Turkey Paper 2010

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/8/2019 Turkey Paper 2010

    1/8

    Dispersion of effluents from building roof stacks: Comparison of

    various models, CFD and wind tunnel results

    Ali Bahloul1, 2,*, Bodhisatta Hajra1 and Ted Stathopoulos1

    1Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University,Montreal, Canada2 Institut de recherche Robert-Sauv en sant et en scurit du travail, Montreal, Canada

    Corresponding email: [email protected]

    SUMMARY

    Assessing pollutant concentrations within the proximity of the source in the built

    environment is important. Most current models do not take into account building-generated turbulence, which causes effluent re-entrainment into the building through

    openings located on the roof or side walls. This paper compares ASHRAE (2003 and

    2007 versions), ADMS (an EPA-approved model) calculated dispersions, wind tunneldata and CFD results using the Realisable k- model and turbulent Schmidt number (Sct)

    of 0.7.

    Three different cases involving a low-rise building (with and without rooftop structure)and a high-rise building were considered. It was found that ADMS dispersions compare

    well with experimental results for the low-rise building but generally predict lower

    dilutions for the high-rise building. In addition, ADMS cannot model the effect of rooftop

    structures. Dilutions predicted by ASHRAE 2003 and 2007 models were comparable for

    the low-rise and high-rise building with flat roof. However, ASHRAE 2007 predictedlower dilutions compared to ASHRAE 2003 for the low-rise building with Roof Top

    Structures (RTS). CFD compared well with experimental data for the low-rise buildingwith RTS but generally predicted lower dilutions than experimental results for the low-

    rise building with flat roof. The results indicate the suitability of each model for certain

    cases.

    INTRODUCTION

    Assessing pollutant dispersion in the built environment is important because airflow and

    effluent transport within the recirculation zone of the source is a complex phenomenonwhich greatly influences the concentration of pollutants in the near-field region [5].

    Pollutants that are released from rooftop stacks have a tendency to re-enter the building

    through openings located on the roof or side walls. This effect is greatly magnified in the

    presence of a Roof Top Structure (RTS) located upwind of a stack [10].Currently one of the most widely used models is the Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling

    System (ADMS), developed in England, which is also supported by United States

    Environmental Protection Agency. A recent study showed that of the various available

  • 8/8/2019 Turkey Paper 2010

    2/8

    models, ADMS is the only model which gave good comparisons with ASHRAE and

    wind tunnel results. Hence the other widely used models such as CALPUFF, SCREEN

    and AFTOX have not been used for the present study [10].ASHRAE provides a geometric stack design method for estimating the minimum stack

    height to avoid plume entrainment in the flow recirculation zones of a building and

    modified Gaussian equations to estimate dilutions on rooftop of building [2, 3]. Thepresent study makes use of the latter to assess plume dilutions on building rooftops.

    Wind tunnel experimental results were produced at the Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel

    laboratory at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.CFD has been possible to study the flow and transport of airborne particles in the vicinity

    of buildings. It is widely used because other assessment techniques such as field and

    wind tunnel tests are time consuming and expensive. However, it is necessary to validate

    CFD results with wind tunnel or field data [4, 11].This paper compares the ADMS model, results with those produced by ASHRAE 2003

    and 2007 models, wind tunnel results along with CFD simulations using the Realisable

    k- model, forSct= 0.7.

    ASHRAE

    ASHRAE develops standards for designers dealing with the design and maintenance of

    indoor environments. ASHRAE Applications Handbook, Chapter 44, 2007, gives certainguidelines that can be used for determining the stack height and rooftop dilutions. Till

    recently ASHRAE 2003 was in use by practicing Engineers. However, in 2007 a

    modified version, which has certain modifications in assessing plume dilutions, wasreleased.

