Sensitivity Analysis Update

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Overview Examples of TranSight Applications What Does TranSight Analyze? Model Structure.
Advertisements

Statistical evaluation of model uncertainties in Copert III, by I. Kioutsioukis & S. Tarantola (JRC, I)
Getting on the MOVES: Using Dynameq and the US EPA MOVES Model to Measure the Air Pollution Emissions TRPC – Smart Corridors Project Chris Breiland Fehr.
1 What Would it Take? To Reduce Mobile CO2 Emissions Ronald F. Kirby Director of Transportation Planning Presentation to the COG Climate Change Steering.
Impact of MOVES2014 on Emission Inventories from On-road Mobile Sources Alexis Zubrow, Darrell Sonntag, Harvey Michaels, David Brzezinski, Alison Eyth.
Emission Factor Modeling Graciela Lubertino, HGAC.
Ozone Modeling over the Western U.S. -- Impact of National Controls on Ozone Trends in the Future Rural/Urban Ozone in the Western United States -- March.
Beyond Gasoline: Drive Less. US Cars and Drivers US Population: 300 million Licensed drivers 190 million Cars and light trucks. 210 million.
GreenSTEP Statewide Transportation Greenhouse Gas Model Cutting Carbs Conference December 3, 2008 Brian Gregor ODOT Transportation Planning Analysis Unit.
Mobile Source Inventories for SIPs Matt Laurita Air Quality Modeling and Transportation Section EPA Region 4.
A Heavy-Duty Vehicle Visual Classification Scheme: Heavy-Duty Vehicle Reclassification Method for Mobile Source Emissions Inventory Development Prepared.
B.H. Baek and Catherine Seppanen Institute for the Environment-UNC at Chapel Hill Allison DenBleyker, Chris Lindhjem and Michele Jimenez ENVIRON International.
COG DTP/DEP Staff Eulalie Lucas and Erin Morrow DTP Sunil Kumar DEP Testing of EPA’S MOVES Model Travel Management Subcommittee May 26, 2009 MOVES: Motor.
COG DTP/DEP Staff Eulalie Lucas DTP Sunil Kumar DEP Testing of EPA’S MOVES Model TPB Technical Committee June 5, 2009 MOVES: Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator.
Unrestricted © Siemens AG 2015 All rights reserved.Answers for infrastructure and cities. Data collection for city baseline and projections for Helsinki.
Kip Billings, P.E. Andy Li, Phd Wasatch Front Regional Council October 14, 2010.
4-1 Model Input Dollar Value  Dollar value of time  Accident costs  Fuel costs  Emission costs.
“Green” PORTAL: Adding Sustainability Performance Measures to a Transportation Data Archive Emissions Modeling.
COMPARISON OF LINK-BASED AND SMOKE PROCESSED MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS OVER THE GREATER TORONTO AREA Junhua Zhang 1, Craig Stroud 1, Michael D. Moran 1,
0 Mike Savonis Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) US Department of Transportation IntelliDrive is a registered service mark of the US Department of.
Name of Presentation Use Your AVI System for Commercial Vehicle Emissions Monitoring and Measuring Creating & Monitoring the Safe and Sustainable Green.
1 ON-ROAD AND NON-ROAD SOURCES Melinda Ronca-Battista and Angelique Luedeker, ITEP/TAMS Center.
Harikishan Perugu, Ph.D. Heng Wei, Ph.D. PE
Igor Trpevski University of St. Cyril and Methodius Skopje,
1 MOBILE6 -Input and Modeling Guidance -SIP and Conformity Policy North American Vehicle Emission Control Conference Atlanta, April 4, 2001 Gary Dolce.
14-15 June 2006 Parliament House Canberra Trends in energy for transport — What are the policy implications? Trends and projections of transport energy.
Alexis Zubrow 1, Chris Allen 2, and James Beidler EPA OAQPS and Region 1; 2. CSC.
Sunil Kumar and Eulalie Lucas MOVES Task Force Meeting MWCOG August 18, 2009 Development of Inputs, Outputs, and Procedures for EPA’s Draft MOVES2009 Model.
