Probabilistic & Source Characterization Techniques in AERMOD Compliance
-
Upload
sergio-a-guerra -
Category
Engineering
-
view
322 -
download
1
Transcript of Probabilistic & Source Characterization Techniques in AERMOD Compliance
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Probabilistic & Source Characterization Techniques in AERMOD ComplianceEUEC 2016 – San Diego, CAFebruary 4, 2016June 24, 2015Sergio A. Guerra, Ph.D. – CPP Inc.Ron Petersen, Ph.D., CCM – CPP Inc.
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Outline• Building Downwash Limitations in BPIP/PRIME• AERMOD’s Temporal Mismatch Limitation• Advanced Modeling Techniques to Overcome these Limitations
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Limitations of Building Downwash in BPIP/PRIME
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
BPIPBuilding Geometry
Standard AERMOD Modeling Process
Meteorological Data
Terrain Data
AERMET
AERMAP
Operating ParametersOperating Parameters AERMOD Compliance
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Building Dimension Inputs & BPIP• BPIP uses building footprints and tier heights • Combines building/structures• All structures become one single solid rectangle for each wind
direction and each stack• BPIP dimensions may not characterize the source accurately and may
result in unreasonably high predictions
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
PRIME AERMOD’s Building Downwash Algorithm
• Used EPA wind tunnel data base and past literature
• Developed analytical equations for cavity height, reattachment, streamline angle, wind speed and turbulence
• Developed for specific building dimensions
• When buildings outside of these dimensions, theory falls apart
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Schulman, 2012‐ Building Width Issue
Hb=20mL = 45 mW = 220 mD = 2.5 mVe = 20 m/s
Error likely due to- Wake height calculation & large R- Start of enhanced turbulent at large R
W/H>4
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Schuman, 2012‐ Building Length Issue
Likely due to enhanced
turbulence up to wake boundary:
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
BPIP Diagnostic Toolhttp://bit.do/cppwind‐BPIPDiagnostic
Likely Overprediction Factor for each Flow VectorSource 1
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
ComplianceCompliance
CPP’s EBDCPP’s EBD
BPIP iagnosticBPIP DiagnosticToolBuilding Geometry
Meteorological Data
Terrain Data
AERMET
AERMAP
Operating ParametersOperating Parameters AERMODOth
er In
puts
Bui
ldin
g In
puts
BPIP Diagnostic Tool
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
• Equivalent Building Dimensions (EBDs) are the dimensions (height, width, length and location) that are input into AERMOD in place of BPIP dimensions to more accurately predict building wake effects
• Guidance originally developed when ISC was the preferred model –– EPA, 1994. Wind Tunnel Modeling Demonstration to Determine Equivalent
Building Dimensions for the Cape Industries Facility, Wilmington, North Carolina. Joseph A. Tikvart Memorandum, dated July 25, 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
• Determined using wind tunnel modeling
What is EBD?
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Basic Wind Tunnel Modeling Methodology
Obtain source/site dataConstruct scale model – 3D PrintingInstall model in wind tunnel and measure Cmax versus X
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Measure Ground‐level Concentrations
Data taken until good fit and max obtained
Automated Max GL Concentration Mapper
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Measure Ground‐level Concentrations With Site Structures Present
Tracer from stack
Max ground-level concentrations measured versus x
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Measure Ground‐level Concentrations with Various EBD in Place of Site Structures
Tracer from stack
Max ground-level concentrations measured versus x
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Measure Ground‐level Concentrations with no Structures
Tracer from stack
Max ground-level concentrations measured versus x
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
EBD MethodSpecify Wind Tunnel Determined EBD that Matches Dispersion with Site Structures Present
Wind Tunnel EBD much smaller than actual building
No building works best for this case
Site Structures in Wind TunnelEBD in Wind Tunnel
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Summary of Approved Projects• Studies conducted and approved using original guidance for ISC
applications– Amoco Whiting Refinery, Region 5, 1990– Public Service Electric & Gas, Region 2, 1993– Cape Industries, Region 4, 1993– Cambridge Electric Plant, Region 1, 1993– District Energy, Region 5, 1993– Hoechst Celanese Celco Plant, Region 3, 1994– Pleasants Power, Region 3, 2002
• Studies conducted using original guidance for AERMOD/PRIME applications – Hawaiian Electric (Approved), Region 9, 1998– Mirant Power Station (Approved), Region 3, 2006– Cheswick Power Plant (Approved), Region 3, 2006– Radback Energy (Protocol Approved), Region IX, 2010
• After 2011 EPA Clearinghouse Memo– Chevron 1 (Study Approved), Region 4, 2012– Chevron 2 (Study Approved), Region 4, 2013– Chevron 3 (In process), Region 4, 2015
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
BPIP EBD
Predicted Concentrations
FACTOR of 2 to 3.5 reduction when EBD used
Lattice Structures
Typical AERMOD Predictions for Refinery Structures with BPIP and EBD Inputs
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
BPIP EBD
Predicted Concentrations
FACTOR of 4 to 8 reduction when EBD used
Short building with a large foot print
Typical AERMOD Predictions for Buildings with Large Footprint, BPIP and EBD Inputs
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
BPIP EBD
Predicted Concentrations
FACTOR of 2 to 5reduction when EBD used
Very Wide/Narrow Buildings
Typical AERMOD Predictions for Very Wide/Narrow Buildings with BPIP and EBD
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
AERMOD’s Temporal Mismatch
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Model’s AccuracyAppendix W: 9.1.2 Studies of Model Accuracy a. A number of studies have been conducted to examine model accuracy,
particularly with respect to the reliability of short‐term concentrations required for ambient standard and increment evaluations. The results of these studies are not surprising. Basically, they confirm what expert atmospheric scientists have said for some time: (1) Models are more reliable for estimating longer time‐averaged concentrations than for estimating short‐term concentrations at specific locations; and (2) the models are reasonably reliable in estimating the magnitude of highest concentrations occurring sometime, somewhere within an area. For example, errors in highest estimated concentrations of ± 10 to 40 percent are found to be typical, i.e., certainly well within the often quoted factor‐of‐two accuracy that has long been recognized for these models. However, estimates of concentrations that occur at a specific time and site, are poorly correlated with actually observed concentrations and are much less reliable.