    ASHRAE 2003 suggests the following formulation to calculate plume dilutions:

    )2/exp()/)(/)(/(422

    zezeyeHr hddVUD = (1)

    where:

    h is the effective stack height (m),de is the stack diameter (m),

    Ve is the exhaust velocity (m/s),

    UH is the wind speed at building height (m/s),y and z are standard deviations of the plume (m)

    The 2007 version of ASHRAE has modified equation (1) as:

    )2/exp()/)(/)(/(422

    zezeyeHr ddVUD =

    where: = hplume- hTop= 0 if hplume< hTop

    hplume is the sum of stack height and plume rise minus stack wake downwash (m),

    (2)

  • 8/8/2019 Turkey Paper 2010

    3/8

    hTop is the height of the highest active obstacle or recirculation zone on a rooftop between

    stack and intake (m),

    is the vertical separation between the plume rise and h Top. It may be noted that theterm has replaced h in the exponential term of equation (2). The following

    formulation suggested by Wilson [13], has been used for evaluating normalised dilutions.

    )H(U/Q)(DD2

    Hrnormalised = (3)

    where:

    Dris the ratio of exhaust to receptor concentrations

    Q is the volumetric flow rate (m3/s)H is the height of the building (m)

    Normalised dilutions are useful in scaling down the quantities to mere ratios ofconcentrations so that they can be compared to other models.

    ADMS

    ADMS is a well established and validated Gaussian plume model. It is an advanceddispersion model developed in England for calculating effluent concentrations in the built

    environment [1].

    ADMS requires certain inputs that include the mass of the pollutant emitted,

    meteorological details, building configurations, stack and receptor locations andtopographic details. The output can be viewed as a contour plot or as concentrations

    (g/m3) at specific locations. In the present study, for all cases the concentrations of

    effluents were found on a grid of 50 m by 50 m. The averaging time for all cases was 1

    minute to avoid the meandering of the wind direction, which has an effect on the plumeconcentration and width [5].

    ADMS concentration results were converted to normalised dilutions using equation (3) sothat they can be compared directly to other models.

    WIND TUNNEL EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

    The wind tunnel experiments were carried out in the open circuit Boundary Layer WindTunnel laboratory at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. It is 1.8 m by 1.8 m in

    cross-section and 12.2 m in length. The buildings that have been tested were made of

    timber on a 1:200 scale [10].According to Snyder [8], while modelling non-buoyant plume exhaust the followingcriteria should be satisfied:

    Geometric similarity

    Building Reynolds Number > 11000

    Stack Reynolds Number > 2000

  • 8/8/2019 Turkey Paper 2010

    4/8

    Similarity of wind tunnel flow with atmospheric surface layer

    Equivalent stack momentum ratio.

    A mixture of Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) and Nitrogen, which was released from stacks ofvarious heights ranging from 1m to 7m and exhaust momentum (M) varying from 1

    through 5, was used during the tracer gas experiment. A multi-syringe pump was used tocollect the gas samples to determine the concentration of effluents at various receptorslocated at 5m interval downwind of stack, with a sampling time of 1 minute. A Gas

    Chromatograph (GC) was used to assess the gas concentrations that were collected using

    the syringe samplers. In this connection the velocity at building height was measured tobe 5.4 m/s in the wind tunnel. Normalised dilutions were calculated from equation 3 to

    make the results obtained from ASHRAE, ADMS and CFD comparable. Since it was

    assumed that the buildings considered in all cases were in an urban terrain therefore a

    power law exponent of 0.3 was used to determine UH. The experimental conditions usedin this study are similar to those described in [10].

    CFD SIMULATIONS

    CFD has been used on numerous occasions to simulate airflow and pollutant dispersionwithin the vicinity of buildings for various values ofSct[4, 11, 12]. The turbulent Schmidt

    number (Sct) is defined as:

    ttctDS /= (4)

    where:

    tis the turbulent eddy viscosity,Dtis the eddy mass diffusivity.

    Earlier studies have shown the importance of turbulent Schmidt number in modellingairborne particles. Spalding found good agreement between experimental and numerical

    results at Sct= 0.7 [9]. In a separate study, Launder found Sct= 0.9 to be suitable for near-

    wall turbulence modelling [7]. Flesch also performed CFD simulations for differentatmospheric stability conditions forSctranging from 0.18 to 1.34 [6].

