However, the building downwash algorithm within PRIME has limitations on the

building aspect ratios (e.g., building width (W) divided by height (H) and building length (L)

di vided by height). PRJME (Schulman et a l. , 2000) was only tested and developed for buildings

with a LIH ratio smaller than 3 and a W/H height rat io smaller than 8. For the DPW facility, the

structure dimensions calculated by BPIP for input into the PRJME algorithm have much larger

aspect ratios (e.g., W/H and LIH ranging from 9 to 26). Therefore, predicted concentrations using

the BPIP building dimensions will have a high degree of uncertainty.

Hence, the speci fi c purpose of this study is to determine Equivalent Building Dimensions

(EB D) for AERMOD input for the above mentioned stacks. When a single solid rectangular

building with the appropriate aspect ratio is adjacent or near a stack, the actual building

dimensions are the appropriate model inputs. for more complicated situations, such as the DPW

facility, the use of EBD for model input will result in more accurate concentration estimates for

assessing compliance with the NAAQS.

At present, the only method the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concurred with

for determining EBD is through the use of wind tunnel modeling. Petersen, et al (I 991 , I 992)

describes the first such study for which a protocol was reviewed and accepted by the EPA

(Region V and Research Triangle Park) and for which a permit was ultimately obtained (Blewitt,

1995). That study considered the effect of a nearby lattice type (porous) structure. Also, the EPA

(Tikvart , 1994) has approved the equivalent building concept, based on a study conducted by CPP

(Petersen and Cochran, I 993), for regulatory modeling use on the basis that it is a source

characterization study, which is under the purview of the Regional Offices. Appendix C provides

CPP, inc. 2 Project 4556

a copy of a paper that was presented at the 2007 A& WMA conference that summarizes the results

of an EBD study reviewed and approved by the EPA (approved in March 2007).

Jt should be pointed out that the EBD values determined in this study are, if anything,

conservative. In general, the EBD values should be insensitive to wind speed and plume rise.

There will be a point, however, where this is not true. That point occurs when the plume rise is

high enough such that the plume fully escapes any effect of the building wake. At that point, all

building dimension inputs are effectively zero. The Tikvart ( 1994) memo presents some results

of stack height (i.e., plume height) sensitivity tests conducted by CPP. That study showed that the

EBD values are rather insensitive to stack height (plume height) and, if anything, they tend to

decrease with taller stack heights (i.e., greater plume rise). Based on the above, the wind tunnel

study has been designed to simulate a low plume rise condition where the plume is most likely to

be captured by building wake and eddy effects. The first conservative (low plume rise)

assumption is related to the method used to simulate plume rise as discussed in detail in Section

2.2 . The stack gas exit parameters used in the model underestimate plume buoyancy and hence

will produce lower plume rise than actual conditions. The second conservative assumption deals

with the wind speed simulated in the wind tunnel. The wind speed that is exceeded 2% of the

time will be simulated for all cases and as a result low plume rise will be simulated.

This report describes the technical considerations, experimental methods, and results of the

wind tunnel study designed to meet the stated project objectives.

2. TECHNI CAL CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 D ET ERi\IINATION OF EQUIVALENT B UILDING DIMENSIONS

The basic modeling approach for determining equivalent building dimensions is to fi rst

document, in the wind tunnel, the dispersion characteristics as a function of wind direction at the

site with all significant nearby structure wake effects included. Next, the dispersion is

characterized, in the wind tunnel, with an equivalent building positioned di rectly upwind of the

stack in place of all nearby structures (i.e., the setup as shown in Fii;tlre 2). This testing is

conducted for various equi valent buildings until an equivalent building is found that provides a

profil e of max imum ground level concentration versus downwind distance that is similar (within

the constraints defined below) to that with all site structures in place.

The criteria for defining whether or not two concentrat ion profi les are similar is to determine

the smallest building which: I) produces an overall maximum concentration exceeding 90 percent

of the overall maximum concentration observed with all site structures in plll::e; and 2) at all other

longitudinal distances, produces ground-level concentrations which exceed the ground-level

concentrat ion observed with all site structures in place less than 20 percent of the overall

maximum ground-level concentration with all site structures in place. These cri teria have been

accepted on past EPA approved EBD studies (Petersen and Cochran, 1995a, 1995b; McBee,

1995; Thornton, 1995) and is a suggested approach in the Tikvart ( 1994) memorandum.

To demonstrate the method for specifying the equivalent building, consider Figure 3 which

shows the max imum ground level concentration versus downwind distance for five different

equi valent building setups and the maximum concentration measured wi th the DPW site

structures in place. The figure shows that the concentration profiles for all EBDs tested meet the

first criterion in that the maximum measured concentration equals at least 90 percent of the

maximum concentrat ion measured with the site structures in place. Only the case tested wi thout

an equivalent building in place ( i.e. no building, j ust roughness) fails to 1u<:et this criterion. The

'no EB' pro fil e also fa ils the second criterion at the second actual site data point (at

approximately 400 m downwind) where the lower bound of the 20 percent error bar exceeds the

interpolated concentration value for the 'no EB' case. The concentration profi les for all other

EBDs tested meet the second criterion at all longitudinal distances. Therefore, the appropriate

3

CPP, Inc. Project 4556

equivalent building for the test case shown in Figure 3 is EBD 3, since EBD 3 is the smallest

equivalent building which meets both criteria.

The 20 percent error bar is based on a statistical uncertainty analysis, which has been

validated from past experience which has shown that wind tunnel maximum concentrations are

generally repeatable within ± 10 percent (Petersen and Cochran, 1993).

2.2 Sll\IILARITY REQUIRE!\IENTS

2.2.1 General

An accurate simulation of the boundary-layer winds and stack gas flow is an essential

prerequisite to any wind tunnel study of diffusion from an industrial facility when accurate

concentration estimates (i.e., ones that will compare with the real-world) are needed. The

similarity requirements can be obtained from dimensional arguments derived from the equations

governing fluid motion. A detailed di scussion on these requirements is given in the EPA fluid

modeling guideline (Snyder, 1981) and Appendix A. for EBD type studies, the criteria used for

simulating plume trajectories and the ambient air flow are summarized below. These criteria

maximize the accuracy of the building wake simulation and apply a conservative approach for

simulating plume n~c. Similar criteria have been used on past EPA approved EBD type studies

(Petersen and Cochran, 1993, 1995a, 1995b, Petersen and Rat eli ff, 1991 , Petersen et at., 2007).

2.2.2 Modeling Plume Trajectories

To model pl ume trajectories the Momentum ratio, M0 , was matched in model and full scale.

This quantity is defined as follows:

where v,.

u" A

stack gas exit velocity (ntis),

ambient velocity at building top (ntis);

density ratio, p/ p, (-).

(I)

In addition, the stack gas flow in the model was fully turbulent upon exit as it is in the full scale.

This criteria is met if the stack Reynolds number (Re .• = dV" lvs) is greater than 670 for buoyant

CPP, Inc. 5 Project 4556

plumes such as those simulated in this study (Arya and Lape, 1990). In addition, trips were

installed, if requi red, inside the model stacks to increase the turbulence level in the exhaust

stream prior to exiting the stack.

2.2.3 Modeling the Airflow and Dispersion

To simulate the ai rflow and dispersion around the buildings, the following cri teria were met

as recommended by EPA ( 198 1) or Snyder ( 198 1 ):

• all structures within a 732m (2266.7 ft) radius of the stacks of interest were

modeled at a I :400 scale reduction. This ensured that all structures whose

critical dimension (lesser of height or width) exceeds I /20th of the distance from

the source were included in the model;

• the mean velocity profile through the entire depth of the boundary layer was

represented by a power law UIUoo = (zlzoo)" where U is the wind speed at height z,

Uoo is the freest ream velocity at zoo and the power law exponent, n, is dependent on

the surface roughness length, Zo, through the following equation:

11 = 0.24 + 0.096logJU z., + 0.016 ( log,u z,/ (2)

• Reynolds number independence was ensured: the building Reynolds number (Re"

= U"f-hlv,; the product of the wind speed, U", at the building height, H", times the

building height divided by the viscosity of air, v,) should be greater than 3,000 to

II ,000; since the upper criteria was not met for all simulations, Reynolds number

independence tests were conducted to determine the minimum acceptable

operating speed for the wind tunnel ;

• a neutral atmospheric boundary layer was established (Pasquill-Gifford C/D

stability) by setting the bulk Richardson number (R;b) equal to zero in model and

full scale.

2.2.4 Summary

Using the above criteria and the source characteristics shown in Table t, the model test

conditions were computed for the stacks under evaluation. The model test conditions were

computed for D stability at the 2% wind speed and are provided in the Tables included with

Appendix A. Appendix A also includes a more detailed discussion on wind tunnel scaling issues.


2.3 Ei\IISSION RATES

For this evaluation, emission rates are not needed. For convenience purposes, a I g/s emission

rate were used in reporting the measured concentration results of the study. With this convention,

the concentration results presented in the report can be converted to full-scale concentrations by

multiplying the reported concentrations by the actual emission rates for any pollutant.

