progress report on improvement of air quality model aloft ... aloft... · 1 prepared by: neil...

1

Prepared by:Neil Wheeler, Steve Reid, and Ken Craig

Sonoma Technology, Inc.Petaluma, CA

Presented to:CCOS Technical Committee

Sacramento, CASeptember 14, 2006

905030

Progress Report on Improvement of Air Quality Model Aloft Performance

2

Overview

• Proposed Phase 1 Improvements• Evaluation Process• Results• Modeling Domain Issue• Recommendations

3

Proposed Phase 1 Improvements

• Meteorology (MM5)• Vertical Structure• Nighttime Mixing• Photolysis Rates• Wildfire Emissions• Anthropogenic and Biogenic Emissions • Emphasis on July-August 2000 Episode

4

Evaluation Process

• Aloft Model Performance for Ozone• Hourly Averages for Grid Cells• Scatter Plots• Correlation

• Inert Tracer Simulations for Meteorology Changes

• Vis5D Animations of Ozone & Inert Tracers• Difference Plots• Ground Level Model Performance

5

Model Performance Aloft

O3 Aloft ComparisonA53 vs. Observations

y = 0.3719x + 46.749R2 = 0.2956

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150 200 250

Obs

A53P

red

O3 Aloft ComparisonTC vs. Observations

y = 0.3951x + 47.744R2 = 0.4367

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150 200 250

Obs

TCPr

ed

6

Results

• Completed• Meteorology (MM5)• Vertical Structure• Nighttime Mixing• Photolysis Rates

• In Progress• Wildfire Emissions• Emission Inventory Improvements

7

Meteorology

• NOAA’s “Best” Simulation• Not our requested simulation

–No hourly average output–Interpolated observation FDDA

• Results• Not much change in performance or flow

structure• Vertically interpolated observation nudging

did not obscure or significantly weaken return flows

8

Winds

Original New

9

Vertical Structure

• CAMx and MM5 layers matched in first 2 km• 38 Layers• Results

• Better vertical resolution of winds in CAMx• Little change in net circulation

• Transport through boundaries aloft

10

Ozonesondes

11

Ozone Correlation by Level

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17

CAMx layer

R-s

quar

ed

0.9 km

1.8 km7.5 km

0.25 km

12

Ozone Transport Through Boundaries

1.3 km 5.0 km

Monday, July 31, 2000

13

Nighttime Mixing

• Mechanical Mixing Model• Neutral and stable: van Ulden and Holtslag

(1985) • TKE profiles

• Near neutral : Zhang et al. (1996) • Stable: Lenschow et al. (1988)

14

TKE Profiles

TKE (stable conditions)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500

TKE (m2/s2)

Heig

ht (m

)

TKE (neutral conditions)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

TKE (m2/s2)

Hei

ght (

m)

TKE (unstablestable conditions)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

TKE (m2/s2)H

eigh

t (m

)

15

Nighttime Mixing Issues

• Surface roughness and friction velocity• Fire emissions• Recirculation

16

Alternate Photolysis Rates

• Modified CAMx 4.31 to read in terrain elevations and calculate layer heights above mean sea level (MSL)

• April 2006 release of TUV 4.01 allows levels to be specified

• Pseudo-spherical two-stream delta-Eddington scheme

• Increased number of photolysis levels in CAMx from 11 to 27

Case photorig: Photolysis rates used in TC simulation

Case newphot: Terrain-corrected photolysis rates

Spatial Differences – New Photolysis

18

MPE Aloft – New Photolysis

O3 Aloft ComparisonTC vs. Observations

y = 0.3951x + 47.744R2 = 0.4367

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150 200 250

Obs

TCPr

ed

O3 Aloft ComparisonNew Photolysis vs. Observations

y = 0.4098x + 46.243R2 = 0.4287

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150 200 250

obs

PB

-new

phot

19

Wildfire Emissions

• Smoldering emissions• First Order Fire Effects Model • Dominate VOC emissions from fires• Diurnal variations• Post burn smoldering• Issues with establishing defensible profiles

