Evaluation of CMAQ Sensitivities for VISTAS Air Quality Modeling

Evaluation of CMAQ Sensitivities for VISTAS Air Quality Modeling

James W. BoylanGeorgia Department of Natural Resources

(VISTA Technical Lead for Air Quality Modeling)

National RPO MeetingSt. Louis, MO

November 5, 2003

Outline

• VISTAS Phase I Modeling – Objectives– Modeling Team– Literature Review– Initial Model Configuration– CMAQ Sensitivity Results– Schedule for Deliverables

• VISTAS Phase II Modeling Plans

Phase I Modeling Objectives

• Collect appropriate monitoring data– Model Performance Evaluation

• Emissions Modeling for 3 episodes – SMOKE• Air Quality Modeling for 3 episodes – CMAQ

– Recommend Initial Model Configuration– Perform Model Configuration Sensitivity Runs– Recommend Optimal Model Configuration

• Modeling Protocol Document– Quality Assurance Plan

• Technical Web Site– http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/vistas/

Emission and AQ Modeling Team• Environ/UCR/AG Air Quality Modeling Team

– All CMAQ model performance plots presented here created by AQ Modeling Team

• Environ International Corporation– Mr. Ralph Morris (Project Manager and Co-Principal

Investigator)– Dr. Greg Yarwood, Dr. Gerard Mansell, Mr. Chris

Emery, Dr. Bongyoung Koo

• University of California – Riverside– Dr. Gail Tonnesen (Co-Principal Investigator)– Dr. Tony Wexler, Dr. Bill Carter, Dr. Zion Wang,

Dr. Chao-Jung Chien

• Alpine Geophysics, LLC– Dr. Tom Tesche (Co-Principal Investigator)– Ms. Cyndi Loomis, Mr. Dennis McNally, Mr. Jim

Wilkinson, Mr. Greg Stella

Model Domain and Episodes

• Modeling Domain– 36 km grid resolution (149 x 113)– 12 km grid resolution (169 x 178)– 19 vertical layers (collapsed from 34 MM5 layers)

• Modeling Episodes– January 1 ‑ 20, 2002 (20 episode days + ramp‑up

days)– July 13 ‑ 27, 2001 (15 episode days + ramp‑up

days)– July 13 ‑ 21, 1999 (9 episode days + ramp‑up

days)

Literature Review Reports• “Review and Assessment of Available Ambient

Air Quality Data to Support Modeling and Modeling Performance Evaluation for the Three VISTAS Phase I Episodes” - Revised 07/22/03– AQS, PAMS, IMPROVE, SEARCH, STN, NADP, CASTNET, PM

Supersites, TVA Measurement Network, ASACA, FAQS, NARSTO SOS99 Aircraft Data

– http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/vistas/reports/VISTAS_Task_3_072203.pdf

• “Review of Model Sensitivity Simulations and Recommendation of Initial CMAQ Model Configuration and Sensitivity Tests” - Revised 07/25/03– Evaluation of other PM modeling studies

• SAMI, WRAP, BRAVO, MRPO, Southeast PM Modeling Study, EPA, CRC, CCOS/SCOS

– Recommendations for additional air quality sensitivity simulations– Model performance metrics and goals– http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/vistas/reports/VISTAS_Task4a_Report.pdf

Initial Model Configuration• CMAQ Version 4.3• Horizontal Advection and Vertical Advection

– Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM)

• Gas-Phase Chemistry and Solver– CB-IV with MEBI/Hertel

• Aerosol Chemistry– AE3/ISORROPIA/SORGAM

• Aqueous-Phase Chemistry– RADM

• Dry Deposition– Pleim-Xiu

• MM5 Configuration and Processing– Pleim-Xiu/ACM Soil/PBL models with MCIP2.2 Pass Through

• SMOKE Emissions– NEI 1999 v2 with CMU NH3 Adjustments

– http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/vistas/emis.shtml

CMAQ Sensitivity Tests1) Fugitive Dust Transport Factor2) Number of Vertical Layers3) Vertical Diffusivity - Minimum Kz 4) Ammonia Emissions5) Mexican/Canadian Emissions 6) Boundary Conditions7) Boundary Layer Heights – Minimum PBLs8) Alternative MM5 Configuration9) Aerosol Mass Conservation10)SAPRC-99 Chemistry11)CB-2002 Chemistry12)CMAQ–AIM Aerosol Module13) CAMx Air Quality Model

CMAQ Sensitivity Tests (cont.)

