Combining HYSPLIT and CMAQ to resolve urban scale features: an example of application in Houston, TX Ariel F. Stein (1), Vlad Isakov (2), James Godowitch.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Use of Lidar Backscatter to Determine the PBL Heights in New York City, NY Jia-Yeong Ku, Chris Hogrefe, Gopal Sistla New York State Department of Environmental.
Advertisements

A numerical simulation of urban and regional meteorology and assessment of its impact on pollution transport A. Starchenko Tomsk State University.
ANALYSIS OF TRACER DATA FROM URBAN DISPERSION EXPERIMENTS Akula Venkatram and Vlad Isakov  Motivation for Field Experiments  Field Studies Conducted.
Performance of Air Quality Models in Urban Areas  Objectives and Motivation  St. Louis study and ISC urban  Model Improvements  Performance of Improved.
Meteorological Data Issues for Class II Increment Analysis.
Use of Prognostic Meteorological Model Output in Dispersion Models Eighth Modeling Conference Research Triangle Park, NC.
The Use of High Resolution Mesoscale Model Fields with the CALPUFF Dispersion Modelling System in Prince George BC Bryan McEwen Master’s project
Will Pendergrass NOAA/ARL/ATDD OAR Senior Research Council Meeting Oak Ridge, TN August 18-19, 2010 Boundary–Layer Dispersion Urban Meteorology 5/20/2015Air.
An initial linkage of the CMAQ modeling system at neighborhood scales with a human exposure model Jason Ching/Thomas Pierce Air-Surface Processes Modeling.
1 AirWare : R elease R5.3 beta AERMOD/AERMET DDr. Kurt Fedra Environmental Software & Services GmbH A-2352 Gumpoldskirchen AUSTRIA
fluidyn – PANAIR Fluidyn-PANAIR
Tianfeng Chai 1,2, Alice Crawford 1,2, Barbara Stunder 1, Roland Draxler 1, Michael J. Pavolonis 3, Ariel Stein 1 1.NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, College.
Jenny Stocker, Christina Hood, David Carruthers, Martin Seaton, Kate Johnson, Jimmy Fung The Development and Evaluation of an Automated System for Nesting.
Session 9, Unit 17 UAM and CAMx. UAM and CAMx UAM - Urban Airshed Model Currently available versions:  UAM-V 1.24  UAM-V 1.30  Available from Systems.
1 CCOS Seasonal Modeling: The Computing Environment S.Tonse, N.J.Brown & R. Harley Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University Of California at Berkeley.
Development of WRF-CMAQ Interface Processor (WCIP)
Template Improving Sources of Stratospheric Ozone and NOy and Evaluating Upper Level Transport in CAMx Chris Emery, Sue Kemball-Cook, Jaegun Jung, Jeremiah.
Importance of Lightning NO for Regional Air Quality Modeling Thomas E. Pierce/NOAA Atmospheric Modeling Division National Exposure Research Laboratory.
Understanding the USEPA’s AERMOD Modeling System for Environmental Managers Ashok Kumar Abhilash Vijayan Kanwar Siddharth Bhardwaj University of Toledo.
Modeling Overview For Barrio Logan Community Health Neighborhood Assessment Program Andrew Ranzieri Vlad Isakov Tony Servin Shuming Du October 10, 2001.
Fine scale air quality modeling using dispersion and CMAQ modeling approaches: An example application in Wilmington, DE Jason Ching NOAA/ARL/ASMD RTP,
08/20031 Volcanic Ash Detection and Prediction at the Met Office Helen Champion, Sarah Watkin Derrick Ryall Responsibilities Tools Etna 2002 Future.
1/26 APPLICATION OF THE URBAN VERSION OF MM5 FOR HOUSTON University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Sylvain Dupont Collaborators: Steve Burian, Jason.
On the Model’s Ability to Capture Key Measures Relevant to Air Quality Policies through Analysis of Multi-Year O 3 Observations and CMAQ Simulations Daiwen.
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence MCIP2AERMOD: A Prototype Tool for Preparing.
4. Atmospheric chemical transport models 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Box model 4.3 Three dimensional atmospheric chemical transport model.
Rick Saylor 1, Barry Baker 1, Pius Lee 2, Daniel Tong 2,3, Li Pan 2 and Youhua Tang 2 1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Air Resources Laboratory.
Georgia Institute of Technology Initial Application of the Adaptive Grid Air Quality Model Dr. M. Talat Odman, Maudood N. Khan Georgia Institute of Technology.
Icfi.com April 30, 2009 icfi.com © 2006 ICF International. All rights reserved. AIR TOXICS IN MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA: A MONITORING AND MODELING STUDY WEBINAR:
Session 3, Unit 5 Dispersion Modeling. The Box Model Description and assumption Box model For line source with line strength of Q L Example.
