East Texas Air Quality Forecasting Systems (ETAQ-F)

Evaluation of Summer 2006 Simulationsfor TexAQS-II and Transition to Assessment Study

Daewon W. ByunDaewon W. Byun

F. Ngan, X. Li, D. Lee, S. T. Kim, H.C. Kim, I.B. Oh, and F. Cheng

Institute for Multi-dimensional Air Quality Studies (IMAQS)

University of Houston (UH)

http://www.imaqs.uh.edu/http://www.imaqs.uh.edu/

AQF Modeling Domains – F1 AQF Modeling Domains – F1 (June 2005 – Current)(June 2005 – Current)

2005/2006 UH AQF systems (F-1 & F-2)2005/2006 UH AQF systems (F-1 & F-2)

1 CPU

MCIP 36 km1 st day

SMOKE 36 km1 st day

1 CPU

MCIP 36 km2nd day

SMOKE 36 km2nd day

1 CPU 1 CPU

MCIP 12 km1 st day

MCIP 12 km1 st day

SMOKE 12 km1st day

SMOKE 12 km2nd day

36 km domain1 st day

36 km domain2nd day

12 km domain1 st day

12 km domain2nd day

Download

ETA Forecast

MM5 simulations (24 CPUs)

36 km domain1 st day

36 km domain2nd day

12 km domain1 st day

12 km domain2nd day

04 km domain

1 st day04 km domain

2nd day

Post-Process

Visualization

Statistics

Web Display

CMAQ simulations (36 CPUs)

04 km domain1 st day

04 km domain2nd day

1 CPU 1 CPU

MCIP 04 km1 st day

MCIP 04 km1 st day

SMOKE 04 km1st day

SMOKE 04 km2nd day

Multi CPU

Single CPU

Data Flow

F1=2000 imputed, Houston; F-2=2005 projected, E-Texas

Batch mode operation with minimal intervention

54 hr

forecasting

simulation

Time series of regional daily max ozoneJune 2005 – May 2006

2006 June – 2006 Oct (TexAQS-II)UH (Univ. of Houston)

AQF (Air Quality Forecasting) SystemsSpatial Resolution Spatial Resolution

36 km 36 km : U.S. Continent: U.S. Continent12 km 12 km : East Texas (2005) State of TX, LA, OK, AR, and MS : East Texas (2005) State of TX, LA, OK, AR, and MS

(2006)(2006)04 km 04 km : Houston and Galveston Area (F1) / HGA & DFW (F2 & : Houston and Galveston Area (F1) / HGA & DFW (F2 &

F3)F3)MM5 – 43 layers, CMAQ-23 layersMM5 – 43 layers, CMAQ-23 layers

Operation Period and Duration (May 2005 ~ Current)Operation Period and Duration (May 2005 ~ Current)Spin-up Spin-up : 6 hrs: 6 hrs

(0(0thth day 18 CST – 0 day 18 CST – 0thth day 23 CST) day 23 CST) Forecasting Forecasting : 46 hrs : 46 hrs

(1(1stst day 00 CST – 2 day 00 CST – 2ndnd day 23 CST) day 23 CST)

Different Air Quality Forecasting SystemsDifferent Air Quality Forecasting SystemsForecast 1 (F1) : MM5 modified by UH + TEI imputed for 2000 + CMAQ Forecast 1 (F1) : MM5 modified by UH + TEI imputed for 2000 + CMAQ v4.4 v4.4 Forecast 2 (F2) : MM5 modified by UH + TEI imputed & projected for Forecast 2 (F2) : MM5 modified by UH + TEI imputed & projected for 2005 + CMAQ v4.42005 + CMAQ v4.4

Modeling Domains – F2, TexAQS-IIModeling Domains – F2, TexAQS-II

Anthropogenic Emissions: for F1 Anthropogenic Emissions: for F1 (2005 & 2006)(2005 & 2006)

TEI 2000 Base5b TEI 2000 Base5b – TexAQS 2000 episode used for State Implementation PlanTexAQS 2000 episode used for State Implementation Plan– The day of WeekThe day of Week

