Modeling impact of peak traffic and street geometry from ... ??Modeling impact of peak traffic and street geometry from transportation in Street Canyons - Case Analysis - Singapore ... as the section of the road

Download Modeling impact of peak traffic and street geometry from ... ??Modeling impact of peak traffic and street geometry from transportation in Street Canyons - Case Analysis - Singapore ... as the section of the road

Post on 06-Feb-2018

215 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • Modeling impact of peak traffic and street geometry from transportation in Street Canyons - Case Analysis - Singapore

    PREETY MUKHERJEE*#, LIM CHENG CHOON*@, YEE WEN LOH#, KAM WUI WUI#, THET MON

    AYE#, NG WAI LING#

    *# Lecturer, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Building and Environment Divison, School of Engineering

    @ Senior Engineer, National Environment Agency, Planning & Development Department # Students, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Building and Environment Divison, School of Engineering

    SINGAPORE

    Abstract: Street Canyon Module of a regional scale dispersion model Indic Airviro was used to simulate series of peak hourly carbon monoxide (CO) across several meteorological conditions through a year using a dynamic emission database at two canyons at the central business district [CBD], Singapore.Worst case peak hourly CO with different street geometry for Pasquill stable meteorological condition at different wind speeds keeping the wind direction constant were also simulated. The average hourly total traffic flow and speed was obtained from Land Transport Authority, Singapore (LTA). The Singapore fleet average emission factors for each vehicle category [US EPA MOBILE 5 A] from an earlier study were used. On-site vehicle counts specific within the canyons were conducted using manual counters to use a representative, realistic dynamic hourly CO emission base representative at the 2 sites. Key-Words: Street Canyon, emission factors, vehicle, CO, emission database, modeling, worst case, stability class, wind speed 1 Introduction Traffic in Singapore is responsible for over 50 % of the total pollution [2, 3, 21, 43, 59]. Motor vehicle related pollution in Singapore has primarily related to diesel particulates, with CO levels mentioned as a key issue of concern [27]. CO was selected as a source fingerprint since it is inert and found to be the best tracer for the vehicular part of pollution in Singapore, with traffic being responsible for 97 % of CO emissions. Singapore with a level land area of 42 km by 23 km in the main island is a predominantly urban location. Street Canyon sections with vehicles in the city center, have limited and helical air circulation resulting in a unique distribution of pollutants across different sections within the canyon. The street geometry induces a wind flow pattern which undergoes recirculation within the canyon resulting in higher concentration of pollutants as compared with relatively open areas. The direction of the prevailing wind in relation to the street direction plays an important role in the recirculation of the wind in the canyon, affecting concentrations. Studies around the world have concentrated on empirical basis and on site [67, 42, 94, 74, 70, 31, 6, 77,

    33, 58, 57, 45, 12, 35, 62, 49, 38, 4, 22, 56, 87, 34, 17, 39, 40, 13, 79, 82, 83, 20, 78, 44, 19, 5, 50, 61, 76, 18, 36, 86, 23, 32, 60, 37, 28, 11, 24, 8, 63, 64, 73, 75, 80, 81, 85, 88, 93] measurement with correlation to arrive at a pattern of concentration distribution within a street canyon section or mathematical and numerical modeling. This study tries to find the impact of worst case traffic flow with a very stable meteorological stability class at different wind speeds, and same wind direction at two parallel street canyon sections with a different height to width ratio at ground level and across the vertical profile within the two canyons. Peak hourly CO concentration over a series of different meteorological conditions is simulated over time at both the canyons as a comparison. 2 Description of the Model Regional scale dispersion model-Indic Airviro developed by the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute is used. This model is used by the National Environment Agency, Singapore [NEA],

  • 2

    through the Telemetric Air Quality Monitoring and Management System (TAQMMS) for monitoring the ambient pollutant levels at the existing monitoring station sites. For this study, all of the 3 functional blocks of the model, namely the Emission Database (EDB) and the Dispersion module and the Indico Administration for storing online ambient air quality and meteorological parameters from the monitoring stations were used. Modeling requires detailed collection of emission factors, traffic flow variations as a function of speed and time, and a coordinate system for describing the roads which is stored and processed under the EDB database. The dispersion module performs the dispersion of the pollutants using a prescribed model with either measured/assumed meteorological condition from the Indico Administration module. Street Canyon module was used for dispersion of CO due to mobile emissions. This module based on the "Stanford Model" originated from studies conducted in San Jose, USA, where measurements indicated a vertical eddy circulation whenever the wind blew perpendicular to the street directions [70, 88, 25, 63, 64, 26]. Canyon is defined as the section of the road between buildings on two opposite sides of the road. The model parameters describing the concentrations in lee wind and upwind side are given by:

    ( ) ( )

    +++

    =0

    21225.0 LzxU

    QKCL (1)

    ( )( ) HUW

    zHQKCW

    +=

    5.0..(2)

    where, CL and CW refers to concentration on the lee wind and upwind side; K is an empirical constant, set to 10; Q is the total traffic emission in g/m s; U is the roof level wind speed, in m/s; Lo is a length scale of the individual cars, set to 2m; W is the effective width of the canyon; H the typical building height in m; x, is the horizontal distance from the street emission segment; z is the receptor height in m Model calculations as described above are valid for all wind directions, except for those within 22.5 degrees of the principal canyon axis direction, at which the concentration is computed as the average of equation 1 and 2. The wind profile at the rooftop level at the given Canyon is usually extrapolated from the Changi Airport

    meteorological station, located approximately 20 kms from the chosen canyon sections. For the worst case study we force the street canyon module to enforce assumed wind speed profiles under very stable stability class to generate CO concentration profile within the canyon, whereas for the other series of simulations through a year, the actual hourly meteorological conditions at the canyon sites are used for modeling. 3 Traffic Volume, Speed & Emission factors for the Selected Canyon Sites The canyon site in the CBD area of Singapore is chosen, in conjunction with NEA and LTA, based on the street geometry and availability of overall traffic volume and speed. Singapore fleet average emission factors based on US EPA Mobile 5 A, developed earlier [1, 53,54, 55] were used to compute the CO emission inventory. CO is chosen as a tracer pollutant, due to maximum CO emissions from petrol engine vehicles, a characteristic of typical vehicle type within chosen canyons. CO is a relatively stable pollutant for the reaction rates within street canyons [50, 53, 54, 55, 24, 23, 9, 19]. CO emissions are a function of the speed, and accounts for average speed on a given road between 20 and 105 kmph [53, 54, 55]. The site of the canyon on Cecil Street is between PIL Building and Keck Seng Tower and for Robinson Road between SIF Building and Robinson Pt [Fig. 1]. The trend of traffic flow pattern at the canyons is shown in Table.1. Cecil street shows higher traffic volume. Detailed dynamic emission inventory at the site used an hourly manual count of the vehicle composition using manual counters conducted for 6 weekdays through Dec 2003- March 2004. The detailed vehicle composition distribution is in Table.2. For worst case with stable stability class, Cecil street traffic flow was used to compute ambient CO at both the canyons.

    Fig: 1 Cecil Street & Robinson Road Canyon (Adapted: Maps Powered by Streetdirectory.com)

  • 3

    Table 1. Traffic Volume at Cecil & Robinson Road Time of Day Cecil Street Robinson Rd Time of Day Cecil Street Robinson Rd

    Ave Traffic Flow Ave Traffic Flow Ave Traffic Flow Ave Traffic Flow12am - 1am 254 375 12pm - 1pm 1695 1473 1am - 2am 153 224 1pm - 2pm 1441 12532am - 3am 118 169 2pm - 3pm 1668 13633am - 4am 84 133 3pm - 4pm 1540 12204am - 5am 52 92 4pm - 5pm 1343 11155am - 6am 69 81 5pm - 6pm 1361 13116am - 7am 161 193 6pm - 7pm 1530 15707am - 8am 773 764 7pm - 8pm 1383 17378am - 9am 1696 1325 8pm - 9pm 866 1116

    9am - 10am 1488 1175 9pm - 10pm 721 94810am - 11am 1545 1243 10pm - 11pm 601 80811am - 12pm 1682 1396 11pm - 12am 374 615

    Table 2. % Vehicle Composition [Manual counting]

    Time of Day Cars Taxi Bus Cars Taxi Bus7am - 8am 74 20 6 74 20 68am - 9am 73 22 6 74 20 99am - 10am 51 44 5 56 40 410am - 11am 57 39 4 58 37 511am - 12pm 63 35 3 66 30 412pm - 1pm 64 33 3 70 27 41pm - 2pm 64 33 4 64 33 32pm - 3pm 70 27 4 66 31 33pm - 4pm 67 30 3 68 28 44pm - 5pm 70 27 4 69 24 85pm - 6pm 71 24 5 82 12 66pm - 7pm 85 12 4 82 15 37pm - 8pm 71 26 3 72 24 48pm - 9pm 68 28 4 61 34 59pm - 10pm 69 28 3 61 36 3