    The present study uses Realisable k- model to simulate effluent transport forSct = 0.7,

    since past studies have found good agreement with experimental data within the near-

    field region [4, 12]. In this context, numerical simulations from a previous study which

    correspond to wind tunnel results for exhaust release from a flush vent of an isolated cube[4] and those obtained for a low-rise building with RTS [12], have been used for

    comparison since these cases match closely to those examined in the present study.

    CASES EXAMINED

    Three different cases were considered for the present study. These include:

  • 8/8/2019 Turkey Paper 2010

    5/8

    a) Low-rise building

    b) Low-rise building with RTSc) High-rise building

    The dimensions of each building and RTS used for this study are presented in Table 1.

    Table 1. Dimensions of buildings and RTS

    Structure Height (m) Width (m) Breadth (m)

    Low-rise building 15 50 50

    High-rise building 60 50 50

    RTS 4 30 8

    NB: Width represents the dimension perpendicular to wind direction.

    Wind was considered perpendicular to the building face. For all cases the receptors were

    5 m apart, downwind of stack and the stack location was 20 m from the upwind edge ofthe building and 25 m from the lateral edges. The RTS was centrally placed upwind of

    the stack and 6 m away from the upwind edge of the building.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    The results obtained from wind tunnel experiments [10], ADMS and ASHRAE are

    compared with CFD simulations by Blocken at al. [4] for a low-rise building with a 1 m

    stack at M=1, are presented in terms of normalised dilutions in Figure 1 (a). It may be

    noted that the results obtained by [4] correspond to a cube of 5 cm with a centrally-

    located flush vent. In the absence of RTS, ASHRAE 2007 predicts comparable dilutionsto ASHRAE 2003. Dilutions predicted by ADMS and wind tunnel are in good agreement,

    but are generally higher than ASHRAE. CFD simulations using Realisable k- model forSct of 0.7 gave comparable dilutions with ASHRAE 2003 and 2007 at points closer to the

    stack and at the downwind edge of the building. The lower dilutions at receptors lying

    between 10 m and 20 m downwind of stack suggest a need to re-assess the use of CFDfor the present case.

    Figure 1 (b) presents comparisons between experimental results from [10], ADMS,

    ASHRAE and CFD simulations from [12] for a low-rise building with RTS with a 1 mstack at M=5. The computational results obtained from [12] correspond to a field study

    performed at Concordia University and is similar to the present case. It is observed that inthe presence of RTS, wind tunnel predicted comparable dilutions with ASHRAE 2003and CFD, especially within 20 m downwind of stack. ADMS predicts very high dilutions,

    while ASHRAE 2007 predicts very low dilutions at all points downwind of stack.

  • 8/8/2019 Turkey Paper 2010

    6/8

    a)

    b)

    Figure 1. Dispersion of pollutants emitted from a low-rise building with: a) flat roof; b)RTS.

  • 8/8/2019 Turkey Paper 2010

    7/8

    Figure 2. Dispersion of pollutants emitted from a high-rise building

    Figure 2 shows comparisons between ADMS, ASHRAE, CFD and wind tunnel data for

    the high-rise building (no RTS) for a 1m stack at M=1. Results show that in general, both

    ASHRAE 2003 and 2007 versions predict very low and comparable dilutions, comparedto all other models. CFD compares well with wind tunnel at 10m and 15m downwind of

    stack but predicts lower dilutions than wind tunnel data thereafter. ADMS predicts lower

    dilutions compared to CFD and wind tunnel but are generally higher than ASHRAE 2003

    and 2007.

    CONCLUSIONS

    The study shows that the height of the building plays a vital role in determining dilutions

    of effluents from rooftop stacks. ADMS was found to be unsuitable for modelling theeffect of RTS. The calculations by ASHRAE 2007 are simple compared to ASHRAE

    2003 but both versions predicted lower dilutions than wind tunnel for high-rise building,

    which is unsuitable for design considerations. CFD simulations using Realisable k-model forSct = 0.7 were found to be appropriate for modelling exhaust from flush vents.

    However, its applicability needs to be assessed in modelling exhausts from a rooftop

    stack. Additional studies to estimate a generalised Schmidt number for CFD studies innear-field pollutant dispersion are required.

  • 8/8/2019 Turkey Paper 2010

    8/8