University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst
Wind Energy Center Masters Theses Collection UMass Wind Energy Center
1978 Mathematical Modeling Of The Dispersion Of Air Pollutants From Highways Wesley P. Bauver University of Massachusetts - Amherst
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/windenergy_theses Part of the Mechanical Engineering Commons
Bauver, Wesley P., "Mathematical Modeling Of The Dispersion Of Air Pollutants From Highways" (1978). Wind Energy Center Masters Theses Collection. 1. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/windenergy_theses/1
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the UMass Wind Energy Center at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wind Energy Center Masters Theses Collection by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF THE
DISPERSION OF AIR POLLUTANTS FROM
HIGHWAYS
A Thesis Presented
by
Wesley P. Bauver, I1
Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MECHAiiICAL ENGINEERING
August 1978 MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF THE
DISPERSION OF AIR POLLUTANTS FROM
HIGHWAYS
A Thesis Presented
by Wesley P. Bauver, I1
Approved as to style and content by:
L / W. Jon G. McGowan , Chai man /-- - ji.d**Ac%< Dr. Lawrence E. Ambs, Member
6a.R~ Dr. G. AIbert Russel 1 , Member
., // fi& C. Pol i, '.~eiartmentHead Mechanical Engineering iii
ABSTRACT
This work discusses the theory of the HIWAY and California Line Source highway air pollution dispersion models and describes the EPA emissions model which is used to provide emission factors for these models. A parametric study of the dispersion models is performed to show the effect of the various inputs to these models on predicted pollutant concentrations. These results indicate certain cases in which one model should be used instead of the other.
These models are used to perform air qua1 ity, environmental impact assessments of two highway projects in Massachusetts. Mesoscale Analyses are a1 so performed for these highways.
Advances in model ing the dispersion of pol 1utants from highways and possible rnodifications to the California Line Source and HIWAY models are a1 so discussed. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ABSTRACT ...... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iv LIST OF TABLES ...... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii NOMENCLATURE ...... x I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 I1. DESCRIPTION OF MODELS ...... 6 2.1 EPA Emissions Model ...... 6 2.2 Gaussian Plume Model ...... 15 2.3 Cal ifornia Line Source Model ...... 22 2.4 HIWAY Model ...... 26 111 . PARAMETRIC STUDY.AND COMPARISON OF HIWAY AND CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE MODELS ...... 36 3.1 Effect of Wind Direction...... 37 . 3.2 Effect of Wind Speed ...... 41 3.3 Effect of Stability Class and Mixing Height...... 41 3.4 ~ffectof Highway Width ...... 48 3.5 Su~imary...... 50 IV AIR POLLUTION ANALYSIS FOR TWO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT . 5 3 STATEMENTS ...... 4.1 Route 33 .Chicopee. Massachusetts ...... 55 4.1.1 Mesoscale Analysis ...... 55 4.1.2 Microscale Analysis ...... 63 4.2 Route 52 .Auburn. Massachusetts ...... 68 4.2.1 Mesoscale Analysis ...... 68 4.2.2 Microscale Analysis ...... 73 V . ADVANCES IN MODELING ...... 78 5.1 Mixing Cell Modifications ...... 78 5.2 Terrain Effects ...... 81 5.3 Possible Modifications of the HIWAY and California Line Source Models ...... z .... 81 5.4 Other Models ...... 82
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 86 APPENDIX A . CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE ...... 88 APPENDIX B . HIWAY ...... ,...... 99 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. -TITLE PAGE 1 Transportration Contribution to the Total Air Pollution Emissions in the United States...... 2 Federal Air Qua1 i ty Standards...... 3 - Average Emission Factors for Highway Vehicles Based on Nationwide Statistics...... -..... 8 Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxide Emission Factors for Light-Duty Vehicl es at Low and High Altitudes ...... 12 Light-Duty Vehicle Crankcase and Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emissions by Mode1 Year for all Areas Except California ...... 13 Carbon Monoxide, Exhaust Hydrocarbon, and Nitrogen Oxides Deterioration Factors for Light-Duty Gasoline-Powered Vehicles in all Areas Except California...... 14 Heavy Duty, Gasline Powered Vehicle Exhaust Emission Factors for Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen Oxides ...... 1... 16 Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty, Diesel-Powered Vehicles ...... 17 Key to Stability Categories ...... 21 Traffic Data for Mesoscale Analysis ...... 57 Average Speeds Assured for Mesoscal e Analysis for Both Route 33 and Side Streets ...... 58 Totals for Mesoscale Analysis...... 59 Totals for Mesoscale Analysis ...... 60 Totals for Mesoscale Analysis ...... 61 Totals for Mesoscale Analysis ...... -...... 62 Average Amounts of Pollutants Generated by Traffic Within the Corridor...... 64 Average Speeds Used in Microscale Calculations ...... 66 vii
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
TABLE NO. TITLE -PAGE Results of Microscal e Computer Analysis for Concentrations of Carbon Monoxide ...... 67 .
Average Daily Traffic for Mesoscal e Analysis...... 70 Estimated Speeds on ~outei52, 20 and 12 in Project Area, Miles per Hour ...... 71 Dimensions of Routes 52, 20, and 12 in Project Area...... 72 Mesoscal e Anal ysis Results - Average Amounts of Pollutants Generated by Traffic Within the Corridors...... 74 Calculated Maximum 1 Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations for Route 52 Project ...... 76 Calculated Maximum 8 Hour Carbon Monoxide Calculations for Route 52 Project...... 77 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. TITLE -PAGE Average Speed Correction Factors for all Model Years ...... 9
Horizontal Dispersion Coefficient as a Function of Downwind Distance from the Source ...... 18 Vertical Dispersion Coefficient as a Func- tion of Downwind Distance from the Source...... 19 Coordinate System for Equation 4...... ,...... 23 Cu W Ground Level Concentration Ratio, - K Q -30.5' Downwind from Highway Line Source Parallel Wind at Grade Section for All Stability Classes...... 27 W Ground Level Concentration Ratio, & K Downwind from Highway Line Source Parallel Wind (Cut Sections) Stability Class A ...... 28 Cu Ground Level Concentration Ratio - K w Q -30.5' Downwind from Highway Line Source Parallel (Cut Sections) Stability' Class B...... 2 9 Cu W Ground Level Concentration Ratio K -Q --30.5' Downwend from Highway Line Source parallel Wind l~utSections) Stability Class C...... 30
Ground Level Concentration Ratio ij-cu K W Downwind from Highway Line Source 'para1 lel Wind (Cut Sections) Stability Class D,...... 31
Ground Level Concentration Ratio -Cu K W Q 30-5' Downwind from Highway Line Source Parallel Wind (Cut Sections) Stability Class E...... 32 Cu W Ground Level Concentration Ratio K Downwind from Highway Line Source Parallel Wind (Cut Sections) Stability Class F...... 33 LIST OF FiGURES (CONTINUED) FIGURE NO. TITLE -PAGE Concentration Versus Wind Angle Wind Speed 11.2 MPH Stability Class l...... *...... 38
Concentration Versus Wtnd Angle Wind Speed 11.2 MPH Stability Class 5.....,.,...... 39
Concentration Versus Nind Speed Parallel Wind Stability Class 5...... 42 Concentration Versus Distance HIWAY Para1 1el Wind...... ,.. . 43 Concentration Versus Distance California Line Source Parallel Wind ...... *...... 45 Concentration Versus Distance California Line Source Perpendicular Wind...... -...... 46 Concentration Versus Distance HIWAY Paral- lel Wind Stability Class 5...... 47 Concentration Versus Highway Width Paral- lel Wind 4 MPH Stability Class 5 ...... 49 20 Concentration Versus Distance ...... *...... 51
21 A Diagram Showing the Mesoscale Corridor (1-90 Was Not Included in the Analysis) ...... 56 22 Proposed Section of Route 52 ...... ,.,,,,..... 69 23 Coordinate System for Figure 15...... 79 NOMENCLATURE
A Downwind concentration ratio for para1 1el winds. ADT Average number of vehicles which travel a road in 24 hours. C Mixing cell concentration, gm/M 3 . Emission factor for low mileage vehicle, gm/mi. Perpendicular distance from road, meters. Emission deterioration factor. Emission factor gm/mi. Combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor for calendar year gm/mi. Fraction of total vehicle miles traveled at a single speed. Combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor for model year, gm/mi. Height of box, meters. hei ght of pl ume center1 i ne , meters. Turbulent diffusivi ty, ~*/sec. Empi rical factor. Length of road segment, meters. Length of box side perpendicular to wind, meters, Mixing height, meters. Weighted annual travel. Number of lanes in a road. Source strength, gm/sec. Rate of generation of species, gm/M 3 sec. Weighted speed adjustment factor. Emission source strength for species, gm/M 3 sec. Time, seconds. NOMENCLATURE (Cont'd.)
Wind speed, m/sec.
Average wind velocity in the x direction, rn/sec.
Vehicular average wind speed correction factor.
Average wind velocity in the y direction m/sec.
Average wind velocity in the z direction.
Width of highway from shoulder to shoulder, meters.
SUBSCRIPTS
ith point source
ithpollutant species
ithmodel year
Speed
Calendar year
Pol 1utant
GREEK SYMBOLS
E Empirical constant.
