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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4. DISCUSSION ON THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING CALMET AND CALPUFF MODELLING RESULTS................................................... 41 4.1 Model Output: Uncertainty..................................................................................... 41 4.2 Procedures for Evaluating Model Output ............................................................. 42 4.2.1 Overview ...................................................................................................... 42 4.3 How to Evaluate CALMET..................................................................................... 42 4.3.1 Graphical Evaluation.................................................................................. 43 4.3.2 Statistical Evaluation .................................................................................. 46 4.3.3 Other Meteorological Evaluation Packages.............................................. 47 4.3.3.1 Key Variable Field Extraction Module ..................................................... 47 4.3.3.2 Gridded Meteorological Extraction and Merging.................................... 47 4.3.3.3 Back Trajectory........................................................................................... 47 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 48 APPENDIX A:............................................................................................................................... 50 MODEL OPTION SWITCHES FOR CALMET AND CALPUFF .............................................. 50 Table of Contents iv
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2-1. Figure showing examples of how to choose RMAX1, R1, RMAX2 and R2 values. One value of RMAX1, RMAX2, R1 and R2 apply to all surface and upper air stations. RMAX1 and RMAX2 is typically the maximum radius of influence of the surface and upper air station, respectively. The approximate length (km) of RMAX1 and RMAX2 is shown in the figure as black solid lines. The blue circles represent approximate values (km) of R1 values representative of all surface stations. In complex terrain the R1 value is usually smaller than the RMAX value. The pink circle represents the R2 value of the upper air station for level 2 and aloft...................................................................................................................................13 Figure 3-1. Example showing how to estimate TERRAD. Usually, (ridge (km) to ridge (km) ) / 2, plus add 1 or 2 km. A typical value for TERRAD in this example would be 10km.....................19 Figure 3-2. Aerial photograph of a typical aluminum plant showing rows of potrooms. ..........................23 Figure 3-3. Shows a cross-section of two adjacent buildings with dimensions defined (Schulman and Scire, 1980). The GUI screen shot below from CALPRO shows the Line Source Input section......................................................................................................................................25 Figure 3-4. CALPRO GUI screenshot showing the CALPUFF user input control screen for entering line source data...............................................................................................................................25 Figure 3-5 GUI screenshot from CALPRO showing the CALPUFF user input control screen for the average properties for line sources.......................................................................................... 26 Figure 3-6 Figure shows the difference between point source plume rise and line source plume rise (Scire and Schulman, 1981). If you treat a line source as a set of too few point sources you can seriously under or overpredict the plume rise...................................................................27 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.............................................................................................28 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. ..................................................................................................29 Figure 3-9 CALPUFF peak, 1-hr average concentration map using 1 hour meteorological data and default calm threshold of 0.5 m/s. Computed turbulence parameters were used assuming the default minimum σv of 0.5 m/s................................................................................................33 Figure 3-10 CALPUFF peak, 1-hr average concentration map using 10-minute meteorological data and default calm threshold of 0.5 m/s. Real turbulence parameters were used with a minimum σv of 0.2 m/s, σw was left unchanged at the model’s default values. ...........................................34 Figure 3-12 CALPUFF computed σv using model defaults and one hour meteorology. (It is always preferable to use real measured values of real time turbulence wherever possible)................39 Figure 3-13. Real 10-minute measured σv. (CALPUFF can read this real time data directly). ................39 Table of Contents v
Page 1 and 2: Generic Guidance and Optimum Model
Page 3: Contents SCOPE OF WORK AND BACKGROU
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 and 34: 3.5.2 Evaluation Studies Figure 3-6
Page 35 and 36: AERMOD BLP 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 Cum
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 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Table A-4. Explanation and Recommen
Page 69:
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?