Evaluation of CAMx: Issues Related to Sectional Models Ralph Morris, Bonyoung Koo, Steve Lau and Greg Yarwood ENVIRON International Corporation Novato,

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

POMI Po Valley Model Intercomparison Exercise CAMx model overview In cooperation with AMA - MI.

Advertisements

Regional Haze Modeling: Recent Modeling Results for VISTAS and WRAP October 27, 2003, CMAS Annual Meeting, RTP, NC University of California, Riverside.

Template Development and Testing of PinG and VBS modules in CMAQ 5.01 Prakash Karamchandani, Bonyoung Koo, Greg Yarwood and Jeremiah Johnson ENVIRON International.

MODELING CHEMICALLY REACTIVE AIR TOXICS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA USING CAMx Chris Emery, Greg Yarwood and Ed Tai ENVIRON International Corporation.

Biocomplexity Project: N-deposition Model Evaluation UCR, CE-CERT, Air Quality Modeling Group Model Performance Evaluation for San Bernardino Mountains.

Preliminary Results CMAQ and CMAQ-AIM with SAPRC99 Gail Tonnesen, Chao-Jung Chien, Bo Wang, UC Riverside Max Zhang, Tony Wexler, UC Davis Ralph Morris,

Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.

Incorporation of the Model of Aerosol Dynamics, Reaction, Ionization and Dissolution (MADRID) into CMAQ Yang Zhang, Betty K. Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan,

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: Revised CAMx Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation December.

CENRAP Modeling Workgroup Mational RPO Modeling Meeting May 25-26, Denver CO Calvin Ku Missouri DNR May 25, 2004.

PM Model Performance Goals and Criteria James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling Meeting Denver, CO May 26,

Regional Haze Modeling RPO Update Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM National RPO Meeting, Dallas, TX December 3, 2002.

University of California Riverside, ENVIRON Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Haze CMAQ 1996 Model Performance and for Section.

Modeling Studies of Air Quality in the Four Corners Region National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Cooperative Institute for Research in.

CMAQ Evaluation Preliminary 2002 version C WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Annual CMAQ Performance Evaluation using Preliminary 2002 version C Emissions.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering Evaluation and Intercomparison of N.

PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.

WRAP Update. Projects Updated 1996 emissions QA procedures New evaluation tools Model updates CB-IV km MM5 Fugitive dust NH 3 emissions Model.

Synergisms in the Development of the CMAQ and CAMx PM/Ozone Models Ralph E. Morris, Greg Yarwood Chris Emery, Bonyoung Koo ENVIRON International Corporation.

Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Effects of Sectional PM Distribution on PM Modeling in the Western US Ralph Morris and Bonyoung Koo ENVIRON International.

Ozone MPE, TAF Meeting, July 30, 2008 Review of Ozone Performance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning Gail Tonnesen, Zion.

Projects:/WRAP RMC/309_SIP/progress_sep02/Annex_MTF_Sep20.ppt Preliminary Mobile Source Significance Test Modeling Results WRAP Regional Modeling Center.

AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 Source Apportionment Modeling Results and RMC Status report Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: Initial CAMx Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation October.

A comparison of PM 2.5 simulations over the Eastern United States using CB-IV and RADM2 chemical mechanisms Michael Ku, Kevin Civerolo, and Gopal Sistla.

WRAP Experience: Investigation of Model Biases Uma Shankar, Rohit Mathur and Francis Binkowski MCNC–Environmental Modeling Center Research Triangle Park,

University of California Riverside, ENVIRON International Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center Overview of WRAP Regional Haze Modeling Activities.

PM Model Performance & Grid Resolution Kirk Baker Midwest Regional Planning Organization November 2003.

Section 309 Mobile Source Significance Test Modeling Results WRAP Regional Modeling Center (RMC) University of California at Riverside, CE-CERT ENVIRON.

Using CMAQ-AIM to Evaluate the Gas-Particle Partitioning Treatment in CMAQ Chris Nolte Atmospheric Modeling Division National Exposure Research Laboratory.

Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.

Model & Chemistry Intercomparison CMAQ with CB4, CB4-2002, SAPRC99 Ralph Morris, Steven Lau, Bongyoung Koo ENVIRON International Corporation Gail Tonnesen,

Source Attribution Modeling to Identify Sources of Regional Haze in Western U.S. Class I Areas Gail Tonnesen, EPA Region 8 Pat Brewer, National Park Service.

Evaluation of sulfate simulations using CMAQ version 4.6: The role of cloud Chao Luo 1, Yuhang Wang 1, Stephen Mueller 2, and Eladio Knipping 3 1 Georgia.