2.4 SURFACE ROUGHN ESS

To accurately represent full scale wind profiles in the wind tunnel it is necessary to match the

surface roughness length used in the model to that of the actual site. The surface roughness

lengths for the DPW site were specified using AERSURFACE (EPA, 2008). for this EBD study

it was necessary to define surface roughness values for the approach flow as well as for the DPW

site model extents. The AERSURf ACE tool with a radius of 3 km around the DPW site was used

to determine the appropriate surface roughness length for the approach flow. This roughness

length is more representative of the roughness upwind of the Alcoa site. To calculate the mean

roughness length characteristic of the DPW faci lities the AERSURfACE domain was set equal to

the model ex tents, i.e. the area within a 732m (2266.7 ft) radius of the stacks of concern. This

roughness was installed in place of the A I co a model for the EBD test setup.

Table 2 shows the AERSURf ACE results for both radii used, in 30 degree intervals around

the DP\V site as well as the wind tunnel test sectors. It is evident that two approach flows are

necessary to accurately represent the full scale wind profiles in the wind tunnel. for wind

directions of I 00 through 240 degrees the surface roughness values are small with a mean of

0.084 m representing the Mississippi river to the south and east. For wind directions of 250 and

260 degrees the surface roughness value of 0. 73 7 m is comparably high because of the industrial

and suburban areas to the southwest.

The surface roughness for the Moline ai rport was estimated by averaging the surface

roughness computed from the Moline airp011 AERMET meteorological data file.

2.5 TEST WIND SPEED

The wind speed was set at the 2% wi nd speed, as has been the practice on past EBD studies.

The 2% wind speed for DPW was based on meteorological observations at the Moline Airport

I 0.0 m (32.8 ft) anemometer for the period of 2000-2004. The anemometer is located

approximately 6 miles south of the DPW facilities, as shown in Figure Ia. Figure 4 shows the

cumulative frequency distribution of wind speed at the Moline Airport anemometer. The wind

speed distribution was used to determine the wind speed at the anemometer that is exceeded 2%


of the time (i.e., the 2% wind speed). The figure shows that the 2% wind speed is 9.0 m/s (20.1

mph) at the anemometer. All concentration tests to determine EBD were conducted with speeds

at the 2% speed.

Wind speeds in the tunnel were set at a reference height of 400 m above stack grade. The

speed at this reference height is determined by scaling the anemometer wind speed up to the

freest ream height, 600 m (Snyder, 198 1) above ground level. At this height, is it assumed that

wind speeds at the site and at the anemometer location are the same (i.e., local topographic effects

are not important). Next, the wind speed over the site at the reference height is calculated using

the wind speed at the freestream height and scaling down to the lower height using the fo llowing

power law equation:

where

z,.

u"" =

7 = _..,

( )II , ( )"" ( ) " ' U r = U co !..!:._ = U mtl'lll ~ !..!:._

Za) Zmu·m Zoo (3)

wind speed at reference height (m/s),

reference height above plant grade (400 m),

wind speed at freestream height (nll's),

freestream height (600 m),

wind speed at appropriate anemometer (m/s),

height above grade for U"""'' (I 0.0 m),

wind power law exponent at the anemometer (0.15 at the Moline Airport ),

wind power law exponent at the si te (wi ll vmy with surface roughness).

Tables A-I through A-ll provide the calculated results using the above equations. It should

be noted that the power law exponents were calculated using Equation (2) in Secti on 2.2 with Zo

equal to 0.07 m at the airpot1 and 0.08 or 0.74 m at the DPW faciliti es. The surface roughness

lengths for the site and the airport were specified as discussed in Section 2.4.

3. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

3.1 MODEL CONSTRUCTION

A I :400 scale model of for Alcoa Davenport Works and surrounding structures and terrain

was constructed. The model included all significant structures (i.e., structures whose critical

dimension, lesser of height or width, exceeds I /20th of the distance from the source) within a 732

m (2266.7 ft) radius of the center of the stacks of concern at the DPW facilities. The area

modeled is shown in Figures I b and 5a. A close-up view of the modeled DPW exhaust stacks is

provided in Figure 5b. The model was placed on a turntable so that different wind directions

could be easily evaluated. Photographs of the model are provided in Figures 6a-d and 7a-b.

A set of solid structures, all with height to width ratios similar to those used by Huber and

Snyder ( 1982) for development of the ISC down wash algorithm, was fabricated for placement

directly upwind of each stack. These structures were used to determine the equivalent building

dimensions for many building configurations. Since AERMOD is not limited to this building

shape or positioning, other building shapes/positions were also investigated as appropriate to

obtain the best match for the case when all site structures are present. The stacks in Table I and

idealized buildings were tested with the turntable model removed from the wind tunnel and a

uniform roughness installed in its place. The uniform roughness was constructed such that it

provided approximately the same surface roughness as the test site, i.e. the area within the 732 m

(2266.7 ft) radius of the center of the stacks of concern at the DPW facilities. AERSURFACE

(EPA, 2008) was used to determine this surface roughness and the results can be found in Table

2.

Stacks were constructed of brass tubes and were supplied with an argon-hydrocarbon (or

nitrogen-hydrocarbon) mixture of the appropriate density. A maximum of two stacks, each

releasing a different hydrocarbon tracer, were operated at the same time. Measures were taken to

ensure that the now was fully turbulent upon exit. Precision gas now meters were used to

monitor and regulate the discharge velocity.

For the EBD testing, concentration sampling taps were installed on the surface of the model

so that at least 46 locations were sampled simultaneously for each simulation . A typical sampling

grid consists of 9 receptors located in each of 5 rows that are spaced perpendicular to the wind

direction. Two background samples are located upwind of the stacks. The lateral and longitudinal

spacing of receptors was designed so that the maximum concentration was defined in the lateral

and longitudinal directions. A typical sampling grid is shown in Figure 8.

9


All testing was carried out in CPP's environmental wind tunnel shown in Figure 9. Figure

I Oa and b show photographs of the two configurations of the model (low roughness and high

roughness approach) installed in the wind tunnel. Figures II a and 12a depict schematics of the

wind tunnel layout for these two roughness approaches with the site structures in place. For the

EBD tests the site structures were removed and replaced by a uniform roughness, as discussed in

Section 2.4. The wind tunnel layouts used for the EBD tests are summarized in Figures II band

12b for both approach roughness configurations.

Testing consisted of releasing a mixture of an inert gas and a tracer (ethane or methane) of

predetermined concentration from the stacks at the required rate to simulate the desired flow rate

and velocity. The flow rate of the gas mixture was controlled by a pressure regulator at the supply

cylinder outlet and monitored by a precision mass flow controller. Concentration measurements

were then obtained at various measurement locations. Flow straighteners and screens at the tunnel

inlet were used to create a homogenous, low turbulence entrance flow. Spires and a trip

downwind of the flow straighteners begin the development of the atmospheric boundal)' layer.

The long boundary layer region between the spires and the testing location was filled with one

half and two inch roughness elements, depending on the approach roughness length, placed in the

repeating roughness pattern indicated in the wind tunnel as shown in Figures II a-b and 12a-b.

These roughness patterns were used to develop an approach boundary layer profile with z., = 0.08

m for the "low roughness approach" and Z0 = 0. 74 111 for the "high roughness approach".

3.2 DATA ACQUISITION

Concentration, velocity, and volume flow measurements were obtained following the

methods outlined in Appendix B. Atmospheric Dispersion Comparability tests were not

conducted for this study as such measurements have been obtained on past studies at a similar

scale.

3.3 EVALUATION OF SIMULATED BOUNDAR\' LAYER

In order to document the wind characteristics approaching the model, profiles of mean

velocity and longitudinal turbulence intensity were obtained upwind of the model test area for the

low roughness and high roughness configurations. The procedures for measuring the velocity

profiles are provided in Appendix B. Figures 13a-b show the mean velocity and longitudinal

turbulence intensity profiles that were collected directly upwind of the model turntable. To

demonstrate the appropriate natme of the profiles, the target surface roughness lengths were input

into the "log-law" defined as follows:

CPP, IIIC.

where

u z

Zo

u. k

11

i!_ = ~ In ( !...) V• k Zo

velocity at height z,

elevation above ground level ,

the surface roughness length,

the friction velocity, and

von Karman's constant (which is equal to 0.4).

Project 4556

(4)

The target surface roughness lengths were 0. 74 m full scale for the "high roughness

approach" and 0.08 m full scale for the " low roughness approach". The left-hand plots of Figures

13a-b show that the measured and predicted velocity profi les agree well when the appropriate Z0

values are input into the equation.

The variation of longitudinal turbulence intensity with height has been quantified by Snyder

( 1981 ). EPA gives the following equation for predicting the variation of longitudinal turbulence

intensity in the surface layer:

In (30) u' z, - = 11 - -7------o--

u In ( ~ ) (5)

where

11 = 0.24 + 0.096 log,u z, + 0.016 ( log111 z,) 2 (3)

and all heights are in full-scale meters. This equation is only applicable between 5 and I 00 m ( 16

and 330 ft) . Above I 00 m, the turbulence intensity is assumed to decrease linearly to a value of

0.0 I at a height of roughly 600 m (2000 ft) above ground level. By setting 11 equal to 0.23 and Za

to 0. 74 m for the "high roughness approach" and 11 equal to 0.16 and Za to 0.08 m for the "low

roughness approach", the expected turbulence intensity profiles were estimated. The right-hand

plots in Figures 13a-b show that the observed turbulence intensity profiles compare well with that

estimated using Equation (5).