9 Angle between wind direction and highway a1 ignment. u Standard deviation of a Gaussian Plume.
X Concentration. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
Motor vehicles have been known as major producers of air pol 1utants for over 20 years. ~aa~en-smit ' pub1 ished an article which recognized automobiles as contributors to the 10s Angeles air pollution problem in 1952. Motor vehicles are identified as major producers of carbon mon- oxide (CO), unburnt hydrocarbons (C,H~)and oxides of nitrogen (NO,) by recent U.S. data2 . As shown in Table 1, motor vehicles are a source of 3 pollutants other than these three, however, in much smaller amounts . The Clean Air Act of 19704 established national air qua1 ity standards for major air pollutants including those produced by motor vehicles. These standards are listed in Table 2. It is necessary to be able to model a dispersion of pollutants from motor vehicles in order to insure the ineeti ng of these standards. Currently, the state of the art of mathematical modeling does not permit accurate Mesoscale modeling of the dispersion of reactive air pol- lutants. Due to these accuracy limitations the sole pollution modeling required by the Environmental Protection Agency for the Mesoscale region of a highway is a calculation of the total amounts of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen emitted by the source. Mesoscale is defined by ~illiamson~as the region within 100 kilometers of the pol- lutant source with the region within a few kilometers defined as the micro- scale. Significant research has been done to develop limited mathematical air pollution dispersion models for the microscale level. The early work 6 in this field stems from rnil itary interest in poison gas dispersion . TABLE 1. TRANSPORTATION CONTRIBUTION TO THE TOTAL AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1969 (ref. 3)
CO HC Nox Particulates SO Source Total X 0 % of * % of 'x cf % of % of lo6 U.S. lo6 U. lo6 U.S. lo6 U.S. lo6 U.S. lo6 U.S. Transpurtation Tons Total Tons Total Tons Total Tons Total Tons Totdl Tons Total Total
Motor Vehicles 97.0 64.6 17.1 45.7 8.7 36.5 0.4 1.2 0.3 0.9 124.3 46.2 86.1 A1 rcraft 2.9 1.9 0.4 1.1 ------0.4 1.7 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 3.9 1.4 2.7 All Other 10.8 7.1 2.3 6.1 2.1 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.7 2.1 16.2 5.8 11.2 Transportat1on .- Transportation Total ------111.5 73.6 19.8 52.9 11.2 47.0 0.9 2.3 1.1 3.3 144.4 51.4 100.0 U.S. Total 151.4 --- 37.4 --- 23.8 --- 35.2 --- 33.4 --- 281.2 ------
Source: Envl ronn~ntalProtection Agency TABLE 2 FEDERAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (ref. 5)
AVERAGING STANDARDS POLLUTANTS TIME PRIMARY SECONDARY METHOD
Photochemical Oxi dents 1 hr. 160 ug/M3 ( LO8 PPM)' same as Chemi 1 umi nesc (corrected for NO2) primary
Carbon Monoxi de 8 hr. 10 mg/M3 (9 PPM)a same as Nondispersive infra- primary red spectroscopy
1 hr. 40 mg/M3 (35 PPM)a
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 100 ug/M3 (.05 PPM) same as Colorimetric using average N20H Sulphur Dioxide Annual 80 ug/M3 (.03 PPM) Pararosani 1 ine average
24 hr. 365 ug/M3 (.I4 PPM)a
3 hr. -
Suspended Particulate Annual 75 mg/M3 High Volume Sampl ing Matter geometri c mean
24 hr, 260 rng/~3
Hydrocarbons 3 hr. 160 mg/M3 same as Flame ionization de- (corrected for (6-9 a.m.) (24 PPM)~ primary tection using gas methane) chromatography a Not to exceed more than once a year. This model evolved from the assumption of Gaussian distribution of pollutants in a plume. Turner's b!orkbookb develops the Gaussian plume equations that are widely in use today. An inherent limitation, in the equations for dispersion based on the Gaussian distribution assump- tion, is their inability to deal with any reaction of the pollutants.
Nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons are chemically reactive while carbon nonoxi de is not. For this reason, the Environmental Protection Agency does not require the mi croscal e model ing of nitrogen oxides and hydro- carbons for highway environmental impact statements at this time.
One motor vehicle does not emit enough pollutants to violate air quality standards a short distance from the roadway. The problem arises when there are 1arge concentrstions of vehicles a1 ong the highway. What must be modeled is the pollutant dispersion from the highway, rather than from individual vehicles.
Presently there are two computer models most widely used to predict dispersion of carbon rnon~xidefrom highways. One is HIWAY7 which was de- veloped by the Environmental Protection Agency. The other is the Cali- 8 fornia Line Source which was developed by the California Department of
Pub1 ic Works.
This work evaluates the HIWAY and California Line source models with respect to their responses to changes in meteorological inputs and highway size as well as determining the strengths and weaknesses of each model.
The EPA emissions rnodel which is used to provide emissions factor inputs for these models is also discussed. The HIWAY and California Line Source models are applied to two proposed highway projects in Massachusetts. It also applies these models to two proposed highway projects in Massachusetts. Suggestions are made for the improvement of the Cal ifornia Line Source and HIWAY models and advancements being made in modeling air pollution dispersion will be disccssed. factor compilation in this supplement.
The first is a tabulation (Table 3) of average emission factors of highway vehicles by calendar year, based on statistical data from the
United States. The emission factors given in this table for carbon mon-
oxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides in the exhaust are based on an
average speed of 19.6 miles per hour. In order to apply these factors
to other speeds, the factor is multiplied by the speed adjustment factor
shown in Figure 1. For exarnple, the nitrogen oxides emission factor for
a vehicle in 1974 at 35 mph would be 5.2 gramslmile times 1.25 or 6.5
gramslmile. To find the amount of pollutant discharged by this vehicle,
the speed modified emission factor is multiplied by the total number of
miles traveled by the vehicle (VMT). Emission factors for crankcase and
evaporati ve hydrocarbons, particulates, and sul fur oxides are considered
to be independent of vehicle speed. Thus the total amounts discharged
of these pollutants are cal culated by mu1 tiplying their emission factors
by the VMT. The use of average emission factors is suggested for applica- tion over wide areas such as states.
The second method, based on the calculation of localized emission
factors is preferred for smaller a; eas. However if the information re-
quired is not available the EPA will accept the use of average values.
Light duty, gasoline-powered vehicles comprise the largest class of k highway vehicles, so localized emission factors for these are considered
I first. These are defined by AP-42" as "any motor vehicle either desig- f nated primarily for transportation of property and rated at 6000 GVW or i less; or designed primarily for transportation of persons and having a
capacity of 12 persons or less." Exhaust emission factors for carbon Table 3 Averaae Emission Factors For Hiahwav Vehicles Based on Nationwide Statistics (Ref. 8)
Hydrocarbons Particulates
Carbon Crankcase & Oxides Sulfur Monoxi de Exhaust Evaporation mxas N021 Exhaust Tire Wear Oxides (S021 Year 1965
1970
1971 1972 1973
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
NOTE: This table reflects Interim standards promulgated by the EPA Administration on April 11, 1973, and in July 1973, Average Route Speed, km/hr
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
I - 'I' I 1'1'1 1.5 ------1.0 - -. ------Carbon Monoxi de - 0.5 ------
0 I I I I I I I I I I i 0 15 30 45 60 Average Route Speed, mi/hr
Figure 1 Average speed correction factors for 211 model years. ( ref. 8) monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides for these vehicles are cal- culated from
where:
e = Emission factor in grams per vehicle mile for calendar year nP I (n) and pollutant (p) i I ci = The 1975 federal test procedure emission rate for pol lutant i (p) in glmi for the ithmodel year at low mileage
di = The controlled vehicle pollutant (p) emission deterioration factor for the ithmodel year at calendar year (n)
mi = The weighted annual travel of the ith model year during the
calendar year (n). The determination of this variable in-
volves the use of the vehicle model year distribution.
= Si The weighted speed ajustrnent factor for the ithmodel year vehicles.
It is also necessary to calculate an emission factor for gas01 ine powered vehicles for hydrocarbon emissions due to evaporation and crankcase blowby. This factor is found from:
where :
fn = The combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission factor for calendar year (n) hi = The combined evaporative and crankcase emission rate for the ith model year
m i = The weighted annual travel of the ith model year during calendar year (n) Values of ci and hi are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Thase for 1971 and before are the results of light duty exhaust emission rate studies in cities. Later date values are based on federal standards. These values do not apply to California due to that state's more restrictive standards. Deterioration factors (di ) for everywhere, except Cal i fornia, are given in Table 6.
