Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD and CALPUFF

Similar documents
ADMS. Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System. Dr David Carruthers, Professor Julian Hunt. Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Cambridge, UK

Developments in ADMS-Urban and ADMS-Roads including new road traffic emission factors

ADMS 5 Buildings Validation Warehouse Fires Wind Tunnel Experiments

What s New in ADMS 5.2?

ADDAM and CSA-ERM Modelling Approach and Results for the ShortRange Scenario

ADDAM (Atmospheric Dispersion and Dose Analysis Method)

Jan Duyzer Richard Kranenburg. Couple results of model calculations and measurements

Using the ADMS Mapper

David Carruthers 1, Xiangyu Sheng 2, Emilie Vanvyve 1

Bystander and Resident Exposure Assessment Model (BREAM)

Source-Receptor Modeling Studies

Accident at Sellafield - consequences for Norwegian food production

ESTIMATION OF THE MODELLING UNCERTAINTY RELATED WITH STOCHASTIC PROCESSES

Multi-Pollutant Response Surface Modeling Using CMAQ: Development of an Innovative Policy Support Tool

Heather Simon, Sharon Phillips, Norm Possiel, George Pouliot, John Koupal, Alexis Zubrow, Alison Eyth, Rich Mason

Variation in Methane Emission Rates from Well Pads in Four Oil and Gas Basins with Contrasting Production Volumes and Compositions

Rec. ITU-R P RECOMMENDATION ITU-R P *

NOISE BARRIERS CERC 1. INTRODUCTION

DETECTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE SLOVAK MOUNTAINS

Assured Monitoring Group

The use of GMES Atmospheric Service for Policy Applications

Product data sheet Palas Fidas 200 E

The Ionosphere and Thermosphere: a Geospace Perspective

Propagation Mechanism

REAL-TIME DUST MONITOR FOR INDOOR AIR QUA- LITY MEASUREMENTS AND WORKPLACE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTS FIDAS

Characteristics of precipitation for propagation modelling

The Decision Support System RODOS and its Features Concerning Atmospheric Dispersion and the Input from Measurements

RTH/RSMC Offenbach (DWD) report of activities for 2012

PERMANENT AND SEMI-PERMANENT NOISE MONITORING - FIRST RESULTS IN THE CITY OF NIS

Guide to the application of the propagation methods of Radiocommunication Study Group 3

ECE 476/ECE 501C/CS Wireless Communication Systems Winter Lecture 6: Fading

ECE 476/ECE 501C/CS Wireless Communication Systems Winter Lecture 6: Fading

Radiowave Propagation Prediction in a Wind Farm Environment and Wind Turbine Scattering Model

Crosswind Sniper System (CWINS)

ECE 476/ECE 501C/CS Wireless Communication Systems Winter Lecture 6: Fading

Preliminary CFD analysis of a ventilated chamber for candles testing

Outlines. Attenuation due to Atmospheric Gases Rain attenuation Depolarization Scintillations Effect. Introduction

HARMONOISE: NOISE PREDICTIONS AND THE NEW EUROPEAN HARMONISED PREDICTION MODEL

ACOUSTIC BARRIER FOR TRANSFORMER NOISE. Ruisen Ming. SVT Engineering Consultants, Leederville, WA 6007, Australia

Calculation of Remanent Dose Rate Maps in the LHC Beam Dump Caverns

WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES (16:332:546) LECTURE 5 SMALL SCALE FADING

Supporting Network Planning Tools II

Optical Technology for Tracking Turbulence, Visibility & Hazardous Wind

Propagation data required for the design of Earth-space aeronautical mobile telecommunication systems

Mobile Radio Propagation Channel Models

Air pollution monitoring project in Vietnam

Revision of Lecture One

Next Generation Operational Met Office Weather Radars and Products

A Tropospheric Delay Model for the user of the Wide Area Augmentation System

Status and future plans of the air-quality FRM projects. M. Van Roozendael, CEOS AC-VC#13, June 2017, Paris, France

Table 9-1 Operating characteristics of upper-air meteorological monitoring systems. BOUNDARY LAYER VARIABLES RADIOSONDE DOPPLER SODAR

THE COST of current plasma display panel televisions

Mid-Infrared Laser Heterodyne Systems From Earth Observation to Security and Defence. Damien Weidmann

DYNAMIC STATION COORDINATES APPROACH TO IMPROVE NETWORK/FIELD PERFORMANCE

Binocular and Scope Performance 57. Diffraction Effects

The Vehicle Emission Penalty of Traffic Congestion

CONTENTS. 2.2 Schrodinger's Wave Equation 31. PART I Semiconductor Material Properties. 2.3 Applications of Schrodinger's Wave Equation 34

