Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
on
UDM Version 6.0
Prepared by
Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Ltd.
3, Kings Parade
Cambridge
CB2 1SJ
UK
Contents
Preface .................................................................................................................................................iv
Key to summary information ..............................................................................................................vi
0. Evaluation information.....................................................................................................................1
0.1 Protocol ..................................................................................................................................1
0.2 Evaluator ................................................................................................................................1
0.3 Date ........................................................................................................................................1
1. General model description................................................................................................................2
1.1 Name, version number and release date.................................................................................2
1.2 Short description of model .....................................................................................................2
1.3 Model type..............................................................................................................................3
1.4 Route of model into evaluation project ..................................................................................3
1.5 History of model.....................................................................................................................4
1.6 Quality assurance standards adopted......................................................................................4
1.7 Relationship with other models..............................................................................................4
1.8 Current model usage...............................................................................................................6
1.9 Hardware and software requirements.....................................................................................6
1.10 Availability and costs ...........................................................................................................7
2. Scientific basis of model ..................................................................................................................8
2.1 Specification of the source .....................................................................................................8
2.2 Specification of the environment .........................................................................................11
2.3 Model physics and formulation............................................................................................14
2.4 Solution technique................................................................................................................28
2.5 Results or output available from model ...............................................................................29
2.6 Sources of model uncertainty...............................................................................................32
2.7 Limits of applicability ..........................................................................................................32
2.8 Special features.....................................................................................................................34
2.9 Planned scientific developments ..........................................................................................34
3. User-oriented aspects of model ......................................................................................................35
3.1 User-oriented documentation and help.................................................................................35
3.2 Installation procedures .........................................................................................................35
3.3 Description of the user interface ..........................................................................................36
3.4 Internal databases .................................................................................................................36
3.5 Guidance in selecting model options....................................................................................37
3.6 Assistance in the inputting of data .......................................................................................38
3.7 Error messages and checks on use of model beyond its scope ............................................38
3.8 Computational costs .............................................................................................................39
3.9 Clarity and flexibility of output results ................................................................................39
3.10 Suitability to users and usage .............................................................................................40
3.11 Possible improvements.......................................................................................................41
3.12 Planned user-oriented developments..................................................................................41
4. Verification performed ...................................................................................................................42
4.1 Summary of verification.......................................................................................................42
4.2 Comments.............................................................................................................................43
5. Validation performed .....................................................................................................................44
5.1 Validation already performed...............................................................................................44
ii
Contents
6. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................46
General model description..........................................................................................................46
Scientific basis of model ............................................................................................................46
Limits of applicability ................................................................................................................47
User-oriented aspects of model ..................................................................................................47
Verification performed ...............................................................................................................48
Validation performed .................................................................................................................48
Advantages and disadvantages of model....................................................................................48
Suitability of protocol for assessment of model.........................................................................48
7. References ......................................................................................................................................49
Supplied documents ...................................................................................................................49
Appendix 1: Actively-generated information.....................................................................................50
Appendix 2: Comments from model developer .................................................................................51
iii
Preface
Technical models are widely used to inform decisions relating to safety problems. The quality of a
given model and its appropriate and defensible use in simulating a given problem are clearly of
great importance, and such issues have provided the primary motivation for the development of
scientific model evaluation, a technique which aims to provide information addressing these aspects
of models and their use.
Scientific model evaluation has been supported by the European Union in a number of ways, one of
the most recent being the project SMEDIS (Scientific Model Evaluation of Dense Gas Dispersion
Models). The principal objective of this project is to develop a structured procedure or protocol for
the scientific evaluation of dense gas dispersion models, with particular emphasis on the complex
effects of aerosols, terrain and obstacles, and then to apply this protocol to models used in Europe to
simulate dense gas dispersion problems.
The protocol which has been developed for SMEDIS is consistent with the guidelines issued by the
CEC Model Evaluation Group1, in that evaluation comprises the three elements of validation,
verification and assessment:
(a) assessment is the examination of a model according to a series of detailed categories,
including specific categories for the area of application being highlighted (in this case
aerosols, terrain and obstacles)
(b) validation is the quantitative comparison of experimental observations with model
predictions
(c) verification is the confirmation that the (computer) implementation is an accurate translation
of the model algorithms
The evaluation of each model in SMEDIS focuses on the validation and assessment elements: a
validation exercise is carried out using selected data sets typifying a wide range of release and
environmental conditions, including a significant number in which complex effects play an
important role; and a scientific assessment is carried out concentrating on the scientific basis of the
model and its user-oriented aspects. Verification is effectively absorbed into the assessment by the
inclusion of a section reporting previous verification carried out on the model.
This report represents the output from the assessment element in the scientific evaluation of UDM,
Version 6.0. It has been produced by analysing information supplied on this model by a nominated
organisation (either the model developer or an experienced user). The information has been elicited
by means of questionnaires and supplied mainly in the form of pre-existing documentation on the
model. Only this information has been taken into account in preparing this report2.
There are six main sections, each of which is part description and part analysis. Sections 1-3 form
the principal part of the assessment, focusing on the general description, scientific basis and useroriented aspects of the model, respectively. Each section is divided up into specific subject
headings, many of which include summary information presented in check box format for rapid
overview of the capabilities and formulation of the model. Sections 4 and 5 summarise previous
verification and validation work performed on the model, and Section 6 concludes with a summary
of the findings in the report. References are listed for the documentation utilised in the assessment.
In addition two appendices are included containing both the comments from the model developer
and a summary of the new actively-generated results from the validation exercise.
1
2
CEC Model Evaluation Group Model Evaluation Protocol Version 5, May 1994.
Together with comments from the model developer on the draft version of the report.
iv
Preface
This report is intended for use by both the model developer and model users:
for the model developer it represents an independent assessment of their model according to a
protocol which has been applied to a wide range of other dense gas dispersion models. It
highlights both the strengths and the weaknesses of the model
for the model user the report assists them in deciding whether the model is appropriate to their
intended use. The inclusion of both scientific and user-oriented aspects of the model in the
review helps the user to gauge how well the model can simulate the specific scientific
problem of interest as well as how well the model performs from a practical point of view.
In all cases, the report can form part of the standard documentation accompanying the model in the
specific version.
vi
0. Evaluation information
0.1 Protocol
This scientific assessment was carried out using the SMEDIS Model Evaluation Protocol,
Version 1.0 (24 June 1997), and the Model Evaluation Report template Version 1.01.
