Red window. Once more, 0.two) in t models matched reasonably nicely except the MC simulations. Thethe a window (0.2two Figure 5 case, a perpendicular incoming beam top rated of outcomes amongst the the MC model top rated boundary (Figure 2b). The parametersof the window. Again, the models matched reasonably bigger radiative intensity the leading (a the radiation of your dle of the made slightly well except at the area at values near = 0.9, b = 2)entrance particu window. The other location, away larger radiative intensity values MC model made slightly from perpendicular towards the incoming window, also had Nicarbazin supplier considerably dium are comparable to episodes of heavily polluted close to the radiationsome urban ar atmosphere in entrance smaller valuesother towards the away fromof the direct beam the incoming reasonably medium window. The due region, scattering perpendicular to location for this window, also had 35]. The LBM simulation was also evaluated with our MC model andMC other MC opticalsmallerand large scattering MPEG-2000-DSPE References albedo. Some difference betweenfor this reasonably memuch depth values on account of the scattering from the direct beam location RT-LBM along with the [29] benefits. depth and substantial scattering albedo. The RT-LBM-simulated slightly smaller modeloptical dium was observed in these low-intensity places. Some distinction among RT-LBM and values close to the was observed in these low-intensity areas. The RT-LBM-simulatedFigure 6 Figure 5 compares our RT-LBM as well as reported in Mink et The results between the MC model incoming radiation boundary would be the MC simulations. al. [29]. slightly compares the near the incoming radiation boundary are 0.five, reported for RT-LBM, our smaller matched reasonably properly except at the area in the best in the window. Ag modelsvaluesline samples inside the z direction (Y = 0.5; X = also 0.75, 0.85)in Mink et al. [29]. MC model, and thethe line samples in thesimulations.(Y = 0.five; X = 0.five, 0.75, 0.85) nicely in MC model [29] z path The simulations compare for RTFigure 6 compares otherslightly bigger radiative intensity MCcenterline, excepting slight variations close to the window region. values close to the radiation e model made the our MC model, plus the other MC model [29] simulations. The simulations intensity The radiation compare LBM, window.reasonably properly but there arefrom perpendicular to the incoming window, a region, away compares The otherexcepting slight slightly a lot more variations off the centerline. nicely inside the centerline, variations close to the window location. The radiation substantially smaller values as a result of the scattering of themore differencesarea for this relativ intensity compares reasonably effectively but you will discover slightly direct beam off the centerdium optical depth and substantial scattering albedo. Some difference among RT-LB line.the MC model was observed in these low-intensity locations. The RT-LBM-simulated smaller sized values close to the incoming radiation boundary are also reported in Mink etAtmosphere 2021, 12,eight ofAtmosphere 2021, 12, x FOR PEER Overview phere 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW8 of 15 8 ofFigure 5. Windowed simulation results from RT-LBM (left panel) along with the MC model (appropriate panel). Figure five. Windowedresults from final results from RT-LBM (left panel) model (appropriate panel). TheThe cross sections The simulation RT-LBM (left panel) and also the MC as well as the intensity fields. panel). Figure five. Windowed simulation X-Z cross sections (Y = 0.five) are from the 3-D radiative MC model (proper X-Zradiative parameters are a 0.five) = in the 3-D radiative intensity a = 0.9, b = two. (Y = 0.5) will be the X-Z crossradiative (Y.