Laser-Produced Sn-plasma for Highvolume Manufacturing EUV Lithography

SG3 Software, Databanks and Testing Procedures

A comparing overview on ECAC Doc.29 3 rd Edition and the new German AzB

OPAC-1 International Workshop Graz, Austria, September 16 20, Advancement of GNSS Radio Occultation Retrieval in the Upper Stratosphere

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FILL-DEPTHS BASED ON GIS ESTIMATION, EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE AND THE MICRO-TREMOR PROPERTY OF A DEVELOPED HILL RESIDENTIAL AREA

OVER TV SIGNALS. 1 Dpto. de Señales, Sistemas y Radiocomunicaciones. Universidad Politécnica

Electromagnetic Induction

RECOMMENDATION ITU-R P.1814 * Prediction methods required for the design of terrestrial free-space optical links

Please refer to the figure on the following page which shows the relationship between sound fields.

Click to edit Master title style

User's Guide to CAL3QHC Version 2.0: A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections

ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPAGATION (ALT, TEC)

Revision of Lecture One

ABSTRACT. Introduction

Comparing the Low-- and Mid Latitude Ionosphere and Electrodynamics of TIE-GCM and the Coupled GIP TIE-GCM

Appendix 8. Draft Post Construction Noise Monitoring Protocol

Probabilistic VOR error due to several scatterers - Application to wind farms

An experimental evaluation of a new approach to aircraft noise modelling

Travel time estimation methods for mode tomography

Prediction of clutter loss

Channel Models. Spring 2017 ELE 492 FUNDAMENTALS OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS 1

Acquisition, presentation and analysis of data in studies of radiowave propagation

RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION OF NEST MATERIAL DUE TO THE FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR ACCIDENT IN PASSERINE BIRDS

Pipeline Blowdown Noise Levels

HFO-1234yf Status and Path Forward

Hydraulics and Floodplain Modeling Managing HEC-RAS Cross Sections

SWAN LAKE INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY REPORT 1

Radar/Lidar Sensors SESAR XP1 Trials at CDG airport WakeNet-USA October 2012 Boeing, Seattle, USA

Microsoft Excel: Data Analysis & Graphing. College of Engineering Engineering Education Innovation Center

NASA Fundamental Aeronautics Program Jay Dryer Director, Fundamental Aeronautics Program Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate

Transurban QLD Legacy Way Air Monitoring Network

HIGH FREQUENCY INTENSITY FLUCTUATIONS

Noise attenuation directly under the flight path in varying atmospheric conditions

TransCity Legacy Way Air Monitoring Network

Using Graphing Skills

Transurban QLD Legacy Way Air Monitoring Network

Australian Wind Profiler Network and Data Use in both Operational and Research Environments

ARRAY PROCESSING FOR INTERSECTING CIRCLE RETRIEVAL

Instruction with Hands-on Practice: Creating a Bathymetric Database & Datum Conversion

Creating an urban street reverberation map

THE ALGEBRA III MIDTERM EXAM REVIEW Name

Investigations of spray painting processes using an airless spray gun

Wave Information Studies Online Visualization and Validation of 30+ Year Hindcast

Transcription:

Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD and CALPUFF by Dr David Carruthers ADMS User Group Meeting Vilnius 19 January 21

Well Known Dispersion Models Short range dispersion model s (upto 5km) ADMS (ADMS4 Industrial, Roads, Urban, Airports) AERMOD, ISC, OML, AUSTAL Industrial releases CALINE Road sources OSPM Street canyons AirViro Urban air quality Medium range dispersion models CALPUFF - Regional haze

Comparison of ADMS, AERMOD and CALPUFF Model Features Modelling Feature ADMS AERMOD CALPUFF APPLICATIONS Applications Up to 5km from sources; local and urban scale. Up to 5km from sources. Local and Regional Pollution Impacts. SOURCE TYPES Source types Point, line (including road, rail), area, volume, grid, jet. Point, line, volume and area sources. Point, line, volume, area METEOROLOGY Meteorology DISPERSION Boundary layer structure ADMS Pre-processor AERMET Pre-processor CALMET Pre-processor h, L MO scaling h, L MO scaling h, L MO scaling Plume rise Advanced integral model Briggs empirical expressions Concentration distribution Advanced Gaussian plume and puff model Advanced Gaussian plume model Briggs empirical expressions Non-steady Gaussian puff model

Comparison of ADMS, AERMOD and CALPUFF Model Features Modelling Feature ADMS AERMOD CALPUFF COMPLEX EFFECTS Buildings Complex terrain Deposition (wet and dry) Chemistry Based on flow model with near and main building wakes. Based on calculation of flow field and turbulence filed by FLOWSTAR model. Uses PRIME buildings model. Interpolation between neutral flow approximate solution and stable flow impaction solution. Based on ISC building model. Effects of complex flow input via meteorological fields. YES YES YES GRS (Generic Reaction Scheme) 8 reaction scheme for NO x chemistry, parameterised sulphate chemistry. Ozone limiting model, assumes maximum conversion of NO to NO 2. NO x and SO 2 chemistry for particle generation.