0.2 Evaluator
The scientific assessment was carried out by:
R.E. Britter, CERC Ltd.
0.3 Date
The date of this scientific assessment is 11 July 2000, comments incorporated 21 January 2002.
Version number:
6.0
Release date:
In addition to the non-equilibrium droplet thermodynamics model, UDM also allows for a twophase HF thermodynamics model (including effects of polymerisation). This evaluation document
does not address the module for pool spread and vaporisation.
The UDM allows for continuous instantaneous, constant finite-duration and general time-varying
releases. The UDM allows for possible plume lift-off when a grounded plume becomes buoyant.
The latest version of the UDM is currently implemented in the consequence-analysis package
PHAST6.0. It is planned to be included in the next version 6.1 of the onshore risk-analysis package
SAFETI and in the next version of the offshore risk-package NEPTUNE (successor to OHRAT).
Possible PC-based operating systems are Windows NT, 95, 2000. The programming language for
the model code is Fortran 77, and C++ for the user-interface.
Output is in the form of graphics and/or tabular output. The output is in the form of cloud
parameters, e.g. center-line concentration, ground-level concentration, plume height, plume depth,
plume width, vapour temperature, liquid temperature, etc.
1-D
3-D
2-D
CFD model
Developer
o Licensee
o Other
Contact details:
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
Fax:
+44 20 73577297
E-mail/Web:
Neil.Prophet@dnv.com
As above
Contact details:
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
+44 20 77166711
Fax:
+44 20 73577297
E-mail/Web:
Henk.Witlox@dnv.com
There is some historical relation to previous models from Technica, specifically the jet model
TECJET and the heavy gas dispersion model within WHAZAN.
The initial work on the UDM model started in 1990.
The original version of UDM was developed by Woodward and Cook as new technology in the
early nineties. The new UDM 6.0 version represents a significant revision and extension to all parts
of the model.
1.5.2 Features inherited
Unclear.
o MEG guidelines
Other
Following a thorough internal assessment in the second half of 1997, the UDM documentation
has been thoroughly reviewed and revised. The code has been checked line-by-line to confirm
consistency against the documented theory. Verification and validation, both for each individual
module in the program and the overall program, has been carried out. Full documentation of
theory, verification and validation is included in the UDM Technical Reference Manual.
1.6.2 Software development
o National
o International Organisation
The software development process at Risk Management Software (Section in DNV Software) is
being run to the ISO 9000 Tickit Standard.
Self-contained
Other
The latest version of the UDM is currently implemented in the consequence-analysis package
PHAST6.0. It is planned to be included in the next version 6.1 of the onshore risk-analysis package
SAFETI, and in the next version of the off-shore risk-analysis package NEPTUNE (successor to
OHRAT).
The UDM model can be clearly defined within the packages PHAST and SAFETI.
1.7.3 Interfacing with other models
Dispersion models are commonly interfaced with, on the one hand, source models, and, on the other
hand, consequence models.
UDM is interfaced with consequence models for jet fires, BLEVEs, pool fires, explosions and
toxicity.
Similarly, from the documentation, it is apparent that UDM is interfaced to release models for
single and multi-phase materials, pressurised and unpressurised.
This evaluation is essentially for dense gas dispersion models (modules) and not for associated
source models. Thus the pool spread and vaporisation model is not included within this evaluation.
However, it should be noted that the pool spread and vaporisation model has been included within
the UDM model, partly because it forms a link between rain-out from the dispersion model and
subsequent re-evaporation of the material to enter a further dispersion calculation.
A downside to this is that, from notes in the validation exercise, there is no simple way to use UDM
to model a pool evaporation problem directly without preceding it with an artificial jet.
An instantaneous energetic expansion model is included with UDM (though still undergoing
development) and this has been treated as a source model for a subsequent dense gas dispersion
model and is not considered further here. This said, the portion of UDM that deals with the
momentum jet following the release and prior to any grounded dense gas dispersion model is
difficult to separate from the grounded dense gas dispersion model itself. As the linking between
these models is often a dominant modelling concern it is probably wise to include the momentum
jet aspect of the modelling within this evaluation.
1.7.4 Comments
Background
Engineer
Consultant
Type of experience
Dispersion
o Programming
Length of experience
Hours
Days
Regulator
Weeks
o Other
Academic
o Numerical methods
o Other
Months
Years
Location
Outside model developer
o Country of origin
Industry
Numbers
<5
o Continent of origin
Consultancies
o Universities
10-50
50-100
5-10
Worldwide
o Other
Regulatory authorities o Other
>100
1.8.3 Comments
Computer platforms
PC: 386
Workstation
PC: 486
PC: Pentium/Pentium II
o Main frame o Vector/parallel machine
o Other
Peripheral hardware
Monitor Keyboard
o Other
Mouse
o CD-ROM drive
Printer
o Plotter
Memory
<0.1 Mbytes
0.1-0.5 Mbytes
0.5-1.0 Mbytes
Disk space
<1 Mbyte
1-10 Mbytes
10-100 Mbytes
>100 Mbytes
Operating system
o DOS
Windows
o UNIX
o VMS
o Other
Additional software
Required
o Compiler
Optional
Not required
o Graphics package o GIS
Other
o Other
Shareware
Licence
Public domain
Other
o Not available
o Other
Two-phase jet
Liquid pool
A liquid pool could be indirectly modeled following 100% rainout. Further improvements are
planned to allow dispersion directly from a pool.
2.1.2 Fluid dynamic properties of source
2.1.2.1 Instantaneous releases
Instantaneous releases
[M] Spatial dimensions
[M] Symmetry
[U] Velocity
[M] Volume
[M] Density
[U] Mass
Multiple sources
[U] Elevation
[] Other
Entrained air
Continuous releases
[M] Spatial dimensions
[M] Density
Multiple sources
[U] Elevation
[] Other
Entrained air
Orientation
[M] Symmetry
[U] Velocity
UDM allows for initial air mixed in for instantaneous, continuous and time-varying releases. In
PHAST, the amount of initial air mixed is calculated by separate source models. PHAST
presently does not allow initial air mixed in for standalone UDM runs.
UDM allows for orientation to be specified for continuous and time-varying releases (release
angle in vertical plane of wind direction, no upwind or crosswind releases).