Concentration, velocity, and volume now measurements were obtained fo llowing the

methods outlined in Appendix B.


3.4 QUALITY CONTROL

To ensure that accurate and reliable data are collected for assessing the plume transport and

dispersion, certain quality control steps were taken. These include:

• use of blended mixtures, pure gases or certified mixtures for stack source gas;

• multipoint calibration of hydrocarbon analyzer with certified standard gas;

• calibration of stack flow measuring device with soap bubble meter;

• calibration of velocity measuring device against pi tot tube; and

• wind tunnel testing to show the Reynolds number independence of the concentration

measurements.

4. RESULTS

Concentration measurements were obtained for documenting Reynolds Number

independence and determining EBD values for AERMOD input. The various tests that were

conducted are described in Table 3. The normalized concentration data tabulations for each

simulation are provided in Appendix D. The resu lts for each test series are discussed below.

4.1 R EYNOLDS NU~II3ER INDEPENDENCE TESTS

Tests were conducted to confirm Reynolds number independence as summarized in Table 3a.

For these tests, a neutrally buoyant tracer gas was released from a 23.3 rn stack (Re S_071) at the

S_071 location. The measured normalized concentrations will be the same (within I 0%),

regardless of the Reynolds number (the wind tunnel reference speed) if Reynolds number effects

are insignificant.

Ground level concentrat ions were evaluated for three model wind speeds (3 , 4, and 5.5 m/s,

set at the wind tunnel reference height of 400 rn full scale). The measured concentrations were

converted to full scale concentrations for a 1 g/s emission rate of any pollutant. The maximum

concentrations measured at each downwind distance are shown in Figure 14. The figure also

shows a li ne of average concentration for the 4 and 5.5 m/s model wind speeds and ± I 0 percent

of the average for each measurement. The data sets for 4 and 5.5 m/s winds fall within the ± I 0

percent of the average. Some values fa ll outside this range at 3 m/s. Therefore, Reynolds number

effects were insignificant for wind tunnel reference speeds of 4 m/s or greater and the wind tunnel

tests were conducted accordingly.

4.2 EBD RESULTS

Wind tunnel tests were first conducted for the wind directions of interest with all s ite

structures in place as shown in Figure Sa. The fu ll-scale exhaust information for the various

exhausts is listed in Table I. Five exhaust stacks with the stack identification labels: S_07 1,

S_288, S_289, S_344, and S_349 were evaluated as shown in Figure Sb.

Ground level concentrations were measured at 45 locat ions for each test. The receptor grid

was designed so the maximum ground level concentration versus downwind distance could be

defined within acceptable uncertainty. All the stacks were evaluated for wind directions of I 00

13

CPP, Inc. l.f Project 4556

through 260 degrees at ten degree increments as shown in Table 3a. For the wind directions of

I 00 through 240 degrees, a "low roughness approach" surface roughness length of 0.08 m was

simulated in the wind tunnel as described in Table 2 and shown in Figure II a. For the wind

directions of 250 and 260 degrees, a "high roughness approach" surface roughness length of 0. 74

m was simulated in the wind tunnel as described in Table 2 and shown in Figure 12a.

For the next phase of the EBD determination for the various stacks, the site model was

removed from the wind tunnel and was replaced with a uniform roughness representative of the

surface roughness of the actual site (see Figures II band 12b). For each test, a single rectangular

building was placed upwind or downwind of the stack under evaluation and the maximum

ground-level concentrations versus downwind distance were measured as described above. This

process was repeated for various building shapes and sizes until an EBD was found that has a

similar ground level concentration profile as with all buildings present. The idealized rectangular

structures (EBD structures) initially tested had height to width ratios similar to those used by

Huber and Snyder (1976, 1982) for development of the ISC2 downwash algorithm (H:W:L =

I :2: I). For cases where the traditional EBD did not provide an adequate concentration profile,

alternate EBD configurations were assessed. for example, wider EBD structures with the ratios

of" I :4: I ","1 :2:2", etc. were very effective. For certain cases, the only EBD configuration that

resulted in the proper profile was with the equivalent building turned at a 45 degree angle to the

approach flow resulting in a corner vortex bringing the exhaust plume downward. For these cases

the effective width and length ratios were calculated and used for AERMOD input. Table 3

provides a listing of building dimensions that were evaluated for each exhaust stack.

The EBD values for each wind direction were chosen using the criteria discussed in Section

2. 1. The values chosen for each exhaust stack and wind direction scenario are listed in Tables

4a-e and are summarized below.

4.2.1 Stacl< S 071

Table 4a shows that the largest EB D height of22 m occurs for stack S_071 when winds are

from 190 and 200 degrees. It should also be noted that when the wind come from 190 and 200

degrees as well as II 0, 120, and 220 degrees, the only EBD values that matched the site profile

consisted of buildings rotated so the leading edge of the structure is a corner. For these cases,

corner vortices were affecting the dispersion and as a result, the rotated building configuration

was the only way to obtain acceptable agreement. CPP recommends inputting a building

dimensions equal to the projected width and length of the equivalent building used (see Table 4a).


No building downwash was found for wind directions of 140 degrees and 240 through 260

degrees. Therefore, no building dimension inputs are necessary for these directions.

4.2.2StackS_288 t~ /. 21

) &,& ... 1 / ( 1(1 {Jf,· . ./h tl /f,, , / }1/, . c tV

Table 4b shows the EBD results for stack S _ 288. The largest EBD height of 20 m occurs for

a wind direction of 200 degrees. For most wind directions no building downwash was found for

stack S _288. Therefore, no building dimension inputs are necessary for these directions.

4.2.3 StackS 289 B ').-/ 1.(;. , i.? ·m

Table 4c shows that the largest EBD height of20 m occurs for stack S_289 when winds come

from I 00 and 200 degrees. For most wind directions no building downwash was found for stack

S_289. Therefore, no building dimension inputs are necessaty for these directions.

4.2.4 Stack S_344 H f. t . '~ 5. ~"" j l.j 4 fft, r /l 'l t 1.. L

Table 4d shows the EBD results for stack S_344. The largest EBD height of22 m occurs for

the wind direction of 200 degrees. EBD are only necessary for wind directions of 190 through

220 degrees. For all other wind directions no building downwash was found and no building

dimension inputs are necessary.

4.2.5 Stack S 349 t.:· 9. 'I J, l . J . .,....

Table 4e shows that the largest EBD height of 20 m occurs for stack S_349 when winds are

from 120, 130, 150, 160, 180, 190 and 210 degrees. It should also be noted that when the wind

was from I 00 and II 0 degrees, the only EBD values that matched the site profile consisted of

buildings with a height of 18 m rotated so the leading edge of the building is a corner. f or these

cases, corner vortices were affecting the dispersion and as a result, the rotated building

configuration was the only way to obtain acceptable agreement. CPP recommends input1ing a

building dimensions equal to the projected width and length of the equivalent building used (see

Table 4e). No building downwash was found for wind directions of 200, 220, 230, and 250

degrees. Therefore, no building dimension inputs are necessary for these directions.

4.3 FLOW VISUALIZATION

Upon completion of the concentration testing, exhaust plume behavior was documented

visually using still photographs and motion video. A dense white smoke was used to define the

plume behavior.


The visualizations were conducted primarily at the wind directions and wind speeds

corresponding to the worst case scenarios or scenarios of interest. The white smoke will tend to

enhance the plume, thus, visually the plumes may look worse in the model than in full-scale. To

properly interpret the visualizations, one should evaluate the portion of the plume that is

impacting the receptor rather than the intensity of the smoke at the receptor. Photographs of

selected cases are provided in Figures 16, 17 and 18. One should note that these photographs

represent a snap shot in time and may not be representative of the steady-state conditions that are

impacting the receptor location. The video of the flow visualization should be viewed to obtain a

better qualitative understanding of plume behavior for all exhausts visualized.

When viewing the video, it should be noted that the plumes appear to be moving

unrealistically fast. This apparent inconsistency is due to the fact that time is also scaled in the

wind tunnel model. To esti mate model time, the following equation is used:

I =I (U! J(L"' J "' J U L

"' I

(6)

To obtain a realistic visual picture, the video would have to be slowed down by the

appropriate factor.

5. REFERENCES

Arya, S.P.S., and J.F. Lape, Jr. , "A Comparative Study of the Di fferent Criteria for the Physical Modeling of Buoyant Plume Rise in a Neutral Atmosphere," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 24A , No. 2, pp. 289-295, 1990.

Blewitt, C., AMOCO Corporation, IL, personal communication, 1995.

EPA, "Guideline for Use of Fluid Modeling to Determine Good Eng ineering Practice Stack Height," USEPA Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, Not1h Carolina, EPA-450/4- 81-003, July 1981 .