Aug. 25Aug. 25thth Friday, Aug. 26 Friday, Aug. 26thth Saturday, Aug. 27 Saturday, Aug. 27thth Sunday, Aug. 3 Sunday, Aug. 300thth Monday ~ Thursday Monday ~ Thursday

– CB4, SAPRC99, and RADM2CB4, SAPRC99, and RADM2– Area & Non-road: 2000 Emissions InventoryArea & Non-road: 2000 Emissions Inventory

NEI99 (Final version 3)NEI99 (Final version 3)– CONUS 36-km domainCONUS 36-km domain– Particulate matters and precursors (NH3, SO2)Particulate matters and precursors (NH3, SO2)

Processor: SMOKE version 2.1Processor: SMOKE version 2.1– Internal database: TCEQ’s (for spatial and temporal allocation) DefaInternal database: TCEQ’s (for spatial and temporal allocation) Defa

ult & TCEQ’s for chemical speciationult & TCEQ’s for chemical speciation

Anthropogenic Emissions for F2 (2006)Anthropogenic Emissions for F2 (2006) Projected Texas EGU NOx emissionsProjected Texas EGU NOx emissionsafter State Implementation Plan (SIP)after State Implementation Plan (SIP)

2007 emissions inventory were projected from 2000 EI with growth and control factors from TCEQ. For HG NOx emissions for 2005, a factor of 1.747 was applied on 2007 EI based on the 2005/2007 MECT (Mass Emission Cap and Trade) allowances.

2000 2005 2007

Anthropogenic Emissions: for F2 (2006) Anthropogenic Emissions: for F2 (2006) VOC emissions for imputation after SIPVOC emissions for imputation after SIP

UH AQF system uses additional VOC emissions at the 2007 level.

2000 2007

MOBILE6 NOx emissions for 2000 and 2007MOBILE6 NOx emissions for 2000 and 2007

The emissions amounts for each county, vehicle type, hour and species were determined for 2005 based on those for 2000 and 2007. Then, the factor was applied on 2007 MOBILE6 emissions to get 2003 emissions.

2000 2007

What Configurations were used for ETAQ-F 2006? ETAQF 2006 F1 & F2 ETAQF 2006 F1 & F2

Meteorology (F1 & F2 used UH MM5)Meteorology (F1 & F2 used UH MM5)* improved LULC* improved LULC* improved MRF for stable PBL and transition times (under development)* improved MRF for stable PBL and transition times (under development)* cloud; both the subgrid scale explicit scheme at 4-km* cloud; both the subgrid scale explicit scheme at 4-km* satellite observed sea surface temperature (in preparation for sensitivity testing)* satellite observed sea surface temperature (in preparation for sensitivity testing)

Emissions (F1 = 2000 SIP imputed TEI vs. F2 = 2005* projected)Emissions (F1 = 2000 SIP imputed TEI vs. F2 = 2005* projected)* 2005 TEI (projected from 2000 & 2007)* 2005 TEI (projected from 2000 & 2007)* 2000 HRVOC (instead of 2005 projected) * 2000 HRVOC (instead of 2005 projected) * Mobile projected for 2003* Mobile projected for 2003* satellite-observed fire events (in preparation)* satellite-observed fire events (in preparation)

CMAQ (F1 = HGB 4-km vs. F2 = Extended 4-km (HGB + DFW)CMAQ (F1 = HGB 4-km vs. F2 = Extended 4-km (HGB + DFW)* with and w/o cloud attenuation* with and w/o cloud attenuation* CB4 for forecasting and SAPRC99 for evaluation (on-going)* CB4 for forecasting and SAPRC99 for evaluation (on-going)* Better regional characterization at 12-km resolution* Better regional characterization at 12-km resolution

Monitoring site on Houston-Galveston domain F1Monitoring site on Houston-Galveston domain F1

Model: F1

1

2

3

8

9

13

15

17

19

2628

31

34

35

38

45

52

53 55

56

59

60

61

63

64

6970

7173

7576

77

78

81

82

84

85

87

94

96

114165

198

311

402

405

406

408

409410 411

416503 504

505 506

551552

553554

555

556

557

558

559560561

562

570572

601

613

614

617

618

619620622

627

628

639

640

643

645

646

647

649

650

651

674

675

678

1016

1019

1027

1032

Monitoring sites for Dallas & Houston domain F2Monitoring sites for Dallas & Houston domain F2

Model: F2

Each models comparison, July 2006

Date(day)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Da

ily M

axi

m O

3 C

on

c.(p

pb

)

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Obs.F-1F-2

Each models comparison, June 2006

Date(day)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Dai

ly M

axi

m O

3 C

onc.

