AIRPACT-5 Fire Emissions Processing Methodology

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Status and Changes to the US National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Thompson G. Pace, PE U.S. EPA Research Triangle Park, NC.

Advertisements

Fire Modeling Protocol MeetingBoise, IDAugust 31 – September 1, 2010 Applying Fire Emission Inventories in Chemical Transport Models Zac Adelman

WRAP 2002 Fire Emissions Inventory Inter-RPO Fire and Smoke Technical and Policy Coordination Meeting February 9-10, 2005 – Round Rock, TX Dave Randall.

Fire Modeling issues: fire effects on regional air quality under a changing climate Douglas G. Fox

Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 2008 CAMx Modeling Model Performance Evaluation Summary University of North Carolina.

4-km AIRPACT vs 12-km AIRPACT Both with dynamic boundary conditions from MOZART-4 Figures created on 5/29/2011 (corrected corrupted JPROC input file)

Climate, Fire and Air Quality Climate Impacts Group June 1, 2006.

The AIRPACT-3 Photochemical Air Quality Forecast System: Evaluation and Enhancements Jack Chen, Farren Thorpe, Jeremy Avis, Matt Porter, Joseph Vaughan,

BlueSky Implementation in CANSAC Julide Kahyaoglu-Koracin Desert Research Institute - CEFA CANSAC Workshop Riverside, CA May 2006 Julide Kahyaoglu-Koracin.

CMAQ Simulations using Fire Inventory of NCAR (FINN) Emissions Cesunica Ivey, David Lavoué, Aika Davis, Yongtao Hu, Armistead Russell Georgia Institute.

The AIRPACT-3 Photochemical Air Quality Forecast System: Evaluation and Enhancements Jack Chen, Farren Thorpe, Jeremy Avis, Matt Porter, Joseph Vaughan,

CMAQ (Community Multiscale Air Quality) pollutant Concentration change horizontal advection vertical advection horizontal dispersion vertical diffusion.

Photo Seattle Times, 9/2012 Use of Advanced Dispersion Modeling Examples for the Northwest Susan O’Neill, Research Scientist USDA Forest Service, AirFire.

Emission processing methodology for the new GEM-MACH model ABSTRACT SMOKE has recently been adapted to provide emissions for the new Meteorological Service.

PHASE II PROJECT Day 1 – 3:15p PHASE II PROJECT -- Ag Burning – Integration of QC responses -- NIF Format -- Plume Characteristics Update -- Next Steps.

University of California Riverside, ENVIRON Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Haze CMAQ 1996 Model Performance and for Section.

Modeling Studies of Air Quality in the Four Corners Region National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Cooperative Institute for Research in.

Sensitivity of top-down correction of 2004 black carbon emissions inventory in the United States to rural-sites versus urban-sites observational networks.

Available Analytical Approaches for Estimating Fire Impacts on Ozone Formation Stephen Reid Sean Raffuse Hilary Hafner Sonoma Technology, Inc. Petaluma,

WRAP Update. Projects Updated 1996 emissions QA procedures New evaluation tools Model updates CB-IV km MM5 Fugitive dust NH 3 emissions Model.

Three-State Air Quality Study (3SAQS) Three-State Data Warehouse (3SDW) 3SAQS 2011 Modeling Update University of North Carolina (UNC-IE) ENVIRON International.

WRAP/FEJF Inter RPO Report WRAP - Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting San Diego, CA 22 February a – Presentation (c)

OThree Chemistry MM5/CAMx Model Diagnostic and Sensitivity Analysis Results: Recent Diagnostics and PA Central California Ozone Study: Bi-Weekly Presentation.

Ozone MPE, TAF Meeting, July 30, 2008 Review of Ozone Performance in WRAP Modeling and Relevance to Future Regional Ozone Planning Gail Tonnesen, Zion.

Impacts of Biomass Burning Emissions on Air Quality and Public Health in the United States Daniel Tong $, Rohit Mathur +, George Pouliot +, Kenneth Schere.

