Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside CMAQ Tagged Species Source Apportionment (TSSA)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
POMI Po Valley Model Intercomparison Exercise CAMx model overview In cooperation with AMA - MI.
Advertisements

Implementation of the Particle & Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM) for the CMAQ Modeling System: Sulfur & Nitrogen Tagging 5 th Annual CMAS Conference.
UC Riverside Attribution of Haze Meeting, June 22, 2005, Seattle, WA UNC/CEPENVIRON Corp. Spatial Processing and Display of WRAP Emissions Data, and Source.
Preliminary Results CMAQ and CMAQ-AIM with SAPRC99 Gail Tonnesen, Chao-Jung Chien, Bo Wang, UC Riverside Max Zhang, Tony Wexler, UC Davis Ralph Morris,
Incorporation of the Model of Aerosol Dynamics, Reaction, Ionization and Dissolution (MADRID) into CMAQ Yang Zhang, Betty K. Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan,
Evaluation of Secondary Organic Aerosols in Atlanta
Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, CA
CENRAP Modeling Workgroup Mational RPO Modeling Meeting May 25-26, Denver CO Calvin Ku Missouri DNR May 25, 2004.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Modeling Source Apportionment Gail Tonnesen,
Jenny Stocker, Christina Hood, David Carruthers, Martin Seaton, Kate Johnson, Jimmy Fung The Development and Evaluation of an Automated System for Nesting.
Session 9, Unit 17 UAM and CAMx. UAM and CAMx UAM - Urban Airshed Model Currently available versions:  UAM-V 1.24  UAM-V 1.30  Available from Systems.
CMAQ (Community Multiscale Air Quality) pollutant Concentration change horizontal advection vertical advection horizontal dispersion vertical diffusion.
1 1 Model studies of some atmospheric aerosols and comparisons with measurements K. G e o r g i e v I P P – B A S, S o f i a, B u l g a r i a.
Beta Testing of the SCICHEM-2012 Reactive Plume Model James T. Kelly and Kirk R. Baker Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards US Environmental Protection.
1 CCOS Seasonal Modeling: The Computing Environment S.Tonse, N.J.Brown & R. Harley Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University Of California at Berkeley.
AoH Report Update Joint DEJF & AoH Meeting, Las Vegas November , 2004 Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
University of California Riverside, ENVIRON Corporation, MCNC WRAP Regional Modeling Center WRAP Regional Haze CMAQ 1996 Model Performance and for Section.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering A Process Analysis for Analyzing and.
TSS Data Preparation Update WRAP TSS Project Team Meeting Ft. Collins, CO March 28-31, 2006.
WRAP 2004 Technical Work Elements Tom Moore March 24, 2004 Air Managers’ Committee §308/§309(g) Implementation Workgroup.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering Evaluation and Intercomparison of N.
PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
WRAP Update. Projects Updated 1996 emissions QA procedures New evaluation tools Model updates CB-IV km MM5 Fugitive dust NH 3 emissions Model.
Implementation of the Particle & Precursor Tagging Methodology (PPTM) for the CMAQ Modeling System: Mercury Tagging 5 th Annual CMAS Conference Research.
Further Development and Application of the CMAQ Ozone and Particle Precursor Tagging Methodologies (OPTM & PPTM) 7 th Annual CMAS Conference Chapel Hill,
WRAP CAMx-PSAT Source Apportionment Modeling Results Implementation Workgroup Meeting August 29, 2006.
Chemical transport modeling in support of NPS-CIRA activities Mike Barna 1 Marco Rodriguez 2 Kristi Gebhart 1 Bret Schichtel 1 Bill Malm 1 Jenny Hand 2.
Presentation by: Dan Goldberg Co-authors: Tim Vinciguerra, Linda Hembeck, Sam Carpenter, Tim Canty, Ross Salawitch & Russ Dickerson 13 th Annual CMAS Conference.
AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 Source Apportionment Modeling Results and RMC Status report Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.
1 Comparison of CAMx and CMAQ PM2.5 Source Apportionment Estimates Kirk Baker and Brian Timin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
A comparison of PM 2.5 simulations over the Eastern United States using CB-IV and RADM2 chemical mechanisms Michael Ku, Kevin Civerolo, and Gopal Sistla.
Regional Haze SIP Development Overview AQCC Presentation July 2005.
Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Implementing PM Source Apportionment (PSAT) in CAMx Greg Yarwood, Ralph Morris and Gary Wilson ENVIRON International.