    Cecil Street % Vehicle type Robinson Rd % Vehicle type

    4 Street Canyon Geometry The canyon geometry at the two sites is as shown in Table 3. The two canyons give a different height to width ratio [42, 74, 76, 35, 20, 5] but the ratio satisfies the criteria set by AIRVIRO model (ratio between 2 to 3) [71]. The two roads are parallel to each other (Fig.1). Table. 3 Street Geometry at the two canyon sites

    Parameters Cecil Street Robinson RoadRoad Width, m 13.6 17 Street Width (Road+Pavement), m

    24 29.8

    Avg. Building Height, m

    58 47.9

    Height to Width ratio 2.42 1.61

    5 Ambient CO Modeling using Street Canyon Module The computed hourly average dynamic emission inventory for CO, along with the street canyon geometry [58, 42] was used to compute CO ambient concentrations within the street canyon, at exact specific location co-ordinates for both the sites using the Indic AIRVIROs Street Canyon Module. Background CO levels in the range of hourly CO of 1.15 to 9.15 mg/m3 contributed by non-mobile and mobile sources from nearby roads [16, 10, 85, 40, 34] are not considered here. The canyon sections at CBD of downtown Singapore are parallel roads with similar traffic patterns and impact of background CO can be assumed to be same at both canyons. Ground level concentration within the canyons can be subject to turbulence effect of vehicles on road [46, 47, 6] and the eddy circulation of wind in deep street canyons. The wind direction at both the parallel canyons, is kept constant at 35 degrees, based on a series of simulations (with limited preliminary site measurements at ground levels), indicating the skewed CO concentration profile on the leewind side along with the street geometry at the locations, resulting in high ground level concentrations. Ambient CO concentration within the canyon from ground level upto the height of 10m were simulated for Pasquills meteorological stability class- very stable [84] using a range of wind speeds from worst of 0.5 m/s to 5 m/s as observed at the site. The CO concentration profile at the deeper Cecil Street canyon having a 1.5 times higher height to width ratio as compared with Robinson road, shows ground level concentration 1.139 times higher for the same traffic flow, speed, CO emission, stability class, wind speed and direction. This can be attributed to the street geometry at the deeper canyon. However at a height of 10 m above the ground level the ratio of higher concentration due to the deeper canyon effect is seen to reduce to 1.108 (Fig. 2). The ground level CO concentration is seen to reduce by 50 %, at approximately a height of 10 m above the canyon, irrespective of the street geometry [77, 67, 94, 46, 47]. The results indicate the concentration profile in canyons may not be directly proportional to the height to width ratio. The maximum hourly CO concentration at ground level within the deeper Cecil street canyon [74] at peak traffic hours is seen to reach 8397 g/m3 . This is well below the ambient air quality standard of 40 mg/m3 (National Ambient Air Quality Standard, EPA (http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html). The CO concentration at around 10 m height above ground level

  • 4

    within the canyons, is seen to reduce to half the ground level concentration. 417 peak hourly CO concentrations each for the two canyons using canyon specific CO emissions from ground level upto a height of 10 m [94, 56, 4,87, 78, 5] for peak traffic flow on weekdays have been simulated through Sept 2003 to Sept 2004 to capture different meteorological conditions, wind speeds and direction, in relation to the street geometry that occur within selected canyon section [38, 22, 58, 42, 74, 24, 18, 36, 86, 23, 32, 60, 37, 28, 11, 31, 6, 77, 35, 5 6, 4, 87, 17, 20, 78, 5]. The results (Table 4) indicate that although Cecil canyon has 1.04 times higher CO emissions, the CO concentration at ground level for this deeper canyon is 1.19 times compared with Robinson road. Table 4. Peak Hourly CO (Sept 2003-Sept 2004) across varied meteorological conditions

    GL CO ConcentrationAvg CO emission Avg CO Max CO Min CO Avg CO Max CO Min CO

    Cecil Street 5.23 4.20 9.07 1.14 1.98 4.60 0.52Robinson Road 5.03 3.50 7.86 0.83 1.74 4.28 0.40

    Emisson in milligrams per m sec; CO in milligrams per cubic meter (1 hrly). Ambient air quality standard for CO 40 mg/m3 (National Ambient Air Quality Standard, EPA )