AIRPACT-3 status and near- term objectives Joe Vaughan Brian Lamb Jeremy Avise Jack Chen Matt Porter Li Wang.

AIRPACT and ClearSky Activity Report Joe Vaughan, Farren Herron-Thorpe, Serena Chung and Brian Lamb NW-AIRQUEST Annual Meeting June 2, 2011 Pullman, WA.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling University of California at Riverside Fire Plume Rise WRAP (FEJF) Method vs. SMOKE.

Wildland Fire Impacts on Surface Ozone Concentrations Literature Review of the Science State-of-Art Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. Rocky Mountain Center USDA FS Rocky.

Northwest-AIRQUEST & AIRPACT-3 Regional Modeling Studies Joseph Vaughan, Farren Thorpe, Ying Xie, Serena Chung, Brian Lamb and George Mount Laboratory.

Development of Wildland Fire Emission Inventories with the BlueSky Smoke Modeling Framework Sean Raffuse, Erin Gilliland, Dana Sullivan, Neil Wheeler,

November 2, 2005San Diego, California1 Calculation Tool for Estimating Projected Emissions - Methods Roll Out – (Day 2 – ) Phase III/IV Project.

Applications of Models-3 in Coastal Areas of Canada M. Lepage, J.W. Boulton, X. Qiu and M. Gauthier RWDI AIR Inc. C. di Cenzo Environment Canada, P&YR.

Analysis of Ozone Modeling for May – July 2006 in PNW using AIRPACT3 (CMAQ) and CAMx. Robert Kotchenruther, Ph.D. EPA Region 10 Nov CMAQ O 3 Prediction.

Evaluation of Models-3 CMAQ I. Results from the 2003 Release II. Plans for the 2004 Release Model Evaluation Team Members Prakash Bhave, Robin Dennis,

1 MANE-VU Modeling Plans Inter-RPO Modeling Meeting May 25, 2004 Shan He, Emily Savelli, Jung-Hun Woo, John Graham and Gary Kleiman, NESCAUM.

Diagnostic Study on Fine Particulate Matter Predictions of CMAQ in the Southeastern U.S. Ping Liu and Yang Zhang North Carolina State University, Raleigh,

1/13/20161 FETS: State of the System Providers, Features, Lessons Learned August 31, 2009 FETS Project Meeting Boise, ID.

Denver 2004 TGP1 PM2.5 Emissions Inventory Workshop Denver, CO March 2004 Thompson G. Pace USEPA Emissions Estimation for Wildland Fires.

Wildfire Emissions Updated Methodology Neva Sotolongo Emission Inventory Branch.

Evaluation of CAMx: Issues Related to Sectional Models Ralph Morris, Bonyoung Koo, Steve Lau and Greg Yarwood ENVIRON International Corporation Novato,

MRPO Technical Approach “Nearer” Term Overview For: Emissions Modeling Meteorological Modeling Photochemical Modeling & Domain Model Performance Evaluation.

Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it may not necessarily reflect official Agency policy Jonathan Pleim, Shawn Roselle,

NW-AIRQUEST projects on Agricultural and Wildfire Smoke in the Inland Northwest: ClearSky and AIRPACT-3 presented by: Joe Vaughan WSU-LAR contributors:

MANE-VU 2002 Fire Emissions Inventory Megan Schuster Inter-RPO Fire and Smoke Technical and Policy Coordination Meeting Austin, TX February 2005.

Ship emission effect on Houston Ship Channel CH2O concentration ——study with high resolution model Ye Cheng.

Potential use of TEMPO AOD & NO2 retrievals to support wild fire plume & O3 & PM2.5 forecast in National Air Quality Forecasting Capability (NAQFC) Pius.

New Developments in Wildfire Emission and Dispersion Forecasting with FireWork – The Operational Canadian AQ Forecast System with Near-Real-Time Biomass-Burning.

