comparison of air dispersion models including adms, aermod...

31
Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD and CALPUFF by Dr David Carruthers ADMS User Group Meeting Vilnius 19 January 2010

Upload: lamliem

Post on 18-Apr-2018

238 views

Category:

Documents


10 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Comparison of Air Dispersion Modelsincluding ADMS, AERMOD and

CALPUFF

by

Dr David Carruthers

ADMS User Group MeetingVilnius 19 January 2010

Page 2: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Well Known Dispersion Models

Short range dispersion model s (upto 50km)ADMS (ADMS4 Industrial, Roads, Urban, Airports)

AERMOD, ISC, OML, AUSTAL – Industrial releases

CALINE – Road sources

OSPM – Street canyons

AirViro – Urban air quality

Medium range dispersion models

CALPUFF - Regional haze

Page 3: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Modelling Feature ADMS AERMOD CALPUFF

APPLICATIONS

Applications Up to 50km from sources; local and urban scale.

Up to 50km from sources.

Local and Regional Pollution Impacts.

SOURCE TYPES

Source types Point, line (including road, rail), area, volume, grid, jet.

Point, line, volume and area sources.

Point, line, volume, area

METEOROLOGY

Meteorology ADMS Pre-processor

AERMETPre-processor

CALMETPre-processor

DISPERSION

Boundary layer structure

h, LMO scaling h, LMO scaling h, LMO scaling

Plume rise Advanced integral model Briggs empirical expressions

Briggs empirical expressions

Concentration distribution

Advanced Gaussian plume and puff model

Advanced Gaussian plume model

Non-steady Gaussian puff model

Comparison of ADMS, AERMOD and CALPUFF Model Features

Page 4: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Modelling Feature ADMS AERMOD CALPUFFCOMPLEX EFFECTSBuildings Based on flow model with

near and main building wakes.

Uses PRIME buildings model.

Based on ISC building model.

Complex terrain Based on calculation of flow field and turbulence filed by FLOWSTAR model.

Interpolation between neutral flow approximate solution and stable flow impaction solution.

Effects of complex flow input via meteorological fields.

Deposition (wet and dry)

YES YES YES

Chemistry GRS (Generic Reaction Scheme) 8 reaction scheme for NOxchemistry, parameterised sulphate chemistry.

Ozone limiting model, assumes maximum conversion of NO to NO2.

NOx and SO2 chemistry for particle generation.

Comparison of ADMS, AERMOD and CALPUFF Model Features

Page 5: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Modelling Feature ADMS AERMOD CALPUFFOTHER OPTIONSStreet canyon model YES NO NO

Emissions system EMIT system NO NO

Short term fluctuations for odours, explosions etc

YES NO YES

Visibility Model Condensed plume visibility

NO Visibility Impairment (haze/smog)

Radioactive decay model

YES; includes γ-dose NO NO

Puff Model YES NO Puff release default

Coastline YES NO YES

Input of vertical profiles of met data

YES YES Uses meteorological fields.

VALIDATIONExtensive – industrial point sources, area sources, road sources, urban areas, airports.

Extensive – industrial point sources, area sources.

Validation of meteorological f ields, concentrations and visibility impacts.

Comparison of ADMS, ARMOD and CALPUFF Model Features

Page 6: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Flat Terrain Validation IMajor study – 24 Field and Wind Tunnel Experiments

Summary Scores for ISC3, ADMS and AERMOD (Different model input parameters)

ISC3 ADMS AERMODBest 5 19 6Middle 2 5 11Worst 17 0 7

ISC3 ADMS AERMODBest 4 8 10Middle 10 15 11Worst 10 1 3

Table 1 from Hanna et al, 6th Workshop on Harmonisation, France Oct 1999Table 2 from Hanna et al, AWMA Meeting, US, June 2000

Table 1

Table 2

Page 7: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Flat terrain II Kincaid power plant Site – flat farmland with some lakes (z0 = 10

cm) Met – 171 hours, neutral to convective Release – 187-m stack, SF6

Results – ns/m3 (normalised by emission rate, quality 3 data)

Data Mean σ Bias NMSE Corr Fac 2

Observations 54.3 40.3 0.0 0.0 1.00 1.00ADMS 4 48.5 31.5 5.9 0.6 0.45 0.68AERMOD ’03 21.8 21.8 32.6 2.1 0.40 0.29

Page 8: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Scatter plots (ns/m3)

Flat terrain III – Kincaid power plant

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350observed

mod

elle

d

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Observed

AER

MO

D3

ADMS 4 AERMOD

Page 9: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Flat terrain IV– Kincaid power plant

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350observed

mod

elle

d

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350Observed

AER

MO

D

Quantile-quantile plots (ns/m3)ADMS 4 AERMOD

Page 10: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Flat Terrain V - CALPUFF and ISC: Kincaid

Q-Q plot for CALPUFF and ISCST3 (quality 3 data)

Page 11: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Prairie Grass: scatter plot of concentrationsADMS 4.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

observed

mod

elle

d

Prairie Grass: scatter plot of concentrationsAERMOD 02222

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

observed

mod

elle

d

Prairie Grass: scatter plot of concentrationsISCST2 93109

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

observed

mod

elle

d

Flat Terrain VI - Prairie Grass

Page 12: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Flat Terrain VII - Prairie Grass

Prairie Grass: q-q plot of concentrationsADMS 4.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

observed

mod

elle

d

Prairie Grass: q-q of concentrationsAERMOD 02222

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

observed

mod

elle

d

Prairie Grass: q-q of concentrationsISCST2 93109

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

observed

mod

elle

d

Page 13: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Flat Terrain VIII Power Plant Comparison: H = 200 m; Exit velocity = 22 m/s

ADMS ADMS Met/AERMOD Dispersion

Mean

Conc.