    10 mt CO concentration

    6 Conclusion Street Canyon Module of a regional scale dispersion model Indic Airviro was used to simulate hourly CO concentrations at specific location coordinates for worst case peak traffic at two busy parallel street canyon sections in the CBD at Singapore using a hourly dynamic CO emission base. Pasquill very stable meteorological condition at different wind speeds across the vertical profile upto 10 m height above ground level within the canyons was used keeping the wind direction constant. An analysis of the CO concentration profile indicated that in the deeper canyon with a 1.5 times higher height to width ratio, the ground level concentration is 1.139 times higher for the same traffic flow, speed, CO emission, stability class, wind speed and direction. This can be attributed to the street geometry. At a height of 10 m above the ground level the ratio of higher concentration due to the deeper canyon effect is seen to reduce to 1.108. The ground level CO concentration is seen to reduce by 50 %, at approximately a height of 10 m above the canyon, irrespective of the street geometry. Hourly peak CO levels modeled over several hours through a year, to capture different meteorological conditions also indicate that in deep canyons the ground

    level concentration is not directly proportional to the ground level CO emissions. These simulations along with the hypothetical worst case conditions indicate that ground level concentrations and concentrations across the vertical profile within street canyons, may not be directly proportional to the height to width ratio. Deep canyons in most CBD areas, with high traffic volume and limited air circulation, the worst case ground level concentration and concentration within the breathing zone of public, needs to be analyzed, not just on traffic volume and speed, but also to the location specific street geometry. Fig: 2 Modelling results- CO @ Cecil Street & Robinson Road - Stable class- Wind speed 0.5m/s Further Work: This is a ongoing project and detailed modeling at canyon sites with different traffic volume, pattern, speed and street geometry with hourly specific meteorological data and detailed onsite sampling for CO ambient concentrations are currently been conducted and analyzed. The results for this current and further work will be available in future. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the National Environment Agency and the Ngee Ann Kongsi, Singapore for funding the research project. The traffic data provided by LTA Singapore is greatly appreciated. References 1. AP 42. Compilation of Air pollutant Emissions Factors, Vol.: II, 1995. Appendix H - HighWay Mobile Source Emission Factors

    0

    1000

    2000

    3000

    4000

    5000

    6000

    7000

    8000

    9000

    5023.067 (11-12pm) 5428.612 (12-13pm) 4768.930 (15-16pm) 4372.300 (17-18pm) 6559.91 (17-18pm)

    CO emission (Peak hr time)

    CO

    con

    c (m

    icro

    gram

    s pe

    r m

    eter

    cub

    e)

    GL-Cecil Rob Rd- GL 1 mt-Cecil 1 mt-Rob Rd 10 mt-Cecil 10 mt-Rob Rd

  • 5

    Tables. Mobile Sources. U S EPA, Office of the Air and Radiation, Office of the Mobile Sources. 2. Ang Beng Wah, Fwa T.,Poh Chu Kim.,1992. Car usage and Fuel Economy in Actual Traffic Conditions. Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Singapore, Vol: 32, No: 2, March 1992. 3. Ang Beng Wah, Tatt O.,1987. Energy Use and Efficiency of Singapore Land Transportation. Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Singapore, Vol: 27, No: 4, December 1987. 4. Assimakopoulos V. D., H. M. ApSimon and N. Moussiopoulos, 2003. A numerical study of atmospheric pollutant dispersion in different two-dimensional street canyon configurations. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 37, Issue: 29, pp: 4037-4049, Elsevier Science Ltd. 5. Baik Jong-Jin and Jae-Jin Kim, 2002. On the escape of pollutants from urban street canyons. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 36, Issue: 3, pp: 527-536, Elsevier Science Ltd. 6. Baker J, Helen L. Walker and Xiaoming Cai, 2004. A study of the dispersion and transport of reactive pollutants in and above street canyons a large eddy simulation. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 38, Issue: 39, pp: 6883-6892, Elsevier Science Ltd. 7. Beaton S., Bishop G., Stedman D., 1992. Emission Characteristics of Mexico City Vehicles. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, Vol: 42, No: 11, pp: 1424-1429, November 1992. 8. Bravo A.,1980. Discussions - A Study of the Relationship of Street Level Carbon Monoxide Concentration to Traffic Parameters. Atmospheric Environment, Vol: 14, pp: 153-155, Pergamon Press, Great Britain. 9. Borrego C., O. Tchepel, A.M. Costa, J.H. Amorim and A.L. Miranda, 2003. Emission and dispersion modeling of Lisbon air quality at local scale. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 37, Issue: 37, pp: 5197-5205, Elsevier Science Ltd. 10. Bogo H., D. R. Gomez, S. L. Reich, R. M. Negri and E. San Roman, 2001. Traffic pollution in a downtown site of Buenos Aires City. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 35, Issue: 10, pp: 1717-1727, Elsevier Science Ltd. 11. Buckland A. T. and D. R. Middleton, 1999. Nomograms for calculating pollution within street canyons. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 33, Issue: 7, pp: 1017-1036, Elsevier Science Ltd. 12. Carslaw D. C. and S.D. Sean D. Beevers, 2004. Investigating the potential importance of primary NO2 emission in a street canyon. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 38, Issue: 22, pp: 3585-3594, Elsevier Science Ltd. 13. Caton F., R. E. Britter and S. Dalziel, 2003. Dispersion mechanisms in a street canyon. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 37, Issue: 5, pp: 693-702, Elsevier Science Ltd 14. Cernuschi S., Giugliano M., Cemin A., Giovannini I.,1995. Modal Analysis of Vehicle Emission Factors. The Science of the Total Environment. Elsevier Science BV, pp:175-183 15. Cooper D., 1989. Persistence Factors for Mobile Source (RoadWay) Carbon Monoxide Modeling. Journal of Air and Waste Management, JAPCA, Vol: 39, No: 5, pp: 714-720, May. 16. Cooper D., 1987. Indirect Source Impact Analysis-Carbon Monoxide Modeling. Journal of Air and Waste Management, JAPCA, Vol: 37, No: 11, pp1308-1313. 17. Chan A. T., William T. W. Au and Ellen S. P. So, 2003. Strategic guidelines for street canyon geometry to achieve sustainable street air quality part II: multiple canopies and canyons. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 37, Issue: 20, pp: 2761-2772, Elsevier Science Ltd. 18. Chan A. T., Ellen S. P. So and Subash C. Samad, 2001. Strategic guidelines for street canyon geometry to achieve sustainable street