• Some sensitivities performed with August 2003 pre-release version of CMAQ and some done with official September 2003 release– Benchmark comparison showed minimal differences

• Evaluated sensitivity case against a basecase reference– Sensitivity run may become new basecase for

comparison of future sensitivity runs

• All sensitivities performed on 36 km grid – Subset of sensitivities performed on 12 km grid

• Most sensitivities will be performed on all three episodes– Some on just the winter episode and a summer

episode

Criteria for Selecting Final Model Configuration

• Model performance evaluation– Speciated Fine PM concentrations

• Weekly average (CASTNET)• Daily average (IMPROVE, STN, SEARCH)• Hourly (SEARCH, PM Supersites)

– Gaseous concentrations (AQS, PAMS)– Wet Deposition mass fluxes and

concentrations (NADP)

• Scientific acceptability• Computational resources

Air Quality Modeling

• Running CMAQ (v4.3) using Initial Model Configuration presented earlier

• First January 2002 simulation started on 08/22/03– Running on 12 Linux ~1.7 GHz CPUs in parallel.

• 36 km grid (~1 hour elapsed time/model day)• 12 km grid (~12 hours elapsed time/model day)

– Have performed 11 CMAQ sensitivity experiments on the 36 km grid

• CMAQ version comparison (pre-release vs. official release)

• First July 1999 simulation started on 09/18/03– Have performed initial CMAQ simulation (36 km) – Currently running CMAQ sensitivity experiments on the

36 km grid

• First July 2001 simulation started in early November.

Summary of Model Performance• January 2002 Episode

– Sulfate, Elemental Carbon, Organic Carbon, and Coarse Mass in the “Ball Park”

– Large Nitrate Overestimation• Ammonia Emissions (Magnitude and Temporal

Distribution)?• Dry Deposition? Chemistry? Nighttime Mixing?

Others?

– Large Soil (PMFINE) Overestimation• Emissions (Magnitude and Speciation)? • Mixing (PBL Heights)? Others?

• July 1999 Episode– Sulfate, Elemental Carbon, Organic Carbon, and

Coarse Mass in the “Ball Park”– Nitrate Underestimation– Soil (PMFINE) Overestimation

Fugitive Dust Transport FactorFDTF=0.25 vs. FDTF=1.00IMPROVE Soils IMPROVE CM

Coarse Mass at GRSM

IMPROVE Observations, FDTF=1.0, FDTF=0.25

Soils at GRSM

IMPROVE Observations, FDTF=1.0, FDTF=0.25

Fugitive Dust Transport FactorJuly 1999 Episode (FDTF=0.05)

IMPROVE Soils IMPROVE CM

Soils Evaluation• Composition of IMPROVE and CMAQ “Soils”

– IMPROVE Soils = 2.2[Al] + 2.49[Si] + 1.63[Ca] + 2.42[Fe] + 1.94[Ti]

– CMAQ: As + Br + Ca + Chl + Cl + Cr + Cu + K + Mg + Mn + Mo + N2 + Na + Ni + P + Rb + Se + Si + Sr + V + Zn + Zr + IMPROVE Soils + misclassified EC, OC, SO4, and NO3

• Misclassification of emissions from large source categories into PMFINE– Fires, Fuel Combustion, Industrial Processes, Fugitive

Dust– e.g., Forest Wildfires: total (SCC=2810001000) in

Alabama• PMFINE = 71.80 tons/day• PEC=0, POA=0, PNO3=0, and PSO4=0

– Fugitive Dust = 27% of PMFINE in VISTAS states

• CMAQ “soils” may contain as much as 80% mass that should not be included in the comparison to IMPROVE “soils”

• Mixing (PBL heights)?

CMAQ Vertical Layers 34 Layers vs. 19 Layers

IMPROVE SO4 IMPROVE NO3

CMAQ Vertical Layers 34 Layers vs. 19 Layers

IMPROVE OC IMPROVE EC

Vertical Diffusivity – Kz_min

• Decreasing Kz_min decreases mixing– Important at nighttime

• CMAQ = 1.0 m2/s • REMSAD = 0.1 m2/s • CAMx = 0.1 m2/s or variable (0.1 – 1.0 m2/s

depending on land cover)

• Kz_min = 1.0 m2/s vs. Kz_min = 0.1 m2/s

Vertical Diffusivity Kz_min=1.0 vs. Kz_min=0.1





IMPROVE CM IMPROVE Soils

Ammonia Emissions NH3=50% vs. NH3=100%


Ammonia Emissions NH3=50%(40/90) vs.