4. Atmospheric chemical transport models 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Box model 4.3 Three dimensional atmospheric chemical transport model.
Operational Evaluation and Comparison of CMAQ and REMSAD- An Annual Simulation Brian Timin, Carey Jang, Pat Dolwick, Norm Possiel, Tom Braverman USEPA/OAQPS.
Model & Chemistry Intercomparison CMAQ with CB4, CB4-2002, SAPRC99 Ralph Morris, Steven Lau, Bongyoung Koo ENVIRON International Corporation Gail Tonnesen,
1 Seasonal Modeling: Comparison of Phases 1 and 2 Emission inputs to CMAQ Shaheen R. Tonse Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory CCOS Technical Committee.
Evaluation of the VISTAS 2002 CMAQ/CAMx Annual Simulations T. W. Tesche & Dennis McNally -- Alpine Geophysics, LLC Ralph Morris -- ENVIRON Gail Tonnesen.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside CMAQ Model Performance Evaluation with the.
GEOS-CHEM Modeling for Boundary Conditions and Natural Background James W. Boylan Georgia Department of Natural Resources - VISTAS National RPO Modeling.
DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF MADRID: A NEW AEROSOL MODULE IN MODELS-3/CMAQ Yang Zhang*, Betty Pun, Krish Vijayaraghavan, Shiang-Yuh Wu and Christian.
Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence Matthew Woody and Saravanan Arunachalam Institute.
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver CO 7/22/04 Introduction to the the RMC Source Apportionment Modeling Effort Gail Tonnesen,
© Imperial College LondonPage 1 CMAQ tools: PROCAN Andrea Fraser PhD student Supervised byProf. H ApSimon Prof. R Derwent.
Georgia Institute of Technology SUPPORTING INTEX THROUGH INTEGRATED ANALYSIS OF SATELLITE AND SUB-ORBITAL MEASUREMENTS WITH GLOBAL AND REGIONAL 3-D MODELS:
Photochemical grid model estimates of lateral boundary contributions to ozone and particulate matter across the continental United States Kirk Baker U.S.
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver CO 7/22/04 Results from January/July CMAQ Source Apportionment Modeling Gail Tonnesen,
AoH/MF Meeting, San Diego, CA, Jan 25, 2006 WRAP 2002 Visibility Modeling: Summary of 2005 Modeling Results Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang, Mohammad Omary, Chao-Jung.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling University of California at Riverside Data Needs for Evaluation of Radical and.
V:\corporate\marketing\overview.ppt CRGAQS: CAMx 2004 PSAT Results Presentation to the Gorge Study Technical Team By ENVIRON International Corporation.
WAQS Source Apportionment Modeling Update Ralph Morris IWDW/WAQS Technical Committee January 12, 2016 Fort Collins, Colorado 1.
Impact assessment of anthropogenic emission control upon aerosol mass burden during heavy pollution episodes over North China Plain Meigen Zhang, Xiao.
Template Comparison of PM Source Apportionment and Sensitivity Analysis in CAMx Bonyoung Koo, Gary Wilson, Ralph Morris, Greg Yarwood ENVIRON Alan Dunker.
Attribution of Haze Report Update and Web Site Tutorial Implementation Work Group Meeting March 8, 2005 Joe Adlhoch Air Resource Specialists, Inc.
MRPO Technical Approach “Nearer” Term Overview For: Emissions Modeling Meteorological Modeling Photochemical Modeling & Domain Model Performance Evaluation.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside CCOS 2000 Model Intercomparison: Summary of.
Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it may not necessarily reflect official Agency policy Jonathan Pleim, Shawn Roselle,
WRAP Regional Modeling Center, Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver CO 7/22/04 December WRAP Modeling Forum Conf Call Call Information: December 20, 1pm.
Presents:/slides/greg/PSAT_ ppt Modeling Options for Proposed BART Rule Two roles for modeling in proposed BART rule > Does a potential BART-eligible.
WRAP Technical Work Overview
Phase I Attribution of Haze Overview (Geographic Attribution for the Implementation of the Regional Haze Rule) or (an experiment in weight-of evidence)
Mobile Source Contributions to Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone in 2025
EASIUR: A Reduced-Complexity Model Derived from CAMx
Changes to the Multi-Pollutant version in the CMAQ 4.7
Stephen Mueller & Jonathan Mallard Tennessee Valley Authority
Some thoughts on future air quality models from a WRF-Chem modeler
M. Samaali, M. Sassi, V. Bouchet
Results from 2018 Preliminary Reasonable Progress Modeling
Development and Evaluation of a Hybrid Eulerian-Lagrangian Modeling Approach Beata Czader, Peter Percell, Daewon Byun, Yunsoo Choi University of Houston.
CRGAQS: CAMx PSAT Results
Presentation transcript:

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside CMAQ Tagged Species Source Apportionment (TSSA) Gail Tonnesen, Bo Wang et al., Air Quality Modeling Group University of California, Riverside WRAP Attribution of Haze Meeting, Denver, CO July 22, 2004

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Motivation Need to understand which emissions sources contribute to haze and other pollutants. Use this information to assist in developing control strategies.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Modeling Approaches for Source Apportionment Chemical Mass Balance analysis Back-trajectory models Lagrangian models Sensitivity Studies Mass tracking approaches.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Sensitivity Methods (1) 1.Run a model Base Case simulation. 2.Add-in or Zero-out a particular source and run a the model again. 3.The difference in the base case and the sensitivity case predicts the effect of changing that source on concentration at all receptor sites.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Sensitivity Methods (2) Advantages of Sensitivity Methods: –directly related to development of control measures. –Conceptually simple to apply. Problems with Sensitivity Methods: –Brute force approaches (removing one species in each model run) are computationally expensive. –Sensitivity results depend on the base case scenario. –Sensitivities results can be non-linear and non-additive. –CMAQ exhibits numerical noise in PM sensitivity runs.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Sensitivity Methods (3) Decoupled Direct Method is a computationally efficient sensitivity method: –Calculates many sensitivities in one run. –Difficult to implement in PM models. –Calculates derivative – but sensitivities can be non-linear. Recommendation: Sensitivity studies are a valuable tool, but expensive to apply, and care is needed in interpretation of results.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Mass Tracking Methods Mass Tracking Algorithms –Output and analyze mass flux terms and chemical reaction rates for each grid cell. –Computationally prohibitive. OSAT –Uses tracers to track O3 formation that was sensitive to VOC or NOx.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Tagged Species Approach (1) Use “Tagged Species” or Tracers to track chemical transformations and transport of each PM species or PM precursor. Add the tracers for key species and for defined source regions & source categories. Provides 3-D fields showing source attribution of of PM species for any grid cell in model domain.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Tagged Species Approach (2) Method: Add one new set of tagged species for each emissions source category or source location being tracked. –Straight forward for non-reactive species: add 1 tracer for each source. –Example: in each grid cell the sum of all tracers for EC equals the total (bulk) EC concentration in each cell. –Each tracer is defined for all grid cells and is emitted, transported, and removed proportional to its weight of the bulk species in each grid cell.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Tagged Species Approach (3) More complicated for chemical reactive species and secondary particulates: –Must also track the chemical reactions that convert a tracer between different gas species and from gas to PM. –Model include approximately 6 forms of N species, must carry 6 additional tracers for each NOx source category to track the contributions to aerosol nitrate. –SOA formation is still more complex, not included in current algorithm. –SO4 and other PM species are easier and less computational expensive to treat.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Traced Area: WRAP Modeling Domain Source Area Mapping File: Each state is distinguished by a unique number