Comparison of ADMS, ARMOD and CALPUFF Model Features Modelling Feature ADMS AERMOD CALPUFF OTHER OPTIONS Street canyon model YES NO NO Emissions system EMIT system NO NO Short term fluctuations for odours, explosions etc Visibility Model Radioactive decay model YES NO YES Condensed plume visibility NO Visibility Impairment (haze/smog) YES; includes γ-dose NO NO Puff Model YES NO Puff release default Coastline YES NO YES Input of vertical profiles of met data VALIDATION YES YES Uses meteorological fields. Extensive industrial point sources, area sources, road sources, urban areas, airports. Extensive industrial point sources, area sources. Validation of meteorological f ields, concentrations and visibility impacts.

Flat Terrain Validation I Major study 24 Field and Wind Tunnel Experiments Summary Scores for ISC3, ADMS and AERMOD (Different model input parameters) Table 1 ISC3 ADMS AERMOD Best 5 19 6 Middle 2 5 11 Worst 17 7 Table 2 ISC3 ADMS AERMOD Best 4 8 1 Middle 1 15 11 Worst 1 1 3 Table 1 from Hanna et al, 6 th Workshop on Harmonisation, France Oct 1999 Table 2 from Hanna et al, AWMA Meeting, US, June 2

Flat terrain II Kincaid power plant Site flat farmland with some lakes (z = 1 cm) Met 171 hours, neutral to convective Release 187-m stack, SF 6 Results ns/m 3 (normalised by emission rate, quality 3 data) Data Mean σ Bias NMS E Corr Fac 2 Observations 54.3 4.3.. 1. 1. ADMS 4 48.5 31.5 5.9.6.45.68 AERMOD 3 21.8 21.8 32.6 2.1.4.29

Flat terrain III Kincaid power plant Scatter plots (ns/m 3 ) 35 ADMS 4 35 AERMOD 3 3 25 25 modelled 2 15 AERMOD3 2 15 1 1 5 5 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 observed 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 Observed

Flat terrain IV Kincaid power plant Quantile-quantile plots (ns/m 3 ) 35 ADMS 4 35 AERMOD 3 3 25 25 modelled 2 15 AERMOD 2 15 1 1 5 5 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 observed 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 Observed

Flat Terrain V - CALPUFF and ISC: Kincaid Q-Q plot for CALPUFF and ISCST3 (quality 3 data)

Flat Terrain VI - Prairie Grass Prairie Grass: scatter plot of concentrations ADMS 4.1 Prairie Grass: scatter plot of concentrations AERMOD 2222 Prairie Grass: scatter plot of concentrations ISCST2 9319 modelled 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 modelled 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 modelled 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 observed 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 observed 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 observed

Flat Terrain VII - Prairie Grass Prairie Grass: q-q plot of concentrations ADMS 4.1 Prairie Grass: q-q of concentrations AERMOD 2222 Prairie Grass: q-q of concentrations ISCST2 9319 modelled 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 observed modelled 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 observed modelled 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 observed

Flat Terrain VIII Power Plant Comparison: H = 2 m; Exit velocity = 22 m/s ADMS ADMS Met/AERMOD Dispersion Mean Conc. 1th percentile

Flat Terrain IX Comparing ADMS and ADMS/AERMOD (converter 1) Long term runs: Maximum normalised concentration (µg/m 3 /(g/s))

Building Effects I Two plume approach

Building Effects II: ADMS, AERMOD and ISC PRIME model used in AERMOD (and ISC) is similar in approach to the ADMS buildings model. Differences between ADMS buildings module and PRIME ADMS Box model for source in cavity Main wake velocity field: wake dimension, velocity and turbulence fields from wall-wake theory Main wake has 6 zone dispersion model Model applied at all downstream distances PRIME Modified Gaussian for source in cavity Main wake velocity field: wake dimension from experiment, velocity and turbulence fields from free-wake theory Main wake as 2 zone dispersion model Virtual source model applied far downstream

