NW-AIRQUEST projects on Agricultural and Wildfire Smoke in the Inland Northwest:

ClearSky and AIRPACT-3

presented by: Joe Vaughan WSU-LARcontributors: Jack Chen, WSU-LAR;

Rahul Jain, Golman Associates; Kyle Heitkamp, Geomatrix, Inc.;

Brian Lamb, WSU-LAR

WRAP - Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting

October 18, 2006, Spokane, WA,

Outline• NW-AIRQUEST• ClearSky

– System design– Plume Rise Field Studies– Initial ClearSky Evaluation– Ensemble Effort

• AIRPACT-3– System design– BlueSky wildfire emissions– Wildfire results

What is NW-AIRQUEST?Northwest and International Air Quality, Environmental Northwest and International Air Quality, Environmental Science and Technology Consortium Science and Technology Consortium Organized in response to results of the Northwest Air Organized in response to results of the Northwest Air Summit of June 2003Summit of June 2003Inspired by Northwest Regional Technical Center’s Inspired by Northwest Regional Technical Center’s success in supporting and utilizing regional success in supporting and utilizing regional meteorological forecasting (MM5 at UW).meteorological forecasting (MM5 at UW).Committed to supporting air quality policy with best Committed to supporting air quality policy with best available scienceavailable science

MM5

CALMETCALPUFF

u, v formattedfor each layer of CALMET

3D met field-----------------

u, v, w, T, BL variables

Web-served PM2.5 plume animations

IC/BC (GFS)

landuseterrain

Hybrid emissions generation

MCIP

ClearSky Ag-Burn Smoke Dispersion Modeling System

www.clearsky.wsu.edu

Ag-burn scenarios from

web-baseduser interface

ClearSky Domains and Scenario Generator

CANADA

WASHINGTON

OREGON

IDAHO

Results?

ClearSky Plume Rise Field Study• Objective: Evaluate CALPUFF plume rise

– Measure top of plume height– Collect meteorological data– Document burns visually (Photographs)

• Methods– Aircraft measurements– Ground-based measurements– CALPUFF reruns

Field Burn Overview

Day Field Date Location (County) Start Time (PDT) End Time (PDT) Size (Acres) Crop TypeField 1 10:59 12:30 120 Irr. Spring WheatField 2 14:56 15:31 110 Irr. Spring WheatField 1 13:18 14:27 88 KBGField 2 14:36 15:12 32 KBGField 3 15:17 16:18 105 KBGField 1 12:05 13:03 76 KBGField 2 13:50 15:05 157 KBGField 1 11:54 12:55 122 Winter WheatField 2 14:53 15:58 122 Winter Wheat

Day 4

7/30/2004

8/20/2004

9/8/2004

9/29/2004

Day 1

Day 3

Day 2

Columbia, WA

Franklin, WA

Nez Perce, ID

Lewis, ID

• 76 to 122 Acres

•Wheat Stubble & Kentucky Bluegrass

Field Burn Surface Data

Day Field Temp. (C ) Speed (m/s) Dir. (degrees) Pre-Burn Post-BurnField 1 29 3.4 184 4.7Field 2 36 2.6 99 4Field 1 33 1.2 268 1.6 0.3Field 2 34 0.4 322 1.6 0.3Field 3 34 1.1 293 1.6 0.3Field 1 25 1.4 83Field 2 27Field 1 29 2.3 0.2Field 2 29 3.5 243 2 0.4

Day 4

Ultrasonic Anemometer Field Loading (Ton/Acre)

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

• Blank areas represent missing or malfunctioning equipment

• Field Loading ClearSky currently uses:

•2-6 Ton/Acre (Wheat Stubble)

•2.8 Ton/Acre (KGB)

CALPUFF Reruns

• CALMET file from burn day recovered• Emission files modified for field burn

– Field location, area, burn time, field loading• CALPUFF code modified to output plume

heights– Buoyant Line Source (fire front)

• Final plume height

– Buoyant Area Source (smoldering field) • Plume evolution

Plume Rise Results from Original ClearSky

CALPUFF Buoyant Area and Line Source Plume Heights with Top of Plume Heights from Air and Surface Observations

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Day 1,

Fiel

d 1

Day 1,

Fiel

d 2

Day 2,

Fiel

d 1

Day 2,

Fiel

d 2

Day 2,

Fiel

d 3

Day 3,

Fiel

d 1

Day 3,

Fiel

d 2

Day 4,

Fiel

d 1

Day 4,

Fiel

d 2

Burn Day

Plum

e He

ight

(m)

Buoyant Area Source Buoyant Line Source Max Air Observation Max Ground Observation

6 underestimated plume height1 overestimated plume height1 not compared due to large variation in observations

Update Emission Parameters• from Evaluation of ClearSky (Jain, 2004) • and by reference to Air Sciences Field Studies

Effective Height of Emissions (m) 0.5 0.5Temperature (K) 333 324

Effective Rise Velocity (m/s) 0.01 1.4Initial Vertical Spread (m) 100 100 

Line Height (m) 1 0.5Average Line Width (m) 5 5Temperature (K) 573 361

Buoyant Area Source Previous Value

Updated Value

Buoyant Line Source

Exit Velocity (m/s) 0.5 2.2

Final ResultsTop of Plume Heights for CALPUFF Buoyant Area and Buoyant Line Source with Updated

Emissions Parameters and Maximum Air and Ground Observations

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Day 1,

Field

1

Day 1,

Field

2

Day 2,

Field 1

Day 2,

Field

2

Day 2,

Field

3

Day 3,

Field 1

Day 3,

Field 2

Day 4,

Field

1

Day 4,

Field

2

Burn Day

Top

of P

lum

e H

eigh

t (m

)

Buoyant Area Source Buoyant Line Source Max Air Observation Max Ground Observation

2 underestimated plume height, slightly2 - 3 overestimated plume heightNewer emission parameters increase plume rise

ClearSky Evaluation

• 2003 ClearSky Evaluation (Jain, 2004):– ClearSky is highly sensitive to Wind Speed &

Wind Direction– Small differences in wind direction determine

whether or not smoke plumes are predicted to affect an air quality monitoring station

– How to represent the uncertainty of the meteorological conditions?

ATHOL

Suggested an Ensemble Meteorology approach! Another story …for another time!?

Now... on to AIRPACT Wildfire presentation by Jack Chen

Applied Sciences Program Approach to Integrated System Solutions forA Comprehensive Regional Air-Quality Decision Support System for the Pacific Northwest