Evaluation of the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.

Modeling Regional Haze in Big Bend National Park with CMAQ Betty Pun, Christian Seigneur & Shiang-Yuh Wu AER, San Ramon Naresh Kumar EPRI, Palo Alto CMAQ.

An Exploration of Model Concentration Differences Between CMAQ and CAMx Brian Timin, Karen Wesson, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Sharon Phillips EPA/OAQPS.

GEOS-CHEM Modeling for Boundary Conditions and Natural Background James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling.

Evaluation of Models-3 CMAQ I. Results from the 2003 Release II. Plans for the 2004 Release Model Evaluation Team Members Prakash Bhave, Robin Dennis,

Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,

THE MODELS-3 COMMUNITY MULTI- SCALE AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) MODEL: 2002 RELEASE – NEW FEATURES Jonathan Pleim, Francis Binkowski, Robin Dennis, Brian Eder,

DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF MADRID: A NEW AEROSOL MODULE IN MODELS-3/CMAQ Yang Zhang*, Betty Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Shiang-Yuh Wu and Christian.

Extending Size-Dependent Composition to the Modal Approach: A Case Study with Sea Salt Aerosol Uma Shankar and Rohit Mathur The University of North Carolina.

WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver 7/22/04 WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Emission, Meteorology Inputs and CMAQ Performance.

WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver CO 7/22/04 Results from January/July CMAQ Source Apportionment Modeling Gail Tonnesen,

AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Summary of 2005 Modeling Results Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.

Operational Evaluation and Model Response Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ for Ozone & PM2.5 Kirk Baker, Brian Timin, Sharon Phillips U.S. Environmental Protection.

VISTAS Modeling Overview Oct. 29, 2003

Air Quality Modeling of PM2.5 Species Kirk Baker Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium & Midwest RPO 10/21/2002.

1 Projects:/WRAP_RMC/Presents/ADEQ_Feb ppt Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) Preliminary Fire Modeling Results.

MRPO Technical Approach “Nearer” Term Overview For: Emissions Modeling Meteorological Modeling Photochemical Modeling & Domain Model Performance Evaluation.

Western Air Quality Study (WAQS) Intermountain Data Warehouse (IWDW) Model Performance Evaluation CAMx and CMAQ 2011b University of North Carolina (UNC-IE)

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside CCOS 2000 Model Intercomparison: Summary of.

Sensitivity of PM 2.5 Species to Emissions in the Southeast Sun-Kyoung Park and Armistead G. Russell Georgia Institute of Technology Sensitivity of PM.

WRAP Workshop on Fire, Carbon and Dust – Sacramento, CA - May 23-24, 2006 WRAP RMC Phase II Wind Blown Dust Project Regional Modeling Center ENVIRON; UCR.

Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it may not necessarily reflect official Agency policy Jonathan Pleim, Shawn Roselle,

V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: CAMx Sensitivity Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation.

WRAP Technical Work Overview

VISTAS 2002 MPE and NAAQS SIP Modeling

Evaluations of CMAQ Simulations in southern Taiwan

CRC NARSTO-Northeast Modeling Study

VISTAS Grid Resolution Sensitivity

SELECTED RESULTS OF MODELING WITH THE CMAQ PLUME-IN-GRID APPROACH

Evaluating Revised Tracking Metric for Regional Haze Planning

Overview of WRAP 2014 Platform develop and Shake-Out project update

7th Annual CMAS Conference

WRAP Modeling Forum, San Diego

RMC Activity Update Emissions Forum July 1, 2003.

Results from 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress Modeling

Presentation transcript:

Evaluation of CAMx: Issues Related to Sectional Models Ralph Morris, Bonyoung Koo, Steve Lau and Greg Yarwood ENVIRON International Corporation Novato, CA Chao-Jung Chien, Gail Tonnesen and Zion Wang UCR CE-CERT PM Model Performance Workshop Research Triangle Park, North Carolina February 10-11, 2004

Outline Development of CAMx4+ that combines CAMx4 with PMCAMx > Mechanism 4 (M4) 2-Section treatment (fine/coarse) > PMCAMx N-Section treatment Effects of sectional treatment on nitrate in SoCal Multi-Model Intercomparison using WUSA 1996 > CMAQ, REMSAD, CAMx_M4 (2-Section) and CAMx N-Section Discussion of performance metrics > Which ones most appropriate for PM modeling How to present model performance statistics > Model performance for dummies