CMAQ APPLICATION TO OZONE POLLUTION IN THE PEARL RIVER DELTA OF CHINA Wei Zhou 1,2,Yuanghang Zhang 1,Xuesong Wang 1,Daniel Cohan 2 1.College of Environmental.
Trajectory Calculations Trajectory or backtrajectory analyses use interpolated measured or modeled meteorological fields to estimate the most likely central.
Application of Models-3/CMAQ to Phoenix Airshed Sang-Mi Lee and Harindra J. S. Fernando Environmental Fluid Dynamics Program Arizona State University.
Introduction to Modeling – Part II
Office of Research and Development National Exposure Research Laboratory, Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis Division Office of Research and Development.
TEMPLATE DESIGN © A high-order accurate and monotonic advection scheme is used as a local interpolator to redistribute.
Impact of high resolution modeling on ozone predictions in the Cascadia region Ying Xie and Brian Lamb Laboratory for Atmospheric Research Department of.
Session 5, CMAS 2004 INTRODUCTION: Fine scale modeling for Exposure and risk assessments.
Comparison of simple and advanced regional models in industrial regulation Bernard Fisher Risk Forecasting and Decision Science Environment Agency Examples.
High-Resolution Simulations with CMAQ for Improved Linkages with Exposure Models Martin Otte CSC Christopher Nolte US EPA Robert Walko Univ. Miami.
U.S. EPA and WIST Rob Gilliam *NOAA/**U.S. EPA
Analysis of Ozone Modeling for May – July 2006 in PNW using AIRPACT3 (CMAQ) and CAMx. Robert Kotchenruther, Ph.D. EPA Region 10 Nov CMAQ O 3 Prediction.
Lagrangian particle models are three-dimensional models for the simulation of airborne pollutant dispersion, able to account for flow and turbulence space-time.
Types of Models Marti Blad Northern Arizona University College of Engineering & Technology.
Using combined Lagrangian and Eulerian modeling approaches to improve particulate matter estimations in the Eastern US. Ariel F. Stein 1, Rohit Mathur.
171 PC-HYSPLIT WORKSHOP Workshop Agenda Model Overview Model history and features Computational method Trajectories versus concentration Code installation.
Opening Remarks -- Ozone and Particles: Policy and Science Recent Developments & Controversial Issues GERMAN-US WORKSHOP October 9, 2002 G. Foley *US EPA.
Robert W. Pinder, Alice B. Gilliland, Robert C. Gilliam, K. Wyat Appel Atmospheric Modeling Division, NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, in partnership with.
Intro to Modeling – Terms & concepts Marti Blad, Ph.D., P.E. ITEP
W. T. Hutzell 1, G. Pouliot 2, and D. J. Luecken 1 1 Atmospheric Modeling Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2 Atmospheric Sciences Modeling.
1 DRAFT Report for Air Quality Analysis on Cumulative Emissions, Barrio Logan Tony Servin, P.E. Modeling Support Section Planning and Technical Support.
Jonathan Pleim NOAA/ARL* RTP, NC A NEW COMBINED LOCAL AND NON-LOCAL PBL MODEL FOR METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY MODELING * In Partnership with the U.S. Environmental.
Forecasting smoke and dust using HYSPLIT. Experimental testing phase began March 28, 2006 Run daily at NCEP using the 6Z cycle to produce a 24- hr analysis.
The application of Models-3 in national policy Samantha Baker Air and Environment Quality Division, Defra.
Comparisons of CALPUFF and AERMOD for Vermont Applications Examining differing model performance for a 76 meter and 12 meter (stub) stack with emission.
Types of Models Marti Blad PhD PE
2003 CMAS Workshop Community Scale Air Toxics Modeling with CMAQ by Jason Ching ARL,NOAA & USEPA, RTP, NC, USA October 27-29, 2003.
Chemical histories of pollutant plumes in East Asia:
Volcanic Ash Detection and Prediction at the Met Office
Quantifying uncertainty in volcanic ash forecasts
Hybrid Plume/Grid Modeling for the Allegheny County PM2.5 SIPs
AERLINE: Air Exposure Research model for LINE sources
Estimating volcanic ash emissions by assimilating satellite observations with the HYSPLIT dispersion model Tianfeng Chai1,2, Alice Crawford1,2, Barbara.
Models of atmospheric chemistry
SELECTED RESULTS OF MODELING WITH THE CMAQ PLUME-IN-GRID APPROACH
September 9 to 13, 2013; Reading, United Kingdom
MODELING AT NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE Sylvain Dupont and Jason Ching
Introduction to Modeling – Part II
REGIONAL AND LOCAL-SCALE EVALUATION OF 2002 MM5 METEOROLOGICAL FIELDS FOR VARIOUS AIR QUALITY MODELING APPLICATIONS Pat Dolwick*, U.S. EPA, RTP, NC, USA.
Development and Evaluation of a Hybrid Eulerian-Lagrangian Modeling Approach Beata Czader, Peter Percell, Daewon Byun, Yunsoo Choi University of Houston.
Presentation transcript:

Combining HYSPLIT and CMAQ to resolve urban scale features: an example of application in Houston, TX Ariel F. Stein (1), Vlad Isakov (2), James Godowitch (2), and Roland R. Draxler (3) 1 Earth Resources & Technology (ERT) on assignment to NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD 2 NOAA ARL Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division**, RTP, NC 3 NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD **In partnership with the U.S. EPA

Motivation Resolving urban scale features is critical for air toxics modeling and exposure assessments. 3D Eulerian models are not designed for fine scale applications. Even at 1x1 km resolution we are pushing the limits of this approach. Very resource intensive. Objective: to test the feasibility of developing an urban hybrid simulation system In this example, CMAQ provides the regional background concentrations and urban-scale photochemistry, HYSPLIT provides the spatially resolved concentrations due to stationary emission sources, and AERMOD – from mobile sources. In this first application, the HYSPLIT, AERMOD and CMAQ models are used in combination to calculate high resolution Benzene concentrations in the Houston area. The study period is from August 22th to September 3rd of Furthermore, multiple HYSPLIT simulations with varying model inputs and physical parameters are used to create a concentration ensemble to estimate the concentration variability. Health assessment and exposure models.

Scale interactions

Choosing models Looking for the appropriate tools to handle different scales. Regional scale: 3D Eulerian models with full chemistry  CMAQ Local scale: –Lagrangian models (simple or no chemistry)  HYSPLIT (concentration variability) –Plume dispersion models  AERMOD To avoid double counting: zero out approach

HYSPLIT concentration variability Exploring two sources: –Dispersion: created by different particle trajectory pathways in the turbulent atmosphere. 27 members, in which the particle trajectory variability in HYSPLIT is calculated by using a different seed number to estimate the random component of the particle diffusion. –Transport: different flow regimes that might be introduced when using gridded data to represent meteorological data fields. 18 members created by shifting the position of the meteorological field variables.

Advection and Dispersion X(t+  t)=X mean (t+  t)+U'(t+  t)  t, U'(t+  t)=R(  t) U'(t)+U"( 1-R(  t) 2 ) 0.5, R(  t)=exp(-  t/T Lx ), U"=  u, where U’ is the random velocity component, X mean is the original position due to only advection by the mean winds, R is the turbulent velocity autocorrelation,  u is the standard deviation of the turbulent velocity, and is a computer generated random number with 0 mean and  of 1. Additional terms to account for gradients in the turbulent velocity near the ground are required for vertical particle dispersion. The growth of the particle distribution, or the “puff” mode, is represented by a much simpler formulation, where the growth rate of the horizontal standard deviation of the particles is given by d  h /dt = (2  u ) 0.5 The dispersive growth rate for particles or puffs is controlled by the standard deviation of the turbulent velocity.  u = (K x / T L ) 0.5 where K represents the turbulent diffusivity and T L a constant Lagrangian time scale. For vertical turbulence and within the boundary layer K is a function of height and surface stability. Above the boundary layer it depends upon the local stability, a ratio of the wind shear and thermal stratification. Horizontal turbulence is computed from the deformation of the wind field.