Building Effects III Robins & Castro Experiment K.4.35.3.25.2.15.1.5 Maximum ground-level concentration as a function of source height θ= and Ws/Ue=3.1 Experimental ADMS 4. ADMS 4.1 ISC-Prime..5 1. 1.5 2. 2.5 3. Zs/l

Building Effects IV Robins & Castro Statistics

Building Effects V Snyder Experiment Scatter plot of normalised concentrations ADMS 4.1 Scatter plot of normalised concentrations ISC-Prime ADMS y=x y=2x y=x/2 ISC-Prime y=x y=2x y=x/2 3 3 25 25 2 2 modelled 15 modelled 15 1 1 5 5 5 1 15 2 25 3 observed 5 1 15 2 25 3 observed

Complex Terrain I ADMS Complex Flow Model based on FLOWSTAR Example Askervein: Change in speed over hill Fractional speedup ratio 1..8.6.4 delta S.2. -1-8 -6-4 -2 2 4 6 8 1 -.2 -.4 -.6 Distance from HT (m) AERMOD and ISC use idealised approaches CALPUFF uses 3D time dependent flow field

Complex Terrain II: ADMS and AERMOD Comparison in Neutral flow US EPA Wind Tunnel Data Lawson, Snyder and Thompson (1989) Ratio of complex terrain to flat terrain maximum concentrations as function of stack height and location ADMS AERMOD 75 5 25-15 -1-5 5 1 15 2 75 5 25-15 -1-5 5 1 15 2 25. 2. 15. 1. 5. 2.5 2. 1.5 1..5.

Complex Terain III ADMS and AERMOD Comparison Maximum Concentration (ug/m3) Long Term Average Concentration (ug/m3) ADMS (Max=178) ADMS (Max=4.) 449 449 443 437 369 375 381 449 25 225 2 175 15 125 1 443 437 369 375 381 449 5. 4.5 4. 3.5 3. 2.5 2. Stack and surrounding terrain, Ribblesdale Valley, North-West England. 443 75 5 25 443 1.5 1..5 Stack height = 1m Terrain = up to 3m 437 369 375 381 AERMOD (Max=1162) 437 369 375 381 AERMOD (Max=1.3)

Complex Terrain IV, CALPUFF: Wyoming study Meteorology 4 upper air stations 22 surface stations 44 precipitation stations MM5 fields Terrain 4 km resolution Receptors in Class 1 Wilderness area

Complex Terrain V: CALPUFF, Wyoming case

Road Traffic Emissions I US CALTRANS Experiment Layout of roads and receptors

Road Traffic Emissions II ADMS-Roads and CALINE-4 Comparison of trendlines calculated using ADMS Roads and CALINE4 concentrations 2.5 2 Calculated SF 6 concentration (ppb) 1.5 1 ADMS Roads CALINE4 y=x y=.5x y=2x.5.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Monitored SF 6 concentration (ppb) Figure 1 Comparison of trendlines calculated from ADMS-Roads and CALINE4 concentrations

Summary Dispersion models in use in Europe include ADMS, AERMOD, CALPUFF, OML and AUSTAL. Key features of the dispersion models ADMS, AERMOD and CALPUFF been have presented and contrasted. Where data are available the models are compared with each other and with field and wind tunnel data. CALPUFF was developed for assessing medium range impacts of major pollution sources. It requires meteorological fields as input.

ADMS-Roads Model Capabilities ADMS-Roads (Part of ADMS-EIA) is designed to model dispersion scenarios from single or multiple roads. Calculates emissions from traffic flows or accepts calculated emissions Allows many road sources Fully integrated street canyon model based on Danish OSPM model Includes impact of traffic induced turbulence on dispersion Integrated with Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and an Emissions Inventory Database

ADMS-Roads M4 calculated and monitored PM1 concentration 16 14 ADMS Roads Monitored 12 Concentration (µg/m3) 1 8 6 4 2 2-Jan-97 11-Mar-97 3-Apr-97 19-Jun-97 8-Aug-97

Validation Results ADMS-Urban 14 NOx Annual Average PM1 Annual Average 12 NOx Standard Deviation NO2 Annual Average NO2 Percentile 1 PM1 9.4 Percentile PM1 98.1 Percentile PM1 Standard Deviation NO2 Standard Deviation 1 O3 annual Average O3 Standard Deviation 8 Predicted Data (ppb) 8 6 8 NOx Percentile Predicted Data (ug/m3) 6 4 4 6 2 4 2 2 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 2 4 6 8 1 Monitored Data (ppb) Monitored Data (ug/m3)