The weighted annual mileage (mi ) is calculated for a year by mu1 ti- plying the fraction of vehicles operational for a model year by the average annual miles travelled. This product is divided by the sum of the numer- ator plus the product of the fraction of vehicles in use for the.year times their average annual mileage for each of the preceding el even years. It is usually not easy to obtain the information necessary to make these calculations. When it is available, it is usually for cities in which registration statistics reflect the vehicle make-up on the city streets, The weighted speed factor takes into account different vehicles speed. It is defined as:
where:
s = i The weighted speed adjustment factor for the ith model year fr = The fraction of total vehicle miles traveled at speed (j) j mu m. I- . cuI-. . ao . . I-I- 00 I-I-
mi, ma
cno Ccn 0. . . NIO *0 -7 bCU XU OZ Z WV) mm coo a W on *-3 I-+ WHH AZI- a A Q 04 aN I-N I- Z . . . . 4s a N mN mm a mcu -u ZS 0 an CZZ
s403: CZO >-nA SF-< m WV) nu UA XU 0- ZI OW mu, a~ ru mql E> . . . . he &Ui mN 0- OW -I- mu, -co C C .r C, +tC,aJaJ0 EmaJ T a'r) C, La .r n3 L V) 5 0 C, C, aJ 0 Ltt 5 0 V) aJ Q5L JaJ5 n L TABLE 5
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE CRANKCASE AND EVAPORATIVE HYDROCARBON
EMISSIONS BY MODEL YEAR FOR ALL AREAS EXCEPT CALIFORNIA (REF. 8)
Hydrocarbons Model Year g/mi g/ km
Pre-1963
1963 through 1967
1968 through 1970 - ONCU COmN om- wmh 0 omm NWO o CU-N~
omm 0-0 ooa CUoa 0 em-- Ocob mmo om^ ma o N~NO ...... -0. .... 7-7 ??CU 7-7 -7- 7 -?Fw
oa- bma oam omh o mmme- rDI Omb *-a ONN CU-h 0 CU-I-~
ohm omcu om- mmm 0 -mmb 0-CO... *-a.... ONN... I-CU~... 0 NNI-U).... 7-7 7-7 7-7 7-7 F 7-F?
0-m acoo O-a mwe 0 omom 0-V)... mmm... ON-... I-CU~... 0 NNi.LO.... 7-7 7-7 7-7 -7- 7 FF-7
omm NO- -oam orno o cobbb omm... mmm... 0??... ,-~m... 0 --om.... 7-7 7-7 7-7 7-F F TFFF
u aJ e- s m- b (TI L m -F (TI m @W oco b rco s I- r co r m oco a 0 m 0, nm @I- E- 7 I LI- =Iw lamOom@@a1 corn -m r WCOcob Lbv, v, U acoco - 0 o Lmmmrm o =I o ~cnm 0 E PPI-I-I-@?P(TILPl-I- P L rm m x % U wr Notes to Table 6 a) Values of 1.OO are given for pre-1968 vehicles because they were not equipped with exhaust control devices and, therefore, are not subject to exhaust control device deterioration. Deterioration in the emission performance of pre-1968 vehicles because of poor maintenance, age, etc., is taken into account by their emission factors, which are based on a random sample of vehicles, b) Based on test results for 1970 model year vehicles, c) Based on test results for 1971 (California) model year vehicles. v = The vehicular average speed correction factor for average j speed (j1 The values of vj can be determined fr-on) Figure 1. Values of f. must be J determined for a highway by the use of traffic statistics from that area. It may be necessary to calculate localized emission factors for cl asses of vehicles other than 1 ight gasol ine powered. Exhaust emission factors and evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emi ssions factors for heavy-duty, gasol i ne-fueled vehicles are calculated in the same manner as 1ight-duty gasol ine-fueled vehicles. The same values for the deterioration factors and average speed correction factor are employed. Values of the emission rate ci are given in Table 7. Average emission factors for heavy- duty, diesel -power vehicles are given in Table 8. While emission factors are avai 1able for motorcycles , 1 ight-duty diesel s and gaseous-fueled vehicles, the contributions of these sources of pol 1 utants are currently small enough to be neglected.
2.2 Gaussian Plume Model
Both HIWAY and the Cal ifornia Line Source model are based on the dif- 6 fusion equations developed in Turner's Workbook . This procedure employs a method of estimating diffusion using comnonly observed weather parameters. The concentration of pollutants in a cross section of a plume normal to its direction of movement is assumed to be binormal. The horizontal and vertical spread of the plume have been converted into a horizontal standard deviation (uy) and a vertical standard deviation (0,). Values of these standard deviations are given inFigures2 and 3 as functions of downwind distance and a parameter defined as the stabi 1 i ty cl ass. c aJ vl m aJ ou L -r t'x -r 0 Z
r 0 X 0 W L
aJ cu 0 -r n X L 0 (0 c v 0 E Llm ZZ M 0 oeAm me
€.wi ssions
Pol 1utant ks/lo3 liter g/mi Parti cul ate 1.6 1.2 Sulfur oxides 3.2 2.4 (SOx as SO2) Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrogen oxides (NO, as NO2) A1 dehydes (as HCHO) Organic acids DISTANCE DOI4NIII ND , km
Figure 2 Horizontal dispersion coefficient as a function of downwind distance from the source. (ref. 5) DISTANCE DOWNWIND, km Figure 3 Vertical dispersion coefficient as a function uf downwind distance from the source. (ref. 5) The stability class 1umps together the meteorological conditions on
which the values of o and oz are based. Six atmospheric stability Y classes are defined by their dependence on the wind speed at a height of
about 10 meters and the inccning solar radiation during the day or the
cloud cover at night. These classes, which are given in Table 9, reflect
the amount of turbulent mixing in the atmosphere. For example, Class A,
the most unstable, occurs when a large amount of solar radiation causes
1arge thermal eddies which promote strong vertical mixing. Less mixing
occurs when the atmosphere is more thermally homogeneous due to higher
winds or less solar radiation. On the opposite end of the scale, the
least mixing occurs when there is a temperature inversion in the lower atmosphere (Class F) .
Certain assumptions are made when developing the values of u and Y a z as functions of stability class. These include: 1. Sanpling time is assumed to be about 10 minutes.
2. The height is limited to the lowest several hundred meters of the
atmosphere. 3. The surface is relatively open country.
While the values of o and 0, used by ~urner~are the best available, Y errors in the estimate of oZ can occur at long distances. Within a few
hundred meters of the pollution source, oz may be expected to be within a
factor of 2. Estimates of o are generally more accurate than those of oz. Y The following equation is used by ~urner~to calculate the concen-
tration of a gas in a binormal plume at some point x, y, z in that plume. i 1 Modifications of this equation form the basis of HIlzlAY and the California L i Line Source model . TABLE 9
KEY TO STABILITY CATEGORIES (Ref. 6)
DAY NIGHT Surface Wind Thinly Overcast Speed (at 1OM), Incoming Solar Radiation or -<3/8
m set-' Strong . Moderate Sl ight r4/8 Low Cloud Cloud
2 A A-B B
2 -3 A-B B C E F
3-5 B B-C C D
C C-D D D D
C 5 D D 5
The neutral class, D, should be assumed for overcast conditions during day or night. ., .. (4) where : x = Concentration at a point in the plume Q = Source strength (mass/unit time)
u = Wind speed
a = Vertical plume standard deviation at distance x from source z a = Horizontal plume standard deviation at distance x from the Y highway
H = Height. of the pl ume center1ine.
Any set of consistent units may be used. Values of u and uz at Y distance x from the source can be taken from Figure 2 and 3 respectively.
Figure 4 shows the coordinate system for this equation.
2.3 California Line Source Model
The California Line Source model uses the concept of a mechanical mixing cell above the highway to account for the initial mixing of pol-
lutants in the air due to turbulence caused by traffic. This mechanical mixing cell assumption is based on studies using smoke candles mounted 8 on cars. Beaton 1ists the basic assumptions of the model : 1. Continuous emission sources from vehicles on highway.
2. The surface stability classes in Turner's workbook6 are used.
3. The concentration of pollutants inside the mixing cell is inde-
pendent of surface stability. The height of the mixing cell is
12 feet and the width extends from shoulder to shoulder of the
road if the center median is 30 ft. or less. 4. Wind speed is not a function of height. 5. There are no aerodynamic effects on air passing over obstructions.
This model distinguishes between cross wind and parallel kind cases.
Cross wind conditions, in which the wind direction differs from the highway direction by more than 12 degrees, are treated separately from para1 lel wind conditions. Mixing cell concentrations for the cross wind case are calculated from:
C = (1.0614 K1u sin + where : 3 C = Mixing cell concentration gm/m
Q = Emission source strength gm/sec-m u = Wind speed m/sec
+ = Angle between wind direction and highway a1 ignment
K1 = Eriipirical factor presently assumed t~ be 4.24. The number 1.06 is an empirical factor relating to the height of the mixing cell to concentration.
The value of the source strength term Q is found using the following equation:
where:
VPH = Vehicles per hour on the road
e = The emission factor (gm/mile) which is calculated using one
of the methods discussed in the previous section.
The numerical constant 1.73 x is a conversion factor to give the value of Q in the correct units. To calculate the pollutant concentration off the roadway in the crosswind case the following equation is used:
Where a1 1 symbol s have been previously defined. There are no -0 terms in Y Equation 7 as there are in Equation 4 because this model assumes an in- finite 1ine source of pollution. The height of the plume center1ine (H) is assumed to be the height of the highway.
When using the Cal ifornia Line Source computer model (see Appendix
A), the user must specify either the cross wind or parallel wind case.
For the cross wind case, Equations 5, 6, and 7 are used in the program.
Values of o, are calculated using polynomial approximations of the curves in Figure 3 in the SIGMAY subroutine.
The parallel wind part of the California Line Source model takes into account the buildup of pollutant levels in the downwind direction.
The equation for mixing cell concentration is:
where : 3 C ' = Mixing cell concentration for parallel winds gm/m
A = Downwind concentration ratio for para11 el winds
W = Width of roadway from edge of shoulder to edge of shoulder
in meters
30.5 = Width in meters of highway used in developing the parallel
wind model Q' = Source st.rength of a 100' length of road u and K1 have been prevously defined.