EPA, "Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height (Technical Support Document for the Stack Heig ht Regulation)," USEPA Office of Air Quality, -Planning and Standards, Research Triang le Park, North Carolina, EPA- 45014- 80- 023R, 1985.

EPA, "Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised," US EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA-454/R-92-0 19, 1992.

EPA, User 's Guide for the Industrial Source (ISCJ) Di:.persion Models, EPA-454/ B- 95-003a, US EPA Office o f Air Quality, Research Triangle Park, 1995.

EPA , AERSURFACE User's Guide, E PA-454/B- 08-00 I, US EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 2008.

Greenway, A.R., J.E. Cermak, R. L. Petersen, and H.C. McCullough, " Physical Modeling Studies for GEP Stack Height Determinations," 74th Annual Meeting of the APCA, Paper No. 81 - 20.3 , CEP80- 81 JAP- JEC33, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, June 2 1-26, 1981.

Halitsky, J. A., R. L. Petersen, S.D. Taylor, and R. B. Lantz, "Nearby Terrain Effects on a Good Engineering Practice Stack Height," paper to be presented at 79th Annual APCA Meeti ng in Minneapoli s, Minnesota, 1986.

Huber, A. H, and W. H. Snyder, "Building Wake Effects on Short Stack Effluent s," Preprint Volume for the Third Symposium on Atmospheric D!ffusion and Air Quality, American Meteorological Society, Massachusetts, 1976.

Huber, A. H., and W. H. Snyder, " Wind Tunnel Invest igation of the Effects of a RectangularShaped Building o n Dispers ion of Effluents from Short Adjacent Stacks," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 16, No. 12, pp. 2837- 2848, 1982 .

McBee, K. L. , Commonwealth of Virg inia, Department of Environmental Quality, Letter to Richard D. Langford, Celco Plant, Narrows, VA, regarding acceptance of EBD study, March 15, 1995.

Petersen R. L. , and M.A. Ratcliff, "Site Speci fic Building Height Determination for Amoco's Whiting Re finery," Rep011 No. 90-0703 , C PP, Inc., Ft. Collins, Colorado , 199 1.

17

CPP, Inc. 18 Projec/4556

Petersen, R. L. , D. N. Blewitt, and J. A. Panek, "Lattice Type Structure Building Height Determination for ISC Model Input," 85th Annual A WMA Conference, Kansas City, Missouri, June 21-26, 1992.

Petersen, R. L. , D. K. Parce, J.L. West, and R.J. Londergan, "Effect of a Nearby Hill on Good Engineering Practice Stack Height," 86th Annual A WMA Conference, Denver, Colorado, June 13-I 8, I 993.

Petersen, R. L., and B. C. Cochran, "Equivalent Building Height Determinations for Cape Industries of Wilmington, North Carolina," CPP Report No. 93- 0955, CPP, Inc., Ft. Collins, Colorado, 1993.

Petersen, R. L., and B. C. Cochran, "Equivalent Bu ilding Dimension Determination and Excessive Concentration Demonstration for Hoechst Celanese Corporation Celco Plant at Narrows, Virginia," CPP Report No. 93- 1026, CPP, Inc., Ft. Collins, Colorado, 1995a.

Petersen, R. L., and B. C. Cochran, "Equi valent Building Dimension Determinations for District Energy St. Paul, Inc. Hans 0. Nyman Energy Center, CPP Report No. 93-0979, Ft. Collins, Colorado, 1995b.

Petersen R. L., and J. Carter, "Evaluation of AERMOD/PRIME For Two Sites with Unusual Structures," 991

h Annual A WMA Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 20-23, 2006.

Petersen, R. L., J. Reifschneider, D. Shea, D. Cramer, and L. Labrie, "Improved Building Dimension lnruts for AERMOD Modeling of the Mirant Potomac River Generating Stat ion," 1001 Annual A&WMA Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 2007.

Schulman, L. L., D. G. Strimaitis, and J. S. Scire, "Development and Evaluation of the PRIME Plume Rise and Building Downwash Model," J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., Vol. 50, pp. 378-390,2000.

Snyder, W. H., "Guideline for Fluid Modeling of Atmospheric Diffusion," USEPA, Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Deve lopment, Research Triangle Park, N011h Carolina, Report No. EPA600/8-81-D09, 1981.

Thornton, J. D. , Section Manager, Air Quality Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Letter Approving EBD study for District Energy St. Paul, Apri14, 1995.

Tikvart, J.A. , Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Letter to Brenda Johnson, Regional Modeling Contact, Region IV and Douglas Neeley, Chief Air Programs Branch, Region IV, July 25, 1994.

Turner, D.B., "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates," Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, 3343 1, 1994

FIGURES

CPP, Inc. 20

Data use sub;ect to license.

© 2008 Del orme. Street Atlas US~ 2007 Plus. r MN(09' W) mw1.delorme.com

Project 4556

Street Atlas USA!> 2007 Plus

\ J

- . .._, ·- .. , JIIO'N

)

~1111 0 1 2 3

Data Zoom I 0. 7

Figure I. Site maps: a) site location and project anemometer

II

CPP, Inc. 21

k1¢11•1@14

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Data use sub~ectto license_

@ 2006 Delorme_ Street All as US~ 2007 Plus. r MN(0.9'W) wNu.delorme.com

Figure I . Site maps: b) extents of model turntable.

, ,

Project 4556

Strut Atlu USA~ 2007 Plus

, , , , , I

I

·' i ..

,

......... -.

, , , ,

Data Zoom 14-4


Figure 2. AERMOD idealized building and stack configuration and EBD wind tunnel setup.

,....._, (/)

""'-en '-.../ ~ Cl) Q_ ,....._, ,_., E

""'-en _, -.:..

'---"

0 ""'-u

Figure 3.

CPP, Inc.

L,., '' "

7 (~ .. ·''"

r ,.,

/ ~)

I" '' ' · '

s 289

23 Project 4556

ALCOA 150 Degrees

,----I I ~ I -~ I ,-,-- r-rr-1

• ALCOA

c no EB

b. EBD 3 ( 1:2:1)

EBD 4 ( 1:2: I)

\l EBD 5 ( 1:2: 1)

('I EBO 5 ( I:J:I)

- - - - 90': of ._.o, Site Cone. - -

_,

"'t .,,,:;,: .••. ::·· · . ·v Error t ors: -2t:r./< 2t:r.'" ············;) ~

o f Ma~o. Site Cone.

Downwind Distance (nl)

Typical results from the DPW equivalent bui lding determination study. The figure shows the max imum concentrat ion versus downwind distance with 20 percent error bar with the site structures in place, a horizontal line at 0.9 times the max imum concentration with s ite structures in place, and maximum concentration values versus distance for various equivalent buildings.


2% Wind Spffd Ann lysis ;\loline Surface Met D:~la

2000-2004: Anemometer allO 111

.... ..... ...... ... ;. .. .... . .. ... . . ... ~-... . . ..... .. ... ; .. ... .. .. ......... ~ ............ .... . . . . . .

..... . . .. . . . .... .. ;.. ...... .. . ... ..... ~- .. -... . .. . . . .. . ; ................. -~ -. ... . ... . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ I 0.00 ~-:-:--.,..,..,..-,.,.-,.,.,..,..,..,.,r,· -,.,....,--...,..,..,.,..,..,.....,;,.· ,...---,...-,.,.;--""<;:'--,-.,..,..,.,--;-· --..,-.,....,..,-.,..,.:-+-.,-: :.,...: :.,...: :.,..: :..,.: :,..,.: ,..,.: : ,...-: :-: :.;..:.,...: :..,.: :,..,.: ,..,.: :,...-: :.,..: :.,...: :-: :--i:: ~ .., " 'E " ... "' lo.l ... E !=

••••• • • • ••• •••••• -:- •••• • • • • • 0 • •••••• ~ ••••• • • • • • •••••••• i ... . . ... ........ . . . . . ······ · ···· ······ ·:······ ··· ··· · ···· ··:········· ··· ··· · ··!···· ········· · ····:·· · · . . . . . . . . ··········· ·· · · ···:·· · ··· · · ····· ··· ···:··········· ····· ·· : ······· ····· ·····---~~------············· ···· · . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.00 1-:-:---- ...,--.,..,..,..7"", ----..,-,~----.,..----,--.,..------'~--,.,.---;-,...-....,.----1

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : =~ : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : ~: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 1 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ~ : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : : : :!: : ~ ~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : j : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ....... .• • ... .... ·:- . . ... • - .- .. • .. .. . ~ - ... . . . . • . • • .. .. . . : .. . . . . • .. ..... ... ·:- . . .... •.. . •. ..... ·:· ..... . ....... . .. ! . - .-- ....•. .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ .. ...... ......... .. -. ---- ... ..... ... - ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ... .... .... .. .... ... ..... . . . . . . . . ... --. - -. - .. . ... ·:- . ........ - .. - .... ~ ..... . .. .......... ! ........ - ........ -~ ... . .. - ......... . ·:·... ....... . ..... : .. ...... - ...... . . . . . . . . . .. ... ...... ...... ·:- .. .... ...... ..... ~- .... .... ... ... . .. : .......... ....... -~ . . . ....... ....... -:·...... ........ . . : .... ............. . . . . . . . . . . .... ... . . . . . . .. ........ . . . .. ...... ......... . . ...... ..... ..... . . . ..... ........ ........... ............. . ............ .

