Accounting for Moisture Effects in the Prediction of Buoyant Plumes

  • Michael Schatzmann
  • Anthony J. Policastro
Part of the NATO · Challenges of Modern Society book series (NATS, volume 3)


In this paper, the theory of plume rise from stacks with scrubbers is critically evaluated. The significant moisture content of the scrubbed plume upon exit leads to important thermodynamic effects during plume rise which are unaccounted for in the usual dry plume rise theories. For example, under conditionally unstable atmospheres, a wet scrubbed plume treated as completely dry acts as if the atmosphere were stable whereas in reality, the scrubbed plume behaves instead as if the atmosphere were unstable. Even the use of moist plume models developed for application to cooling tower plume rise are not valid since these models employ (a) the Boussinesq approximation, (b) use a number of additional simplifying approximations which require small exit temperature differences between tower exit and ambient, and (c) are not calibrated to stack data.

Although these two theories are often used to predict plume rise from stacks with scrubbers, both theories contain unacceptable assumptions. This paper details the invalid approximations made in each theory. The direction and magnitude of the important errors are estimated for these models when applied to scrubber stack plumes.


Moisture Effect Exit Temperature Buoyant Plume Plume Rise Moist Atmosphere 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Briggs, G.A. and Hanna, S.R.: Comments on “A Comparison of Wet and Dry Bent-Over Plumes”. Journ. Appl. Met., Vol. 11, pp. 1386–1387, 1972.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Csanady, G.T.: Bent-Over Vapor Plumes. Journ. Appl. Met., Vol. 10, pp. 36–42, 1971.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Hanna, S.R.: Rise and Condensation of Large Cooling Tower Plumes. Journ. Appl. Met., Vol. 11, pp. 793–799, 1972.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Meagher, J.F., Stockburger, L., Bonanno, R.J., and Lurica, M.: Atmospheric Oxidation of Flue Gases from Partially SO2Scrubbed Power Plant. Tennessee Valley Authority, Report TVA/ARP-I 80 /35, 1980.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Meagher, J.F., Stockburger, L., and Bonanno, R.J.: Chemical Interactions in Scrubber Plumes, Data Supplement I. Tennessee Valley Authority, Report TVA/I-AQ-78–9, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Morton, B.R.: Buoyant Plumes in a Moist Atmosphere. Journ. Fluid Mech., Vol. 2, pp. 127–144, 1957.MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Policastro, A.J., Carhart, R.A., Ziemer, S.E., and Haake, K.: Evaluation of Mathematical Models for Characterizing Plume Behavior from Cooling Towers, Vol. 1: Dispersion from Single and Multiple Source Natural Draft Cooling Towers. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Report No. NUREG/CR1581, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Schaerer, B. (Hrsg.): Luftverschmutzung durch Schwefeldioxid-Ursachen, Wirkung, Minderung. Texte des Umweltbundesamtes, Berlin, 1980 (in German).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Schatzmann, M. and Policastro, A.J.: Effects of the Boussinesq-approximation on the Results of Chimney Plume Calculations. Proceedings, 2nd Intern. Conf. on Num. Meth. in Therm. Probl., Venice, 1981.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Schmitt, R.: Abschlussbericht zum FE-Vorhaben “Ueberhoehungsformeln für gereinigte, nasse Abgase” (?), Bericht an das Bundesministerium des Innern, 1980 (internal report, in German).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Slawson, P.R. and Csanady, G.T.: The Effect of Atmospheric Conditions on Plume Rise. Journ. Fluid Mech., Vol. 47, pp. 39–49, 1971.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Slawson, P.R., Davidson, G.A. and Maddukuri, C.S.: Dispersion Modeling of a Plume in the Tar Sands Area. Syncrude Env. Res. Rep. No. 1/1980.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Sutherland, V.C. and Spangler, T.C.: Comparison of Calculated and Observed Plume Rise Heights for Scrubbed and Non-Scrubbed Buoyant Plumes. 2nd Joint Conf. on Appl. of Air Poll. Met., pp. 129–132, New Orleans, 1980.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Weil, J.C.: The Rise of Moist, Buoyant Plumes. Journ. Appl. Met., Vol. 13, pp. 435–443. 1974.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Wigley, T.M.L. and Slawson, P.R.: On the Condensation of Buoyant, Moist, Bent-Over Plumes. Journ. Appl. Met., Vol. 10, pp. 253–259, 1971.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Wigley, T.M.L. and Slawson, P.R.: A Comparison of Wet and Dry Bent-Over Plumes. Journ. Appl. Met., Vol. 11, pp. 335–340, 1972.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Wigley, T.M.L. and Slawson, P.R.: The Effect of Atmospheric Conditions on the Length of Visible Cooling Tower Plumes. Atmosph. Environment, Vol. 9, pp. 437–445, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Wigley, T.M.L.: Condensation in Jets, Industrial Plumes and Cooling Tower Plumes. Journ. Appl. Met., Vol. 14, pp. 7886, 1975.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Wigley, T.M.L.: A Numerical Analysis of the Effect of Condensation on Plume Rise. Journ. Appl. Met., Vol. 14, pp. 1105–1109, 1975.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Schatzmann
    • 1
  • Anthony J. Policastro
    • 2
  1. 1.Sonderforschungsbereich 80University of KarlsruheKarlsruheW. Germany
  2. 2.Div. Env. Impact StudiesArgonne National LaboratoryArgonneUSA

Personalised recommendations