基于三门核电风洞实验的分裂烟团SPUFF模型扩散验证研究

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 大气扩散模型的性能在不同情景下存在一定的差异性,而通过多情景验证扩散模型对于量化其性能范围非常重要。基于多地形复杂核电厂址——三门核电的多个中性大气下的风洞实验情景,将加州气象模型(CALMET)以及拉格朗日分裂烟团扩散模型(SPUFF)进行组合,开展了局地尺度扩散模拟。将模拟值与在地面层布置的网络化点位以及独立的中轴线点位的测量值进行了对比,以进一步定性、定量地评估SPUFF在多个扩散情景的性能。评估结果显示,SPUFF在多个情景下的扩散十分充分,有效覆盖了绝大多数测点。同时,烟羽的数值演变与测量值的变化趋势接近,尤其准确再现了中轴线点位的测量值。统计结果表明,SPUFF性能优异,网络化点位以及中轴线点位全部4个统计指标(模拟值在测量值0.5~2倍以内的比例FAC2、比例偏差FB、标准化均方误差NMSE以及标准化绝对差NAD)满足可接受模型条件。其中,网络化点位以及中轴线点位的FAC2数值在全部情景分别达到了良好(0.51以及0.83),而FB则达到了优异(-0.03以及-0.06)。上述结果证明,在中性大气条件下,SPUFF适用于多地形复杂核电厂址下的多个扩散情景,可作为今后早期核应急响应工作的一个重要工具。

关键词: 复杂地形核电厂址, 大气扩散, CALMET, SPUFF, 烟团分裂, 多情景风洞实验评估

Abstract: The performance of atmospheric dispersion models varies across different scenarios, making it crucial to validate these models in multiple scenarios to quantify their range of performance. This paper integrates the California Meteorological Model (CALMET) with the Lagrangian splitting puff model (SPUFF) to perform the local-scale dispersion simulation based on the multiple wind tunnel experiments under neutral atmospheric condition at the Sanmen nuclear power plant (NPP) scenario conducted in the multi-complex terrains. The simulations are compared in detail with the measurements from networked sites and individual axial sites at ground level, aiming to further evaluate the performance of SPUFF against multiple dispersion scenarios, both qualitatively and quantitatively. The evaluation results reveal that SPUFF demonstrates sufficient dispersion across multiple scenarios, which effectively covers most of the measurement sites. Meanwhile, the numerical evolution of the plume closely matches the trends observed in the measurements, accurately reproducing the values at the axial sites. The statistical results indicate that the performance of SPUFF is excellent. All four statistical metrics, including the fraction of simulations within a factor of two of the measurements (FAC2), the fractional mean bias (FB), the normalized mean-square error (NMSE), and the normalized absolute difference (NAD) meet model acceptance criteria at both networked sites and individual axial sites. Among them, FAC2 in all scenarios reaches a good level of 0.51 and 0.83 for networked sites and individual axial sites, respectively; while FB achieves excellent performance at -0.03 and -0.06, respectively. The above results demonstrate that SPUFF is suitable for various dispersion scenarios under neutral atmospheric condition in complex NPP sites with multiple terrains, making it an important tool for future early response to nuclear emergency.

Key words: nuclear power plant sites with complex terrain, atmospheric dispersion, CALMET, SPUFF, puff splitting, wind tunnel experiment evaluations with multiple scenarios

中图分类号:

TL732

陶恒锐, 杨力, 王存友, 李幻婷, 张晓慧, 方晟, 李新鹏, 陈义学. 基于三门核电风洞实验的分裂烟团SPUFF模型扩散验证研究[J]. 辐射防护, 2025, 45(5): 503-516.

TAO Hengrui, YANG Li, WANG Cunyou, LI Huanting, ZHANG Xiaohui, FANG Sheng, LI Xinpeng, CHEN Yixue. Validation research of the splitting puff (SPUFF) model based on wind tunnel experiment at Sanmen nuclear power plant[J]. RADIATION PROTECTION, 2025, 45(5): 503-516.