The downwind concentration ratio (A), is dependent upon the sta-
bi1 i ty class, shown in Figures 5 through 11. Subroutine PWA approximates
these curves using polynomidls. For parallel winds the value of Q' is
found from
Q' = [el [VPH] i5.26 x (9
where 5.26 x is a factor to convert the produce [VPH][e] to gm/sec
for a 100 ft. length of highway. VPH and e have been previously defined.
To calculate the pollutant concentration outside the mixing cell for
para1 1el winds the fol 1owing equation is used:
(1 0) Where all terns have been previously defined. Subroutine SIGMAY' calculates
values of a using polynomial approximations. This equation gives the pol- Y lutant concentration at a point normal to highway where the mixing cell concentration is C' .
2.4 HIWAY Mode1
The HIWAY model treats each lane of road as a separate series of point
sources as opposed to a continuous line source. Concentrations of pol-
lutants are calculated at each receptor by a trapazoidal integration of
the concentration calculated at the receptor due to each point source. One
point source is set at each end of the specified length of road for each
I lane as a first approximation. Subsequent approximations add point sources t I 1 at ha1 f the previous segment length. For every calculation of the !
-. 7 Q) 7 L -fu W L OLL fu 0- CL 9, aJ 0 U -I- L Z 3 W 0 82, vI Oc3 a mu c - --I -,-- i 4 - 200' CUT
- v. w 2F0' wide nc~t- OPEIT
II I I t I 1 , C1, OPEN " , I '05 I I 1 -I 0 4 00 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 DISTANCE DObIMGIIND FROM POINT l,JHERE lllIND BECOMES PAMLLEL TO HIGHNAY ALIGNMENT - (FEET) 11 Figure 6 Ground level concentration ratio K (=) downwind from highway line source parallel wind (cut sections) stability class A (ref. 11). . , Z-- - woo 0 n 00 o ON*
Z- - WOO no0 OIDd
concentration at. a receptor after the first approximation, the value
calculated is compared to the previously calculated value. If it differs
by 2 percent or more, another approximation is made. The pollution concentration, due to each lane is calculated at each receptor using the
fo1lowing equation to integrate the concentrations from each point source:
Where:
Ak = Length of designated road segment
Fi = Dispersion function at receptor due to ithpoint source
M = Number of lanes specified for road
Q and u have their previously defined values.
Values of Q are calculated using Equation 6 as in the California
Line Source model. The value calculated for Q is divided by the' number of
la.nes specified for the road in Equation 11 to give each lane an equal
emission strength.
The values of Fi which are used in Equation 11 are calculated from the following form of the Gaussian diffusion equation:
2 2 - 1 1 2-H 1 z+H Fi 2nuyuz ~XP1- (5)1 exp 1- 7 I + exp [- (T) 1 Y z z
1 z-H-2nL 1 Z+H+~~L]~ + L Cexp - 7 ( 1 +exP-F( n=l z '3 z
2 1 (z-H+2nL) + exp - 2 + exp - - '3 Z L = Mixing height in meters.
All other variables have their previously defined values.
This equation uses the concept of a mixing height. When an eval- uated temperature inversion exists, the diffusion of a pollutant released below the bottom of this inversion is significantly reduced when it reaches the height of the inversion. The height of the bottom of this temper- ature inversion is assumed t.o be the limiting height to which the pol- lutant can disperse. This is defined as the mixing height. The terms within the sumnation in Equation 12 accounts for the reflection of the plume back and forth between the ground and the mixing height if the 7 mixing height is sufficiently low. Previous work has shown that usually four or fi've sums of these four terms are enough for convergence.
Since this model calculates concentrations from point sources instead of a line, the same equations are used for both the parallel and cross wind cases, Tkle initial mixing of pollutants above the highway is accounted for in the values of o and a, in Equation 12. Y Initial values of a and oz are calculated at the edge of the roadway Y by assuming a virtual source upwind of the roadway. This gives non-zero values of the standard deviations which determine the size of the plume at the edge of the road. At present,% is assigned a value of 1.5 meters at the downwind edge of the highway and a is assigned a value of 3 meters as Y an initial value. Values of oZ and ay are calculated as polynomials in the
SIGMA subroutine of HINAY. See Appendix B. CtiAFTER I11
PARAMETRIC STUDY AND COPIPARI SON OF HIXAY
AND CALIFORNIA LINE S3URCE MODELS
This section examines the response of these models to certain input variables. There are two purposes for this. The first is to -determine for which values of these variables the highest concentrations are pre- dicted. The second is to compare the response or sensitivity of each model to changes in these variables. This information is useful since the
EPA requires a prediction of the highest probable carbon monoxide concen- trations for the air quality analyses of a highway environmental impact statement.
Inputs which will be considered are:
1. Wind direction,
2. Wind speed,
3. Stabii ity class and nixing height, 4. Highway width.
Wind direction and speed, stability class and mixing height are all meteoro- logical inputs which can vary for any highway. Highway width has a large effect on the output of these models in some cases and is included for this reason.
In determining the reactions of the models to changes in an input, the common inputs for each model are each assigned the same value. All the program runs executed to determine the effects of meteorological para- meters and highway width used an emission factor of 50 gm/ni. This was the EPA national average emission factor for CO in 1975. A speed cor- rection factor of 1 and a traffic volume of 2000 vehicles per hour were assigned. These values were picked arbitrarily since they are used in
the calculation of the amount of pollutants, and not the dispersion of
them. For the cases in ~hichhighway width is not studied, it is set at
100 ft. with a 30 ft. center median, primarily because these models were
developed for roads of this size. HINAY has an input for the number of
lanes which the Cal ifornia Line Source model does not have. This was set
at 4 lanes on all runs except those considering highway width, to cor-
respond with the 4 lanes of traffic assumed in the development of the
California Line Source model. The Cal ifornia Line Source model also does
not have a mixing height input. The mixing height is set so it will not
influence any calculations in the HIWAY model except for those done in the
study specifically considering mixing height. The data used in the figures
in this section was obtained by running both models varying only the
variable of interest and treating a1 1 others as described.
3.1 Effect of Wind Direction
Both HIWAY and Cal ifornia l.i ne Source will permit angular variations
in wind direction. from parallel to perpendicular to the highway. For a
wind angle (9) of 12 degrees or less, the California model becomes inde-
- -pendent of 9 and calculates co.ncentrations using its parallel wifid sub-
routines. The California model therefore always gives highest concentrations
for wind directions within 12 degrees of the highway as seen in Figures 12
and 13.
HIWAY does not use a special model for small wind angles. This allows
for considerable differences in calculated concentrations for wind angles
close to parallel. HIWAY is most responsive to wind angle changes in the
range from 0 degrees to about 60 degrees. The California model is most CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE RECEPTOR 20 FT FROM HIGHWAY CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE RECEPTOR 100 FT FROM HIGHWAY 0 HIWAY RECEPTOR 20 FT FROM HIGHWAY 0 HIWAY RECEPTOR 100 FT FROM HIGHWAY
WIND ANGLE ($I), DEGREES
Figure 12 Concentration versus wind angle wind speed 11.2 MPH stability class 1 ACALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE RECEPTOR 20 FT FROM HIGHWAY E 4 n VCALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE RECEPTOR 100 FT FROM HIGHWAY m OHIWAY RECEPTOR 20 FT FROM HIGHWAY h X 0HIWAY RECEPTOR 100 FT FROM HIGHWAY u 3 En 5 W U 0= 2 U
1
0 10 2 0 3 0 40 5 0 6 0 7 0 , 80 9 0 WIND ANGLE ( +) , DEGREES
Figure 13 Concentration versus wind angle wind speed 11.2 MPH stability class 5 responsive to changes in wind angle between 12 degrees and 60 degrees.
As depicted in Figures 12 and 13, there is little variation in predicted
pollutior~concentration in either model for wind angle changes above 40
degrees from parallel. These figures show results for the 'best' and
'worst' stability c'lasses. The stability classes between those shown in
Figure 12 (stability class A or 1 and Figure 13 (stability class E or 5)
also follow this trend.
The angle at which peak concentrations occur differs with stability
class for HIWAY. Distance from the edge of the roadway must also be con-
sidered. For stability class 1 (Figure 12) the highest concentrations at
100 ft. from the edge of the road occur at wind angles greater than 50
degrees. At 20 ft. the highest concentrations are found between 20 degrees
and 30 degrees, beyond which peak readings decrease with increases in wind
angle. The wind angle at which peak concentrations occur decrease with
increasing stability. For stability class 5 (Figure 13) highest concen-
trations are calculated arcund a wind angle of 5 degrees at 20 ft. out and
at around a wind angle of 10 degrees at 100 ft. from the road. With other ir~putsheld constant as discussed previously, calculated
concentrations from the Cal ifornia mode1 are always higher than those from
. HIWAY for wind angles of 12 degrees or less. Figures 12 and 13 show this
for stability classes 1 and 5. Sil~iilarresults were obtained for the
stabil ity classes between these. Between wind angles of 12 and 40 de-
grees, the stability class and distance affect which model predicts higher concentrations . At wind angles greater than 40 degrees, HIWAY predicts higher concentrations for all stability classes within 100 ft. of the edge
of the road. For both models calculations of concentrations beyond 100 ft.
were quite close for all wind angles and stabilities. 3.2 Effect of Wind Speed
The effect of wind speed on HIWAY and California Line Source is quite similar. There is always an inverse relation between wind speed and pollutant concentration. Figure 14 shows the effect of wind speed on the concentration at a receptor 20 ft. from the road fcr stability class 5. It can be seen that as wind speed approaches 2 mph the con- centration raises rapidly. The Gaussian diffusicn equations, on which the models are based, are considered inval id for wind speeds below 2 mph.