Local to regional scale modeled wildland fire impacts on O3 and PM

Use of Satellite Data for Georgia’s Air Quality Planning Activities Tao Zeng and James Boylan Georgia EPD – Air Protection Branch TEMPO Applications.

Assessment of Air Quality Impacts from the 2013 Rim Fire

EPA Tools and Data Update

SEMAP 2017 Ozone Projections and Sensitivities / Contributions Prepared by: Talat Odman - Georgia Tech Yongtao Hu - Georgia Tech Jim Boylan - Georgia.

Assessment of impact of fire emissions during the Second Texas Air Quality Study in summer 2006 with satellite fire observations Hyun Cheol Kim 1,2,3,

Implications of burned area approaches in emission inventories for modeling wildland fire pollution in the contiguous U.S Regional smoke layer? August.

Forecasting the Impacts of Wildland Fires

2017 Projections and Interstate Transport of Ozone in Southeastern US Talat Odman & Yongtao Hu - Georgia Tech Jim Boylan - Georgia EPD 16th Annual.

Recent Improvements to FireWork: Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Operational Air Quality Forecast System with Near-real-time Wildfire Emissions.

Development of a Crop Residue Burning

Modeling the impacts of green infrastructure land use changes on air quality and meteorology—case study and sensitivity analysis in Kansas City Yuqiang.

Fernando Garcia-Menendez

Phase 1 – 2002 Fire Emissions Inventory

Overview of WRAP 2014 Platform develop and Shake-Out project update

The Value of Nudging in the Meteorology Model for Retrospective CMAQ Simulations Tanya L. Otte NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, RTP, NC (In partnership with.

RMC Activity Update Emissions Forum July 1, 2003.

Results from 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress Modeling

Fire Emissions Joint Forum February 9, 2005

Current Research on 3-D Air Quality Modeling: wildfire!

Smoke Management in Alaska

Presentation transcript:

AIRPACT-5 Fire Emissions Processing Methodology Farren Herron-Thorpe WF Smoke and AQ Forecasting Workshop Nov. 28, 2017 1

Overview: Summer 2017 AIRPACT-5 Fire Methodology Recent/Upcoming Changes 2

AIRPACT-5 Fire Emissions Summer 2017 Methodology SMARTFIRE-2 is queried at 10 pm Fire locations and sizes are obtained NOAA HMS fire-detects Infrared fire perimeters from GEOMAC Emissions spin-up (24-hrs) and “persistence” is used This means that AIRPACT is modeling fire locations that are from 2 days prior to the forecast date. FCCS fuel type is obtained using BlueSky 3.5.1 Fire emissions and heat flux are obtained using lookup tables that were derived from a sensitivity analysis Allows fire emissions to be processed in less than 5 minutes, even when there are 1000s of fire locations Fuel-type specific Emissions scale linearly Heat flux scales non-linearly 3

AIRPACT-5 Fire Emissions Summer 2017 Methodology

AIRPACT-5 Fire Emissions Summer 2017 Methodology VOCs are multiplied by 3 Addresses issue that FEPS VOC EF is possibly low Implemented to allow more SOA production May be leading to ozone over-estimates 1-inch of duff added to select fuels (unknown, sagebrush, grasslands) Canadian Fire emissions obtained from BlueSky Canada SMOKE processor does speciation and plume rise Divide heat flux by 3 to deal with SMOKE bug Boundary Conditions derived from MOZART (NCAR) underestimated PM2.5 (switched SAPRC to CB05) bug fixed in late August 2017 5

AIRPACT-5 Fire Emissions Recent Changes (Oct. 2017) New scheme addresses SMARTFIRE fire-type problems All HMS locations not within a GeoMac perimeter are set to “Rx (Broadcast)” or “WF” by month “WF season” is June-Aug for WA/ID/OR/MT Implemented new fire-type icon scheme (w/ season var.) Wildfires are red Prescribed fires are blue Possible Agricultural Burns are green (unknown fuel) Possible Pile Burns are green/red (county list file) Rx pile burns are often detected by HMS but get treated as broadcast burns in BlueSky. Emissions are sometimes overestimated due to large size and fuel loading assumptions Emissions are now recalculated for pile burns 6