Science Options in CAMx4+ PM Size treatment > M4 2-Section (fine/coarse) all secondary PM is fine > N-Section (CMU treatment) Aerosol Dynamics > ISORROPIA equilibrium (M4 must use) > MADM dynamic > HYBRID Aqueous-Phase Chemistry > RADM bulk 1-section (M4 must use) > VSRM (CMU multi-section module)

Effects of Particle Size Distribution Testing of assumptions of particle size distribution using new merged CAMx4/PMCAMX code (CAMx4+) > M4 = CAMx4 2-Section plus RADM aqueous > EQUI = N-Sections equilibrium + VRSM aqueous > MADM = 10-Sections dynamic + VRSM aqueous > RADM/EQ = 10-Sections equil. + RADM aqueous > RADM/EQ4 = 4-Sections equil. + RADM aqueous October 17-18, 1995 Southern California Episode

M4 EQUI 24-Hour Sulfate (  g/m 3 ) October 18, 1995 M4 peak SO 4 39  g/m 3 EQUI peak SO 4 51  g/m 3 ~ Long Beach Area Differences due to more sulfate production in CMU VRSM than RADM aqueous-phase chemistry Further downwind (Riverside) M4 produces more sulfate than EQUI

24-Hour Nitrate (  g/m 3 ) October 18, 1995 M4 peak NO 3 83  g/m 3 EQUI peak NO 3 54  g/m 3 Observed NO 3 peak at Riverside ~40  g/m 3 Differences due to assuming all nitrate is fine vs. PM nitrate represented by 10 size sections (EQUI) M4 EQUI

24-Hour Nitrate (  g/m 3 ) October 18, 1995 M4 peak NO 3 83  g/m 3 EQUI peak NO 3 51  g/m 3 EQUI 10-Section dry deposits NO3 faster due to coarse mode resulting in less NO 3 in downwind Riverside area that agrees better with observations  Raises questions regarding CAMx_M4 & CMAQ assumption that all secondary PM is fine M4 M4 - EQUI

1996 Regional PM Modeling of Western US WRAP Section 309 SIP modeling used km WUSA Database > 1996 MM5 Simulation (Olerud) > 1996 Base Case Emissions (UNC/UCR) > 1996 Base Case Modeling using CMAQ and REMSAD Old (~2001) version of CMAQ Many updates to emissions as part of Section 309 modeling Use 1996 database to evaluate updates > Model updates CMAQ, REMSAD, CAMx > Emission Updates

1996 Regional PM Modeling Three models to Intercompare and Evaluate > CMAQ Version 4.3 (August 2003) > REMSAD Version 7.06 > CAMx Version 4+ Develop Processors to Facilitate Intercomparison > CMAQ-to-REMSAD Emissions, IC, and BC Processors > CMAQ-to-CAMx Emissions, IC and BC Processors Use CMAQ plume rise estimated in 3-D emission files Substantial reduction in size of emission inputs – 3-D CMAQ files to 2-D plus (i,j,k) data

REMSADCMAQCAMx_M4CAMx_4Sec ApproachReduced Form1-Atmosphere Full Science Gas-PhaseMicro-CB4CB4 [SAPRC99, RADM, CB ] CB4 [SAPRC99] CB4 [SAPRC99] InorganicMARS-AISORROPIA [Dynamic, Hybrid] OrganicAerosol YieldsSORGAMSOAP AqueousMartin (1984)RADM [VRSM] SizeFine/Coarse3-ModesFine/Coarse4-section [N-Section] Science Algorithms Selected for 1996 Modeling

Notes on Science Summary of PM Models CMAQ, CAMx_M4 & CAMx_4Sec all used RADM Aqueous-Phase Chemistry > CAMx_4Sec (N-Section) can also use CMU VRSM, but more computationally demanding All models used equilibrium (ISORROPIA) approach > Dynamic and Hybrid available in CAMx4+ but computationally demanding All models configured with CB4 Chemistry > REMSAD uses Micro-CB4 > Some changes in rates, especially Nitrate chemistry

Modal vs. Sectional Size Approaches Three Modes: Ten Sections: Although can integrate modal distribution in CMAQ to get PM 2.5, in practice usually assume first two modes make up PM 2.5

Old CMAQ/REMSAD SO4 Performance Sec 309 Old CMAQ = V0301 Early 2001 New CMAQ = V4.3 August MCIP2.2 October 2003 WRAP MF Meeting Improvements in CMAQ Performance using new version