Cal ifornia Line Source prints an error message if a wind speed 1ess than
2 mph is called for. HIIWAY prints out no error message but should not be used for wind speeds of less than 2 mph.
3.3 Effect of Stability Class and Mixing Height
The stability class values affect the HIWAY and California Line
Source results quite differently. With everything else held constant,
HIWAY predicts higher concentrations for higher stabil ity classes close to the highway. As the distance from the roadway increases, the values of pol 1ution calculated for different stabil ity classes come closer together.
Figure 15 shows this for a wind direction parallel to the highway. Similar results are obtained for other wind angles.
California Line Source does not react to changes in stability class in the same manner as HIWAY, in either its parallel or cross wind models.
For wind angles in the parallel winds range, within about 100 ft. of the highway, higher predicted concent~ationsare found at higher stability classes as expected. At about 100 ft. from the road, the predicted con- centrations come together and beyond this distance higher concentrations Wdd ' (X) NOIlWlllN33N03 OSTABILITY CLASS 5 OSTABILI~YCLASS 4 0 STAEI LITY CLASS 3 STABILITY CLASS 2 OSTABILITYCLASS I
b 2 0 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 , 200 DISTANCE FROM ROAD, FT
Figure 15 Concentration versus distance HIWAY para1lel wind are found with progressively lower stability classes as seen in Figilre 16.
For wind angles uti1 izing California Line Source's crosswind model, the mixing cell concentration is assumed to be independent of stability class. This results in the same concentrations being calculated at the edge of the highway for all stability classes. As the distance from the highway increases , the cal cu1 ated concentrati ons depend upon the stabi 1i ty class. Higher concentrations are calculated for progressively higher stability classes. Figure 17 shows the case for a wind angle of 90 de- grees.
California Line Source will accept all six stability classes as inputs while HIWAY will accept only classes 1 through 5. This gives California
Line Source the ability to predict concentrations in temperature inversion conditions which extend all the way to the ground, since this is the de-
finition of stability case 6.
HIWAY treats temperature inversions by use of the mixing height con- cept discussed in Chapter 11. A value for mixing height must be inputted for each run of HIWAY. If the effect of the plume being reflected down due to a mixing height is not desired, the mixing height must be inputted at a large enough distance above the road so that the plume does not reach
it. Figure 18 shows the result of calculations made using KIWAY with dif-
ferent mixing heights. A mixing height of ten feet results in significantly
higher concentrations than a fifty foot mixing height. Going from a fifty
foot mixing height to a 100 ft. one is seen to have a much smaller effect on the calculated values while going to a 500 ft. mixing height gives no change at all. A mixing height of 500 ft. or more will therefore effec- tively eliminate the effects of plume reflection at the mixing height. 0 STABILITY CLASS 6 0 STABILITY CLASS 5 0STABILITY CLASS 4 5 0 STABILITY CLASS 3 ASTABILITY CLASS 2 0STABILITY CLASS 1 4
3 2 1
. , DISTANCE FROM ROAD, FT
Figure 16 Concentration versus distance Cal ifornia Line Source 0 STABILITY CLASS 5 A STABILITY CLASS 3 0 STABILITY CLASS 1
DISTANCE FRO11 HIGHWAY, FT Figure 17 Concentration versus distance California Line Source 0 2 0 40 6 0 80 100 DISTANCE FROM HIGHWAY (P) , FT Figure 18 Concentration versus distance HIWAY para1 lel wind stability class 5 Tests run with other wind angles and stability classes showed stmilar re- sults.
Since the mixing height is treated as a lid above which pollutants cannot pass, it is possible to case HIWAY to calculate very high concen- trations by making the rnixing height very close to the ground. For example, setting the mixing height at 1 ft. would cause HIWAY to calculate pollutant concentrations assuming all pollutants are trapped in a 1 ft. high box. Naturally, very high concentrations would be calculated, but these results would be unreasonable since in reality the pollutants would be distributed to heights greater than 1 ft. by mechanically induced tur- bul ence from traffic.
3.4 Effect of Highway Width
California Line Source was developed for a 100 ft. wide highway with a 30 ft. center median. For this reason it would be expected to give best results for roads in this general size. The parallel wind rnodel of Cali- fornia Line Source has an input for highway width which is supposed to take into account the .effect of using roads with widths other than 100 ft. For roads of less than 100 ft., it is assumed the mixing cell concentration increases because the same amount of pollutants are being put into a' smaller volume. Conversely, mixing cell concentrations decrease for highways above
100 ft. in width.
Figure 19 shows the effect of the highway width upon the concentra- tions calculated by California Line Source and HINAY for a wind angle of
0 degrees. As the road width gets smaller, California Line Source predicts rapidly rising concentrations. HIWAY predicts lower concentrations as the road becomes narrow and larger concentrations as the road becomes wider. 30 -" CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE
r: a a * CI X V Z 20-- 0 W I- sI- Z W U Z 0 U
1 o--
0 I I I I 1 0 20 40 6 0 8 0 100 120 140 HIGHNAY WIDTH (W), FEET Figure 19 Concentration versus highway width para1 lel wind 4 MPH stability class 5 Because of the assumption of a 30 ft. median, the correction factor used in the Cal ifornia Line Source model appl ies only to roads with a median of about this size. Beaton, et a1 .* suggest treating highways with a center median of greater than 30 ft. as two highways. However, if this is done the group of lanes on each side of the median will be assumed by the model to have a 30 ft. median.
HIWAY has the advantage of having a center median of variable width and a variable number of lanes of traffic. This makes it a better choice to use for highways that differ much from the 100 ft. road with a 30 ft. median, used in the California model. In using HIWAY for these cases none of its basic assumptions are violated.
The cross wind model of California Line Source has no provision for highway width. California Line Source would be expected to give best re- sul ts for a 100 ft. road with a 30 ft. median since it was developed for this configuration. HIWAY has inputs for road width for all angles but the effects of width are negligible for cross wind conditions.
Both models were run using the meteorological conditions causing highest concentrations to determine which predicts highest concentrations for worst case conditions. Stability class 5 was used because this is the worst class that can be used in both models. A parallel wind of 2 mph is used and also one of 4 mph. For the reasons discussed previously, a 100 ft. highway with a 30 ft. median and a 1000 ft. mixing height are used.
All other inputs were the same for both models. The results are shown in
Figure 20. DISTANCE FROM HIGHWAY ,D, METERS
0 6.1 12.2 18.3 24.4 30.5 36.6 42.7 48.8 54.7 61.0 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE 2 MPH ( .894 m/s) WIND 0 CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE 4 MPH ( 1.79 m/s) WIND -. 0 HIGHWAY 2 MPH (.894 m/s) WIND 0 HIGHWAY 4 MPH (1.79 m/s) WIND - PARALLEL WIND STABILITY CLASS 5 VP4 = 2000 RECEPTOR HEIGHT 5 FT (1.52 M) WIDTH = 100 FT (30.48 M)
I 0 20 40 60 8 0 100 120 140 160 180 200
DISTANCE . FROM, HIGHWAY, D, FEET
Figure 20 Concentration versus distance For highways of less than 80 ft. or more than about 120 ft. in width; or those with no center median, use of the HIWAY model is suggested be- cause none of the assumptions on which it is based are violated. When the
California Line Source rnodel can be used, stability class 6 should be used for worst case conditions of a hour or less although it is unreasonable to expect a ground based temperature inversior; to last for long periods of time. When the worst case concentration is required at a sensitive receptor more than 100 ft. from the highway, the Cal ifornia Line Source model should be used with stability class 1 and parallel winds, if the highway is close to 100 ft. in width. This will result in highest calculated con- centrations. CHAPTER IV
AIR POLLUTION ANALYSES FOR TWO ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS
The Environmental Protection Agency's "Guidelines for Review of Envi ronmental In~pactstatements1 311states that a highway air pol lution analysis is limited by the state-of-the-art to a microscale analysis for the carbon monoxide and particutate impacts and a mesoscale analysis of the carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and nitrogen oxide impacts. These guide1 ines also state that a microscale CO analysis should be made for all new major highways regardless of population and for minor highways or modi f icati ons increasi ng capaci ty in heavi ly devel oped areas. They do not suggest rnicroscale particular modeling for any case. For any project other than one in a metropolitan area, a mesoscale analysis consisting of a calculation of the total emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen is sufficient. Whenever any analysis is made, it should include the effects that will occur if the project is not carried out so these can be compared to the effects of building the road or changing it.
The potential impact of alternate routes should also be analyzed. Both the microscale and mesoscale analysis should be performed for the estimated time of completion and for twenty years afterwards.