Emission Inventories and EI Data Sets Sarah Kelly, ITEP Les Benedict, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe.
Missoula Air Quality Conformity Analysis Required by Federal and Montana Clean Air Act – Transportation-specific air quality requirements enacted in Federal.
WRAP Emission Inventory Status For the Attribution of Haze Project Workgroup Presented by Jeffrey Stocum Oregon DEQ Emissions Inventory Specialist as a.
Class Project Report, May 2005 ME/ChE 449 Sustainable Air Quality Highway Transportation: Trends from 1970 to 2002 and Beyond By Scott Kaminski Instructor.
O NROAD S OURCES Angelique Luedeker, ITEP. 2 Onroad Emissions Emissions from vehicles Exhaust Brake and tire wear Evaporation.
Class Project Report, May 2005 ME/ChE 449 Sustainable Air Quality Highway Transportation: Trends from 1970 to 2002 and Beyond By Scott Kaminski Instructor.
Moves 2010 Midwest Traffic Model Users Group September 30, 2010 Ames, Iowa Mark Filipi, AICP PTP Manager, Transportation Planning Services Metropolitan.
Class Project Report, May 2005 ME/ChE 449 Sustainable Air Quality Highway Transportation: Trends from 1970 to 2002 and Beyond By Scott Kaminski Instructor.
1 Climate Change: Impact on Transportation (And Transportation Impact on Climate Change) August 14, 2008 Mike Clifford Metropolitan Washington Council.
1 Session IV: Onroad Mobile Sources Laurel Driver US EPA.
Final Presentation of the Project, 21 Jan Uncertainty estimates and guidance for road transport emission calculations A JRC/IES project performed.
1 Air Pollution Automobile Emissions: An Overview Emissions from an individual car
Sunil Kumar MOVES Task Force Meeting MWCOG January 19, 2010 Review of MOVES2010 Local Data Inputs.
Use of IM & NEI Data Trends to Improve Vehicle Emissions Models IM Solutions Salt Lake City April 2014 Jim Lindner.
Kanok Boriboonsomsin, Guoyuan Wu, Peng Hao, and Matthew Barth
Impact of New North American Emissions Inventories on Urban Mobile Source Emissions for High-Resolution Air Quality Modelling Junhua Zhang, Qiong.
Air Quality Emission inventories
EPA Phase II for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CEE6984: Special Topics – Transportation Sustainability
The Future of Urban Trucks and Transport: insights from real-world emissions and fuel economy testing Nick Molden 3 March 2016.
SMOKE-MOVES Processing
Social costs of fuel-vehicle pathways
MOVES-Based NOx Analyses for Urban Case Studies in Texas
Andrey Khlystov and Dave Campbell
Development of 2016 Alpha Onroad Mobile Emissions
Updates to 2014NEIv2 Onroad Mobile Emissions
The Transportation & Air Quality Research Group
Developing a Real-Time Energy and Environmental Monitoring System
Utilizing Traffic Simulation Tools with MOVES and AERMOD
Zissis Samaras Professor
NONROAD Model Sensitivity to Temperature
Preparation of Fine Particulate Emissions Inventories
Ventura County Traffic Model (VCTM) VCTC Update
Public Review Draft CARBON MONOXIDE AND PM-10 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DETERMINATION FOR THE 2035 AMATS METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN Municipality of.
Influence of Driving Restrictions on Pollution Reduction
Impacts of hydrogen pathways vs
Emissions testing in the laboratory and on the road: Preliminary results for one Euro 6 diesel vehicle Pierre Bonnel Martin Weiss Joint Research Centre.
Geometric Design: General Concept CE331 Transportation Engineering.
HDV CO2 Regulation in REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Emissions and Health Unit Institute of Environment and Sustainability
Presented By: George Noel – Volpe Mark Glaze - FHWA 1/13/2014
George Noel and Dr. Roger Wayson
Presentation transcript:

Sensitivity Analysis Update MOVES Sensitivity Analysis Update Transportation Research Board Summer Meeting 2012 ADC-20 Air Quality Committee Presented by Mark Glaze and Roger Wayson

OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION Evaluation Parameters EPA’s Sensitivity Analysis Comparison to Baseline Case MOVES Sensitivity Run Specification MOVES Sensitivity Input Parameters Results Uses of Study

EVALUATION PARAMETERS Sensitivity Analysis of MOVES Conducted for Regional/County Scale Focused on the running emissions process for CO, PM2.5, NOX, and VOCs Temperature effects for Start and Evaporative emissions also included Analysis results report the sensitivity of selected input parameters on predicted emissions rates by vehicle type MOVES Input Parameters Evaluated Temperature Humidity Ramp Fraction Analysis Year Age Distribution Average Speed Distribution Vehicle Type Drive Cycle

EPA SENSITIVITY STUDY “MOVES Sensitivity Analysis: The Impacts of Temperature and Humidity of Emissions” Focused on Temperature and Humidity Included more temperature ranges for humidity sensitivity Analyzed impacts by fuel type (gasoline and diesel) and analysis year Majority of Sensitivity Analysis results showed the same trends as EPA analysis for temperature and humidity Only difference was with CO and VOC results for diesel vehicle types

COMPARISON TO BASELINE CASE A ‘Baseline Case’ Developed For Comparison and For Efficiency of Analysis Represents a regional (county level) scale analysis Utilized a Single Hour of Execution (run time consideration) 8 AM Hour (morning peak) 60º Fahrenheit* 50% Relative Humidity* * also evaluated National Defaults Utilized for General Input Parameters Required in Data Manager

MOVES SENSITIVITY RUN SPECIFICATIONS Parameter Description Year 2010 Month July Day Weekday Hour 8:00 AM Geographic Bounds Nation Road Type(s) All Age Distribution 2010 National default Average Speed Distribution National Default (8AM Weekday) Fuel National Default Road Type Distribution Ramp Fraction National Default (0.08) I/M Program Vehicle Type VMT Normalized - 1000 VMT per HPMS Vehicle Type Source Type Population Temperature 60 degrees Fahrenheit Humidity 50%

Parameter Values/Description MOVES SENSITIVITY RUN INPUT PARAMETERS Input Parameter Parameter Values/Description Temperature (Fahrenheit) includes starts and evaporative -40º, -20º, 0º, 20º, 40º, 60º, 80º, 100º, 120º F Humidity 0%, 20%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 80%, 100% (60º F and 80º F) Ramp Fraction 0, 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.10, 0.12 0.16, 0.20 Analysis Year 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050 Age Distribution Group 1 = 0-10 years old Group 2 = 11-20 years old Group 3 = 21-30 years old Average Speed Distribution - Urban Restricted Access - FC 11 Urban Interstate LOS B,C,D,E,F Average Speed Distribution - Urban Unrestricted Access - FC 12 Urban Principal Arterial Freeway LOS C,D,E Average Speed Distribution - Urban Restricted Access - FC 14 Urban Principal Arterial Other LOS B,C,F

NOX TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY RESULTS Temperature (Fahrenheit) Passenger Car Passenger Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck Combination Long-haul Truck Emission Rate (gram/mile) % difference -40 0.593 6% 1.203 5.947 4% 14.244 -20 20 40 60 0.561 0% 1.137 5.708 13.673 80 0.657 17% 1.306 15% 5.185 -9% 12.42 100 0.739 32% 1.449 27% 4.55 -20% 10.899 120

PM2.5 TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY RESULTS Temperature (Fahrenheit) Passenger Car Passenger Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck Combination Long-haul Truck Emission Rate (gram/mile) % difference -40 0.2039 2225% 0.3087 1794% 0.2397 0.00% 0.5378 -20 0.1085 1137% 0.1657 916% 0.0577 558% 0.0896 450% 20 0.0307 250% 0.0492 202% 40 0.0164 87% 0.0277 70% 60 0.0088 0% 0.0163 80 0.006 -32% 0.0121 -26% 0.02% 0.5379 0.01% 100 0.2398 0.04% 0.03% 120