    air quality. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 35, Issue: 24, pp: 4089-4098, Elsevier Science Ltd. 19. Chan L. Y., Y. M. Liu, S. C. Lee and C. Y. Chan, 2002. Carbon monoxide levels measured in major commuting corridors covering different landuse and roadway microenvironments in Hong Kong. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 36, Issue: 2, pp: 255-264, Elsevier Science Ltd. 20. Chan T. L., G. Dong, C. W. Leung, C. S. Cheung and W. T. Hung, 2002. Validation of a two-dimensional pollutant dispersion model in an isolated street canyon. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 36, Issue: 5, pp: 861-872, Elsevier Science Ltd. 21. Chin A., 1996. Containing Air Pollution and Traffic Congestion: Transport Policy and The Environment in Singapore. Atmospheric Environment, Vol: 30, No: 5, pp: 787-801, Elsevier Science Ltd., Great Britain. 22. Chun-Ho Liu, Mary C. Barth and Dennis Y. C. Leung., 2002. Analysis of flow and sclar transport in a Modelled Street Canyon by Large-Eddy Simulation. 8 th International Conference on Harmonisation within Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes. Sofia, October 2002 23. Craig K. J., D. J. de Kock and J. A. Snyman, 2001. Minimizing the effect of automotive pollution in urban geometry using mathematical optimization. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 35, Issue: 3, pp: 579-587, Elsevier Science Ltd. 24. Croxford B. and Alan Penn, 1998. Siting considerations for urban pollution monitors. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 32, Issue: 6, pp: 1049-1057, Elsevier Science Ltd. 25. EPA (Environment Protection Agency). 1979. Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide, EPA 600/8-79-022, Environmental Criteria and assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC. 26. EPA (Environment Protection Agency). 1991. Guideline On Air Quality Models (Revised) - Appendix X to Part 266, EPA 450/2-78-027R, Environmental Criteria and assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC. 27. Faiz A., Sinha K., Walsh M., Varma A., 1990. Automotive Air Pollution: Issues and Options for Developing Countries/ Infrastructure and Urban Development Department, The World Bank, August 1990, WPS 492. 28. Johnson G. T. and L. J. Hunter, 1999. Some insights into typical urban canyon airflows. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 33, Issue: 24-25, pp: 3991-3999, Elsevier Science Ltd. 29. Johnson, W. B., F.L. Ludwig, W.F. Dabberdt and R. J. Allen. 1973. An Urban Diffusion Simulation Model For Carbon Monoxide, Journal of Air Pollution and Control Association, 23 (6), pp. 490-498. 1973. 30. Joumard R., Jost P., Hickman J., Hassel D., 1995. Hot passenger car emissions modeling as a function of instantaneous speed and acceleration. The Science of the Total Environment. Elsevier Science BV, pp: 167-174. 31. Harrison R. M., Alan M. Jones and Roger Barrowcliffe, 2004. Field study of the influence of meteorological factors and traffic volumes upon suspended particle mass at urban roadside sites of differing geometries. Atmospheric Environment, Vol: 38, Issue: 37, pp: 6361-6369, Elsevier Science Ltd. 32. Huang H., Yoshiaki Akutsu, Mitsuru Arai and Masamitsu Tamura, 2002. A two-dimensional air quality model in an urban street canyon: evaluation and sensitivity analysis. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 34, Issue: 5, pp: 689-698, Elsevier Science Ltd. 33. Kassomenos P. A., Spyros P. Karakitsios and Georgios A. Pilidis, 2004. A simple semi-empirical approach to modeling benzene concentrations in a street canyon. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 38, Issue: 35, pp: 6073-6078, Elsevier Science Ltd.