The microscale analysis should include "worst case" predictions of carbon monoxide concentrations for the highest 1 hour and 8 hour concen- trations. Maximum 1 hour concentrations occur during the highest hourly traffic and the worst possible meteorological conditions. This includes atmospheric stability class 6, if it is available on the model being used, and winds of just above 2 mph, parallel to the road alignment. Maximum 8 hour concentrations are calculated using the highest 8 hour traffic volumes and the worst meteorological conditions that could reasonably be expected to 1ast for 8 hours. Habeggar, et a1 .' suggests using higher wind speeds and stability class 5 for 8 hour periods because it is unlikely very low wind speeds or a ground based temperature inversion would last this long.
It can be shown that mesoscale estimates of pollutants discharged can be cal cul ated from:
Tons of pol 1utant per day = (ADT) (e) (SCF) (a) (2.0858 x lo-'') (14) Where:
ADT = Average number of vehicles which travel the road in 24 hours
e = Emission factor, gm/mi
s = Speed correction factor (from Figure 1)
a = Length of the road, ft.
2.0585 .x is a conversion factor needed to obtain tons/day
This calculation must be performed for each pollutant. It must be used twice for hydrocarbons; once using the exhaust em-ission factor, and again using the evaporative and crankcase emission factor. When using the evaporative and crankcase emission factor, SCF always equals 1 since this factor is assumed to be independent of speed. The results of the two hydrocarbon calculations are added together.
Fol 1owing are typical air qua1 ity analyses for environmental impact statements. Two different types of projects are considered. The first is the modification to an existing rcad, Route 33 in Chicopee, Massachusetts.
The second is a new length of road which is part of the Route 52 in Auburn,
Massachusetts. The HIWAY and California Line Source models are used in the microscale analyses of these projects. Total amounts of COY HC, and NOx
are calculated for the mesoscale analyses using Equation 14.
4.1 Route 33, Chicopee, Massachusetts
This proposed project consists of improving Route 33 in the area shown
in Figure 21. At present this is a two to four lane road of about 40 ft.
in width with a 30 ft. median. There are no main a1 ternates to this pro-
ject.
4.1.1 Mesoscale analysis
The first phase of this analysis is the calculation of the
average amounts of pollutants produced by the traffic on the project road.
For the mesoscale analysis, Route 33 is broken into segments of different
lengths to account for traffic volumes. Major side streets are also con-
sidered in this analysis. Lengths and traffic volumes for these segments
and side roads were supplied by the Massachusetts DPW and can be found in
Table 10. No change occurs in traffic levels for the no build case from
1975 to 1995 due to the assumption that the road reached its maximum
loading in 1968. This is verified by traffic counts taken in 1973 and
. 1974. Assumed speeds (needed for determination of the speed ,correction factor (s) from Figure 1 used in the mesoscale analysis are based on speed
limits and traffic conditions, and are listed in Table 11.
Amounts of CO, HC, and NO, are calculated for each road segment using
Equation 14. Emission factors for use in Equation 14 and in the micro-
scale analysis are taken from Table 3. Based on these calculations, Tables 12 through 15 show the calculated amounts of pollutants for each road Fiqure 21 A Diaqram show in^ the Mesoscale Corridor (1-90 was not included in the analysis) TABLE 10
TRAFFIC DATA FOR MESOSCALE ANALYSIS*
Traffic ADT-No Bu i1 d Traffic ADT-Build Road -1968 --1975 1995 -1975 1390 -1995 Route 33 A. Montgomery to Fuller B. Fuller to Mass Pike Turnoff C, Mass Pike Turn- off to Westover D. Westover to Pendl eton E. Pendleton to Irene F. Irene to James G. Janies to New Ludlow H. Fuller Street I . Wes tover J. Pendleton K, James L. Brilton M. Mass Pike Turnoff
*Based on the best information available at this time. TABLE 11
AVERAGE SPEEDS ASSUMED FOR MESOSCALE ANALYSIS FOR BOTH ROUTE 33 AND SIDE STREETS
-1995 Build 25 mph
No Build 20 mph 20 mph TABLE 12
TOTALS FOR MESOSCALE ANALYSIS (TONSIDAY)
Case 1 Build, 1975
NOx TABLE 13
TOTALS FOR MESOSCALE ANALYSIS (TONS/DAY) ,
Case 2 No Build, 1975
NOx
.0390
.0424
.0607
.0431
.0429
.0765 TABLE 14
Case 3 Build, 1995
NOx .0283 TABLE 15
TOTALS FOR MESOSCALE ANALYSIS (TONSIDAY)
Case 4 No Build, 1995
NC segment for the build and no build conditions for 1975 and 1995.
Totals of each pollutant for each case are presented in Table 16.
Total amounts of CO and HZ decrease in the build case ir~1975 due to the increased speed on the roads. The amount of NO, changes very little.
The build condition has higher calculated amounts of all three pol- lutants in 1995 due to increased traffic volume. Both build and no build conditions have lower predicted total amounts of pollutants due to increased emission controls.
4.1.2 Microscale analysis
This phase of the air quality analysis consists of calculating the concentrations of carbon monoxide on or near the highway. The highest concentration of CO occurs on the roadway but the only people in contact with these levels are motorists who are usuallynotexposed for long periods of time. People 1iving in homes close to the road are exposed for long periods of time, though to 1ower concentrations. The clcsest estimated distance from the highway for any home on the Route 33 project is 30 ft.
Microscal e predictions for a1 1 cases include concentrations at this dis- tance. In the cases where the Cal ifornia Line Source aodel is used, the concentrations on the roadway are also predicted. The California Line
Source model is employed for all build cases since the dimensions of the new highway fit perfectly the assumptions of highway width used in this model. For the no build cases, the forty foot width of the highway dic- tates the use of HIWAY, so a mixing cell concentration cannot be calculated.
Calculations of maximum one hour calculations are made with the fol- 1owing assumptions : TABLE 16
AVERAGE AMOUNTS OF POLLUTANTS GENERATED BY TRAFFIC WITHIIN THE CORRIDCR*
CO HC NOx CO HC NOx
Build 2.70 0.40 0.42 1.72 0.27 0.35
No Build 4.28 0.56 0.43 1.03 0.14 0.1 5
* In tons per day. 1 Winds are parallel to the highway.
2. Winds are very low speed (2.1 mph).
3. Traffic flow is at a one hour peak.
Peak one hour traffic for this project is specified as 11% of the average daily traffic. Stability class 6 is used in the California Line
Source Model and stability class 5 in HIWAY. Maximum eight hour concentrations are calculated assuming:
1. Winds are parallel to the highway.
2. Winds are low speed (5.75 mph).
3. Traffic flow is at an 8 hour peak.
Peak 8 hour traffic for this project is specified as 9% of the aver- age daily traffic. Stability class 5 is used for both models. In all cases, the mixing height input of the HIWAY model is set at1000 ft. so it does not influence calculations. A receptor height of 5 ft. is used in all calculations to represent the height of a person breathing the pol- lutants. Average speeds used for determining speed correction factors for the microscale case are presented in Table 17. Using the HIWAY model, worst case carbon monoxide concentrations for 1975 and 1995 for both build and no build conditions are shown in Table 18. In all cases except the
1975 maximum one.hour calculation, the build case has higher predicted values than the no build case due to the increased traffic. Also, all
1995 predictions are lower than the corresponding 1975 ones due to increased emissions controls. The maximum one hour concentration for the 1975 no build case is predicted to be above federal standards. Other
1975 predictions are high 'but within limits set by the standards. 1995 predictions are well below standards. Background levels of CO should be considered in the microscale analysis if they will cause a substantial TABLE 17
AVERAGE SPEEDS USED IN MICROSCALE CALCULATIONS
Average Speeds Used in Microscale Analysis in Miles per Hr.
1 Hr. 8 Hr. 1 Hr. 8 Hr,
Bui 1d 2 7 30 2 2 25 pi0 ~uild TABLE 18 RESULTS OF F1ICROSCF.LE COMPUTER ANALYSIS FOR CONCENTRATIONS OF CARBON MONOXIDE
CO Level s i t-I Parts per Mi11 ion I
1975 1995
Max. 1 hour Max. 8 hour Max. 1 hour Max. 8 hour Road S.R. Road S.R. Road S.R. Road S.R. Build 32 26 9.6 7.8 14 12 4.2 3.6 NoBuild * 30 * 7.0 * 7.4 * 1.7
S.R. = Sensitive Receptor 20 ft. from road,
* Computer model not accurate for this case. effect cjf air qua1 ity. Present levels of background CO are about 1 PPM 15 and will have no significant effect on air quality.
4.2 Route 52. Auburn. Massachusetts
The proposed project is the section of divided superhighway shown in Figure 22. This length of road will connect two already completed seg- ments of Route 52. There is no road now along the proposed route. When completed, Route 52 will reduce the traffic on Route 12 which is considered the main alternate route. For this analysis, Route 12 is broken into three parts to deal with different traffic and highway widths. The first segment runs from the intersection of Route 12 and Federal Hill Road north to the junction of Routes 12'and 20. Segment 2 is the road where these two routes are con- bined. Segment 3 is Route 12 from the eastern divergence of Routes 12 and 20 to Interstate 290. Since Route 12 is the main a1 ternate to Route 52, both build and no build calculations are made for each segment for the years 1978 and 1995. Build calculations are made for Route 52 for the same years. Traffic counts and predictions from the Massachusetts DPW are listed in Table 19. Estimated speeds are presented in Table 20 and road dimensions are in Table 21 .