0. 10

0.0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.0 ~ .0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

Wind Sprrd (ntis)

Join! Proi.Jai.Jilily Dislrii.Julion of Wind Speed and Wind llircrlion at lhc Moline Surface Mel Ontn Anemometer

Category: I 2 3 4 5

Ma~imum Wind Silted (m/s): 4.0 H.O 12.0 16.0 > 16

N 2 008 1 . 6~6 0.078 0 .000 0.000

NNE 2301 1.630 0.039 0.000 0.000

NE 2 063 1.376 0.058 0.000 0 .000

ENE 2492 2.079 0.169 0.002 0.000

E 3 82 1 2.648 0 .207 0.004 0.000

ESE 5 048 1.945 0 165 0 OOR 0000

SE 3 11 5 1.410 0 .079 0 002 0000

SSE 2 ~63 2006 0. 175 0.003 0.000

s 3 209 3.495 0.497 0.0 15 0.000

ssw 3 198 4.374 0 .688 0.0 25 0.000

sw 3 672 3.520 0.491 0 047 0.0 10

WSW 5 063 2.690 0 .365 0.048 0.009

w 4.891 3.000 0.399 0 .05 1 0.000

WNW H79 3.518 0.308 0 001 0.000

N\V 2 280 3.134 0.325 0 009 0 .000

NNW I 317 1.537 0. 10~ 0000 0 .000

Cohn 5 200

T otals br C aregon · (% ): 55.6 40.0 4. 1 0.2 0.0

14.0

Totals

by Uirrction

(% )

3.7

4.0

3.5

4.7

6.7

7.2

4.6

4.6

7.2

8.3

7.7

11.2 8.3

7.3

5.7 3.0

100

Figure 4. Percent time indicated wind speed is exceeded at the Moline Airport anemometer.

CPP, Inc.

Figure 5.

25

d led with building heights. . " of- a) the area mo e Plan VIe\, ·

Project 4556

"Tl ciO" := @ Vo

'"0 ;-::l

< ~-

<: 0 ~ C) ......_, -~ 0 '"0

~ ;> ~-~-

~ -~-~

~ v; ~ 0.. til g (j ~

0 (")

:?. c;· ::l til

o· 2oo· 40o·

100" 300"

52" ....

S <..:..~ \ -

q _"tl ::;;.. ?i

t-v 0\

::.0 ~ ~· (") -~ v, v, 0\


a)

b)

Figure 6. Photographs of the model looking from: a) the southwest; b) the southeast .

•


c)

d)

Figure 6. Photographs of the model looking from: c) the northeast; d) the northwest.

•


a)

b)

Figure 7. Close-up photographs of the model looking from: a) the southwest; b) the northeast.


Figure 8. Typical ground-level concentration sampling grid .

•


CPP's Open-Circuit Wind Tunnel Performance Specifications

l. Dimensions

Test Section Length

Test Section Width

Ceiling Height

2. Wind tunnel Fan

Horse Power

Drive Type

Speed Control

3. Temperature

Ambient Air

Test Section Swface

4. Bounda ry-Layer

5.

Free Stream Velocities

BoundaJ)I-Layer Thickness

Stream wise Pt·essure Gr adient

74.5 fl (22. 7m)

12ft (3. 7m)

Variable from 5.5 flto 8.5 fl (1 . 7 m to 2.6 m)

20 hp (15 kW)

8 blade axial fan, two-speed motor

Coarse: 900/600 rpm, 2 speed motor

Fine: blade pitch control

Not Conh·olled

-50 ° F to 120 ° F (-46 °C to 49 °C}

O.OjjJs to 30.0/ps (0.0 to 9. l mls)

Up to 6.0ft (1 .8 m)

Zeroed by ceiling adjushnent

Figure 9. CPP's open-circuit wind tunnel used for testing.


a)

b)

Figure I 0. Photographs of the wind tunnel configurations: a) low roughness approach (Zo = 0.08 m); b) high roughness approach (Zo = 0.74 m).

•

'Tl a:o· c a -_.

r' 0 .... < §

OQ 2" en

~ "' "' ~ "0 "0 (3 ~

£-.... ~-0.. 2 2 [

"' ~ -5 0' :: ~ '-" (b

"' (ij ....

~ ~

~-(b

~ ;::: §. c -: Cb

"' ;:I

"0 ;:;) n !'0

See Roughness Pattern shown below (Detail A) 356mm Bevelled-edge Trip

13mm

Detail A

l-----------13411mm-------------t

See Roughness Pattern shown below (Detail A)

~ ; . ) .::i::::::: ~ndo;,.J;on : ;

1524mm Elliptical Spires

Flow Straighteners

~ _"'o :::;.. ~

....., .....,

::? .Q re· () ..... ~ ....., 0\

"Tj

o'C' c ...., (1> --r-' 0 :< ...., 0 J§ ~ ::: (1> Vl Vl

I» '"0 '"0

~ ...., 0 I» g. ;

~ -0.. -c 2 !i Vl

~ .g 0' ....,

cr ~

tTl 0;)

0 ~ Vl <n ;

~-,..

-0' ...., 3 § €. 5 (1> Vl Vl

I ::: 13mm "0

i»

Detail A ()

~

See Roughness Pattern shown below (Detail A) 356mm bevelled-edge trip

See Roughness Pattern shown below (Detail C)

13411mm I See Roughness Pattern shown below (Detail A)

, .· u1!1':1!!~l c -:: .. ::.-: <? . ·t. i !<_:::_:_: _: _:_:_:_: . ~aaaa aaaaaaag!. .... . . . .... . .... . . .... ......... : . : . . .. · .. : . . Wmd Direction . ·

L~~~} ::::: ~-agg ~~~~::: :::::::: :::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: >: :::::::\: :·:>.:\ · :·: ·:·::: · :·:~:.:\./:)·: · :~:)·:-/:·:·:·:::·:· :::-:·:·:·:::·:

EQUIVALENT BUILDING

0 I 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 q 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

51mm

Detail C

0

0


Flow Straighteners

(J

~ ::;:.. ~

w 4:..

:::.0 ~ ""' (") -4:.. v, v, 0.

'"rj o]. @ N

:r:: ~ a c

(1Q ::r ~

~ ~ en en :.:>

"'0 a :.:> g. ~-;:::: 0.. ~

5 !!. en

~ "'0

Q' :.:> '-"

~ en Vi ~. s-~ en ::::;: ~

~ ..., g ....,. ~ ..., ~ en

I - 13mm ~ :.:>

Detail A (')

!b


51mm

Detail B

l-----------13411mm-----------;

See Roughness Pattern shown below (Detail B)

:· · ~w-~d Direction . . . I


Flow Straighteners

~ !::::?)

""' ...,

::.0 -Q ~· n -"""" ..., ..., 0\

'"rJ ~·

""" (1) -!"->

:r:: ~ ...., ~

(iQ ;::::-

= (1)

"' "' ::.:> "0 "0

~ ""' 0 ::.:> g. ~. c.. 2 = = ~ "' ~ -6 0' :: C" .......... tTJ c:l 0 (b ~ "' ~. ~ :::: ::. 0' a ""' 0

c& 5 (1)

"' "' I ""' 13mm "2.. ::.:>

Detail A (')

~


See Roughness Pattern shown below (Detail C)

l-----------13411mm------------1

See Roughness Pattern shown below (Detail B)

1· : ·. \ . . . . Ao"iiDln._.· : r · · · A)QOD DDQQ()., · . ·. : · · . · ,aaaao3aaooao..·. I:.·:·: . .. ... ·: ·;gggggggggggggafi· I

. . : .. : .: .. : . .. . iaoaaaoaoaocaaa · · · · oaaoaoWaaaaao

· •. .' . .' . • . • ... .'. DOOODDC DDDDCIO · · · DDOODD DDDDDD

.' · ·: ·: · · · · · · ·: t~oaaaoHaoooaoact · · · · OODDDD OOODDDD

I .. ·:.·:·:. ·: ... ~DODD 000000~21. . . . \J:JCDD CDDOOOQ7.

1.·. ·.· ·.· . .•. .. ·.· . . . ~~~ ~ggw.: :-::

EQUIVALENT BUILDING

51mm

Detail B

. . . · .. -~nd Direction


0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

51mm

Detail C

Flow Straighteners

(J

_:g t:;:.. ;:;

....., 0.

~ ~ ~·

Q. t; \.I, 0.

CPP, Inc.

Water Approach Velocity Profile zo a 0.084 m full scale; zror a 400 m

e J;f 0.6

0.4

0-+--- ---.---,---=-.-----r-----.-- --i 0.000 0 200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200

U/Uref

I El Obse!Ved(·) --Log l aw(-) j

37

e ~ 0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Project4556

Wa1cr Approach Turbulence Profile zo = 0.084 m full scalo; zror = 400 m

5 10 15 20

U"/U

• Observed(%) --Snyder·s Appoxlmalion (%)

Figure 13. Mean longitudinal velocity and htrbulence intensity profiles approaching model for: a) low roughness approach.

