Abstract
Integral sentences and numerical comparative calculations for the validity of the dispersion model for air pollutants AUSTAL2000
Highlights
The author of this article comes to the conclusion that all reference solutions by the AUSTAL authors violate the mass conservation law
The author of this article comes to the conclusion that the dispersion model for air pollutants AUSTAL is not validated
Applications important for health and safety, e.g. Security analyzes, hazard prevention plans and immission forecasts are to be checked with physically based model developments
Summary
In 2014, the author of this article was again questioned by interested environmental engineers about the validity of the reference solutions of the AUSTAL dispersion model. For the purpose of clarification, the author of this article in 2014 was commissioned by the company WESTKALK, United Warstein Limestone Industry, to develop expertise on this expansion model according to Schenk (2014). The use of critical terms leads to the conclusion that the AUSTAL authors are not very familiar with the theory of modeling the spread of air pollutants The results of this expertise are published in Schenk (2015a). The authors resist again and claim in Trukenmüller (2016) that there is equivalence to the correct solutions described in Schenk (2015b). It turns out that all of Schenk’s criticism of the AUSTAL expansion model is justified and cannot be invalidated
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call