4.2.1 Mesoscale analysis
The calculation of the average number of tons of pollutants produced by vehicular traffic affected by this project forms this part of the air quality analysis. Pollutants considered are carbon monoxide, Fi.gure 22 Proposed Section of Route 52 TABLE 19
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC FOR ANALYSIS CORRIDORS
Route 52
Route 12 Segment 1 B.ui ld
Route 12 Segment 1 No Build
Routes 12 & 20 Segment 2 Suii d
Route 12 Segment 2 No Build
Route 12 Segment 3 Build
Route 12 Segment 3 No Build TABLE 20
ESTIMATED SPEEDS ON ROUTES 52, 20, and 52 IN PROJECT AREA, MILES PER HOUR
1978 1995
Peak 1 hr. Peak 8 hr. Peak 1 hr. Peak 8 h.r.
Route 52 55 55 55 5 5
Route 12 Segment 1 Build
Route 12 Segment 1 No Build
Routes 12 & 20 Segilient 2 Bui 1d
Routes 12 & 20 Segment 2 No Build
Route 12 Segment 3 Build
Route 12 Segment 3 No Build TABLE 21
DIMENSIONS OF ROUTES 52, 20, AND 12 IN PROJECT AREA
Length (ft.) Width Cft.1
Route 52 17400 180 (10Q ft, median)
Route 12 15600 40 Segment 1
Routes 12 & 20 Segment 2
R0ut.e 12 Segment' 3 hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Equation 14 is used to make these calculations. The values for emission factors, both in this equation
and in the niicroscale analysis, are from Table 3. Speed correction factors based on the speeds in Table 20 are computed from Figure 1. Re-
sul ts of the mesoscale calculations are given in Table 22. In all cases,
the total amounts of pollutants generated are higher for the build case
due to higher traffic volumes. By 1995, the reduced emission factors
offset the increased traffic enough to cause a small reduction in total amounts of pollutants.
4.2.2 Microscal e analysis
Because Route 12 is only 60 ft. at its widest point and
Route 52 has a 100 ft. center median, the HIWAY model was applied to all microscale calculations. Predictsons began at a distance of 20 ft, from
the read since this is the closest distance at which HIWAY is considered
accurate. They are also made at a distance of 40 ft. to provide an esti- mate of concentraticns at sensitive receptors within this distance. Cal-
culations are made for worst one hour and eight hour concentrations for
all a1 ternatives. The assumptions used in these calculations are the
same as those used in the Route 33 calcillations except that stability
class 5 is used in all cases since class 6 is not available for the HIWAY
model. Peak 1 hour traffic is assumed to be 8% of average daily traffic,
and peak hourly traffic for maximum 8 hour conditions is assumed to be
5.55% of average daily traffic. These values are in the range used by
Massachusetts DPW engineers to calculate VPH values. Worst 1 hour con-
centrations for all segments of Route 12 and for Route 52, in the years Table 22
Elesoscale Analysis Res?rlts - Average Amounts of Pollutants Generated by Traffic Isli thin the Corridors*
Route 51, -917 -171 .388 -512 .099 .265 Route 12 Segment 1 Build .469 .079 -133 -303 .056 -105 Route 12 Segment 1 No Build .783 .I32 .220 .473 .087 -164
Routes 12 & 20 Segment 2 Build .201 .033 .I53 -148 .024 .040
Routes 12 & 20 Segment 2 No Build .353 -057 .085 .273 .048 .081 Route 12 Segment 3 Build .I95 .034 .063 -126 .024 -050 Route 12 Segment 3 No Build .325 .056 .011 -306 .054 .019 TOTALS : Bui 1d 1.782 -317 .737 1.089 .203 .461 No Build 1.461 .245 .316 1.052 .I89 .264 *In tons per day 1978 and 1995, are shown in Table 23. Morst 8 hour concentrations are in Table 24. Highest concentrations occur for the no build option along segment 2 of Route 12. These concentrations are still below federal standards. A1 1 other calculated concentrations are we1 1 be1 ow these standards.
No background carbon monoxide concentrations are available for this site. However, background levels are not expected to be a problem here since there are no other major CO sources close by. TADLE 23
CALCIRATEO WIWI 1 HOUR CARBON K)IOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS FOR ROUTE 62 PROJECT*
Route 52 Route 12 Se~rent1 Bulld
Route 12 Ses~snt1 NO Bulld Routes 12 L 20 Sey~ent2 Bulld Routes 12.6 20 Seg~ent2 ti0 Bulld
Route 12 Segment 3 8ulld Route 12 4.32 2.73 1.99 1-55 1.25 1.62 1.10 .8S .67 .% Segment 3 No 8ulld . *Concmtrat{ons in Parts per Utllion . , TABLE 24 CALCUUTED MAXIMUM 8 HOUR WBON MONOXIDE CALCUIATIONS FOR ROUE 52 PROJECT*
1978 1995 Concrntratlons at 20 ft 40 It 60 It 80 It 100 ft 20 ft 40 ft 60 ft 80 ft 100 ft Routa 52 2.02 1.33 .98 .77 -63 1.13 .75 .55 .43 .35
Route 12 'I .63 1.16 .91 .76 64 1.05 .75 .59 .49 .42 Seyn:cnt 1 Buf Id ,...... -.. Route 12 Scgrent 1 No Bulld
Routes 12 L 20 Seywnt 2 Build
Ruutes 12 L 20 4.75 Scgmcnt 2 No Bulld Route 12 1.27 Segment 3 Bulld Route 12 Segment 3 Ma Bulld CHAPTER V
ADVANCES IN MODELING
This section considers some advanced concepts being developed for modeling air pollution dispersion. The first to be discussed will be those which are applicable to modifying Gaussian diffusion models such as HIWAY and California Line Source.
5.1 Mixing Cell Modifications
Since the highest pollution concentrations occur on or near the highway it is important to be able to accurately model concentrations in this region. Habegger, et a1.14 suggest a model which accounts for mixing on and near the highway due to natural winds and traffic produced air turbuience. This model assumes that the concentration in the axially symmetric wake produced by a moving vehicle can be approximated by:
Where E is an empirical constant and all other variables have their pre- viously defined meanings. The coordinate system for this equation is shown in Figure 23. When there is a constant flow of traffic along a highway, the principle of superposition is assumed to hold and the con- centration at a receptor can be calculated using: 2 L exp {-(sine- -/~e(cose) 2/3z2/3 ldz QL CO se IIE~COS~) VEHICLE
Figure 23 coordinate system for equation 15 Where:
a = Effective 1ength of roadway
= Emission sources strength per unit length QL D = Perpendicular distance from road
A1 1 other symbol s have their previously defined values, -This equation
also uses the same coordinate system shown in Figure 23. A value of E has
not yet beer1 experimentally determined. The development of this constant may provide a superior method of calculating mixing cell concentrations.
Egan, et a1.16 have developed another method of dealing with mixing
cell concentrations. It is based on a two-dimensional equation which takes
into account horizontal advection and vertical advection and diffusion.
The equation used is:
Where:
t = Time in seconds
u(xz) = Horizontal wind velocity m/sec
~(xz)= Vertical wind velocity m/sec 2 K(xz) = Turbulent diffusivity m sec
A1 1 other terms have their previously defined meanings and (x,z) are
downwind and vertical directions (meters) in a two-dimensional Cartesian
system. This equation must be solved using finite difference techniques.
A vertical cross section enclosing the highway is divided into grid ele- ments and the partial differentials in Equation 17 are approximated by
finite differences. By setting the horizontal grid dimer~sior~sequal to
the width of a road lane and the vertical dimension equal to the assumed height of the mixing cell, a volume source emission rate can be used to simulate traffic in these lanes. This method has the advantage of being able to handle background concentrations by setting the boundary con- ditions of the finite difference equations equal to the background concentration.
5.2 Terrain Effects
The standard deviations of plume size used in Gaussian diffusion equations were developed for uncompl icated open terrain. For this reason these models are most applicable to non-urban areas. Even in rural areas, however, there are obstructions to air flow which cause wind conditions - different than the assurr~eduniform profile. Rough ground will in general increase turbulence and promote better mixing of pollutants. Other terrain effects may increase pollutant concentrations. Work d~neby Egan, et a1 .I6indicates that when reverse flow occurs a pollution buildup may occur. Empirical values could be developed for the effects of these on concentrations at a distance from the pollutant source as in the street 17 canyon model used by APRAC-IA . This canyon model accounts for the buildup of pollutants between large buildings in cities. In this way the effects of major terrain irregularities can be included in the calculations of pollution dispersion in non-urban areas.
5.3 Possible Modifications of the HIWAY and California Line Source Models
More research may permit one of the advanced rr~ixingcell modifica- tions previously discussed to be added to the California Line Source model without the necessity of making other major changes in the program. This is primarily because mixing cell concentrations are calculated separately from downwind concentrations in this program. A new mixing cell subroutine can simply replace the present ones. Any mixing cell modification appl i ed to the Cal i fornia Line Source model should treat each lane as a separate mixing cell. It should also a1 low for- a center median of variable width. This will make it necessary to calculate downwind concentrations from each lane separately and sum the results.
