Comparing Large-Eddy Simulation and Gaussian Plume Model to Sensor Measurements of an Urban Smoke Plume

Abstract

The fast prediction of the extent and impact of accidental air pollution releases is important to enable a quick and informed response, especially in cities. Despite this importance, only a small number of case studies are available studying the dispersion of air pollutants from fires in a short distance (O(1 km)) in urban areas. While monitoring pollution levels in Southampton, UK, using low-cost sensors, a fire broke out from an outbuilding containing roughly 3000 reels of highly flammable cine nitrate film and movie equipment, which resulted in high values of PM2.5 being measured by the sensors approximately 1500 m downstream of the fire site. This provided a unique opportunity to evaluate urban air pollution dispersion models using observed data for PM2.5 and the meteorological conditions. Two numerical approaches were used to simulate the plume from the transient fire: a high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics model with large-eddy simulation (LES) embedded in the open-source package OpenFOAM, and a lower-fidelity Gaussian plume model implemented in a commercial software package: the Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling System (ADMS). Both numerical models were able to quantitatively reproduce consistent spatial and temporal profiles of the PM2.5 concentration at approximately 1500 m downstream of the fire site. Considering the unavoidable large uncertainties, a comparison between the sensor measurements and the numerical predictions was carried out, leading to an approximate estimation of the emission rate, temperature, and the start and duration of the fire. The estimation of the fire start time was consistent with the local authority report. The LES data showed that the fire lasted for at least 80 min at an emission rate of 50 g/s of PM2.5. The emission was significantly greater than a ‘normal’ house fire reported in the literature, suggesting the crucial importance of the emission estimation and monitoring of PM2.5 concentration in such incidents. Finally, we discuss the advantages and limitations of the two numerical approaches, aiming to suggest the selection of fast-response numerical models at various compromised levels of accuracy, efficiency and cost.