2.1.2.3 Time-varying releases
Time-varying releases
[M] Spatial dimensions
[M] Density
Multiple sources
[] Other
Entrained air
Orientation
Time variation
[M] Symmetry
Time-varying releases are treated by segmenting the release rate, tracking the development of
these segments (taken to be part of a continuous release) and then re-assembling the segments
incorporating concentration profiles.
2.1.2.4 Other aspects of release types
o Other
[] Other
Composition
[M] Effective single component
[] Components (#)
[] Passive tracer
[] Other
UDM does not treat multi-component releases, but adopts effective single (or pseudo)
compound properties for a user-specified mixture. These effective properties are automatically
generated from the PHAST/SAFETI property system.
[M] Pressure
[M] Composition
[] Other
[] Other
Radioactive substances
[] Toxic
[0] Mixtures
[] Other
Properties for flammable substances, toxic substances and mixtures are derived from the
PHAST/SAFETI property system, using the DIPPR property database. A basic set of 59
chemicals (toxic and/or flammable) is presented in the basic database, but access could be
provided to the entire DIPPR database (over 1000 chemicals).
[U] User-defined substances
User-defined substances can be specified by the user using the PHAST/SAFETI property system.
10
Cartesian
o Cylindrical polar
o Spherical polar
o Other
Origin at source
o x-axis downwind
o Other
PHAST enables the user to import a bitmap, and to indicate the location of the origin on the map.
2.2.2 Atmosphere
2.2.2.1 Mean wind field
Vertical profile
Horizontal field
Time-varying
[] Other
Logarithmic
Other
[] Time variation
o Other
11
Turbulence parameterised
Turbulence modelled
2.2.2.3 Stratification
Stability ranges
[U] neutral [U] stable
[U] unstable
Stratification parameterised
o Vertical density profile
o Time-varying
Stratification modelled
[] Vertical density profile
[] Time-varying
Other
[U] Humidity
[] Cloud cover
[] Date/time
[] Latitude/longitude
[U] Other
12
Non-flat terrain
[] Single slope
o Upslope
o General
[] Other
User-defined values
[] Other
The surface temperature can be specified independently from the ambient atmospheric groundlevel temperature (default value of surface temperature equals ground-level ambient
temperature).
2.2.4 Obstacles
o Cylindrical building
o General shape
o 1-sided canyon
o Cuboidal building
o 2-sided canyon
o Other
[] Orientations [] Other
13
[] Vertical
[] Other
o Structural characteristics
[] Porous
[] Other
o Volume
Mass
Momentum
Width/radius
o Enthalpy o Temperature
o Concentration
Other
o Species concentration
Differential equations are provided for the excess horizontal and vertical components of
momentum. Differential equations are also provided for the horizontal and vertical position of
an element of a continuous plume and the position of an instantaneous puff; and for the rate of
heat convection and water vapour transfer from the substrate.
2.3.1.2 Dependent variables
Uad
o {ci}
o Other
spatial (#)
time
o Other
For continuous releases the independent variables are spatial while for instantaneous releases the
independent variable is time.
H = depth; W = width; R = radius; Uad = advection velocity; = density; (u, v, w) = velocity components;
c = concentration; T = temperature; ci = concentration of species i.
3
14
o Other
o Velocity scale
o Ambient density
o Other
o Other
o Physical quantities fixed (or given limited values) for purposes of correlation
o Wind speed
o Atmospheric stability
Not applicable.
2.3.1.4b Model-type-dependent features of equation formulation (integral)
Dependent variables
Concentration
o Velocity
o Temperature
o Gaussian
o Other
Other
Not applicable.
2.3.1.4d Model-type-dependent features of equation formulation (CFD)
Not applicable.
2.3.1.5 Turbulence modelling
[] Buoyancy-modified k-
[] Algebraic stress
[] Reynolds stress
[] Other
15
Source
Atmosphere
Terrain
Obstacles
o Other
Source
Cloud boundary
o Other
Atmosphere
Terrain
Obstacles
Other
The advection speed of the cloud (puff or element of a plume) is taken to be the cloud speed at
the height of the centroid of the vertical concentration distribution.
The advection speed is calculated from the horizontal momentum equation. This allows for the
treatment of an elevated jet and grounded jet or dense gas plume with the same structure.
The horizontal momentum equation is, in fact, for the excess horizontal momentum
I x 2 = I x mcld u a ( z c )
= mcld u x mcld u a ( z c )
with mcld being a mass or a mass flux for instantaneous or continuous releases respectively. ux
and ua are the velocities of the cloud and the ambient wind, respectively, and zc is the height of
the cloud centre.
For a stationary instantaneous release Ix is initially set to zero.
For a continuous release the initial horizontal cloud speed is derived from the release speed.
The initial excess horizontal momentum is then set as
I x 2 = mcld (u x u a ( z R )).
The equation for excess horizontal momentum has three terms; airborne, impact drag and ground
drag.
The airborne drag has been taken to be zero for both continuous and instantaneous releases.
16
The grounded dense gas plume dispersion is preceded by a jet model which smoothly changes
into the grounded gas plume model.
The jet model is a conventional model incorporating the usual three entrainment terms
For an elevated jet these three terms are summed (prior to transition to a passive plume) and,
after transition, only the last term is used.
The terms for passive dispersion are slightly different before and after transition.
For a grounded jet, the maximum of the sum of the first two and a separate term for dense gas
dispersion, is added to the passive dispersion term prior to transition and after transition only a
passive term is used.
This is a common and appropriate approach. The coefficients adopted for the first two terms are
1 = 0.17 and 2 = 0.35. The authors note literature values for 1 range from 0.11 to 0.28 and
for 2 from 0.16 and 0.60. It is somewhat surprising that such a range of constants are still
prevalent in what should be a reasonably straightforward problem. The UDM values, somewhat
coincidentally are quite central within the range.
For the third, passive entrainment term, the near-field formulation follows that in HGSYSTEM
based on experiments from Disselhorst, while the far-field formulations are based on derivatives
of the correlations for the passive dispersion coefficients from McMullen and Hosker as
described elsewhere. The latter is appropriate while the former, though somewhat speculative is
based on directly relevant experiments.
The jet model has been extended to instantaneous releases. It is a little unclear what is the
intended use of this model extension.