  • 6

    34. Ketzel M., Wahlin P., Berkowicz R. and Palmgren F., 2003. Particle and trace gas emission factors under urban driving conditions in Copenhagen based on street and roof-level observations. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 37, Issue: 20, pp: 2735-2749, Elsevier Science Ltd. 35. Kim J J and Jong-Jin Baik, 2004. A numerical study of the effects of ambient wind direction on flow and dispersion in urban street canyons using RNG k- turbulence model. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 38, Issue: 19, pp: 3039-3048, Elsevier Science Ltd. 36. Kim J. J. and Baik J. J., 2001. Urban street-canyon flows with bottom heating. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 35, Issue: 20, pp: 3395-3404, Elsevier Science Ltd. 37. Klein P. K. and E. J. Plate, 1999. Wind tunnel study of concentration fields in street canyon. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 33, Issue: 24-25, pp: 3973-3979, Elsevier Science Ltd. 38. Kono H, Kimiyo Kusunoki., 2004. 3-D Stream and Vortexs in a Urban Caopy Layer and transport of motor vehicle exhaust gas- wind tunnel experiment. . 9 th International Conference on Harmonisation within Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes. June 1-4, 2004 in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. 39. Kukkonen Jaakko, Leena Partanen, Ari Karppinen, Jari Walden, Raimo Kartastenpaa, Paivi Aarnio, Tarja Koskentalo and Ruwim Berkowicz, 2003. Evaluation of the OSPM model combined with an urban background model against the data measured in 1997 in Runeberg Street, Helsinki. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 37, Issue: 8, pp: 1101-1112, Elsevier Science Ltd. 40. Kukkonen Jaakko, Esko Valkonen, Jari Walden, Tarja Koskentalo, Paivi Aarnio, Ari Karppinen, Ruwim Berkowicz and Raimo Kartastenpaa, 2000. A measurement campaign in a street canyon in Helsinki and comparison of results with predictions of the OSPM model. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 35, Issue: 2, pp: 231-243, Elsevier Science Ltd. 41. Laurikko J., 1995. Ambient Temperature effect on automotive exhaust emissions: FTP and ECE test cycle responses. The Science of the Total Environment. Elsevier Science BV, pp:175-183. 42. Lee I. Y. and H. M. Park, 1994. Parameterization of the pollutant transport and dispersion in urban street canyons. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 28, Issue: 14, pp: 2343-2349, Elsevier Science Ltd. 43. Lim W., 1996. Analysis of Automotive Air Pollution. Bachelors Degree Project Report. Department of Mechanical and Environmental Engineering, National University Of Singapore. 44. Lohmeyer A., W. J. Mueller and W. Baechlin, 2002. A comparison of street canyon concentration predictions by different modelers: final results now available from the Podbi-exercise. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 36, Issue: 1, pp: 157-158, Elsevier Science Ltd. 45. Longley I D., M. W. Gallagher, J. R. Dorsey, M. Flynn and J. F. Barlow. 2004. Short-term measurements of airflow and turbulence in two street canyons in Manchester . Atmospheric Environment, Vol: 38, Issue: 1, pp: 69-79, Elsevier Science Ltd., Great Britain. 46. Longley L.D., 2004. Corrections to a description of turbulence in a trafficked street canyon in Manchester. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 38, Issue: 27, pp: 4589-4592, Elsevier Science Ltd. 47. LTA., 1998. Land Transport Authority, Annual Report 1998, Singapore., http://www.lta.gov.sg 48. Mensink C, Cosmens G., Pelkmans L., 2004. Dynamic Modeling of Transient Emissions and Concentyrations from Traffic in Street Canyons. 9 th International Conference on Harmonisation within Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes. June 1-4, 2004 in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany

    49. Moussiopoulos N, Ossanlis I, Barmpas P. 2004. A Study of heat transfer effects on air pollution dispersion in strret canyons by numerical simulations. . 9 th International Conference on Harmonisation within Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes. June 1-4, 2004 in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany 50. Mestayer P. G, Galle Vachon and Jean-Michel Rosant., 2002.The NANTES '99 Database for Model Validation of Air Quality in Streets. 8 th International Conference on Harmonisation within Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes. Sofia, October 2002 51. Mitsoulis E., Alexopoulos A., Assimacopoulos D., 1994. Model for Traffic Emissions Estimation, in Atmospheric Environment, Vol: 27 B, No: 4, pp: 435-446, 1993, Elsevier Science Ltd., Great Britain. 52. McNair L., Harley R., Russell A., 1996. Spatial Inhomogeneity in Pollutant Concentrations and their Implications for Air Quality Model Evaluation. Atmospheric Environment, Vol: 30, No: 24, pp: 4291- 4301, 1996, Elsevier Science Ltd., Great Britain. 53. Mukherjee, P. 2000. Modeling of Vehicular Emissions- A Case Study in Singapore, M.Eng. Thesis, Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 54. Mukherjee P and S. Viswanathan. 2001a. Contributions to CO concentrations from biomass burning and traffic during haze episodes in Singapore in Atmospheric Environment, Vol: 35, Issue 4 , pp: 715-725, Pergamon Press, Great Britain, UK. 55. Mukherjee P and S. Viswanathan. 2001b. Carbon Monoxide Modelling from Transportation Sources in Chemosphere, Vol: 45, Issues 6-7 , pp: 1071-1083, Elsevier Publications, Great Britain, UK. 56. Murena F and Francesco Vorraro, 2003. Vertical gradients of benzene concentration in a deep street canyon in the urban area of Naples. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 37, Issue: 35, pp: 4853-4859, Elsevier Science Ltd. 57. Nicols A. Mazzeo and Laura E. Venegas., 2004. Evaluation of turbulence from traffic using experimental data obtained in a Street Canyon. 9 th International Conference on Harmonisation within Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes. June 1-4, 2004 in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany 58. Nektarios Koutsourakis, Panagiotis Neofytou, Alexander G. Venetsanos, John G. Bartzis., 2004. Parametric Study of the dispersion aspects in a street canyon area. 9 th International Conference on Harmonisation within Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes. June 1-4, 2004 in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany 59. Onursal B., Gautam S., 1997. Vehicular Air Pollution: Experiences from Seven Latin American Urban Centers. World Bank Technical Paper No: 373, The International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, Washington D.C, U.S.A. 60. Pavageau M. and Michael Schatzmann, 1999. Wind tunnel measurements of cocnetration fluctuations in an urban street canyon. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 33, Issue: 24-25, pp: 3961-3971, Elsevier Science Ltd. 61. Pearlmutter D., A. Bitan and P. Berliner, 1999. Microclimatic analysis of compact urban canyons in and arid zone. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 33, Issue: 24-25, pp: 4143-4150, Elsevier Science Ltd. 62. Pospisil J . M Jicha , A. Niachou and M. Santamouris., 2004. 9 th International Conference on Harmonisation within Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes. June 1-4, 2004 in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. 63. Rashidi M., Massoudi M., 1980a. Discussions - Authors' Reply - A Study of the Relationship of Street Level Carbon Monoxide

  • 7

    Concentration to Traffic Parameters . Atmospheric Environment, Vol: 14, pp: 153-155, Pergamon Press, Great Britain. 64. Rashidi M., Massoudi M., 1980b. A Study of the Relationship of Street Level Carbon Monoxide Concentration to Traffic Parameters. Atmospheric Environment, Vol: 14, pp: 27-32, Pergamon Press, Great Britain. 65. Riveros H., Tejada J., Ortiz L., Sanchez A., Riveros H., 1995. HydroCarbons and CarbonMonoxide in the Atmosphere of Mexico City. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, Vol: 45, pp: 973-980, December. 66. Registry of Vehicles (ROV). 1994. Annual Report, Singapore. 67. Rotach M. W., 1995. Profiles of turbulence statistics in and above an urban street canyon. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 29, Issue: 13, pp: 1473-1486, Elsevier Science Ltd. 68. Seinfeld J., Flagan R., 1988. Fundamentals of Air Pollution Engineering. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 69. Sittig M., 1975. Environmental Sources and Emissions Handbook. Noyes data Corporation, New Jersey, USA. 70. Stein A., Toselli B., 1996. Street Level Air Pollution in Cordoba City, Argentina, Vol: 30, No: 20, pp: 3491- 3495. Elsevier Science Ltd., Great Britain. 71. SMHI . Airviro. An Integrated System for Air Quality Management, Airviro Specifications , v 2.20, Part I: Functions in Airviro; Part II: Appendices 72. SMHI . AIRVIRO: User Documentation, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute 73. Salles J., Janischewski J., Jaecker A., Martin B., 1996. Mobile Source Emission Inventory Model: Application to Paris Area. Atmospheric Environment, Vol: 30, No: 12, pp: 1965-1975, 1966, Elsevier Science Ltd., Great Britain. 74. Sini J. F., Sandrine Anquetin and Patrice G. Mestayer, 1996. Pollutant dispersion and thermal effects in urban street canyons. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 30, Issue: 15, pp: 2659-2677, Elsevier Science Ltd. 75. Sturm P., Almbauer R., Sudy C., Pucher K., 1997. Application of Computational Methods for the Determination of Traffic Emissions. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, Vol: 47, pp: 1204- 1210, November. 76. Theurer W., 1999. Typical building arrangements for urban air pollution modeling. Walton A., A. Y. S. Cheng and W. C. Yeung, 2002. Large eddy simulation of pollution dispersion in an urban street canyon part I: comparison with field data. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 33, Issue: 24-25, pp: 4057-4066, Elsevier Science Ltd. 77. Tsai M.Y. and K.S. Chen, 2004. Measurement and three-dimensional modeling of air pollutant dispersion in an Urban Street Canyon. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 38, Issue: 35, pp: 5911-5924, Elsevier Science Ltd. 78. Vardoulakis S., N. Gonzalez-Flesca and B. E. A. Fisher, 2002. Assessment of traffic-related air pollution in two street canyons in Paris: implications for exposure studies. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 36, Issue: 6, pp: 1025-1039, Elsevier Science Ltd. 79. Vardoulakis Sotiris, Benard E. A. Fisher, Koulis Pericleous and Norbert Gonzalez-Flesca, 2003. Modelling air quality in street canyons: a review. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 37, Issue: 2, pp: 155-182, Elsevier Science Ltd. 80. Valerio F., Pala M., Lazzarotto A., Balducci D., 1997. Preliminary Evaluation, Using Passive Tubes of CarbonMonoxide Concentrations in Outdoor and Indoor Air at Street Level Shops in Genoa, Italy. Atmospheric Environment, Vol: 31, No: 17, pp: 2871-2876, Elsievier Science Ltd., Great Britain.

