georgia environmental protection division impacts of modeling choices on relative response factors...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS
IN ATLANTA, GA
Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur, and James Boylan
6th Annual CMAS ConferenceChapel Hill, NCOctober 2, 2007
![Page 2: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Objective• Investigate the effects of modeling
choices on Relative Response Factors (RRFs) in Atlanta, GA– Horizontal grid resolution: 4 km and
12 km
– Chemical Transport Model: CMAQ and CAMx
![Page 3: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Approach• Exercising typical SIP modeling
– Model Performance Evaluation (MPE)• Measures and methods following the EPA’s guidance
document (EPA, 2007)
– Modeled Attainment Test• Relative Response Factors
• Additional analyses– MPE with graphical measures
• Partial implementation of PROMPT (Kim and Jeffries, 2006)
– Investigation of day-by-day and site-by-site variation of model predictions
![Page 4: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Modeled Attainment Test• Future Attainment Status is determined
by Future Design Value (DVf)– DVf should be less than 0.85 ppm.
• DVf = RRF x DVbWhere,
DVb is Baseline Design Value and
RRF is Relative Response Factor defined as
![Page 5: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
8-Hour Ozone Attainment Status in GA
![Page 6: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Modeling System Setup• Base case modeling
period– May 21, 2002 ~ Sep
13, 2002 UTC (3 spin-up days )
• MM5 (v 3.x)– Pleim-Xiu model for
Land-Surface interaction
– Asymmetric Convective Mixing
• SMOKE (v 2.x)– VISTAS Base G
version 2 inventory• CMAQ and CAMx
– Inputs made to be close to each model for a same grid configuration.
Georgia
![Page 7: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
12 km
4 km
7x7arrayfor 4-km runs
![Page 8: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
MPE with statistical metrics
![Page 9: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Time series
![Page 10: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Time series
![Page 11: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Time series
O3
O3
Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun
![Page 12: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Time seriesNO2
ETH
Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun
![Page 13: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Time seriesO3
O3
Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun
![Page 14: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
NO2
ETH
Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun
![Page 15: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
CAMx
CAMx-CMAQ
2002-06-12
Spatial distribution (12km)Daily Max 8-hr O3
2002-07-23 2002-07-24
ppb
ppb
![Page 16: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Relative Response Factors• Two possible methods
to calculate RRFs• Max value in
“nearby” grid cell arrays
• Value at each monitoring site grid cell
• Spatially averaged RRFs vary from 0.891 to 0.897 by modeling choices• If DVb = 100 ppb,
0.001 difference in RRF will result in 0.1 ppb in DVf.
RRFs from max O3 nearby grid cell arrays
![Page 17: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Conclusion (1)• Reasonable performance with respect to statistical
metrics by all four models, CMAQ and CAMx with 4-km and 12-km grids– 4-km emissions had 11% lower NOx in non-attainment areas– 4-km MM5 runs showed poor nighttime performance.
• Higher biases during nighttime by CMAQ and during daytime by CAMx– Gross overestimation of ozone by CAMx for several days
• Lower biases from 4-km simulations– Probably due to emission discrepancies in 4-km inputs
compared with 12-km emissions.
• No significant daytime NOx biases
![Page 18: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Conclusion (2)• Stable or insensitive RRFs
– Due to higher absolute concentrations predicted by CAMx, CAMx might show quite lower RRFs than CMAQ.
– Max-Value based RRFs fell within 0.863 ~ 0.914 for all simulations.
• Effect of RRF calculation methods– Despite of noticeable differences between 4-km and 12-km
modeling inputs, Max-Value based RRFs does not reflect this fact significantly.
– Cell-Value based RRF distinguished grid configuration differences.
– For all 11 monitoring sites, maximum RRF difference due to model choices were 0.036 and 0.033 by Max-Value based and Cell-Value based RRF calculation.
![Page 19: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Future Work• Process Analysis to explain large
variation of predicted ozone concentrations with similar modeling inputs
• Detail study on the relationship between model performance including day-by-day and site-by-site meteorological model performance and RRFs
![Page 20: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Acknowledgement
• ENVIRON International Corporation– Ralph Morris for CMAQ-to-CAMx
utilities
![Page 21: Georgia Environmental Protection Division IMPACTS OF MODELING CHOICES ON RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTORS IN ATLANTA, GA Byeong-Uk Kim, Maudood Khan, Amit Marmur,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649f0c5503460f94c2050a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Byeong-Uk Kim, Ph.D.Georgia Environmental Protection Division
4244 International Parkway, Suite 120Atlanta, GA 30354
[email protected] 404-362-2526
Contact Information