• Stack parameters and plume rise• Plume rise:

2 km (intended) vs. > 10 km calculated in CAMx• Default stack parameters: T=295 ˚K and V=4 m/s

20

Wild Fire Tracers

16 km

21

On-Road EI Improvements

• Heavy-duty diesel vehicle miles traveled (VMT) distributed based on vehicle activity rather than vehicle registrations

• Adjustments made to heavy-duty diesel emission factors• Modifications to the speed correction factors for heavy-

duty diesel vehicles• High idle emission rates for heavy-duty diesel vehicles

included• Diesel fuel correction factors incorporated• The impact of ethanol in gasoline on evaporative

emissions accounted for• Addition of areas into the Enhanced Smog Check program

22

Off-Road EI Improvements

• Updates to equipment populations and activity data in the OFFROAD model (lawn and garden equipment, pleasure craft, etc.)

• Locomotive inventory updated to reflect growth from goods movement at ports

• Emissions from cargo handling equipment (CHE) at ports and rail yards estimated

• Moved to consistent statewide approach for estimating emissions from commercial marine vessels

23

EI Improvements

• Biogenic Emissions• Acquired improved EI for Emissions

Reconciliation Project• Have not yet obtained or prepared model-

ready emissions and compared them to original model-ready emissions

24

Modeling Domain

• Transport ozone and tracers out through southern and western boundaries

• SJVAQS 1990• Animations:

ftp://ftp.sonomatech.com/public/CCOS/CCOS-Animations.htm

25

September 2000 Episode

• MM5 temperature bias• No new MM5 simulations• Biogenic emissions in southern SJV

26

High Ozone Day TemperaturesEpisode2, PLR, Surface Gases

0

24

48

72

96

120

144

168

192

216

240

9/15

12:

00 A

M

9/15

12:

00 P

M

9/16

12:

00 A

M

9/16

12:

00 P

M

9/17

12:

00 A

M

9/17

12:

00 P

M

9/18

12:

00 A

M

9/18

12:

00 P

M

9/19

12:

00 A

M

9/19

12:

00 P

M

9/20

12:

00 A

M

9/20

12:

00 P

M

9/21

12:

00 A

M

9/21

12:

00 P

M

9/22

12:

00 A

M

9/22

12:

00 P

M

9/23

12:

00 A

M

Date

O3,

NO

, NO

2 (p

pb)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

CO

(ppm

)

O3NONO2NOYCO

Episode2, PLR (T), FAT (MH)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

9/15

12:

00 A

M

9/15

12:

00 P

M

9/16

12:

00 A

M

9/16

12:

00 P

M

9/17

12:

00 A

M

9/17

12:

00 P

M

9/18

12:

00 A

M

9/18

12:

00 P

M

9/19

12:

00 A

M

9/19

12:

00 P

M

9/20

12:

00 A

M

9/20

12:

00 P

M

9/21

12:

00 A

M

9/21

12:

00 P

M

9/22

12:

00 A

M

9/22

12:

00 P

M

9/23

12:

00 A

M

Date

Deg

rees

(C)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Mix

ing

Hei

ght (

m)

AMB

MH

27

Maximum Predicted Temperatures

September 19, 2000

28

Recommendations

• Correct stack parameters on wild fires• Implement new emission inventory• Nest CCOS domain within a larger

regional 12-km domain

29

Questions?

30

References

A.P. Van Ulden, A.A.M. Holstlag, Estimation of atmospheric boundary layer parameters for diffusion applications, J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 24:1196, 1985

Lenschow, D.H., X.S. Li, and C.J. Zhu, Stably stratified boundary layer over the Great Plains. Part I: Mean and turbulent structure, Bound.-Layer Meteor., 42, 95-121, 1988.

Zhang, C., D.A., Randall, C.-H., Moeng, M. Branson, M. Moyer, and Q. Wang, A surface parameterization based on vertically averaged turbulence kinetic energy, Mon. Wea. Rev., 124, 2521-2536, 1996.