•

25


Land Approach Velocity Profile Land Approach Turbulence Profile ZO a 0.737 m fUll scale; zref a 400 m zo = 0. 737 m lull scale; zrel = 400 m

1.2 1.2

1 - Ill

0.8 0.8

l! ~

0.6 .... t! ~

0.6

0.4 0.4

02 0.2

Ill 0 0 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

U/Uref U'/U

I a Observed (-) --Log l nw(-) I • Obs!rved (% ) --Snydets Appoxfmalloo (% ) j

Figure 13. Mean longitudinal velocity and turbulence intensity profiles approaching model for: b) high roughness approach.

•

CPP, Inc. 39 Project4556

Reynolds Number Similarity Tests

30r-----------------------------------------------------------------·

25 •

~ 20

j 'eb ,:, ~ 15 u E " .§ "' n ~ 10

5+-------------------------------------------------------------~

0+---------.---------r-------~~-------,--------~--------~--__J

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Dommind Dlstnncc (m)

• 3 m/s

• 4 m/s

.t. 5.5 m/s

---Average (4 and 5.5 m/s)

....... 10%

....... -10%

Figure 14. Maximum C/Q (J..tglm3)/(g/s) versus distance for various wind tunnel speeds- demonstrates Reynolds number independence. ••


a)

b)

Figure 15. Photographs of selected exhaust plume flow visualizations for stack S_289: a) site structures in place for a wind direction of 100 degrees; b) site structures in place for a wind direction of 140 degrees .

•


c)

d)

Figure 15. Photographs of selected exhaust plume flow visualizations for stack S_289: c) EBD tests: no building in place; d) EBD tests: EBD 6 (1:4:1) with a full scale height of24 min place.

II


a)

b)

Figure 16. Photographs of selected exhaust plume flow visualizations for stack S_349: a) site structures in place for a wind direction of I 00 degrees; b) site structures in place for a wind direction of 140 degrees .

•

CPP, Inc. 43 Projec/4556

c)

d)

Figure 16. Photographs of selected exhaust plume flow visualizations for stack S_349: c) EBD tests : no building in place; d) EBD tests: EBD 4 ( 1 :2: I) with a full scale height of 16 m in place.


e)

Figure 16. Photographs of selected exhaust plume flow visualizations for stack 8_349: e) EBD tests: EBD 5 ( 1: I :2) with a full scale height of 20 m in place.

TABLES

Table 1 FuU-scale Exhaust and Modeling Information

Elll!U<h Unit.<

Source Dc~crlptlon

I Pnht< 144 Taper :!. 100 S Stand Hot Mill- N 3 I 00 S Stand Hot Mill - S 4 144 Hot Mill 5 160HotMill 6 Reyno I~ number slack

Metric Units

Sourcl" Description

1 Paht.s 144 T3pcr 2 1 00 5 Sund Hot :'\·!ill - N 3 100 S St.and Hot Mill- S ·1 144 Hot Mill 5 !60HotMill 6 Reynold.< number F<tack

Site Parameters: Scale Reduction: Grade E levation (m): ~-pica! Building Height (m):

Ambimt Tcmpaoture ("K):

Anemometer Hci£ht (m): Ancmomctcr Surf:>ce RouglmCF$ (m): Site Anemometer Hci.~t (m): Site Surface Rouglmcss (m): 2 % Wind Speed

Source ID

S_071 S_ :!88 S_ 289 S_344 S_349

RcS_071

So w-ee ID

S_07 1 s_::ss S_ 289 $_344 S_349

Rc8_071

400 175.9 25. 0

29.5.8

10.00 0.0<

10.00 0.08 9.0

lnltlal Source Hel;ht Exit Exit MMss Volume

Above 83<C Din meter Temp. Flow Flow Rnte

(fi) (in) m (lblhr) (cfm)

76.3 42.0 70.0 153.70:!. 33.712 87.2 108.0 108.0 607.291 142.757 87.2 108.0 100.0 61.5.972 14:!..757 84.6 87.6 8.5.0 654,675 147.660 69.i 97.2 100.0 780.423 180.870

76.3 ~2.0 70.0 1.53.700 33.71Z

ln!Ual Source H.,i:::ht Exit F..ut Mass Volume

Above Bli<C Diu meter Temp. Flow FlowRute

(m) !m) !K) ~::Is) (m' Js)

~3.3 1.07 29-1.3 19.41 15.91 26.6 1.74 315.4 76.68 67.37 :!6.6 :!..74 :no.9 77.77 67.37 2.5.8 ',.

---~ 302.6 82.66 69.69 ~1.3 ~.4 i 3 10.9 98.54 85.36 Z3.3 1.07 294.3 19.41 15.91

5771lmsl

Moline Surface Met Data 2000-2004 (72.7 F . Average Swnmer Temperature)

l'v!ol ine Surface Mel Dat.a ~000-~004

(Period of Record: 2000-2004)

Source Bas.,

E.xlt Ambient Elcv>tUon Velocity Temperature

((Is) ("F) (fi)

58.4 70.0 0.0 37.4 n.7 0.0 37.4 72.7 0.0 58.8 72.7 0.0 .58 . .5 7':..i 0.0 .58.4 70.0 0.0

Source Base

Exit Ambient Hei!:hl Vclocity Tcmpcn~ture Above Gnlde

(mls)

17.80 11.40 11.40 17.91 17.83 17.80

~1

~94.3

~95.8

295.8 :!.95.8 ~95.8

294.3

:;, cor)-/ -4

.S _o7l

.5-~s:::. 5- ~£,"}

5-3YSr .s_ 3 P<f

(m)

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

L o ~"-'1=-/'o.-<.<..

'7 I ;) . ..,19 7, ;; L./

?/-;). OvO, /S ?,t~O'/'). ~C. '}/ ...2 ;:;-"/. 7;).

?/cl:Z?~-~'7

CJ

-~ PMlO :::.. (lblhr) ?i

1.55 1:!..92 1~.n 9.46

1.5.42

U5

PMlO (;is)

ll.i4 97.66 ~

0. 97.66 71.55 116.58 I 1.74

<..j{,QJ/,9.. 7 , 7)

"-; (.. 0 / ~ :. ~ . 0 ~ .y ~ 0 /6 2 q', ~ :<, ~/Ct:J /~/ .• ;> 2

7'~0 It, '79· .S ':<

~ ~ ~-

~ ~ '-" '-" 0.

CPP, Inc. 47

Table 2 Sul'face Roughness Values (Zo) Determined b)' AERSURFACE and Zo Values Used in Wind Tunnel Simulations

0.732 km Racl i1L~ 3 km Radius Wind Turmel

AERSURFACE AERSURFACE AERSURFACE Sectors (Degrees) Zo(m) Zo (m)

Test Sectors

(I) (2) (Degrees)

0-30 0.771 0.382 NA 30-60 0.801 0.147 NA 60-90 0.700 0.032 NA 90-120 0.278 0.036 120-150 0.188 0.090 150- 180 0.614 0. 127 100 to 240 180-210 0.785 0.065 210-240 0.797 0.107 240-270 0.801 0.737 250 and260 270-300 0.669 0.45<1 NA 300-330 0.79<1 0.266 NA 330-360 0.693 0.473 NA

t\iem1 0.658 0.243

Project 4556

Wind numel Test Zo (m)

(3)

NA NA NA

0.08<1

0.737 NA NA NA

I) Used for tlte EBD part of lite ~tully. Merut Zo defines the ~pproprirue ~mf~ce rongltness lengUt for the tumtnble. 2) Used to define lltc appropriate surface rouglmcss length for uppronch flows in the wind 1\umel. 3) Mean 7.o value> used for Ute appronch flows.

I

CPP, Inc.

Tablr 3 Concentration 1\leasurment Test f'lan

nun No.

Source I

10

Stack Htight

A bon Dasr crt)

Tracer Gas

~Ids Numbtr Indi~enc~ Ttsts __ . I . Rc S_071 __ 76 3 Ethane 2 Re S_07_1 _ 76 3 Ethane 3 Re S_07_1 _ 76 3 Ethane

Tests \\ ith Site Structurr Presrnl _ ___.lQ.I • _ S_07 1 __ 76 3 _ Ethane .

102 103 10-l 105 106 107 108 109 110 Ill

. 2-..071 _L07 1 ~07 1

_ S_ 07 1 s 07 1 s 07 1

. ~1 s 071

~I s 07 1

112 s 071 ~ 113 (07 1

76 3 Ethane 76 3 -- Ethane ' = 163 Ethane

_ _ 76 3 Ethane 1

76.3 Ethane

~J ~.J

76. 3

Ethane Ethane Ethane Ethanr Ethanr

Source 2

10

-

48

S tack I Tracer Height Gas Wind

Dirtcl iou COrg.)

