Generic Guidance and Optimum Model Settings for the CALPUFF ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CALPUFF/AERMOD Results (Chi*u/Ql) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 2x Line 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 BLP Results (Chi*u/Ql) BLP (X-axis) plotted against AERMOD (Y-axis) BLP (X-axis) plotted against CALPUFF(Y-axis) 28 1:1 Line 1/2 x Line Figure 3-7 Comparison of AERMOD and CALPUFF predictions of line source impacts from the Arkadelphia Arkansas SF6 tracer study compared to BLP predictions. This study shows the impacts of the line sources alone.
AERMOD BLP 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 Cumulative Frequency (%) 99.8 99.9 99.99 10 99.999 29 CALPUFF Observations Figure 3-8. Predictions of 1-hour average SO2 concentrations at the downwind Alcoa Tennessee monitor for 1977 versus Observations and models, CALPUFF, BLP and AERMOD. The BLP results based on Version 1.1 of the model as well as the current version of BLP on the U.S. EPA web site (with modifications to the meteorological file to allow it to run) are shown. CALPUFF closely matches BLP results while AERMOD significantly overpredicts the observed concentration measurements. Table 3-1. Annual Average SO2 Concentrations (µg/m 3 ) at Alcoa, TN for 1976 and 1977. Observed and predicted concentrations using the BLP, CALPUFF and AERMOD models. 1976 1977 Observed 8 13 CALPUFF 15.8 18.5 BLP 17.1 19.6 AERMOD 116.2 114.2 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Concentrations (�g/m 3 )
Page 1 and 2: Generic Guidance and Optimum Model
Page 3 and 4: Contents SCOPE OF WORK AND BACKGROU
Page 5 and 6: LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2-1. Fi
Page 7 and 8: SCOPE OF WORK AND BACKGROUND A.1 In
Page 9 and 10: 1. INTRODUCTION The CALPUFF modelin
Page 11 and 12: 2.3 Methodologies for Running CALME
Page 13 and 14: hourly profiles of wind speed, wind
Page 15 and 16: Table 2-2. Model Option Switches fo
Page 17 and 18: 2.3.4 Single Station Meteorology It
Page 19 and 20: Note that in no-observations (No-Ob
Page 21 and 22: Table 2-3. Tabulated List of Variou
Page 23 and 24: 3 RECOMMENDED MODEL OPTION SETTINGS
Page 25 and 26: Ridge 1 distance (km) Ridge 2 Figur
Page 27 and 28: Boundary Layer (TIBL) over the land
Page 29 and 30: � algorithms were designed to tre
Page 31 and 32: Figure 3-3. Shows a cross-section o
Page 33: 3.5.2 Evaluation Studies Figure 3-6
Page 37 and 38: In CALPUFF, by default, a calm peri
Page 39 and 40: UTM Y Coordinate (km) - WGS84 6474.
Page 41 and 42: It is important to note that no eva
Page 43 and 44: 6474.5 6474 6473.5 6473 6472.5 6472
Page 45 and 46: sigma v (CALPUFF calculated) Figure
Page 47 and 48: 4. DISCUSSION ON THE APPROPRIATE PR
Page 49 and 50: 4.3.1 Graphical Evaluation Graphica
Page 51 and 52: (uncorrelated). A line of best fit,
Page 53 and 54: 4.3.3 Other Meteorological Evaluati
Page 55 and 56: Schulman, L.L. and J.S. Scire, 1980
Page 57 and 58: Table A-1. An Explanation of the 7
Page 59 and 60: Table A-1 An Explanation of the 7 C
Page 61 and 62: Table A-2 Explanation and Recommend
Page 67 and 68: Table A-4. Explanation and Recommen
Page 69: Table A-4 Explanation and Recommend

Generic Guidance and Optimum Model Settings for the CALPUFF ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?