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 ...
25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 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 Figure 3‐11. Difference in predicted and observed location of plume centerline (degrees) for the GP10 600 km receptor arc and the CALPUFF sensitivity tests. 49 EXP3C_PG MMIF12KM_CAL MMIF12KM_PG
60% 40% 20% 0% ‐20% ‐40% ‐60% 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 EXP2B_AER EXP2B_CAL EXP2B_PG EXP2C_AER EXP2C_CAL EXP2C_PG EXP3A_AER EXP3A_CAL ‐60% Figure 3‐12. Percent difference (mean normalized bias) between the predicted and observed cross wind integrated concentration (CWIC) for the GP10 600 km receptor arc and the CALPUFF sensitivity tests. 50 EXP3A_PG EXP3B_AER EXP3B_CAL EXP3B_PG EXP3C_AER EXP3C_CAL EXP3C_PG MMIF12KM_CAL EXP2A_PG MMIF12KM_PG
- 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 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: 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% 300
- 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
- Page 129 and 130: 14. Across all the spatial statisti
- Page 131 and 132: sensitivity tests. The “B” seri
- Page 133 and 134: ‐0.1 ‐0.2 0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
- Page 135 and 136: 6.0 1994 EUROPEAN TRACER EXPERIMENT
25.00<br />
20.00<br />
15.00<br />
10.00<br />
5.00<br />
0.00<br />
25.00<br />
20.00<br />
15.00<br />
10.00<br />
5.00<br />
0.00<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 />
Figure 3‐11. Difference in predicted <strong>and</strong> observed location <strong>of</strong> plume centerline (degrees) for<br />
<strong>the</strong> GP10 600 km receptor arc <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>CALPUFF</strong> sensitivity tests.<br />
49<br />
EXP3C_PG<br />
MMIF12KM_CAL<br />
MMIF12KM_PG
Change language