If the intent is to allow consideration of an instantaneous puff with initial momentum etc. then
some reconsideration of all the entrainment terms is necessary. Momentum (or buoyant) puffs
have a quite different structure (and consequent entrainment specification) to jets. This is not to
17
Plume sides
Puff edge
o Other
o Cloud boundary
o Lateral spreading
o Other
The cloud in UDM is characterized by an "equivalent" cloud with effective height Heff, an
effective cloud half-width Weff, a cloud speed Ucld and an equivalent top-hat concentration equal
to the centre-line concentration
H eff
1
c ( x , y , ) d
=
c( x, y,0) 0
1
= Fv ( )d = 1 + Rz ( x)
n
0
and, similarly,
1
Weff = Fh ( y )dy = 1 + R y ( x)
m
0
The symbols in these equations are defined in sections 2.3.4.3 and 2.3.6.
An effective cloud velocity is calculated as the integral in the vertical of the concentrationweighted ambient velocity. However UDM does not use this velocity but uses Ucld, which is the
ambient velocity at the position of the cloud centroid.
Similar approaches are adapted for instantaneous releases.
18
dWeff
dt
= 1.15{g H eff (1 + hd )}
1/ 2
cld a ( z c )
g
cld
The general approach for gravity spreading is a common one and the coefficient typical.
UDM allows its elliptical cloud cross-sectional shape to be retained as it intersects and passes
through the ground plane.
Only that portion of the cloud above the ground is physical, containing cloud material. The
parameter hd is the fraction of the area in the bottom half of the ellipse which is above ground.
While a continuous plume is touching down, the continuous cloud cross-section gradually
transforms from a circle to a semi-ellipse (with increased crosswind spreading during touchdown). While an instantaneous cloud is touching down, the cloud shape gradually transforms
from a sphere to a semi-ellipsoid.
2.3.4 Dispersion - dilution
2.3.4.1 Dilution by direct turbulent diffusion
Passive regime
There is no explicit dilution by direct turbulent diffusion in the dense gas regime. There may be
an implicit effect of direct turbulent diffusion through the empirical variation of the exponents m
and n (see 2.3.3) in the similarity profiles for the concentration profile in the horizontal. This
will lead to a concentration profile which is not top-hat and this may be ascribed to turbulent
diffusion. However, it must be noted that the effective width Weff will not be changed, nor will
the centreline concentration.
2.3.4.2 Dilution by air entrainment
Entrainment parameterised
[M] Top surface
[] Other
= (1 0.8 Ri
1/ 2
*
= Ri* / 7
Ri* < 0
) / 1 .7
19
d Weff
dt
Lateral
o Other
U t
F = erf 2 3 / 2 c dur
x
where Uc is a mean convection velocity of the cloud. It must be emphasised that this provides a
correction only to the centre-line ground-level concentration.
As stated by the authors Strictly speaking the model applies to the following scenario only:
no significant rainout
20
The similarity form for the concentration profile for steady-state releases is
c( x, y, ) = c0 ( x) Fv ( ) Fh ( y )
where is the co-ordinate normal to the horizontal direction and the trajectory of the plume
n( x)
Fv ( ) = exp
Rz ( x)
m( x)
Fh ( y ) = exp
R y ( x)
Of particular novelty in this model is that the exponents n(x) and m(x) are prescribed functions.
The function m(x), for the horizontal profile of concentration, varies from 2 to 50 essentially
from a Gaussian profile to a top-hat profile. m(x) is a prescribed function of the relative density
difference of the plume. No evidence is presented to support the empirical functional
dependence or why it should depend upon the relative density of difference, rather than, for
example, a Richardson number.
The function n(x) varies between 2.5 and 1.0, dependent upon the atmospheric stability and the
ratio of plume depth to Monin-Obukhov length. Under neutral atmospheric stability n(x) reduces
to 2.0. The correlation is similar to correlations for atmospheric flux gradients, however no
evidence is presented to connect the atmospheric flux gradients with the exponent n(x).
The use of empirical functions for m(x) and n(x) does produce useful simplifications for model
development and there is no evidence that it is physically unwise. However it does appear to be
applied to both an elevated jet flow and for a grounded dense gas plume. This must be
questionable in that, for example, a high pressure gas jet must have the same profiles in both
directions; a situation apparently not satisfied by the model.
A similar approach is adopted for an instantaneous release. The vertical profile from Fv is the
same as before, however the horizontal profile form Fh, incorporates both x and y, i.e.
x
FR ( x, y ) = exp
Rx
y
+
Ry
2
m/2
with Rx = R y
The co-ordinate x is relative to the centroid of the puff. The assumption Rx = Ry does not allow
for alongwind shear dispersion.
21
Vertical profile
o Uniform
o Exponential decay
Other
o Gaussian
Other
o Gaussian
Other
Lateral profile
o Uniform
o Gaussian
Radial profile
o Uniform
o Gaussian
o Exponential decay
Other
2.3.7 Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics considered
The UDM invokes the thermodynamic model while incrementally solving the dispersion
equations in the downwind direction. The thermodynamics model calculates the following data:
cloud density
For ground level dispersion the model may take into account water-vapour and heat transfer
from the substrate to the cloud.
Three types of thermodynamic model are available
22
Ambient air
Insolation
Chemical reactions
Phase changes
[] Other
St = C f 2 Pr
where
u*2
max ucld , ua z = 10m
gh
The denominator should use ucld but it must also be noted that u* should be u* under the cloud
rather than that in the ambient flow.
Free convection is calculated from
1
Nu = 014
. Ra 3
where Nu is the Nusselt number and Ra is the Rayleigh number. All heat transfer calculations
assume that the ground temperature is unchanged by the passage of the cloud over the surface.
It is worth noting that the symbol Dac is used for two similar but different properties; the binary
diffusivity of the component in air and the thermal diffusivity for use in the heat transfer
correlations.
2.3.7.2 Correlations for thermodynamic properties
Antoine correlation
Other
However most properties of the released material (component) are obtained directly from the
DIPPR database. The specific enthalpies of dry air, water vapour, ice and liquid water are
interpolations from tabulated data.
2.3.8 Mass transfer mechanisms
23
Dry deposition
Wet deposition
o Other
Rain-out (two-phase)
o Other
A major novel feature of UDM is the incorporation of a rain-out model, rain out being an
important phenomenon for two-phase releases.
The liquid component in the aerosol is considered to consist of spherical droplets, surrounded by
a mixture of air and evaporated vapour.
The trajectory of a single drop (with a cloud averaged drop size varying with downstream
distance) is followed, representing the path of the centre of a cloud of drops. Evaporation and
condensation are treated by either equilibrium or non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Rainout is
taken to be centred at the point of grounding of this trajectory.