NH3=50%IMPROVE SO4 IMPROVE NO3

Boundary Conditions

• Global Chemical Transport Model– GEOS-CHEM run by Daniel Jacob at

Harvard• 2001 seasonal (3 month) average

concentrations for speciated PM and some gaseous species

• SO2, O3, HNO3, H2O2, NH3, ASO4J, ASO4I• GEOS-CHEM sulfate was assumed to be 90%

aitken and 10% accumulation mode (similar to CMAQ defaults)

• May Examine “Ultra-Clean” BCs

Boundary Conditions GEOS-CHEM vs. EPA/TVA*IMPROVE SO4 IMPROVE NO3

Boundary Layer Heights

• Large PBL “holes” produced by MM5 – PBL < 50 m in mid afternoon

• Set Minimum PBLs– Diurnal Kz profiles adjusted to simulate

mixing in areas with PBL “holes”

Nighttime min. Daytime min.Winter 109 m (layer 3) 294 m (layer 6)Summer 109 m (layer 3) 1071 m (layer 12)

PBL Height @ 3pm EST (01/05/02)

Boundary Layer Heights PBL_MM5 vs. PBL_min






Alternative MM5 Meteorology

• Dry Deposition Scheme– P-X vs. Wesley

• Alternative MM5– P-X vs. NOAH-ETA-MY

• Emissions were NOT reprocessed

Dry Deposition Scheme P-X vs. Wesley


MM5 Meteorology P-X vs. NOAH-ETA-MY






Additional Sensitivities• Aerosol Mass Conservation

– Sulfate, Oxidized Nitrogen, Reduced Nitrogen– Georgia Tech “patch”

• SAPRC-99 Chemistry• Reprocess Emissions

• CB4-2002 Chemistry• Reprocess Emissions

• CMAQ - AIM• Sectional Approach• Reprocess PM emissions

• CAMx Sensitivity• Using same IC/BCs, emissions, and a model

configuration as close as possible to the optimal CMAQ configuration

Current Status of Sensitivity Schedule

(January 2002 Episode) Name

Run

Stat

Grid (km

)

Num

Vert

Lays

Kz Min (m2/

s)

Fug Tran

s Frac

t

NH3 Emi

s Red

NH3 Profil

e

Mex Can Emi

s

Min

PBL

BCs Globa

l Mode

l

Wesl

Dry Dep

MM5

ETA MY

Aero

Mass

Cons

TF=1.00

C 36 19 0.1 1.00 - - - - - - - -

34 Lays

C 36 34 0.1 1.00 - - - - - - - -

TF=0.25

C 36 19 0.1 0.25 - - - - - - - -

Kz=1.0

C 36 19 1.0 0.25 - - - - - - - -

NH3=50

C 36 19 0.1 0.25 50% - - - - - - -

12 km C 12 19 0.1 0.25 50% - - - - - - -

NH3 Prof

C 36 19 0.1 0.25 50% Yes - - - - - -

MX/CA C 36 19 0.1 0.25 50% - Yes - - - - -

PBL C 36 19 0.1 0.25 50% - Yes Yes - - - -

GEOS C 36 19 0.1 0.25 50% - Yes - Yes - - -

Wesley

C 36 19 0.1 0.25 50% - Yes - Yes Yes - -

ETA-MY C 36 19 0.1 0.25 50% - Yes - Yes Yes Yes -

AERO P 36 19 0.1 0.25 50% - Yes - Yes - - Yes

Sens 12

P 36 19 0.1 0.25 50% No Yes Y/N Yes Y/N Y/N Y/N

* Additional testing to follow: 12 km grid, SAPRC-99, CB-2002, CMAQ-AIM, CAMx

Fractional Bias (%) - IMPROVE(January 2002 Episode)

Name PM 2.5

SO4 NO3 NH4 OC EC Soils CM bext

TF=1.00

93.4 5.0 118.4 69.5 29.4 29.9 184.4 129.2

47.4

34 Lays

91.4 1.8 118.3 67.3 27.4 28.4 183.9 127.9

46.2

TF=0.25

79.0 3.7 115.5 66.3 11.1 20.2 174.5 1.5 17.5

Kz=1.0

68.8 -1.4 111.9 63.7 -17.0 -6.7 168.3 -4.7 0.1

NH3=50

62.6 -5.3 75.1 32.6 11.4 20.6 174.6 1.5 17.7

12 km - - - - - - - - -NH3 Prof

61.6 -4.7 67.9 29.3 11.4 20.6 174.6 -13.7 17.7

MX/CA 58.3 -6.4 64.6 26.2 8.3 18.2 174.1 -7.3 29.6

PBL 44.1 -11.6 59.5 21.0 -19.3 -8.9 167.8 -7.3 21.3

GEOS 49.9 -27.8 53.2 9.8 6.1 18.1 174.1 -7.3 18.1

Wesley

67.8 -6.0 95.7 47.7 6.8 17.8 174.0 -7.3 43.3

ETA-MY 55.8 45.6 41.0 25.9 -9.8 3.5 168.5 -14.2 32.1

AERO - - - - - - - - -

Sens 12

- - - - - - - - -

Fractional Error (%) - IMPROVE(January 2002 Episode)