参考文献

[1] LI Xinpeng, SONG Jiayue, YANG Li, et al. Source term inversion coupling kernel principal component analysis, whale optimization algorithm, and backpropagation neural networks (KPCA-WOA-BPNN) for complex dispersion scenarios[J]. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 2024, 171: 105171.
[2] ZHUANG Shuhan, FANG Sheng, DONG Xinwen, et al. Local atmospheric transport behaviors of representative radionuclides during the Fukushima accident: A 200-m-resolution cross-scale study from site to 20 km[J]. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 2023, 265: 107212.
[3] SONG Jiayue, YANG Li, LI Huanting, et al. Comparison of intelligent optimization algorithms in neural network model for nuclear accident source term evaluation[C]//ASME 2023 International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management. Stuttgart: ASME, 2023: V001T08A006.
[4] Terada H, Nagai H, Tanaka A, et al. Atmospheric-dispersion database system that can immediately provide calculation results for various source term and meteorological conditions[J]. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 2020, 57(6): 745-754.
[5] YANG Li, FANG Sheng, ZHUANG Shuhan, et al. Atmospheric ¹³⁷Cs dispersion following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident: Local-scale simulations using CALMET and LAPMOD[J]. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2024, 195: 110137.
[6] 杨力, 王存友, 陈义学, 等. 四种拉格朗日粒子浓度计算方法的评估——箱式计数法、高斯核、均匀核和抛物线核[J]. 中国环境科学, 2023, 43(7): 3404-3415.
YANG Li, WANG Cunyou, CHEN Yixue, et al. Evaluation of four Lagrangian particle concentration calculation methods-box counting, Gaussian kernel, uniform kernel and parabolic kernel[J]. China Environmental Science, 2023, 43(7): 3404-3415.
[7] Camelli F, Hanna S R, Löhner R. Simulation of the must field experiment using the FEFLO-urban CFD model[J]. Computer Science, 2004, 13(12): 1-14.
[8] WANG Shuntan, LI Xinpeng, FANG Sheng, et al. Validation and sensitivity study of micro-SWIFT SPRAY against wind tunnel experiments for air dispersion modeling with both heterogeneous topography and complex building layouts[J]. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 2020, 222: 106341.
[9] Hanna S, White J, Trolier J, et al. Comparisons of JU2003 observations with four diagnostic urban wind flow and Lagrangian particle dispersion models[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2011, 45(24): 4073-4081.
[10] 郝琦. 基于MPI并行计算框架的核事故后果评价系统研发[D]. 北京: 华北电力大学, 2022.
[11] 樊庆旭. 基于拉格朗日烟团模型的放射性核素扩散模拟研究[D]. 北京: 华北电力大学, 2023.
[12] Scire J S, Robe F R, Fernau M E, et al. A user’s guide for the CALMET meteorological model[R]. Land O′Lakes: Earth Tech, 2000.
[13] LIU Yun, LI Hong, SUN Sida, et al. Enhanced air dispersion modelling at a typical Chinese nuclear power plant site: Coupling RIMPUFF with two advanced diagnostic wind models[J]. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 2017, 175/176: 94-104.
[14] DONG Xinwen, ZHUANG Shuhan, FANG Sheng, et al. Multi-scenario validation of CALMET-RIMPUFF for local-scale atmospheric dispersion modeling around a nuclear powerplant site with complex topography[J]. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 2021, 229-230: 106547.
[15] 杨力, 张钰杰, 方晟, 等. 气态放射性核素扩散模拟研究——分裂烟团模型的验证与应用[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2024, 64(12): 2019-2030.
YANG Li, ZHANG Yujie, FANG Sheng, et al. Research on the simulated dispersion of gaseous radionuclides: Validation and application for splitting puff dispersion model[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University(Science and Technology), 2024, 64(12): 2019-2030.
[16] 李幻婷, 杨力, 宋嘉悦, 等. 四种气象数据在福岛核事故¹³⁷Cs扩散模拟中的适用性[J]. 中国环境科学, 2024, 44(11): 6025-6035.