AIRPACT-5 Fire Emissions Recent Changes (Oct. 2017)

AIRPACT-5 Fire Emissions Upcoming Changes (Dec. 2017) Modified Plume Rise Approach Based on Wei Zhang’s (IDEQ) approach Addresses two problems in the default BlueSky/AIRPACT approach Smoldering fraction is too low: Change implements new smoldering fraction by plume class based on the literature (WRAP/ DEASCO3) SMOKE calculates smoldering fraction as a function of fire area. New “virtual area” provided to SMOKE Plume rise is too high for large fires: Change assumes multiple fronts for big fires and reduces the heat flux which is used for plume rise SMOKE calculates plume rise as a function of heat New “virtual heat” provided to SMOKE 8

Most Updated AIRPACT Modeling Updated profiles for PM/VOC HFLUX corrected for Plume Rise(IDEQ) Improved anthro SOA In-line photolysis calculation SAPRC07 mechanism Highlights in this modeling setup: Anthro emissions from NEI-2014 WRF has full 37 layers CMAQ, version 5.2 - Five new SOA species from anthropogenic VOCs were added to AERO6 in v5.1+ that were not present in v5.0.2 - In-line photolysis rate calculation to support feedback between meteorology and aerosol Modified EFs for PM/VOC Fire-SOA project: Tsengel Nergui, Yunha Lee, Brian Lamb (Washington State University), Serena Chung (US. EPA), Robert Yokelson (University of Montana) and Kelley Barsanti (University of California Riverside)

Wildfire locations in PNW, August 2013 C:/Users/Ts/My_R_Workplace/Fire_SOA_eval/Rscripts/BBOP2013_20171107.R (Search string: FINAL PLOT 2 FIRE LOCATION XY plot using ggmap() with google imagery background map)

August 2013 simulation scenarios HEAT Flux/3 (a bug in SMOKEv3.5.1) Adopt a new approach for HEAT Flux (IDEQ) VOC PM2.5 Emissions Profile Base Yes No VOC x 3.0 Default Sensitivity 1 VOC x 1.54 Updated Sensitivity 2 PM2.5 x 2.23 Sensitivity 3 VOC x1.54 Sensitivity 4 PM2.5 x 2.23

Mean Fractional Biases for O3 BASE Case SENS3 Case C:/Users/Ts/My_R_Workplace/ModelTempSeparation/ScaleScript_part2/Scale_part2_model-obs_FireSOA-2013_20171020.R (search string: FINAL3 X-Y map PLOT for MFBs or MFEs at sites) Sensitivity Runs Obs. Mean (ppbv) Mod. Mean Mean Bias Mean Error RMSE Correl. MFB, % MFE, % BASE 29 35 6 10 12 0.66 22% 41% SENS3 34 5 9 20% 40%

Mean Fractional Biases for PM2.5 BASE Case SENS3 Case C:/Users/Ts/My_R_Workplace/ModelTempSeparation/ScaleScript_part2/Scale_part2_model-obs_FireSOA-2013_20171020.R (search string: FINAL3 X-Y map PLOT for MFBs or MFEs at sites) Sensitivity Runs Obs. Mean (ug/m3) Mod. Mean Mean Bias Mean Error RMSE Correl. MFB, % MFE, % BASE 8 10 2 14 0.33 -12% 68% SENS3 18 29 0.32 9% 74%

MFB for PM2.5 at AQS sites, August 2013 BASE Case SENS3 Case C:/Users/Ts/My_R_Workplace/ModelTempSeparation/ScaleScript_part2/Scale_part2_model-obs_FireSOA-2013_20171020.R (search string: FINAL Bugle PLOT: Fractional bias and Fractional Errors)