Name PM 2.5

SO4 NO3 NH4 OC EC Soils CM bext

TF=1.00

99 37 139 85 51 57 184 140 53

34 Lays

98 36 140 84 51 57 184 139 52

TF=0.25

86 37 137 83 46 54 175 60 29

Kz=1.0

78 37 136 81 41 44 168 58 21

NH3=50

71 39 112 61 46 54 175 60 29

12 km - - - - - - - - -NH3 Prof

70 39 113 59 46 54 175 60 29

MX/CA 67 38 110 58 45 53 174 60 41

PBL 56 39 109 55 42 43 168 59 36

GEOS 60 47 102 54 44 53 174 60 36

Wesley

76 43 122 70 44 53 174 60 52

ETA-MY 66 59 84 61 43 53 169 61 44

AERO - - - - - - - - -

Sens 12

- - - - - - - - -

Aug 2003:Emissions InventoryBase 2002

Dec 2003:RevisedEm InvBase 2002

Dec 2003:Modeling Protocol

Mar 2004:DraftEm Inv 2018

July 2004:Revised State Em InvBase 2002

Sept 2004:Annual Base YearModel Runs

Dec 2004:Annual Run 2018

Apr 2004:DDM in CMAQ

Oct 2004:SensitivityRuns 20183 episodes

Nov 2003:Met, Em, AQmodel testing3 episodes

Sept 2004:Revised Em Inv2018

Oct-Dec 2004:Control Strategy Inventories

Jan 2005:Sensitivity Runs 2018 episodes

Jan-Jun 2005:Control Strategy Runs 2018

Mar 2004:Selectsensitivityepisodes

July-Dec 2005:ObservationsConclusionsRecommendations

After Jun 2005Model Runs: e.g. Power Plant Turnover

Before Jun 2005Other Inventory: e.g. Power Plant Turnover

VISTAS Emissions and Air Quality Modeling Deliverables

State Regulatory Activities

Jan-Mar 2004Define BART sources

Optional Optional

June 2004Identify BART controls

Draft 08/18/03

Phase II Modeling Plans• Annual (12 month) simulations to support

regional haze SIP development– Will be modeling entire year of 2002 plus specific episodes in 2003

• Emissions and Air Quality Modeling– AQ Modeling with Actual Baseyear Emissions (delivery Sept. 2004)

• Model Performance Evaluation

– AQ Modeling with “Typical” Baseyear Emissions (delivery Sept. 2004)

• Same assumptions for Seasonal Distributions as Projected Future Year Emissions (Point Sources, Fires, etc.) RRF

– AQ Modeling with Future Year (2018) Emissions (delivery Dec. 2004)

– AQ Modeling with Future Year (2018) Control Strategies (delivery June 2005)

• Final Report (delivery date December 2005)

Aug 2003:Emissions InventoryBase 2002

Dec 2003:RevisedEm InvBase 2002

Dec 2003:Modeling Protocol

Mar 2004:DraftEm Inv 2018

July 2004:Revised State Em InvBase 2002

Sept 2004:Annual Base YearModel Runs

Dec 2004:Annual Run 2018

Apr 2004:DDM in CMAQ

Oct 2004:SensitivityRuns 20183 episodes

Nov 2003:Met, Em, AQmodel testing3 episodes

Sept 2004:Revised Em Inv2018

Oct-Dec 2004:Control Strategy Inventories

Jan 2005:Sensitivity Runs 2018 episodes

Jan-Jun 2005:Control Strategy Runs 2018

Mar 2004:Selectsensitivityepisodes

July-Dec 2005:ObservationsConclusionsRecommendations

After Jun 2005Model Runs: e.g. Power Plant Turnover

Before Jun 2005Other Inventory: e.g. Power Plant Turnover

VISTAS Emissions and Air Quality Modeling Deliverables

State Regulatory Activities

Jan-Mar 2004Define BART sources

Optional Optional

June 2004Identify BART controls

Draft 08/18/03

Documents

Evaluation of CMAQ Sensitivities for VISTAS Air Quality Modeling