A quite separate model allows for subsequent evaporation of the rained-out portion of the release
and this evaporated component is re-incorporated into the dispersion calculation.
The initial droplet diameter is taken to be the smaller of
a flashing break up diameter for which a correlation between this diameter and the particle
expansion energy is developed and used. This has been based on the CCPS rainout
experiments.
The trajectory of a droplet of this diameter is determined from horizontal and vertical momentum
equations and the evaporation of the droplet.
The general approach is sound and appropriate.
The droplet position/speed should be considered a typical averaged (top hat) velocity
corresponding to the droplet of averaged size.
As the droplets evaporate, the specific volume vcld of the cloud will increase (since vapour
occupies more volume than liquid), and therefore the cloud size will be increased due to
evaporation.
2.3.9 Chemical reactions
24
NH3
HF
N2O4
UF6
o Other
Heat source/sink
Species (composition)
o Other
o Other
2.3.9.4 Radioactivity
Other
for grounded heavy gas plumes the Richardson number Ri* being less than a critical value.
25
o Other
Downwind distance
Roughness length
Atmospheric stability
oOther
The passive cross-wind dispersion coefficients are taken from McMullen (1975) - not a wellknown reference.
The passive vertical dispersion coefficients are taken from Hosker (1973); an obscure conference
paper.
However in the UDM Dispersion Verification Manual it is shown that the UDM dispersion
formulas (base on the above papers) are very similar to the more widely-accepted TNO
dispersion formulas (= power-law of HGSYSTEM).
While not criticizing these choices more recent review references might be more appropriate and
reassuring.
2.3.11 Complex effects: aerosols
Aerosols considered
26
Homogeneous equilibrium
o Other
Explicit droplet
o Other
Temperature
Density
o Velocity
o Concentration
o Other
Terrain considered
o Other
o Turbulence o Other
Obstacles considered
o Width
o Velocity
o Concentration
o Other
o Puff time-of-arrival
27
o Entrainment
o Gravity spreading
o Other
o Turbulence o Other
o Partial Differential
o Other
Coupled equations
o Other
o Other
28
[?] Structured
o Unstructured
o Multi-block o Other
o Grid size/arrangement
See above.
2.4.3.2 Discretisation methods
[?] Spatial
o Explicit
o Implicit
o Other
o Implicit
o Other
[?] Temporal
o Explicit
See above.
2.4.3.3 Convergence
o Other
o Other
Centreline
Longitudinal
Lateral
Vertical
o Other
29
Contours
Flammable inventory
Other
Concentration fluctuations
Averaging time
o Other
An effect of averaging time on the output concentration is incorporated. The effect is felt
through a multiplicative factor on the lateral plume dispersion for passive (non-dense gas)
atmospheric dispersion. That is no effects of averaging time are felt for the dense gas dispersion
phase. The multiplicative factor is of a conventional form
FG t IJ
H 600K
0. 2
av
where the value of 600 reflects the averaging time used for the original dispersion correlations.
A further effect of averaging time occurs when the release is not a continuous steady release and
the averaging time is larger than the duration of steady concentration at a point in space.
UDM allows calculation of this for finite duration, steady releases and for the maximum
concentration on the centreline.
2.5.2 Concentration-related output for time-varying situations
Position of cloud
Centroid
Time-of-arrival
o Other
30
Centreline
Longitudinal
Lateral
Vertical
Other
Contours
Dose
Flammable inventory
Toxic load
Maximum concentrations
o Other
Concentration fluctuations
Averaging time
o Other
See 2.5.1.4.
2.5.3 Other information available
2.5.3.1 Temperature
Mean temperature
o Fluctuations
Radius/width
Height/depth
Density
Other
31
The near field passive entrainment formulation is different to the far field formulation. This may
lead to uncertainty.
The impact drag force (sec 2.3.2) arguments based on elastic collisions are at variance with
fundamental laws of fluid mechanics.
The model does not acknowledge that entrainment coefficients for puffs are quite different to those
for jets.
The model does not include shear dispersion for a time-varying release (as distinct from a finite
duration (continuous) release).
2.6.3 Numerical method
Since there is no information concerning the appropriateness of the numerical method used to
integrate the main equations, a definitive statement cannot be made on the uncertainty in the
solution associated with the numerical method. However, since the equations are ordinary
differential equations, it is unlikely that significant uncertainty will arise.
Note that in the UDM Verification Manual, exact analytical solutions are derived and compared
with the numerical UDM results for a range of situations, e.g. passive dispersion, horizontal jets and
2-D heavy gas dispersion, while for a large number of other cases UDM results are compared with
comparable HGSYSTEM runs. This does confirm the expectation that the equations are solved
accurately. This has also been confirmed by varying the accuracy adopted for solving the numerical
equations in the UDM.
2.6.4 Sensitivity to input
Detailed sensitivity studies have been carried out to examine the sensitivity to input of the model, as
well as to confirm the robustness of the model. The results of these sensitivity studies have not been
reported as part of the UDM Technical Reference Manual.
32
Release models are required to provide the input to the dense gas dispersion model.
A momentum jet model is linked directly to the dense gas dispersion model.
The jet model allows single and two-phase. The two-phase model includes an explicit droplet
rain out model.
An evaporating pool model PVAP is also available.
The external expansion to ambient pressure for high-pressure releases is not part of the UDM
model. These calculations are carried out in PHAST immediately prior to the UDM model.
For a low momentum release problem the dense gas model assumes that the initial plume
width is the same as the source width. There is no allowance for a near source vapour blanket
as included in HGSYSTEM, DEGADIS, GASTAR. This will also be a significant omission
for evaporating cryogens.
The jet model is only suitable for jet releases that are in the vertical plane in the wind
direction and through the source position.
Single sources only are modelled.
The jet model is an incompressible jet model and for gas releases there may be confusion
between temperatures and stagnation temperature.
2.7.2 Environments
2.7.2.1 Atmosphere
For continuous releases a non-zero wind speed is required. No special treatment is applied for
low wind speeds, and as a result the model may be less accurate for these conditions.
2.7.2.2 Terrain
33
No significant obstacles must be present, i.e. features which vary on a length-scale short
compared with the variation in the cloud, such as buildings and fences
No advice is given as to when obstacles might or might not be significant.
