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 ...
the duration the tracer resides on the 600 km arc, with values of 14 hours (1998EPA_PG) and 13 hours (1998EPA_CAL). Since the 1998 EPA CALPUFF runs estimated that the tracer arrives after the sampling started (hour 3), then this is a true overstatement of the tracer residence time and not an artifact of the tracer sampling starting after, or at the same time, the observed tracer arrived at the arc. There are a couple exceptions to the initial CALPUFF simulations performed in this study that understated the observed tracer duration on the arc by approximately a factor of 2, which are discussed below. The BASEA_PG scenario estimates that the tracer is on the arc for 12 hours, the same as the observed. However, it estimates the tracer leaves three hours earlier (hour 14) than observed (hour 11). Why the BASEA_PG tracer plume time statistics are so different from the two companion turbulence dispersion CALPUFF sensitivity tests (BASEA_CAL and BASEA_AER) is unclear. The same meteorological fields were used in the three BASEA CALPUFF sensitivity tests and the only difference was in the dispersion options. This large difference in the CALPUFF predicted tracer residence time due to use of the PG versus CAL or AER dispersion options (12 hours versus 6‐7 hours) was not seen in any of the other CALPUFF sensitivity experiment configurations. Although use of the PG dispersion sometimes increases the estimated tracer residence time on the arc by one hour in some of the CALPUFF sensitivity tests (Table 3‐14). The EXP2C series of experiments have estimated tracer plume duration times (11‐13 hours) that is comparable to what was observed. EXP2C uses 36 km MM5 data and CALMET was run using a 4 km grid resolution with no meteorological observations (NOOBS = 2). When meteorological observations are added, either surface data alone (EXP2B) or surface and upper‐air measurements (EXP2A), the tracer duration statistics degrades to only 5 to 8 hours on the arc. It is interesting to note that all of the “C” series of experiments (i.e., use of no meteorological observations in CALMET) exhibit better plume residence time statistics than the experiments that used meteorological observations (with the exception of BASEA_PG discussed previously). But only experiment EXP2C (and BASEA_PG) using 36 km MM5 data and CALMET run with 4 km grid resolution was able to replicate the observed tracer residence time. Most of the initial CALPUFF sensitivity tests were unable to reproduce the observed tracer residence time on the 600 km arc, as was done in the EPA 1998 study using earlier versions of CALPUFF. Even the BASEA_CAL sensitivity test, which was designed to be mostly consistent with the 1998EPA_CAL simulation, estimated tracer plume residence time that was half of what was observed and estimated by the 1998EPA_CAL simulation. In addition to using difference versions of the CALPUFF model (Version 4.0 versus 5.8), the BASEA_CAL simulation also did not invoke the slug option as was used in 1998EPA_CAL (MSLUG = 1). The use of the slug option is designed for near‐source applications and is not typically used in LRT dispersion modeling, so in this study the initial CALPUFF sensitivity tests did not use the slug option for modeling of the 600 km arc. The effect of the slug option is investigated in additional CALPUFF sensitivity tests discussed later in this Chapter. 41
20% 10% 0% ‐10% ‐20% ‐30% ‐40% ‐50% ‐60% ‐70% 20% 10% 0% ‐10% ‐20% ‐30% ‐40% ‐50% ‐60% ‐70% 1998EPA_PG 1998EPA_CAL BASEA_AER BASEA_CAL BASEA_PG EXP1A_AER EXP1A_CAL EXP1A_PG Figure 3‐7. Percent difference in the predicted and observed duration of time tracer is residing on the GP80 600 km arc for the CALPUFF sensitivity tests using puff model formulation and no puff splitting. 42 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 MMIF12_CAL MMIF12_PG
- 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 and 72: Tables 3‐13 and Figures 3‐2 thr
- Page 73 and 74: 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
- Page 75 and 76: 30% 20% 10% 0% ‐10% ‐20% ‐30%
- Page 77: 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% ‐20%
- 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
- Page 123 and 124: 0.48 0.36 0.24 0.12 0 ‐0.12 16% 1
- Page 125 and 126: CTEX3 discussed in Section 5.4.1. A
- Page 127 and 128: CALPUFF sensitivity simulations are
20%<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
‐10%<br />
‐20%<br />
‐30%<br />
‐40%<br />
‐50%<br />
‐60%<br />
‐70%<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
‐10%<br />
‐20%<br />
‐30%<br />
‐40%<br />
‐50%<br />
‐60%<br />
‐70%<br />
1998EPA_PG<br />
1998EPA_CAL<br />
BASEA_AER<br />
BASEA_CAL<br />
BASEA_PG<br />
EXP1A_AER<br />
EXP1A_CAL<br />
EXP1A_PG<br />
Figure 3‐7. Percent difference in <strong>the</strong> predicted <strong>and</strong> observed duration <strong>of</strong> time tracer is<br />
residing on <strong>the</strong> GP80 600 km arc for <strong>the</strong> <strong>CALPUFF</strong> sensitivity tests using puff model<br />
formulation <strong>and</strong> no puff splitting.<br />
42<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 />
MMIF12_CAL<br />
MMIF12_PG
Change language