(ppb

)

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Obs.F-1F-2

Each models comparison, Sep. 2006

Date(day)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Dai

ly M

axim

O3

Con

c.(p

pb)

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Obs.F-1F-2

Each models comparison, Aug. 2006

Date(day)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Dai

ly M

axim

O3

Con

c.(p

pb)

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Obs.F-1F-2

June 2006 July 2006

August 2006 September 2006

8/23 rain missed

9/14 upset event

rain missed

Aug 19 - pcpn

NO

x C

on

c.(

pp

b)

0

10

20

30

40

50

F1Obs.

Time(day)

0 30 60 90 120

NO

x C

on

c.(

pp

b)

0

10

20

30

40

50

F2Obs

June July August September

NOx daily mean time series for F1 & F2NOx daily mean time series for F1 & F2

Started using projected emissions (July 17)

2000 TEI

“projected” 2005 TEI

Aug 23rd rain missed in AQF

O3 Scatter plot for F2 (daily max)O3 Scatter plot for F2 (daily max)

F1 F2

MM5 re-simulationMM5 re-simulation

Improving wind simulation is the most important factor Improving wind simulation is the most important factor for better AQM performancefor better AQM performance

– FDDA is a proven technique to improve the meteorology reanalysisFDDA is a proven technique to improve the meteorology reanalysis – Using IMAQS MM5-based Real-Time data assimilation framework, multipUsing IMAQS MM5-based Real-Time data assimilation framework, multip

le observational datasets from le observational datasets from Meteorological Assimilation Data Meteorological Assimilation Data Ingest System (MADIS) and CAMS met data. Ingest System (MADIS) and CAMS met data.

A comprehensive surface obs. (SFC – from ASOS by NOAA/NWS)A comprehensive surface obs. (SFC – from ASOS by NOAA/NWS)Improved radiosonde observations (RAOB)Improved radiosonde observations (RAOB)Aircraft sounding (ACARS) windsAircraft sounding (ACARS) windsImproved NOAA Profiler Network (NPN) dataImproved NOAA Profiler Network (NPN) data

– Tested a variety of assimilation configurations to identify the best combiTested a variety of assimilation configurations to identify the best combination to arrive at “TMNS11”nation to arrive at “TMNS11”

Start from 36km MM5 simulation using EDAS (to provide BC for nest domain)Start from 36km MM5 simulation using EDAS (to provide BC for nest domain) nest down to 12-kmMADIS & CAMS data to improve MM5 to improvenest down to 12-kmMADIS & CAMS data to improve MM5 to improve

Data sets used for FDDAData sets used for FDDA

Multi-step FDDA

Grid

Nudging

3 hourly – 12 km

Hourly – 4km

Pink dots: CAMS

Black dots: MADIS SFC

(not shown) Upper air dataProfiler dataSounding dataAircraft dataSatellite data

Multi-Step FDDA with MM5Multi-Step FDDA with MM5

36km & 12km (3D nudging for u,v for everywhere, T & RH nudging in free atmospher36km & 12km (3D nudging for u,v for everywhere, T & RH nudging in free atmosphere)e)

4-km domain 4-km domain grid & surface nudging for wind components only grid & surface nudging for wind components only

Multi-step FDDA

12-, 4-km domain Multi-step nest-down assimilation

Grid

Nudging

3 hourly – 12 km

Hourly – 4km

SFC nudging

H

80 ppb

8/14

H

110 ppb

8/15

8/148/14 High pressure system in the Gulf, SW synoptic windHigh pressure system in the Gulf, SW synoptic wind

O3 peak (80 pbb) at NE of Harris countyO3 peak (80 pbb) at NE of Harris county

8/158/15 Similar weather pattern as 8/14Similar weather pattern as 8/14

O3 peak (110 ppb) at E of Harris & moved O3 peak (110 ppb) at E of Harris & moved northwardnorthward