2.7.3 Targets/output
Although not part of this evaluation, the inclusion of a source model which allows a two-phase jet
including droplet rainout is an important capability.
2.8.2 Formulation
None.
2.8.3 Mathematical aspects
None.
Remove rather arbitrary passive transition zone, and possibly improve passive formulation.
Neaten modular code, particularly for droplet modeling, link between pool and dispersion
model, and time-dependent releases (introduce along-wind diffusion).
Assessment and possible improvement for pressurized instantaneous expansion, lift-off and
mixing layer logic.
Multi-compound dispersion and solid components.
More detailed investigation and validation of pool model PVAP.
Improved flash calculations.
34
o Other
User Manual
Context-sensitive help
o Other
Telephone support
Training courses
o Other
3.2.1 Medium
o Diskette
o Tape
CD-ROM
Internet download
o Other
3.2.2 Procedure
o Copy files manually
Installation program/script
o Other
Description of procedure
35
Interactive
Batch
o Other
Graphical
Textual
o Other
o Other
Numerical values
Error/warning messages
Status of calculation
o Other
Guided input
o Other
o Other
36
Material properties
o Scenarios
o Other
o Other
3.4.3 Modification
General users
Specific users
o No users
o Other
Expert users can modify model parameters (defining, for example, entrainment coefficients) in
addition to usual input data. Also material properties may be modified in PHAST. In some cases
these changes can only be applied by specific users (i.e. PHAST6.0 program administrators).
Source configuration
Substance released
Atmospheric conditions
Terrain
Output required
o Other
Obstacles
Within interface
o Other
o Other
Defaults
37
Valid type
Filing system
o Choose input file location
Other
3.6.2 Comments
3.7 Error messages and checks on use of model beyond its scope
3.7.1 Facilities to trap inappropriate use
Facilities available
o Checks on intermediate results
o Other
Self-explanatory
Look up online
o Look up in documentation
o Other
o Other
3.7.3 Comments
38
Minutes
Hours
Days
3.8.2 Comments
The output is in the form of cloud parameters e.g. centreline concentration, ground level
concentration, plume height, plume depth, plume width, vapour temperature, liquid temperature,
cloud density.
Output is provided at a base averaging time (18.75 seconds; no time averaging) and at an
additional range of averaging times (toxic and/or flammable averaging time, user-specified
averaging time). Output is usually given through Crystal Reports exportable to Microsoft Word,
Excel, etc.
Graphs that may be produced include cloud footprints, cloud cross-section, cloud side view, and
the concentration at a given location.
3.9.2 Post-processing facilities
Graphical formats
Line (x-y) plots
o Display on GIS
o Other
Numerical formats
Tabulated output
Contour plots
Animated display
o User interrogation
Not required
Required for
o Line (x-y) plots
o Display on GIS
o All
o Contour plots
o Animated display
o Other
o Vector plots
o Virtual reality
o Other
o Other
o Vector plots
o Virtual reality
39
Background
Engineer
Consultant
Regulator
Type of experience
Dispersion
o Statistics
Fluid dynamics
o Programming
Thermodynamics
o Numerical methods
Consequence modelling Risk analysis
Length of experience
Hours
Days
Weeks
Months
o Other
Academic
Years
Frequency of use
o Occasional users
Constant users
Range of problems
Narrow
Medium
Risk assessment
o Other
Wide
Other
Aspects of the jet model are strongly linked with the dense gas dispersion model.
40
o Installation
o User interface
3D output representation of dispersion plumes with and without certain pathway obstacles
41
4. Verification performed
The verification manual for the dispersion model provides separate chapters for
passive dispersion
jet dispersion
transitions
finite-duration releases
droplet model
42
For the dispersion model the only verifications against analytical solutions practically possible
are those for passive dispersion and for a horizontal release; these were undertaken.
In other cases comparisons were made with relevant published correlations (though, of course,
this includes some element of validation).
Much use is also made of comparisons with the results from other well-established models with
similar parameter settings e.g. HGSYSTEM. The latter point is particularly the case for the
thermodynamics model where several aspects are similar to HGSYSTEM. For the droplet model
comparisons are made of the model predictions with calculations based directly on the
correlations used.
In general terms the authors have gone to considerable lengths, using whatever means and
techniques available, to verify the coding of their model.
Additionally and simultaneously they have undertaken extensive sensitivity studies in order to
ensure that output trends are consistent with expectations.
4.1.3 Quality assurance
4.2 Comments
43
5. Validation performed
Other releases
44
Statistical comparison measures are presented for each experiment; a mean and a variance. The
results range from reasonable to good; typical of the better dispersion models.
Considering the concentration predictions, and just taking an average value of mean and variance
for each experiment, and then averaging all the experiments together (that is weighting each
experiment equally) produces an overall mean of 1.3 and an overall variance of 2.6. Alternative
ways of grouping performance values are obviously possible.
In the broadest sense the results could be interpreted by stating that the majority of individual
predictions are likely to fall within a factor of 2 of experimental results.
The authors critically interrogate the results to locate aspects of the model which might be
improved.
45
6. Conclusions
In addition to the non-equilibrium droplet thermodynamics model, UDM also allows for a twophase HF thermodynamics model (including effects of polymerisation). This evaluation document
does not address the module for pool spread and vaporisation.
The UDM allows for continuous instantaneous, constant finite-duration and general time-varying
releases. The UDM allows for possible plume lift-off when a grounded plume becomes buoyant.
It is not capable of treating dispersion over complex terrain/slopes or dispersion near buildings or
obstacles.
The latest version of the UDM is implemented in the consequence-analysis package PHAST,
version 6.0. It is planned to be included in the onshore risk-analysis package SAFETI, and in the
offshore risk-package NEPTUNE (successor to OHRAT).
The model runs on a PC and requires little in the way of memory or disk space. It is a self-contained
model requiring only a short time for a knowledgeable user to set up and run the model.
46
Category 6: Conclusions
The two-phase momentum jet model is novel for operational models in that it includes both a
vapour jet and a droplet trajectory model that is, the important problem of liquid rainout is directly
addressed in the model.
The atmospheric environment is characterized in the typical integral model fashion. Like most
similar models the atmospheric environment is assumed stationary for the time of the release that
is, it is essentially a short range/short time scale model.
Concentration profiles are based on assumed similarity shapes. A novel feature is the incorporation
of consistent similarity shapes throughout the evolution of the release. There is no confirmation
that the assumed similarity shapes are correct but the approach ensures that solution discontinuities
do not occur.