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Traced Source Tags TypesSource CategoryNotes ICON Initial Concentration BCON Boundary Concentration EmissionsMV_*Mobile sources of any state BG_*Biogenic sources of any state RD_*Road dust of any state NR_*Non- Road dust of any state PN_*Point sources without SO2 of any state PS_*Point sources with SO2 of any state AR_*Area sources of any state WF_*WF Fire of any state AG_*AG Fire of any state RX_*RX Fire of any state MX_*Mexico Fire ET_*Total Emission of any state *_WRAPAny type of emission of WRAP domain OthersOTHERSAny sources other than all of the above

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Transport & Loss Terms Advection – Calculate mass flux between grid cells to update tracers. Vertical Diffusion –Apply the CMAQ diffusion algorithms to tracers. –Also evaluate new algorithms to estimate actual 2-way mass transfer between layers. Update for mass flux in CLOUD & aqueous chemistry algorithm. Update tagged species for emissions and deposition terms. Check for mass conservation at each step and adjust mass if needed. Halt if large errors.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside TSSA Structure Design driver.F: read tssa configuration, ptssa_init … do n = 1, nsteps tssa_couple tssa_decouple write tssa output end do sciproc.F Xadv Yadv Xadv Zadv Tssa Adjadv Hdiff Tssa Decouple Vdiff Tssa Cldproc Chem Tssa Aero Tssa Couple Hppm Tssa adv update vppm Tssa hdiff update Tssa vdiff update smvgear Tssa chem update TSSA mass normalization

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Tagged Species for Nitrates NOX = reactive N family. = { NO, NO2, NO3, 2*N2O5, HONO, PNA} HNO3 PAN RNO3 ANO3J ANO3I

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Chemical Transformations Emissions are as NOx = NO + NO2 Use integrated reaction rates at each time step to update the tagged species: –NOX  PAN –NOX  RNO3 –NOx  HNO3 –HNO3  ANO3

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Implementation in CMAQ Previously implemented in CMAQ v (12/03) Currently implemented in CMAQ v4.4 Programming Language: Fortran 90 Compilers: pgf90 or intel fortran compiler (ifc) Parallelism: supports multi-processor usage (MPI) Currently implemented with GEAR & QSSA chemistry solvers.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Output Formats 3-d concentration field for each tagged species –Each model grid cell is included as a receptor. –Results can be viewed as 3-d animation of the tagged species, or layer 1 animations in PAVE –Bar plots for receptor showing attribution is most useful for the receptor sites. Output files for annual simulation are too large with over 12 GB per day. –Currently outputting only layer 1.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Computational Cost/Constraints Slower run time because we use GEAR or QSSA chemistry (about 4x cost of EBI solver). RAM memory is primary constraint: –For many tracers we split them between 2 model runs to avoid paging memory to disk. Run Time: about 3 hours per day using 8 Opteron CPUs with 2 GB RAM. With 32 CPUs, running CMAQ in 4 seasons, takes about 2 weeks for an annual simulation.

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Animation gifs demo:

Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Air Quality Modeling University of California at Riverside Future Work Test alternate treatments of HNO3  NO3 and H2SO4  SO4 equilibrium. Implement organic aerosols and ozone. Improve Graphics/Statistics Program to automate Tracer Result Evaluation. More Testing- comparisons with CAMx PSAT runs, and testing for mass conservation. Scalability in supporting other modeling domains –Create corresponding source area mapping files – county domains.