    81. Veal A., Appleby R., 1997. Comparison of ADMS Urban and Indic Airviro Regional Scale Dispersion Models, Task 1 of DOE Sponsored Local Air Quality Study, 1996/1997. West Midlands Joint Working Group, The University Of Birmingham. http://www.bham.ac.uk/geography/met/task1.html 82. Walton A., A. Y. S. Cheng and W. C. Yeung, 2002a. Large eddy simulation of pollution dispersion in an urban street canyon part I: comparison with field data. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 36, Issue: 22, pp: 3601-3613, Elsevier Science Ltd. 83. Walton A., A. Y. S. Cheng and W. C. Yeung, 2002b. Large eddy simulation of pollution dispersion in an urban street canyon part II: idealized canyon simulation. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 36, Issue: 22, pp: 3615-3627, Elsevier Science Ltd. 84. Wark, K. C. F. Warner. Air Pollution: Its Origin and Control. pp. 417-464. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. 1981 85. Weinstock B., Chang T., Norbeck J., 1980. Ambient Temperature Effect on Urban CO Air Quality. Atmospheric Environment, Vol: 14, pp: 603-608, Pergamon Press, Great Britain. 86. Xia J. Y. and Dennis Y. C. Leung, 2001. Pollutant dispersion in urban street canopies. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 35, Issue: 11, pp: 2033-2043, Elsevier Science Ltd. 87. Xie Shaodong, Zhang Y. H., Qi L. and Tang X. Y., 2003. Spatial distribution of traffic-related pollutant concentrations in street canyons. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 37, Issue: 23, pp: 3213-3224, Elsevier Science Ltd. 88. Yamartino R., Wiegand G., 1986. Development and Evaluation of Simple Models for the flow, turbulence and Pollutant concentration fields within an Urban Street Canyon. Atmospheric Environment, Vol: 20, No: 11, pp: 2137-2156, Pergamon Press, Great Britain. 89. YOS., 1995. YearBook of Statistics. Department of Statistics, Singapore. 90. YOS., 1996, 1997. YearBook of Statistics. Department of Statistics, Singapore. 91. YOS., 1998. YearBook of Statistics. Department of Statistics, Singapore. 92. YOS, 2004. YearBook of Statistics. Department of Statistics, Singapore. 93. Zelenka P., Glen W., Graham R., 1996. Relating Meteorological Variables and Trends in Motor Vehicle Emissions to Monthly Urban Carbon Monoxide Concentrations. Atmospheric Environment, Vol: 30, No: 24, pp: 4225-4232, Elsevier Science Ltd., Great Britain. 94. Zoumakis N. M., 1995. A note on average vertical profiles of vehicular pollutant concentrations in urban street canyons. Atmosphere Environment, Vol: 29, Issue: 24, pp: 3719-3725, Elsevier Science Ltd.

Recommended

View more >