Model n r rrrrnce

Wind Speed (mlsl

Abo•·~ Dase (fl)

-~---

----

--f--f-- f--1-

- -1-- -'-- -

--

140 140 140

100 110 120 130 , _i_QO 140 150

-1- ~~--1- 17_0 __ _ -1- 22_0 __ -- 23_0 __

240

_!.Q_O 4.00 4.00 4 00 4 00 4.00 4.00 3.88 250

260 --

3 88

Project 4556

2% Airport Wind Sprrd Cmls)

Approach Zo (m)

- 9-.00 0.084 -

~00 -- 0.08_4 ---9.00 -- 0.08_4_

9.00 9.00 9.00

--9.00 - -9-.00

--9.00

9.00 9.00 900 9.00 9.00

---__ 0084_ _ __ 0.084__ __ 0084_ __ 0.084__ __ 0.08'!_

0.084

0.084 9.00 __ 900 __

0.737 0.737

- 114 S_288 87 2 1\fethane --S 289 87 2 Ethane 100 -- 4.00-- 9.00---- 115 s 288 87 2 Methane --s - 2s9 87 2 Ethane 110 4.00 - - 9.00

0.084 0.084

_ 1_16 . _ S_288 __ 87 2 __ Methane ~~ _ 87 2 -I- Ethan..<:__ 12Q_ _2&0 __ 0.084

_ 1_17 __ S_288 87 2 Methane S 289 __ 87 2 __ Etha~ llQ.._ _:!.QQ. 9.00 9.00

0.084 ~.084 -_ 1_18 2_188 - 87 2-= Methane

1 S 289 __ _87 2 -f- Ethan!:__ I- 1-!Q.__ 4 00

_ 1_19 , _L288 __ 87.2 __ Meth~ ~ __ 87.2 _1- Et11ar'£._ ISO 4.00 , 9.00 4~084 12_0 -· S~ 87.2 Methane __ S_2~ ~ Ethane __ 160 _:_ 4.00 __ 9.0Q__ . 0.084

_ 121 _ _ S_~ 872 Methane ~S_28~ ~ Ethane __ 170 _ _ 4 00 __ 9.00 0~ _ 122 __ S_2~ 87 2 1\fethane __ S_28~ 821._ Ethane 220 __ 4 00 9.00--· 0 ~ _ 123 S 288 87 2 Methane ,_J>_28~ 872 Ethane 230 __ 4 00 --9.00-- 0~ _12~ s)88 87.2 Methane _ _ S_289 _ 87 2 Ethane 240 __ 4.00 -==..9.00 _ 0.0!'1..._

125 _ S_288 87.2 __ Methane S 289 _ 87.2 - f- Etha~ :!2Q__ . ~ 9.00 __ 0.737 ~ 2_ 288 --87 2 __ Meth~ S 289 __ 87 2 __ Ethan.!:.__ _ 260 3 88 9.00 ___QJ37

- -- -__ 69 7 __ Ethan~ _ S 344 --84 6 ~ Melhanc 127 __ 69 7 -f-.[;than!:.._ 1-

697 ~ne 2.]_44 _ 84.6 __ 1\feth~

12_9 _ S2±!......, 84.6 l\1ethane __ S_J~ 130__ S_~ 84 6 1\fcthane __ S_3~ 69 7 Ethane 13_1_ S_~ 84 6 1\fcthane __ S_349_ _6_9 7_ Ethane

I QQ._ 4 00 9.00 I !Q_ ·100 9.00 120 __ ·I 00 9.QQ__ 130 140

----

•I 00 4 00

9.00 9.00

~84 __Q:il84

0.084 0084 0084 0 084 _ 132__ S_J.±!.__ 84 6 1\fcthane __ S_349__ 6_9_7_ Ethane ISO __ 4 00 __ 9.00 __

13_3_. S_~ 84.6 Methane __ S_3~ 69 7 Ethane __ 160 __ 4.00 9.00 0.084 __ IJ.I _ _ S_3·14 __ 84_.6 __ Methane _D·I9 _ 69.7_ Eth~ ..!2Q_ 4.00 __ 9_.~~0.084 __ 135 _ _ S_J-14 __ 84 6 l\1cthanc _ S_H9 _ _ 69 z..__ Ethane 220 4 00 9.00 __ 0 OS:!_ __ 136 _ S_344 _ 84_6 __ Methane _i249 __ 697 __ Et~ l!Q_

1 40o ~00 __ 0.084__ __ 137 __ S_344 __ 84_.6_ Methane _D49 __ 69.z..__ Ethane .l:!Q__ 4.00 __ 9_.00 __ oos;_

138 S 344 84.6 Methane S 349 69.7 Ethane 250 '--us 9.00 0.737 139 ~4 __ 846 _Metha~ S2:!2_ 69.7 _Ethane_'- 26~ 3_.8_8_ , ~ , .......QJ.37

140 141 142

2-Q] I __i_Q71

s 07 1

144 ~ 145 s~ 146 s 288

__ 76 3 Ethane ___ 76 J _ Ethane

76 3 Ethane 76 3

87 2

87 2

Ethane __

Methane- S_289 .~thane __ s_~

Methane S 289 1\lelhane __ S_289_ 87 2

f.-- -1-f--- -1-

-f- -1-200 4.00

-1-- 210_ _ 4.0_0 _

-- 1-- - - --_f!hane -1-- ISO__ 4 00 ~ane -1-- 190 _ _ 4:oo-'

Ethane 200 4.00

9.00 9.00

0.084

0.084

9 00 0 084 2:.QQ_ 0.084 9.00 0.084

__ 210 _ _ 4.00 --9.00__ 0.084 _ 147 __ S_2!1!_

- 148 • S_344 ------- __ 4 oo__ 9.00 __ ,.

- - 4.00__ 9.00

0.084

_ t 49 __ s_~ 150 s 344

84 6 84.6 84.6

__t51 __ S_H_4 __ 84 6

1\fclhane __ s_J:!2__. 69 7 1\fcthane __ S _3:!2..._. 697 Methane S H9 69.7 Methane . _ S_J.I9 _ _ 69 7

Ethane Ethane Ethane Ethane

__ 180 __ 190

200 210

4.00 9.00--· 0.084 0.084

__ 4.00 __ 9 .00 -- 0.084

CPP, Inc.

Table 3 (rontinned) Conrentration Measnnncnt Test Plan

Hun No.

Sourer I

10

Stack Height

Abo,·r Dasr (ft)

Tracer Gas

49

EDIJ EDD EDD ID

,\lotlel Scalr F~~~~~le 1-A-SJr'r_ct_R,•_ti_o-i

~no .I .1 (m) llh 'I W: I L

EDD Comments

Model Rrfrrrnce

Wind Spcrd (ntis)

Project 4556

2% Airport Wind Sprrd

_{ntis)

Aptlroacl Zo (m)

EDD Ttsts __ _ _ 201 __ S_ 07i ~ Eth;nc-noEflD , 0 ~ --- _-• ~ .00 J 9.00 00~'!--

202 S_07 1 _ _ _ 76.3 Ethane EBD3 12 I 2 I ~.00 9.00 0 .08~

__ 203 ~I 76.3 Ethane · EDD4 16 1 • 2 ___!__ - _ "4:'oo ' 9.0Q_____Jl.084 20~ ___ S_07 1 _ _ 7_6.3 -~ EAD5 20 I 2 I _ _ _ 4.00 9.00 0.08~

76 3 Ethane EBD 5.5 __ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ---.uJ0 ~ 0.084 205 s 071

- 206 s 071 7(;3. Ethan-. -,- EDDS 20 I 4 I _ _ _ ~. 9~ 008-1_ _1Q2_ s _QI!__ 76.3 Ethane __ EBD 5 ___ 20 __ 1 _ 6 I ___ _ __ 4.00 9.00 ~4

f-~08 ___2_Q:!_I 76.3 E~ El3D_ 5__ 20 I 2 ~tated ~5 dq;rees 4.00 9.00 0.084 _ .1Q2_ S_0_7_1 _ 76.3 ~hane ~5 _1() _1 __ 1 __ I ---~.00 ~00 _ 0.084 210 ~ 76.3 Eth~- EBD5 20 _ _ I_ 2 I do"n" ind of stack 4.00 9.00 0.084 - - ---21 1 S_07_1 __ 76.3 ~1ne ___ !!Q__I~UD ___ 0_ __ -- __ 3.88 --.2:Q_O , 0.737

--- '---221 S_288 ___ 87.2 :O.Iethane . no EH _ _ 0_ 222 S 288 _ 87_.2 __ :O.IeU1ane __ EBD6 ___ 24 __ 1_ 4 I __

241 ~ 87_.2 ___ Ethane no EB ___ 0 __ _

_ 242 ~89 87.2 E~ EDD 3 12 I 2 _ l __ 2~3 s 289

_ 244 S-289 87 2 Ethane EBIJ4 __ 16 ___ 1 _ 2 I __ _ 87.2 Ethane EDD 5 20 I 2 I

245 s~

f-2~6 ~89

87.2 Ethane F.BD6 24 __ I __ ~ I __ _ 87-.2---Ethane no~ 0 _ _ _

261 _ _ S_ 344 ~ ~!ethane no~ 0 - 262 S.l.:!.:!__ 84_.6 __ ~fethane __ EBD3 ___ 12 _ 1 __ 2 I ---_ 263 ~44 84.6 Methane EBQ_-l_____ 16 I 2 ___1B_ S 344 84.6 1\f~ EBIJ 5 ___ 2U _ 1 __ 2