• Bowne, N.E. and R.J. Londergan, 1983. Overview, Results, and Conclusions for the EPRI Plume Model Validation and Development Project: Plains Site. EPRI EA–3074. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
• Moore, G.E., T.E. Stoeckenius and D.A. Stewart, 1982. A Survey of Statistical Measures of Model Performance and Accuracy for Several Air Quality Models. Publication No. EPA–450/4–83–001. Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Perfect Model
24
MONITORED CONCENTRATIONS
AE
RM
OD
CO
NC
EN
TRAT
ION
S 100
1000
-
-
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Monitored vs Modeled Data:Paired in Time and Space
AERMOD performance evaluation of three coal-fired electrical generating units in Southwest IndianaKali D. Frost Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Vol. 64, Iss. 3, 2014
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Probability analyses of combining background concentrations with model-predicted concentrationsDouglas R. Murray, Michael B. Newman Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Vol. 64, Iss. 3, 2014
SO2 Concentrations Paired in Time & Space
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Probability analyses of combining background concentrations with model-predicted concentrationsDouglas R. Murray, Michael B. Newman Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Vol. 64, Iss. 3, 2014
SO2 Concentrations Paired in Time Only
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
AERMOD’s Evaluation
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Are We Using the Model Correctly?
Temporal matching is not justifiable
Perfect model AERMOD
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Pairing AERMOD and Monitored Values
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Probability of Two Unusual Events Happening at the Same Time
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Positively Skewed Distribution
http://www.agilegeoscience.com
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
24‐hr PM2.5 Observations
Evaluation of the SO2 and NOX offset ratio method to account for secondary PM2.5 formationSergio A. Guerra, Shannon R. Olsen, Jared J. Anderson Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Vol. 64, Iss. 3, 2014
Percentile BGg/m3
Max. Availablebased on NAAQSg/m3
50th 7.6 27.4
60th 8.7 26.3
70th 10.3 24.7
80th 13.2 21.8
90th 16.9 18.1
95th 22.6 12.4
98th 29.9 5.1
99.9th 42.5 Exceeds!
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Combining 99th percentile AERMOD and BG
P (AERMOD and BG) = P(AERMOD) * P(BG)99% percentile is 1 out of 100 days, or
= (0.01) * (0.01) = 0.0001 = 1 out of 10,000 days
Equivalent to one exceedance every 27 years!= 99.99th percentile of the combined distribution
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Combining 99th AERMOD and 50th BG P (AERMOD and BG) = P(AERMOD) * P(BG)
= (1‐0.99) * (1‐0.50)
= (0.01) * (0.50)
= 0.005 = 1 of 200 daysEquivalent to 1.8 exceedances every year= 99.5th percentile of the combined distribution
Evaluation of the SO2 and NOX offset ratio method to account for secondary PM2.5 formationSergio A. Guerra, Shannon R. Olsen, Jared J. Anderson Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Vol. 64, Iss. 3, 2014
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Monte Carlo Approach• Pioneered by the Manhattan Project scientists in 1940’s• Technique is widely used in science and industry• EPA has approved this technique for risk assessments • Used by EPA in the Guidance for 1‐hour SO2 Nonattainment
Area SIP Submissions (2014)
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Emission Variability Processor• Assuming fixed peak 1‐hour emissions on a continuous basis will
result in unrealistic modeled results • Better approach is to assume a prescribed distribution of emission
rates• EMVAP assigns emission rates at random over numerous iterations• The resulting distribution from EMVAP yields a more representative
approximation of actual impacts• Incorporate transient and variable emissions in modeling analysis • EMVAP uses this information to develop alternative ways to
indicate modeled compliance using a range of emission rates instead of just one value
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Solutions to AERMOD’s LimitationsAdvanced Modeling Technique
Traditional Modeling Technique
Building Dimensions EBD Generated BPIP Generated
BackgroundConcentrations
Combine AERMOD’s concentration with the 50th % observed
Tier 1: Combine AERMOD’s concentration with max. or design value (e.g., 98th % observed for SO2)Tier 2: Combine predicted and observed values based on temporal matching (e.g., by season or hour of day).
Variable emissions Use EMVAP to account for variability
Assume continuous maximum emissions
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Conclusion• BPIP/PRIME commonly overestimate downwash effects
• Temporal pairing of predicted and observed values is unjustified
• Advanced methods can be used to overcome these limitations– 50th percentile bkg– EMVAP– ARM2
www.cppwind.comwww.cppwind.com
Ron Petersen, PhD, CCM Sergio A. Guerra, [email protected] [email protected]: +1 970 690 1344 Mobile: + 612 584 9595
www.sergioaguerra.com
CPP, Inc.2400 Midpoint Drive, Suite 190
Fort Collins, CO 80525+ 970 221 3371
www.cppwind.com @CPPWindExperts
Thanks!