100th percentile

Page 14: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Flat Terrain IX Comparing ADMS and ADMS/AERMOD (converter 1)

Long term runs: Maximum normalised concentration (µg/m3/(g/s))

Page 15: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Two plume approach

Building Effects I

Page 16: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Building Effects II: ADMS, AERMOD and ISC PRIME model used in AERMOD (and ISC) is

similar in approach to the ADMS buildings model.

Differences between ADMS buildings module and PRIME

ADMS PRIME Box model for source in cavity Modified Gaussian for source in cavity Main wake velocity field: wake dimension, velocity and turbulence fields from wall-wake theory

Main wake velocity field: wake dimension from experiment, velocity and turbulence fields from free-wake theory

Main wake has 6 zone dispersion model

Main wake as 2 zone dispersion model

Model applied at all downstream distances

Virtual source model applied far downstream

Page 17: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Building Effects IIIRobins & Castro Experiment

Maximum ground-level concentration as a function of source heightθ=0° and Ws/Ue=3.1

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0Zs/l

K

Experimental ADMS 4.0 ADMS 4.1 ISC-Prime

Page 18: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Building Effects IVRobins & Castro Statistics

Page 19: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Building Effects V Snyder Experiment

Scatter plot of normalised concentrationsADMS 4.1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300observed

mod

elle

d

ADMS y=x y=2x y=x/2

Scatter plot of normalised concentrationsISC-Prime

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

observed

mod

elle

d

ISC-Prime y=x y=2x y=x/2

Page 20: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Fractional speedup ratio

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 10

Distance from HT (m)

delta

S

AERMOD and ISC use idealised approaches CALPUFF uses 3D time dependent flow field

Complex Terrain I

ADMS Complex Flow Model based on FLOWSTARExample Askervein: Change in speed over hill

Page 21: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 20000

250

500

750

-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 20000

250

500

750

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Ratio of complex terrain to flat terrain maximum concentrations as function of stack height and location

US EPA Wind Tunnel Data

Lawson, Snyder and Thompson (1989)

ADMS

AERMOD

Complex Terrain II: ADMS and AERMOD Comparison in Neutral flow

Page 22: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Complex Terain III ADMS and AERMOD Comparison

369000 375000 381000437000

443000

449000

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

369000 375000 381000437000

443000

449000

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

MaximumConcentration (ug/m3)

Long Term AverageConcentration (ug/m3)

ADMS (Max=178) ADMS (Max=4.0)

AERMOD (Max=1162) AERMOD (Max=10.3)369000 375000 381000

437000

443000

449000

369000 375000 381000437000

443000

449000

Stack and surrounding terrain, Ribblesdale Valley, North-West England.

Stack height = 100mTerrain = up to 300m

Page 23: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Complex Terrain IV, CALPUFF: Wyoming study

Meteorology– 4 upper air stations– 22 surface stations– 44 precipitation stations– MM5 fields

Terrain– 4 km resolution

Receptors– in Class 1 Wilderness area

Page 24: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Complex Terrain V: CALPUFF, Wyoming case

Page 25: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Road Traffic Emissions IUS CALTRANS Experiment

Layout of roads and receptors

Page 26: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Road Traffic Emissions IIADMS-Roads and CALINE-4

Comparison of trendlines calculated using ADMS Roads and CALINE4 concentrations

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Monitored SF6 concentration (ppb)

Cal

cula

ted

SF6 c

once

ntra

tion

(ppb

)

ADMS RoadsCALINE4y=xy=0.5xy=2x

Figure 1 Comparison of trendlines calculated from ADMS-Roads and CALINE4 concentrations

Page 27: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,
Page 28: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Summary Dispersion models in use in Europe include ADMS,

AERMOD, CALPUFF, OML and AUSTAL.

Key features of the dispersion models ADMS, AERMOD and CALPUFF been have presented and contrasted.

Where data are available the models are compared with each other and with field and wind tunnel data.

CALPUFF was developed for assessing medium range impacts of major pollution sources. It requires meteorological fields as input.

Page 29: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

ADMS-Roads

Model Capabilities ADMS-Roads (Part of ADMS-EIA) is designed to model dispersion scenarios from single or multiple roads.

Calculates emissions from traffic flows or accepts calculated emissions

Allows many road sources Fully integrated street canyon model based on Danish

OSPM model Includes impact of traffic induced turbulence on dispersion Integrated with Geographical Information Systems (GIS)

and an Emissions Inventory Database

Page 30: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

M4 calculated and monitored PM10 concentration

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

20-Jan-97 11-Mar-97 30-Apr-97 19-Jun-97 8-Aug-97

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

3)

ADMS RoadsMonitored

ADMS-Roads

Page 31: Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS, AERMOD ...atliekos.gamta.lt/files/seminaras_ADMS_comparison_D_Carruthers... · Comparison of Air Dispersion Models including ADMS,

Validation Results ADMS-Urban

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Monitored Data (ppb)

Pred

icte

d D

ata

(ppb

)

NOx Annual AverageNOx Standard DeviationNO2 Annual AverageNO2 PercentileNO2 Standard DeviationO3 annual AverageO3 Standard Deviation

200

400

600

800

200 400 600 800

NOx Percentile

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Monitored Data (ug/m3)

Pred

icte

d D

ata

(ug/

m3)

PM10 Annual AveragePM10 90.4 PercentilePM10 98.1 PercentilePM10 Standard Deviation