Cloud advection speed, spreading and dilution are treated in a standard way. Concentration
fluctuations are not considered. The transition from dense gas behaviour to passive behaviour
occurs at a Richardson number Ri* of 15, which is substantially larger (a factor of 10) than used in
other similar operational models.
The passive dispersion parameterisation is from what might be regarded as an obscure source, but is
shown to be very close to more commonly-accepted sources.
The governing equations are coupled ordinary differential equations, which are straightforward to
solve and lead to short run times.
Limits of applicability
Source:
Only single component releases may be treated, though these can be two-phase.
Environment:
Low wind speeds cannot be treated. The atmospheric conditions are taken to be
steady which will limit the downwind extent that can be modeled. No terrain or
slope can be modelled. The effect of buildings and obstacles on flow and
dispersion cannot be modelled. For the momentum jet release the direction of the
jet must be in a vertical plane in the direction of the wind passing through the
source. Many other source orientations are likely and these may lead to larger
downwind concentrations. Results from upwind directed jets will be suspect.
47
Category 6: Conclusions
Verification performed
The technical documentation describes very extensive verification work probably the most
comprehensive this reviewer has seen. The work is focused, structured and clearly presented.
Validation performed
Validation has been performed using most of the documented field datasets. This is clearly and
extensively presented in the technical documentation. Again this is probably one of the more
extensive validation sets to be included in technical documentation.
No treatment of buildings/obstacles.
No treatment of terrain or sloping ground.
48
7. References
Supplied documents
[0] Witlox, H.W.M. and Holt, A. Unified Dispersion Model, Technical Reference Manual,
Version 6.0, Consequence Modelling Documentation, DNV, February 2000 (provided on
separate CD as part of PHAST6.0 release).
[1] "A unified model for jet, dense, buoyant and passive dispersion including droplet rainout and reevaporation", Consequence Modelling Documentation, Confidential Report, DNV Technica,
London, February 1998
[2] "Model for pool spreading, evaporation and solution on land and water", Consequence
Modelling Documentation, Confidential Report, DNV Technica, London, February 1998
[3] Woodward, J.L, Cook, J., and Papadourakis, A., "Modelling and validation of a dispersing
aerosol jet", Journal of hazardous materials 44, pp. 185-207 (1995)
[4] Woodward, J.L, and Papadourakis, A., "Reassessment and re-evaluation of rainout and drop size
correlation for an aerosol jet", Journal of hazardous materials 44, pp. 209-230 (1995)
[5] Woodward, J.L. and Cook, J., "Tuning a complex suite of dispersion models", International
Conference and workshop on modelling and mitigating the accidental releases of hazardous
materials, CCPS Conference, New Orleans, LA, September 26-29, pp. 787-824 (1995)
[6] Cook, J. and Woodward, J.L., "A new integrated model for pool spreading, evaporation and
solution on land and water", International Conference and Exhibition on Safety, Health and loss
prevention in the Oil, Chemical and Process Industries, Singapore, February 15-19 (1993)
[7] "SAFETI software for the assessment of flammable explosive and toxic impact", Theory and
user manual, Version 3.4, DNV Technical, London, November 1996 [Additional PHAST 5.11
theory+user's manual, and Safeti Pro 5.11 theory+user's manual are available on request]
[8] Hillary Z. Woodward, "SAFETI 3.41 Model Validation", Confidential Report, DNV Technica,
London, September 1997
[9] Quotations for lease and perpetual licenses for PHAST, PHAST Micro, SAFETI Pro/Classic,
SAFETI Micro
[10] Witlox H.W.M., Holt, A. (1999) A unified model for jet, heavy and passive dispersion
including droplet rainout and re-evaporation. A.I.Ch.E./CCPS International Conference, San
Francisco, Sept. Proceedings
[11] Witlox, H.W.M. and Holt, A. UDM Release Notes, provided on separate CD as part of
PHAST6.0 release, DNV, London (2000).
49
50
The UDM MER makes reference to the June 1999 version of the UDM Technical Reference Manual, instead of the
final February 2000 PHAST6.0 version of the UDM Technical Reference Manual. Therefore several of the
statements are out of date, and therefore I have made adjustments accordingly.
2.
Section 2.l.1.1. UDM allows for liquid jet. Liquid pool could be indirectly modelled following 100% rainout.
Further improvements are planned to allow dispersion directly from a pool.
3.
Sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2. UDM allows for initial air mixed in for instantaneous, continuous and time varying
releases. In PHAST, the amount of initial air mixed is calculated by separate source models. PHAST presently does
not allow initial air mixed in for standalone UDM runs.
4.
Sections 2.1.2.2 and 2.1.2.3. UDM allows for orientation to be specified for continuous and time-varying releases
(release angle in vertical plane of wind direction; no upwind or crosswind releases).
5.
End of Section 2.2.2.1. A user-specified uniform windspeed profile allows the specialist user (or modeller) to
examine the effect of the vertical windspeed gradient on the dispersion predictions. This is indeed of little use for
the average user.
6.
Section 2.2.3.3. The surface temperature can be specified independently from the ambient atmospheric ground level
temperature (default value of surface temperature equals ground-level ambient temperature).
7.
Section 2.3.2.
-
Airborne drag is taken zero for both instantaneous and continuous releases
As indicated in Section 3.5.2 of the UDM Dispersion Theory Manual, the elastic-collision impact force is at
right angles to the momentary orientation of the centre-line, and therefore ensures conservation of kinetic
energy. However, as Rex states, the horizontal momentum is not assumed to be constant. I dont think this will
make a big difference and it will also be hard to find experimental data to show that this indeed shows an
improvement. However I would welcome any experimental data, if CERC does know of any. Note however
that the current UDM formulation will correctly result in increased crosswind spreading during touchdown
(see my comment for Section 2.3.3).
As the cloud descends, the local ambient velocity is changing and therefore the excess momentum is changing,
even when no external forces are being applied. It is agreed that no account for this is taken in the UDM where
in case of zero forces: Ix2 = mcld[ux-ua(zc)] remains constant, thus ux reduces if ua reduces as well. It is however
expected that the effect of change in momentum due to air entrainment (causing the cloud to move with the
ambient speed), will be usually much larger than the small effect of reducing ambient windspeed if the cloud
descends. The possible exception may be in case of large wind-speed gradients (very stable or unstable
conditions).