265 ~344 8.1.6---~fethanc_l_n~ 0

1

281 _ _ S_ 349 69.7 Ethane 0

__ 4.UU -~

4.00 9.00 U.08~

0.084

~ .00 9.00 0.084

- - 4~ 9.00 0.084 -- 4.00 _ _ 9.00 0.084

4.00 9.00 0 .08~

4:oo-- 9.00 0.084 ~ 9.00 _ __ 0.737

~ .UU 9.0U 0.08~

~- 9.0_0 _ _ 0.737

....:!.:QQ__ 9~ 0.084 -_lg_ S 349 69.7 Ethane 283 _ _ _ s_-3~ 69.7 ~ne

no Ell F.BD5.5 EBD~.5

--- 4.00 ---.2:Q!l 0.08~ - - ---4.00 9_.0_0 _ _ 0.08~ -

22 I 2 I 18 l - 2- I

284 S_3~ 69.7 Ethane 285 _ _ s_· 349 69.7 Ethane ~ S 349 69.7 E1ha11e

287 _ _ _ s_-3~ 69.7 Ethane 288 S_3.:!2__ 69.7 _ __ Ethane 289 __ S_ 349 69.7 Ethane

Ethane

F.BD3 EllD4 ,

F.BD4.5 EBD 5

12 I 2 I ·---16 I 2 __ 1 ~ _ _ _

18 I 4 I 2_0 _ _ 1 4 _ 1_

EllD 4.5 . _ _ 1_8_ I 2 3 _ _ EBD4.5 18 ___ 1 2 _ _ 2_ rotated45drj,,'rees

_8!!) 5 • _2Q_ I __ I _ 2 __ _ no Ell 0

4.00 9.00 0.084 0.084

302 ___ S_071 76.3 Ethane EBIJ6 24 I 2 _ _ 1_ _ _ _ ..!QQ.___ 9.00 0.084 _ .lQL_ S_07 _1 __ 76.3 Ethalle • EllD 5.5 ~ I 2 I rotated 63 degr~s 4.00 9.0-0-~0.08~ 30~ S 07 1 76.3 Ethane EllD 6 24 __ I _ 2 1 I · rotated 63 dogras 4.00 ' 9.00 ~4 305 S_07 c_16 3 ~e --EilD 5 --20 I 2 I rotated 63 tlegrees ~ .00 9.00

1 0.084

306 ~ 76.3 Ethane EBD 5.5 ' - -22- I - 4--1 rotated 63 dcgrces--4-.00 '~ • 0.08~ ~ S_071 _ _ _ 76.3 • Ethane EnD 5.5 _ 2_2 _ - - , --, ' I rotated 45 degr~s 4.00 9 00 0.~~ 308 S~ 76.3 Ethane EBD 5.5 22 _ I . 2 • I rotatetl63 degrees 4.00 ___ 9.00 0.084

CPP, Inc. 50

Table 4a Equivalent Building Dimensions for Input into AERMOD Alcoa Davenport Works Stack: S_071

Flow Wind EBD BUILDHGT BUILDWID BUILDLEN Vector Direction ID Hb &~6-f w (Deg.) (Deg.) _{_m) ~ (m)

280 100 4 16 40 32 290 110 5 20 5 0 56.6 300 120 5 20 56.6 310 130 5 20 20 320 140 0 0 0 330 150 3 12 .;1 iJ 24 340 160 5 20 20 350 170 3 12 3 D 24 360 180 4 16 32 10 190 5.5 22 55 39.6 20 200 5.5 22 39.6 30 210 5 20 36 40 220 5 20 56.6 50 230 3 12 24 60 240 0 0 0 70 250 0 0 0 80 260 0 0 0

Table 4b Equivalent Building Dimensions for Input into AERMOD Alcoa Davenport Works Stack: S_288

L

(mJ

16 56.6 56.6 20 0 12 20 12 16

48.4 48.4 44

56.6 12 0 0 0

Flow Wind EBD BUILDHGT BUILDWID BUILDLEN Vector Direction ID Hb rr w L _{Degj (De_g.) (m) G . (m) (m)

280 100 3 12 ·3o 24 12 290 110 0 0 0 0 300 120 0 0 0 0 310 130 0 0 0 0 320 140 0 0 0 0 330 150 3 12 24 12 340 160 0 0 0 0 350 170 0 0 0 0 360 180 3

~~ 40 24 12

10 190 4 32 16 20 200 5 20 40 20 30 210 0 0 0 0 40 220 0 0 0 0 50 230 4 16 32 16 60 240 0 0 0 0 70 250 0 0 0 0 80 260 0 0 0 0

Project 4556

Aspect Ratio

XBADJ YBADJ Hb: W: L _(m) (mj

-16 0 1 2 1 -56.6 0 1 2.8 2.8 -56.6 0 1 2.8 2.8 -20 0 1 1 1 0 0

-12 0 1 2 1 -20 0 1 1 1 -12 0 1 2 1 -16 0 1 2 1

-48.4 0 1 1.8 2.2 -48.4 0 1 1.8 2.2 -44 0 1 1.8 2.2

-56.6 0 1 2.8 2.8 -12 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 , 0 0

1

Aspect Ratio XBADJ YBADJ Hb: W: L

(m) (m)

-12 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

-12 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0

-12 0 1 2 1 -16 0 1 2 1 -20 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0

-16 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

CPP, Inc. 51

Table 4c Equivalent Building Dimensions for Input into AERMOD Alcoa Davenport Works Stack: S_289

Flow Wind EBD BUILDHGT BUILDWID BUILDLEN Vector Direction ID Hb &~f W L (Deg.) (Deg.) (m) (m) (m)

280 100 5 20 S tJ 40 20 290 110 0 0 0 0 300 120 3 12 "30 24 12 310 130 0 0 0 0 320 140 3 12 24 12 330 150 3 12 24 12 340 160 0 0 0 0 350 170 0 0 0 0 360 180 3 12 24 12 10 190 3 12 24 12 20 200 5 20 40 20 30 210 0 0 0 0 40 220 0 0 0 0 50 230 0 0 0 0 60 240 0 0 0 0 70 250 0 0 0 0 80 260 0 0 0 0

Table 4d Equivalent Building Dimensions for Input into AERMOD Alcoa Davenport Works Stack: S_344

Flow Wind EBD BUILDHGT ~UILDWID BUILDLEN Vector Direction ID Hb . ~ W L (Deg.) (Deg.) (m)

I.!J (m) lml

280 100 0 0 0 0 290 110 0 0 0 0 300 120 0 0 0 0 310 130 0 0 0 0 320 140 0 0 0 0 330 150 0 0 0 0 340 160 0 0 0 0 350 170 0 0 0 0 360 180 0 0 0 0 10 190 4 16 -~ () 32 16 20 200 5.5 22 rJ ') 44 22 30 210 5 20 ')0 40 20 40 220 3 12 )0 24 12 50 230 0 0 0 0 60 240 0 0 0 0 70 250 0 0 0 0 80 260 0 0 0 0

Project4556


(m) (m)

-20 0 1 2 1 0 0

-12 0 1 2 1 0 0

-12 0 1 2 1 -1 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0

-12 0 1 2 1 -1 2 0 1 2 1 -20 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


_(ml _(ml

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

-16 0 1 2 1 -22 0 1 2 1 -20 0 1 2 1 -12 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CPP, Inc. 52

Table 4e Equivalent Building Dimensions for Input Into AERMOD Alcoa Davenport Works Stack: 5_349

Flow Wind EBD BUILDHGT BUILDWID BUILDLEN Vector Direction ID Hb • t: f w L (Deg.) (Deg.) l) (9 (m) (m) (m

280 100 4.5 18 4~- 50.9 50.9 290 110 4.5 18 50.9 50.9 300 120 5 20 ) 0 20 40 310 130 5 20 20 40 320 140 4 16 ,,() 32 16 330 150 5 20 20 40 340 160 5 20 20 40 350 170 4 16 32 16 360 180 5 20 20 40 10 190 5 20 20 40 20 200 0 0 0 0 30 210 5 20 20 40 40 220 0 0 0 0 50 230 0 0 0 0 60 240 3 12 .lO 24 12 70 250 0 0 0 0 80 260 4 16 32 16

Project 4556

Aspect Ratio XBADJ YBADJ Hb: W : L

(m) (m)

-50.9 0 1 2.8 2.8 -50.9 0 1 2.8 2.8 -40 0 1 1 2 -40 0 1 1 2 -16 0 1 2 1 -40 0 1 1 2 -40 0 1 1 2 -16 0 1 2 1 -40 0 1 1 2 -40 0 1 1 2 0 0

-40 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0

-12 0 1 2 1 0 0

-16 0 1 2 1

iensions for alcoa davenport works · of an ebd study reviewed and approved by the epa (approved in...

Documents