8/16 Cold front near Dallas, W synoptic wind

O3 peak (140 ppb) at NE of downtown

8/17 Affected by front , N/NE wind

O3 peak (~150 ppb) at Deer Park

8/18 No strong system, light and variable wind

High background, O3 (~120 ppb) at W of Harris

8/198/19 Precipitation 9 – 11 CST, NE windPrecipitation 9 – 11 CST, NE wind

O3 peak (~75 ppb) at NW of downtownO3 peak (~75 ppb) at NW of downtown

8/208/20 No strong system, light and variable windNo strong system, light and variable wind

O3 (110 ppb) at Clinton & passed through downtownO3 (110 ppb) at Clinton & passed through downtown

8/218/21 No strong system, SE/E windNo strong system, SE/E wind

O3 peak (~90 ppb) at NW of downtownO3 peak (~90 ppb) at NW of downtown

140 ppb

8/16 front

150 ppb

front8/17

120 ppb

8/18 high O3 background

70 ppb

8/19 Rainfall at 9 – 11 CST

110 ppb

8/20

90 ppb

8/21

Overview of weather patterns and O3 levels

Does the Assimilation Improve Met Does the Assimilation Improve Met Simulations?Simulations?

AQF TMNS11

8/14

8/16

Does the Assimilation Improve Met Does the Assimilation Improve Met Simulations?Simulations?

8/17

8/18

AQF TMNS11

Does the Assimilation Improve Met Does the Assimilation Improve Met Simulations?Simulations?

CMAQ re-simulation summaryCMAQ re-simulation summary

Better Met. Better Air Quality simulation?AQFn (F2 emissions) vs. TMNS11n

CMAQ re-simulation nickname & description1) AQFn F1 MM5 fcst + F2 level AQF emission

2) TMNS11n TMNS11/MCIPn + F2 level AQF emission

AQFn TMNS11n

AQFn vs TMNS11n : High O3 day

- Met. changes in AQM - Met. changes in AQM changed O3 level & spatial distribution significantly changed O3 level & spatial distribution significantly- TMNS11 reproduced O3 conc. better than AQF- TMNS11 reproduced O3 conc. better than AQF

August 16, 2006

(1)AQFn vs TMNS11n : High O3 day August 17, 2006

AQFn vs TMNS11n : Low O3 day

- TMNS11 didn’t reproduce O3 conc. better than AQF- TMNS11 didn’t reproduce O3 conc. better than AQF

August 14, 2006

Evaluation of CMAQ Assessment Runs< TMNS11,c90,c91 >< TMNS11,c90,c91 >- Stats. : no big difference- Stats. : no big difference- high R,IOA(except 8/19)- high R,IOA(except 8/19)

Mean BiasMean Bias- low emiss. - low emiss. - bias - bias- high emiss. - high emiss. + bias + bias

- all positive (except 8/19)- all positive (except 8/19)- need further improvement- need further improvement

SummarySummary

MM5 re-simulation resultsMM5 re-simulation results To improve Met simulation : several assimilation methods/data testedTo improve Met simulation : several assimilation methods/data tested TMNS11 provides better met.TMNS11 provides better met.

- removal of some not observed T-storm development- removal of some not observed T-storm development - reduction of WD bias- reduction of WD bias - more realistic wind variations overall- more realistic wind variations overall -but still unwanted flow patterns occurred : 8/18~19-but still unwanted flow patterns occurred : 8/18~19

CMAQ re-simulation resultsCMAQ re-simulation results - Assimilation provides better O3 level & spatial distributions more often- Assimilation provides better O3 level & spatial distributions more often

- Not always improve met & air quality simulation results- Not always improve met & air quality simulation results Careful evaluation with various data necessary for each dayCareful evaluation with various data necessary for each day

to find causes of discrepancyto find causes of discrepancy

Acknowledgement: HARC, TCEQ, EPA, NASAAcknowledgement: HARC, TCEQ, EPA, NASA

http://www.imaqs.uh.edu/http://www.imaqs.uh.edu/