LI Huanting, YANG Li, SONG Jiayue, et al. Applicability of four types of meteorological data to Fukushima nuclear accident ¹³⁷Cs simulations[J]. China Environmental Science, 2024, 44(11): 6025-6035.
[17] Janicke U, Janicke L. A three-dimensional plume rise model for dry and wet plumes[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2001, 35(5): 877-890.
[18] Webster H N, Thomson D J. Validation of a lagrangian model plume rise scheme using the Kincaid data set[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2002, 36(32): 5031-5042.
[19] 中国环境科研院. 制定地方大气污染物排放标准的技术方法: GB/T 3840—1991[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 1991.
[20] Thykier-Nielsen S, Deme S, Mikkelsen T. Description of the atmospheric dispersion module RIMPUFF: RRORIMUG1.DOC-TN(98)-02[R]. Roskilde, Denmark: Risø National Laboratory, 1999.
[21] 鲍昕杰, 杨宗甄, 陶乃贵, 等. 不同大气稳定度分类法及扩散参数方案对CALPUFF模拟结果的影响及拟合湍流方案的研究[J]. 辐射防护, 2023, 43(2): 145-154.
BAO Xinjie, YANG Zongzhen, TAO Naigui, et al. Effects of different atmospheric stability classification and diffusion parameter schemes on CALPUFF simulation results and a turbulence fitting scheme[J]. Radiation Protection, 2023, 43(2): 145-154.
[22] Seinfeld J H, Pandis S N. Atmospheric chemistry and physics:from air pollution to climate change[M]. 3rd ed. Hoboken:Wiley, 2016.
[23] ZHANG Leiming, GONG Sunling, Padro J, et al. A size-segregated particle dry deposition scheme for an atmospheric aerosol module[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2001, 35(3): 549-560.
[24] Baklanov A, Sørensen J H. Parameterisation of radionuclide deposition in atmospheric long-range transport modelling[J]. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere, 2001, 26(10): 787-799.
[25] Hanna S R, Hansen O R, Dharmavaram S. FLACS CFD air quality model performance evaluation with kit fox, MUST, prairie grass, and EMU observations[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2004, 38(28): 4675-4687.
[26] Hanna S, Chang J. Acceptance criteria for urban dispersion model evaluation[J]. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 2012, 116(3): 133-146.
[27] DONG Xinwen, ZHUANG Shuhan, FANG Sheng, et al. Site-targeted evaluation of SWIFT-RIMPUFF for local-scale air dispersion modeling around Sanmen nuclear power plant based on multi-scenario wind tunnel experiments[J]. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2021, 164: 108593.
[28] Bellasio R, Bianconi R, Mosca S, et al. Formulation of the lagrangian particle model LAPMOD and its evaluation against kincaid SF₆ and SO₂ datasets[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2017, 163: 87-98.
[29] Castelli S T, Armand P, Tinarelli G, et al. Validation of a Lagrangian particle dispersion model with wind tunnel and field experiments in urban environment[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2018, 193: 273-289.
[30] 刘蕴, 方晟, 李红, 等. 基于四维变分资料同化的核事故源项反演[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 55(1): 98-104.
LIU Yun, FANG Sheng, LI Hong, et al. Source inversion in nuclear accidents based on 4D variational data assimilation[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University(Science and Technology), 2015, 55(1): 98-104.
[31] Nemoto S. Similarity between natural wind in the atmosphere and model wind in a wind tunnel (II): Modeling criteria for a local wind[J]. Papers in Meteorology and Geophysics, 1961, 12: 117-128.
[32] WU Siyuan, HE Jinpeng, GU Weiguo, et al. Modification to aerosols dispersion algorithms over two-dimensional hilly terrain based on wind tunnel atmospheric experiments[J]. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2025, 213: 111165.
[33] 地理空间数据云. GDEMV2 30M 分辨率数字高程数据[EB/OL]. [2024-05-13]. http://www.gscloud.cn/sources/details/421?pid=302.
[34] European Space Agency (ESA). Global land cover maps[EB/OL]. [2024-05-13]. http://due.esrin.esa.int/page_globcover.php.