1996 Revised Evaluation – Western USA January/July Comparisons w/ 4 Models > CMAQ V4.3 > REMSAD > CAMx_M4 > CAMx_4Sec (F) = All coarse mode PM in CM (C) = All Secondary PM is Fine IMPROVE Network (~50 Sites in WUSA & 1996) > Only PM 2.5 is speciated > CAMx-4Sec (F) & (C) comparisons can address secondary PM coarse mode issues

Revised WRAP 1996 CMAQ Modeling 95 x km Grids EPA 1996 MM5 Simulation 18 Vertical Layers MCIP2.2, MM5REMSAD and MM5CAMx Processing of MM5 CB4 Chemistry

SO4 IMPROVE – January 1996 CMAQ Red CMAQ Red REMSAD Blue CAMx_M4 Blue

SO4 IMPROVE – January 1996 CMAQ Red CMAQ Red CAMx_4Sec (F) CAMx_4Sec (C)

SO4 IMPROVE – July 1996 CMAQ Red CMAQ Red REMSAD Blue CAMx_M4 Blue

SO4 IMPROVE – July 1996 CMAQ Red CMAQ Red CAMx_4Sec (F) CAMx_4Sec (C)

SO4 Time Series Grand Canyon NP  CMAQ & REMSAD OBS = Red 1996 Annual  CMAQ & CAMx_M4 Models Exhibit Similar Behavior, e.g., Miss Observed High SO4 in Mid- June

NO3 IMPROVE – January 1996 CMAQ Red CMAQ Red REMSAD Blue CAMx_M4 Blue

NO3 IMPROVE – January 1996 CMAQ Red CMAQ Red CAMx_4Sec (F) CAMx_4Sec (C)

NO3 IMPROVE – July 1996 CMAQ Red CMAQ Red REMSAD Blue CAMx_M4 Blue

NO3 IMPROVE – July 1996 CMAQ Red CMAQ Red CAMx_4Sec (F) CAMx_4Sec (C)

NO3 Time Series Grand Canyon NP  CMAQ & REMSAD OBS = Red 1996 Annual  CMAQ & CAMx_M4 Models Exhibit Similar Behavior, e.g., Underestimate Summer Observed NO3

OC IMPROVE – 1996 Annual CMAQ Red CMAQ Red REMSAD Blue CAMx_M4 Blue

EC IMPROVE – 1996 Annual CMAQ Red CMAQ Red REMSAD Blue CAMx_M4 Blue

Soil IMPROVE – 1996 Annual CMAQ Red CMAQ Red REMSAD Blue CAMx_M4 Blue

CM IMPROVE – 1996 Annual CMAQ Red CMAQ Red REMSAD Blue CAMx_M4 Blue

Presentation of PM Model Performance Need to evaluate on a PM component basis (total PM mass or extinction doesn’t cut it) Many networks using different instrumentation and species definitions so should not mix networks Many statistical measures available that often give conflicting signals, which ones should we stress? Subregional model performance needed Interested in low as well as high values No real PM benchmarks available Results in tables of of numbers that are difficult to interpret and impossible to read

Presentation of PM Model Performance Example Summary Model Performance plots for 1996 WUSA PM Model Intercomparison Plot Bias versus Gross Error (borrowed from TCEQ) Compare with Each Other and with Performance “Benchmarks” – Example “Benchmarks” used: > 15% Bias and 35% Error (15%/35%) [borrowed from ozone modeling] > 50% Bias and 75% Error (50%/75%) Not suggesting these be the benchmarks, used for example purposes only

Presentation of PM Model Performance Mean Normalized Bias Error (MNBE) Mean Fractional Bias Error (MFBE) Normalized Mean Bias Error (NMBE) NMBE = Absolute Bias/Average Observed

SO4 IMPROVE January 1996

SO4 IMPROVE July 1996

NO3 IMPROVE January 1996

NO3 IMPROVE July 1996

Organic Carbon (OC) IMPROVE January 1996July 1996

Elemental Carbon (EC) IMPROVE January 1996July 1996

Preliminary Conclusions 1996 WUSA Modeling Although models exhibit variations in model performance, no one model is clearly performing better than the others across all species and periods Model performance in revised 1996 Base Case simulations much improved over previous runs > Improved MM5 processing (e.g., MCIP2.2) > Improved model formulations (e.g., CMAQ V4.3, CAMx3+, REMSAD V7) Model performance still less than stellar and varies by species and time period > 1996 MM5 simulation has issues CAMx_4Sec run without NaCl estimate approximately 10% secondary PM is coarse (e.g., 12% SO4 across the WUSA IMPROVE network)