PM2.5 RAMP FRACTION SENSITIVITY RESULTS Passenger Car Passenger Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck Combination Long-haul Truck Emission Rate (gram/mile) % difference 0.0075 -15% 0.0143 -12% 0.233 2.70% 0.521 -3.10% 0.02 0.0078 -11% 0.0148 -9% 0.235 2.00% 0.525 -2.40% 0.04 0.0081 -7% 0.0153 -6% 0.236 1.40% 0.529 -1.60% 0.06 0.0085 -4% 0.0158 -3% 0.238 0.70% 0.534 -0.80% 0.08 0.0088 0% 0.0163 0.24 0.00% 0.538 0.1 0.0091 4% 0.0168 3% 0.241 0.542 0.80% 0.12 0.0094 7% 0.0173 6% 0.243 0.546 1.60% 0.16 0.0101 15% 0.0183 12% 0.246 0.555 3.10% 0.2 0.0107 22% 0.0194 19% 0.249 4.10% 0.563 4.70%

Combination Long-haul Truck Emission Rate (gram/mile) VOC ANALYSIS YEAR SENSITIVITY RESULTS Analysis Year Passenger Car Transit Bus Combination Long-haul Truck Emission Rate (gram/mile) % difference 2010 0.105 0.00% 0.6602 0% 0.7245 2020 0.0202 -80.80% 0.217 -67.10% 0.253 -65.10% 2030 0.0167 -84.10% 0.0555 -91.60% 0.0831 -88.50% 2040 0.0172 -83.60% 0.0297 -95.50% 0.0397 -94.50% 2050 0.0173 -83.50% 0.0396

Combination Long-haul Truck Emission Rate (gram/mile) CO AGE DISTRIBUTION SENSITIVITY RESULTS Age Distribution Passenger Car Passenger Truck Transit Bus Combination Long-haul Truck Emission Rate (gram/mile) % difference Baseline 3.016 0% 5.699 3.901 3.156 Group 1 2.513 -16.70% 4.624 -18.90% 3.509 -10.10% 2.882 -8.70% Group 2 3.332 10.50% 6.342 11.30% 4.286 9.80% 3.485 10.40% Group 3 3.416 13.30% 6.602 15.80% 4.016 2.90% 3.226 2.20%

PM2.5 AVERAGE SPEED DISTRIBUTION SENSITIVY RESULTS LOS Functional Classification Passenger Car Passenger Truck Light Commercial Truck Emission Rate (gram/mile) % difference Baseline Urban Interstate/Principal Urban Arterial - Freeway 0.0115 - 0.0217 0.0431 B Urban Interstate 0.0108 -6.46% 0.0203 -6.21% 0.0374 -13.14% C 0.0109 -5.85% 0.0204 -5.68% 0.0375 -12.91% D -6.09% -6.05% 0.0378 -12.22% E 0.0106 -7.80% 0.0201 -7.39% 0.0393 -8.71% F 0.0096 -16.48% 0.0191 -11.76% 0.0517 20.12% Principal Urban Arterial -Freeway -5.94% -5.87% -13.07% 0.0110 -4.51% 0.0207 -4.68% 0.0386 -10.31% -8.43% 0.0200 -7.93% 0.0398 -7.72% Principal Urban Arterial - Other 0.0083 0.0163 0.0451 0.0073 -11.57% 0.0144 -11.43% 0.0387 -14.19% 0.0078 -5.16% 0.0156 -4.54% 0.0433 -4.05% 0.0118 43.38% 0.0244 49.35% 0.0830 84.13%

PM2.5 AVG SPEED DISTRIBUTION SENSITIVITY RESULTS LOS Functional Classification Single Unit Short-haul Truck Combination Short-haul Truck Emission Rate (gram/mile) % difference Baseline Urban Interstate/Principal Urban Arterial - Freeway 0.298 - 0.612 B Urban Interstate 0.221 -25.80% 0.487 -20.50% C 0.225 -24.46% 0.492 -19.60% D 0.236 -20.86% 0.518 -15.30% E 0.265 -11.08% 0.568 -7.16% F 0.418 40.10% 0.917 49.85% Principal Urban Arterial -Freeway 0.227 -24.08% -19.56% 0.250 -16.21% 0.540 -11.73% 0.277 -7.19% 0.618 1.00% Principal Urban Arterial - Other 0.357 0.878 0.307 -14.17% 0.768 -12.53% 0.348 -2.64% 0.856 -2.41% 0.695 94.57% 1.370 56.09%

REPORT HOPES Report Preparation in Final Stages Results Provide Better Understanding of Input Sensitivity Insight for Analysts Highlights Areas of Importance