8.
Section 2.3.2.1. The extended instantaneous model is currently to be chosen to be consistent with the continuous
jet formulation. Indeed, after pressurised instantaneous expansion, the effect of the formulation is usually very
slight anyway. Agree with Rex his remarks, and further validation for momentum (buoyant) puffs could be
beneficial. Could CERC supply us with further literature regarding the latter?
9.
End of Section 2.3.3. The cloud volume Vcld = mcld/cld = Weff2 (1+hd) Heff (instantaneous) or cloud cross-section
area Acld = mcld / [ucld cld] = 2 WeffHeff(1+hd) (continuous) will NOT halve as the cloud intersects the ground. To
the contrary, air entrainment will result in increase of cloud mass mcld. This will indirectly involve a large increase
of the effective cloud width Weff as the cloud centre approaches the ground (increased crosswind spreading as to be
51
As discussed in Section 4.3 of the UDM Thermodynamics Theory Manual, the horizontal velocity of the
droplet is taken to be equal to the horizontal speed at the cloud centroid while the vertical droplet speed may
deviate from the vertical cloud centroid speed. The droplet position/speed should be considered a typical
averaged position/velocity corresponding to the droplet of averaged size. Since only averages are considered,
you could probably call this in this context top-hat velocity field for the droplets in the cloud.
The calculation of the cloud volume (instantaneous) or cloud volume rate (continuous) is described in Section
5 of the UDM Thermodynamics Theory Manual. From this section it is noted that if the droplet evaporate, the
specific volume cld of the cloud would increase (since vapour occupies more volume than liquid), and
therefore the cloud size would be increased due to evaporation.
As mentioned in Section 3.3 of the UDM Dispersion Theory Manual, the passive transition will taken place at
the first downwind distance xtrpas, for which ALL the mentioned criteria are satisfied.
In Section 5.2.4 of the UDM Dispersion Verification Manual, the criterion defining transition refers to the
last criterion to be satisfied. It was found that for several UDM simulations the Richardson number Ri*pas is the
defining criterion, which will even more frequently apply if Ri* pas would have been selected smaller than 15.
As indicated at the end of Section 3.3 in the UDM Theory Manual and more particularly in footnote xxvi, a
reduced value may be more appropriate. A reduced value was however shown in many simulations to
considerably delay the introduction of passive dispersion. Also note that the passive transition ONLY gets
phased in at the transition point xtr to passive transition. Fully inclusion of passive dispersion, will only occur
at the downwind distance rtrxtr, where rtr=2 by default. Thus at rtrxtr the Richardson number will be usually
much smaller than 15.
Further improvement of transition to passive dispersion (including the above) has been identified has an
important area of further improvement.
14. End of Section 2.3.10.2. Agree that the McMullen (1975) and Hosker (1973) papers are not well-known. Exactly
because of this, Section 2.2.2 in the UDM Dispersion Verification Manual shows, that the UDM dispersion
formulas (based on these papers) are very similar to the more widely accepted TNO dispersion formulas (= powerlaw of HGSYSTEM). Given this resemblance, the dispersion formulas are not changed. As discussed in item 2 of
Chapter 7 (future developments) in the UDM theory manual, the author is aware of more recent work, particularly
that of Dave Wilson. He would like to hear from CERC any further useful references in this context.
15. Section 2.5.1.2. The PHAST6.0 graphical interface allows for a wide range of tabular and graphical output. This
includes centre-line, longitudinal, lateral and vertical concentrations, as well as contour plots such as cloud foot
prints and cloud side views.
16. Section 2.6.3. Note that in the UDM verification manual for a range of situations, exact analytical solutions are
derived and compared with the numerical UDM results (e.g. passive dispersion, horizontal jets, and 2D heavy-gas
dispersion). While for a large number of other cases, UDM results are compared with comparable HGSYSTEM
runs. This does confirm the expectation that the equations are solved accurately. This has also been confirmed by
varying in the UDM the adopted accuracy for solving the numerical equations.
17. Section 2.6.4. Detailed sensitivity studies have been carried out to examine the sensitivity to input of the model, as
well as to confirm the robustness of the model. The results of these sensitivity studies have not been reported as
part of the UDM Technical Reference Manual.
18. Start of Section 2.7. I have added an paragraph stating main areas in which UDM can be applied:
52
The Unified Dispersion Model (UDM) models the dispersion following a ground-level or elevated two-phase
unpressurised or pressurised release. It allows for continuous, instantaneous, constant finite-duration, and general
time-varying releases. It includes a unified model for jet, heavy and passive two-phase dispersion including
possible droplet rainout, pool spreading and re-evaporation. It calculates the phase distribution and cloud
temperature using either a non-equilibrium thermodynamics model, a non-reactive equilibrium model, or an
equilibrium model specific for HF (including effects of polymerisation). The release direction is the vertical plane
of the wind direction (downwind releases).The dispersion takes place over flat terrain with an uniform surface
roughness.
19. First item in Section 2.7.1.2. The external expansion to ambient pressure for high-pressure releases is not part of the
UDM model. These calculations are carried out in PHAST immediately prior to the UDM model, and are therefore
not part of the UDM documentation.
20. Section 2.7.1.3. I dont fully understand this comment. Are you referring to inclusion of kinetic energy (usually a
very small term) in the energy equation? Please give me further information?
21. Section 2.7.2.1. Note that the model is expected to be less accurate for smaller windspeeds. This is an area for
further model extension, as also indicated by item 2 in Chapter 7 of the UDM dispersion theory manual.
22. Section 3.11. Note that full on-line help and documentation is currently already fully available in PHAST6.0.
23. Start of Section 4.1. I have updated this in line with the CCPS UDM paper.
24. Section 5.1. As for the vast majority of dispersion models, it is confirmed that UDM peak centre-line
concentration, indeed refers to the centre-line concentration for the averaging time of the experiments. UDMpredicted concentrations correspond to the given averaging time (ensemble value). The UDM does at present not
include the predictions of concentration fluctuations around this ensemble value.
25. Section 6. Limits of applicability source - note that a source model has been included for a pressurised
instantaneous release, although this model may require further improvements in the future.
26. Section 7. Reference has been added to the UDM Technical Reference Manual and UDM Release Notes, as
supplied on a CD as part of the release of PHAST6.0. Hardcopies of these documents have been previously
supplied to CERC.
53