Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long ...
Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long ... Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long ...
exceptions to this are the EPA1998_PG simulation, the BASEA series of simulations, EXP2A_PG, EXP2B_PG and EXP2C_PG. In general, the CAL and AER CALPUFF dispersion options are performing much better for the CWIC statistics along the 100 km arc than the PG dispersion option. Table 3‐13. CALPUFF model performance statistics using the Irwin plume fitting evaluation approach for the GP80 100 km arc of receptors, the EPA 1998 CALPUFF V4.0 modeling and the CALPUFF sensitivity tests. CALPUFF Sensitivity Cmax Omax Sigma‐y Plume Centerline CWIC Test (ppt) MNB (ppt) MNB (m) MNB (degrees) Diff (ppt‐m) MNB Observed EPA 1998 1.287 1.052 9,059 361.0 29,220 PG 2.700 110% 2.600 147% 9,000 ‐1% 357.0 ‐4.0 61,000 109% Similarity CALPUFF/CALMET 1.900 48% 1.800 71% 6,900 ‐24% 360.0 ‐1.0 33,000 13% BASEA_AER 2.221 73% 2.040 94% 7,136 ‐21% 361.4 0.4 39,720 36% BASEA_CAL 2.214 72% 2.034 93% 7,165 ‐21% 361.4 0.4 39,770 36% BASEA_PG 2.126 65% 1.934 84% 8,827 ‐3% 359.8 ‐1.2 47,050 61% EXP1A_AER 2.086 62% 2.045 94% 5,977 ‐34% 357.1 ‐3.9 31,260 7% EXP1A_CAL 2.088 62% 2.046 94% 5,999 ‐34% 357.0 ‐4.0 31,390 7% EXP1A_PG 1.885 46% 1.839 75% 6,438 ‐29% 358.3 ‐2.7 30,420 4% EXP1B_AER 1.407 9% 1.303 24% 8,492 ‐6% 358.8 ‐2.2 29,940 2% EXP1B_CAL 1.414 10% 1.313 25% 8,478 ‐6% 358.8 ‐2.2 30,050 3% EXP1B_PG 1.291 0% 1.217 16% 8,956 ‐1% 359.7 ‐1.3 28,980 ‐1% EXP1C_AER 1.979 54% 1.937 84% 6,587 ‐27% 348.1 ‐12.9 32,670 12% EXP1C_CAL 1.988 54% 1.945 85% 6,590 ‐27% 348.0 ‐13.0 32,840 12% EXP1C_PG 2.016 57% 1.983 88% 6,041 ‐33% 349.4 ‐11.6 30,530 4% EXP2A_AER 2.047 59% 1.996 90% 6,209 ‐31% 357.2 ‐3.8 31,860 9% EXP2A_CAL 2.049 59% 1.999 90% 6,236 ‐31% 357.1 ‐3.9 32,020 10% EXP2A_PG 2.013 56% 2.260 115% 11,330 25% 351.2 ‐9.8 57,180 96% EXP2B_AER 1.265 ‐2% 1.145 9% 9,033 0% 359.4 ‐1.6 28,630 ‐2% EXP2B_CAL 1.269 ‐1% 1.152 10% 9,030 0% 359.4 ‐1.6 28,710 ‐2% EXP2B_PG 1.811 41% 2.034 93% 9,161 1% 357.6 ‐3.4 41,590 42% EXP2C_AER 2.138 66% 2.106 100% 6,021 ‐34% 350.8 ‐10.2 32,270 10% EXP2C_CAL 2.144 67% 2.112 101% 6,026 ‐33% 350.7 ‐10.3 32,380 11% EXP2C_PG 2.938 128% 2.897 175% 6,044 ‐33% 349.4 ‐11.6 44,510 52% EXP3A_AER 2.042 59% 1.992 89% 6,212 ‐31% 356.7 ‐4.3 31,800 9% EXP3A_CAL 2.048 59% 1.998 90% 6,238 ‐31% 356.5 ‐4.5 32,030 10% EXP3A_PG 1.827 42% 1.766 68% 6,805 ‐25% 358.0 ‐3.0 31,160 7% EXP3B_AER 1.274 ‐1% 1.228 17% 8,928 ‐1% 357.9 ‐3.1 28,520 ‐2% EXP3B_CAL 1.297 1% 1.247 19% 8,828 ‐3% 357.8 ‐3.2 28,700 ‐2% EXP3B_PG 1.011 ‐21% 1.140 8% 11,010 22% 359.7 ‐1.3 27,900 ‐5% EXP3C_AER 1.949 51% 1.911 82% 6,612 ‐27% 347.4 ‐13.6 32,300 11% EXP3C_CAL 1.965 53% 1.927 83% 6,615 ‐27% 347.3 ‐13.7 32,590 12% EXP3C_PG CALPUFF/MMIF 1.999 55% 1.971 87% 6,085 ‐33% 349.0 ‐12.0 30,500 4% MMIF12KM_AER 1.872 45% 1.836 75% 6,811 ‐25% 349.5 ‐11.5 31,970 9% MMIF12KM_CAL 1.897 47% 1.860 77% 6,805 ‐25% 349.3 ‐11.7 32,350 11% MMIF12KM_PG 1.468 14% 1.318 25% 9,574 6% 350.3 ‐10.7 35,230 21% MMIF36KM_AER 1.837 43% 1.811 72% 6,788 ‐25% 353.2 ‐7.8 31,250 7% MMIF36KM_CAL 1.860 45% 1.832 74% 6,768 ‐25% 353.1 ‐7.9 31,550 8% MMIF36KM_PG 1.608 25% 1.567 49% 7,055 ‐22% 355.1 ‐5.9 28,440 ‐3% 35
140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% ‐20% ‐40% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% ‐20% ‐40% EPA1998_PG EPA1998_CAL BASEA_AER BASEA_CAL BASEA_PG EXP1A_AER EXP1A_CAL EXP1A_PG EXP1B_AER EXP1B_CAL EXP1B_PG EXP1C_AER EXP1C_CAL EXP1C_PG EXP2A_AER EXP2A_CAL EXP2A_PG EXP2B_AER EXP2B_CAL EXP2B_PG EXP2C_AER EXP2C_CAL EXP2C_PG EXP3A_AER EXP3A_CAL EXP3A_PG EXP3B_AER EXP3B_CAL EXP3B_PG EXP3C_AER EXP3C_CAL EXP3C_PG MMIF12KM_AER MMIF12KM_CAL MMIF12KM_PG MMIF36KM_AER MMIF36KM_CAL MMIF36KM_PG Figure 3‐2. Percent difference (mean normalized bias) between the predicted and observed fitted plume centerline concentration (Cmax) for GP80 100 km receptor arc and the CALPUFF sensitivity tests. 36
- Page 21 and 22: 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
- Page 23 and 24: 2.4 2 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0 EXP4A EXP4B
- Page 25 and 26: Figure ESS‐4. RANK statistical pe
- Page 27 and 28: Evaluatioon of Six LRT T Dispersion
- Page 29 and 30: Table ES‐6. Summary of model rank
- Page 31 and 32: eproduce the northwest to southeast
- Page 33 and 34: ETEX LRT Dispersion Model Sensitivi
- Page 35 and 36: CONCLUSIONS OF LRT DISPERSION MODEL
- Page 37 and 38: The CAMx and CALGRID Eulerian photo
- Page 39 and 40: July 1980. Both experiments examine
- Page 41 and 42: 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT Chapter
- Page 43 and 44: puffs expand until they exceed the
- Page 45 and 46: that performance evaluation be base
- Page 47 and 48: The ETEX real‐time LRT modeling p
- Page 49 and 50: The ETEX study has formulated the f
- Page 51 and 52: In this study we expand the LRT mod
- Page 53 and 54: AM ∩ AP FMS = × 100% (2‐2) A
- Page 55 and 56: Factor of α (FAα): FAα represent
- Page 57 and 58: 3.0 1980 GREAT PLAINS FIELD STUDY 3
- Page 59 and 60: compact discs, which were used to o
- Page 61 and 62: ILEVZI = 1 Layer of winds to use in
- Page 63 and 64: MCHEM = 0 No chemical transformatio
- Page 65 and 66: Table 3‐6. CALPUFF/CALMET experim
