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