Modeling domain: Houston, TX Monitors Census tract centroids Stationary sources Major roads 36 km x 36 km area Benzene emissions HYSPLIT: Top six point sources ~60% emissions in Harris County AERMOD: 330 road links in 36x36 km area ~25% of all on-road benzene emissions in Harris County

Models settings The study period is from August 22th to September 3rd of 2000 All models driven by MM5 meteorology Emissions based on 1999 National Emission Inventory CMAQ: –For the CMAQ domain with 36-km grid cell spacing: 45 columns x 46 rows with 24 vertical layers Layer 1 ~ 38 m thickness Central Houston/Harris County is covered by grid cell: column16, row 14 Boundary conditions: tropospheric “clean” background Benzene emissions from “local” emission sources being treated by the dispersion models were removed from the Houston 36-km cell to avoid a “double-counting” situation. –For the CMAQ domain with 1-km grid cell spacing: 108 x 108 with 24 vertical layers Layer 1 ~ 38 m thickness Boundary conditions from 12, 4 km nests –General Model Configuration: –SAPRC99 photochemical mechanism + toxics chemistry, includes benzene –Euler Backward Iterative (EBI) chemistry solver

HYSPLIT: –5000 3D lagrangian particles released –No chemistry –Meteorological fields calculated with MCIP2ARL preprocessor –Horizontal resolution : 0.01x 0.01 degree (1x1 km2 horizontal resolution) AERMOD: –No chemistry –Meteorology: Hourly surface observations from the nearest NWS meteorological station at George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), and vertical profiles from the Lake Charles upper air station, processed by AERMET –Emissions: 330 road links modeled as area sources in 36x36 km2 area ~25% of all on-road benzene emissions in Harris County –Receptors: 38 x 31 receptor grid, 1178 receptors total (consistent with HYSPLIT: 0.01 degree spacing, – deg. Lon, – Lat). Models settings (cont.)

Benzene concentrations [  g/m 3 ] from HYSPLIT (point sources only) daily average, 08/22/2000

Variability (std) in benzene concentrations [  g/m 3 ] from HYSPLIT, 08/22/2000

Benzene concentrations [  g/m 3 ] from HYSPLIT (point sources) and AERMOD (mobile sources) daily average, 08/22/2000

Benzene concentrations [  g/m 3 ] from 1km x 1km CMAQ, daily average, 08/22/2000

Comparison with observations blue dots – combination: HYSPLIT + AERMOD + CMAQ green dots: CMAQ 1km x 1km resolution black lines: CMAQ only (36km)

What about “double counting”? Comparison with observations blue dots – combination: HYSPLIT + AERMOD + CMAQ (zero out approach) green dots: CMAQ 1km x 1km resolution black lines: CMAQ only (36km)

Sensitivity test (to check double counting) blue dots: HYSPLIT + AERMOD + CMAQ (zero out approach) purple dots: HYSPLIT + AERMOD + CMAQ (with double counting) black lines: CMAQ only (zero out approach) Conclusion: Double counting doesn’t seem important in this case

More analysis – scatter plots blue dots: HYSPLIT + AERMOD + CMAQ (hybrid approach, OAQPS) purple dots – combination: HYSPLIT + AERMOD + CMAQ (with double counting) Green dots: CMAQ 1km x 1km

Analysis of variability from HYSPLIT ensemble runs light-blue circles: variability due to meteorology red squares: variability due to dispersion black triangles: variability due to vertical structure -Standard deviation ~ mean concentration -Vertical variability gives lowest concentrations -Dispersion ensemble gives highest concentrations

Conclusions A new method to resolve fine scale has been applied to a case study in Houston, TX. Local scale modeling is necessary to resolve fine scale (for pollutants such as benzene, when local contributions are significant) Spatially resolved hybrid approach is comparable with advanced CMAQ applications 1km x 1 km Even 1km x 1km is not enough to reveal hot spots