- Page 67 and 68: Table 3‐11. CALPUFF/MMIF sensitiv
- Page 69 and 70: evaluation studies and evaluate whe
- Page 71: Tables 3‐13 and Figures 3‐2 thr
- Page 75 and 76: 30% 20% 10% 0% ‐10% ‐20% ‐30%
- Page 77 and 78: 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% ‐20%
- Page 79 and 80: 20% 10% 0% ‐10% ‐20% ‐30% ‐
- Page 81 and 82: The fitted Gaussian plume statistic
- Page 83 and 84: 0% ‐10% ‐20% ‐30% ‐40% ‐5
- Page 85 and 86: 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% 300
- Page 87 and 88: 60% 40% 20% 0% ‐20% ‐40% ‐60%
- Page 89 and 90: with APS, implementing the slug opt
- Page 91 and 92: the amount of time that the tracer
- Page 93 and 94: Figure 4‐1. CALPUFF/CALMET UTM mo
- Page 95 and 96: compact discs, which were used to o
- Page 97 and 98: Table 4‐4. CALPUFF parameters use
- Page 99 and 100: Table 4‐8. CALPUFF/MMIF sensitivi
- Page 101 and 102: the fitted Gaussian plume is not a
- Page 103 and 104: Figure 4‐2. Comparison of predict
- Page 105 and 106: Figure 5‐1. Location of Dayton an
- Page 107 and 108: MM5 runs, the first without FDDA (i
- Page 109 and 110: Table 5‐3. MM5 sensitivity tests
- Page 111 and 112: Table 5‐6. Definition of the CALM
- Page 113 and 114: performance at the monitor location
- Page 115 and 116: 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 35% 3
- Page 117 and 118: 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% F
- Page 119 and 120: 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% E
- Page 121 and 122: 5.4.1.4 Comparison of CALPUFF CTEX3
140%<br />
120%<br />
100%<br />
80%<br />
60%<br />
40%<br />
20%<br />
0%<br />
‐20%<br />
‐40%<br />
140%<br />
120%<br />
100%<br />
80%<br />
60%<br />
40%<br />
20%<br />
0%<br />
‐20%<br />
‐40%<br />
EPA1998_PG<br />
EPA1998_CAL<br />
BASEA_AER<br />
BASEA_CAL<br />
BASEA_PG<br />
EXP1A_AER<br />
EXP1A_CAL<br />
EXP1A_PG<br />
EXP1B_AER<br />
EXP1B_CAL<br />
EXP1B_PG<br />
EXP1C_AER<br />
EXP1C_CAL<br />
EXP1C_PG<br />
EXP2A_AER<br />
EXP2A_CAL<br />
EXP2A_PG<br />
EXP2B_AER<br />
EXP2B_CAL<br />
EXP2B_PG<br />
EXP2C_AER<br />
EXP2C_CAL<br />
EXP2C_PG<br />
EXP3A_AER<br />
EXP3A_CAL<br />
EXP3A_PG<br />
EXP3B_AER<br />
EXP3B_CAL<br />
EXP3B_PG<br />
EXP3C_AER<br />
EXP3C_CAL<br />
EXP3C_PG<br />
MMIF12KM_AER<br />
MMIF12KM_CAL<br />
MMIF12KM_PG<br />
MMIF36KM_AER<br />
MMIF36KM_CAL<br />
MMIF36KM_PG<br />
Figure 3‐2. Percent difference (mean normalized bias) between <strong>the</strong> predicted <strong>and</strong> observed<br />
fitted plume centerline concentration (Cmax) for GP80 100 km receptor arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>CALPUFF</strong><br />
sensitivity tests.<br />
36