More computer time will be required, but the model will be applicable to roads of any horizontal configuration without its basic assumptions being violated. HIWAY is not as easy to modify with respect to mixing cell concen- trations because it uses a series of point sources. The diffusion equa- tions used would have to be modified to use a volume source. The first modification of HIWAY should be adding the ability to treat stsbility class 6 in the same manner as the other classes. This would require only the addition of values of a and aZ for this class and modification of Y control statements to include the additional variables. If empirical values are developed for the effects of terrain changes on concentrations, these could be added to either rr~odel in a subroutine which would multiply the calculated concentration by these factors in the regions specified.
5.4 Other model s
There are methods of calculating the dispersion of air pollutants other than Gaussian plume models. One of the simplest is the box model described by Habegger, et a1. 5. This model assumes pol 1 utant concentrations are homogeneous within a defined region or box. If a wind perpendicular to a side of the box of length 1 removes the pol lutant the concentration in the box can be calculated from:
where :
ht = The height of the box
1 = Length of box side perpendicular to wind
All other variables have their previously defined values. This model is useful for mixing cell calculations. Its use is 1imited however, because it assumes rapid turbulent diffusion as compared to wind transport. A much more useful rnodel is the conservation of mass model . This model attempts to calculate pollution di spersion by solving the equations of conservation of mass for the pollutant. Darl ing (3) gives the' basic equation which' is used as:
Where:
'i = The concentration of pollutant species --- U,V,U = Average wind velocities in the x, y, and z directions
Ri = Rate of generation of species, by photochemical reactions i = Emission source strength for species. This equation assumes the air is incompressible and molecular dif- fusion is negl igible. This method has few of the 1imitations of Gaussian plume [nodel s, being capable of hand1 ing time varying concentrations, three- dimensional wind fie1ds and photochemical reactions. Values of Kx, K~' K, and Ri however, are not as well researched as those of aS" and a,. The methods dicussed comprise those used in the majority of dispersion models used at present. References 3 and 16 list many of these models and the methods of calculation they use. CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS
The HIWAY and California Line Source Models can be used with some
limitations to predict carbon monoxide concentrations from highways. The
EPA emissions model or EPA regional emission factors should be used to de-
termine input emission factors for these model s,
Because of the assumpticns they are based on, the California Line
Source and HIWAY models should not be used for some highways. Both models were developed assuming fairly open terrain. Therefore, neither would be
very accurate in an urban area. The California Line Source model should not
be used for roads of less than 80 feet or mre than 120 feet in width or on
those with no center median. HIWAY can be used with roads of any width, with or without medians. For distances very close to the highway, such as within 20 feet, California Line Source will give more realistic concentrations
due to its mixing cell assumption than will HIWAY. California Line Source
should be used to predict worst one-hour concentrations for roads for which
its basic assumptions are not violated, because it has provisions for the worst atmospheric conditions.
For predicting worst eight-hour concentrations, either model may be
used, preferably the one which best takes into account the conditions at
the particular highway. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Perkins, H.C. , "Air Pol lution," McGraw-Hi 11, New York, 1974.
2. Counci 1 on Environmental Quali ty, 1971 , E. Q., "The Second Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality," U.S. Government Printing Office, #4111-0005.
3. Darl ing, E.M., "Computer Model ing of Transportation Generated Air Pollution," U.S. Department of Transportation, Transportation Systems Center, Canbridge, Mass., 1972.
4. "Environmental Protection Agency Regulations on National Primary and Secondary Ambient Ai r Quali ty Standards ," Environmental Reporter, Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C.
5. Wi11 iamson, S. J. , "Fundamental s of Air Pol 1ution ," Addi son-Wesl ey , Reading, Mass., 1973.
6. Turner, B.P., "Wookbook of Atrrtospheric Dispersion Estimates," Environ- mental Protection Agency, Office of Ai r Programs, Research Triangle Park, , North Carol ina , 1970.
7. Zimmerman, J.R., and R.S. Thompson, "Users Guide for HIWAY, A Highway Air Pollution Model," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1975.
8. Beaton, J.L., et al., "Mathematical Approach to Estimating Highway Impact on Air Quality," California DPW Division of Highways Report NO. CA-HWY -?1R6570825 (4) -72-08, 1972.
9. Beaton, J.L., et al., "Motor Vehicle Ernissions Factors for Estimates of Highway Impact on Air Quali ty," Cal ifornia, Cal ifornia DPW Division of Highways Report No. MR6570825(4)-72-08, 1972.
10. "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," Second Edition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs Research Tt-iangle Park, North Carolina, 1973.
11. Supplernent No. 2 for "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," Second Edition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1973.
12. Beaton, J.L., et al., "Air Quality Manual, Vol. V, Appendix to Vol. IV," Cal iforni a DPW Division of Highways Report No. CA-HWY-MRG570825(4) -72-08, 1972.
13. Dickenson, W.D., "Guide1 ines for Review of Environmental Impact State- ments," Vol . 1 Highway Projects, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, 1973. 14. Habegger, L.J., et al., "Dispersion Simulation Techniques for Assessing the Air Pollution Impacts of Ground Transportation Systems." 15. Peters, W.P., and Bauver, W.P., "Chicopee Route 33, 60-Hour Air Quality Survey for Estimate of Background Carbon Monoxide Concentration." 16. Egan, B.A., et al., "Development of Procedures to Simulate Motor Vehicle Pol 1ution Level s ," National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA., 1973.
17. Mancuso, R.L., and Ludwig, F.L., "Users Manual for the APAAC-1A Urban Diffusion Model Computer Program," Envi ronmental Protection Agency, Division of Meteorology, Research Triangle Park, North Carol ina, 1972. APPENDIX A
065nl! FFC1I;F tiR I: FLIF; TFF E 1 .TI;F.EnC. IPiFI-IT .O;_ITFUT? OC.SrJ5 c.: 1:17 rlIr:E~i:ICii ririt41 1 c..> Oi.515 =l.l&~ @65.::0 c.5: 111 FEfiDc 1 .:; Ltq4 (.tf~:fiTE (I6535 6.51.5 11ij ::I.? rtyPi=l .tIl:fi.:E, 1 OG5-li.l 7OC-I FEfiDrl .; LMti.Ct' @ij545 1.IF .'Fb'.Ep. 1 j I-C] To ; @c.55[1 70>:1 l:.fiLL :rApFL 1 0c.552 6C]TC"276 (16555 E I:~~LL:;fitqp~z (1<.55& ?:!.7<.I.!p ITEn 516.. 1 1 o'.i'v iPirirft'JJ? .JJ=l @i56.[13313 ~filiTIl!l>E (16570 1 1 (I? FCFMATC 1 OA:j ./.1 @fi:3? 6572 F El,! IliD66 6575 CHLL F hl5ElIEbl t.5715 CfiLL .T.R'*;EI'
06665 7070 l!!FITE/O<. r 100 3 I,,vFHIEF *U.FHI .H1Z.n.CLHZ 7MkI 06~70 1c~n FOPMI;T r. .i*v~~=+ .FI O.Z.+';EHIS.LE;.CHK*, 0&675+ /*EF =+ .FlO .z ,*I~F:I;~:... MILE*, 06.68n+ .,' *I-I =* .F1 n.z.+mILEZ-Hf*y OGi.E:5+i*FHI =* .Fl n .?. *DEiI;FEES*. Q66?@+/*H =* .F10.2 .*FEET*, 061595+/*2 =* ,FlO .s ,*FEET*. 05.7(tn+/*D =* tF10 .z.*FEET* r 067rJS+/*CLA3=+. I7.3:.,: .*i:1-j = R-C)+. 0671@+./*tIl,l =+ rF1 111 .: r+~:.IjtiITLE'IZ..'**) 06715 CALL :..-:III~!II*:'~:FH.EF.Ci.Ft-!I ~H.':~I~rCLFtS:hClrF'F'M.CMIX.F'Fflzl:> 0672 @ 7 032 \,IF I TE i: QG 9 1:: 0 118 j
06725 3nn FOFr!hT; .K'/ -I:.: r*POLLlJT ION COr4l:EtlTFATIONf z.1 06730 7nZ?E. b,iPITE(OE.rLIQ~:~:!FPm.CF!I:~:~FF'~U 06.735 200 FOF.mATC ..'*FFM = .Fl O.Z,*FAF:TP FEE 11ILLIOtl AT D FEET* 06740+ + FFOH FCAPI.!H'r'*. 06745* /+C.MI;<=* .F 1: .+.,*GF'fiR7-'CUP:C NETEE GN FCRDUHY* r OiTSO+/*FFN:?=* gF1 I! .2 ,*FfiETT FEE NILLIGN 53 F'OADkA'i* rr ) 6751 10 CENT INUE 06755 FETUF'N 06760 END 06765 :VZROIJTIhE :IPWPL2- 6766 INTEGER CLAH - PAGE 2
P-P- P: e t F'EAL Mlnl 616s F'EeD; 1. s LEY4 .rIFEP 67c.9 1.0 10 t'=l .r!CEF 6770 IF'Y.EQ.li rlI2.2 6771 2 FEADcl.) LntIrD 6772 To 71;c. E.773 7132 PEkDc 1 .i LPlPl.'r!FH.EF .lJrFHI rH,Z tD rCLAS .Hlrl tDC!D rW aUIITH 06.775 FEEL W 1.d . - 067zQ 7l2C. I,!; ITE' O&.~I? )
CiE.795 ' EO FCFYAT 1 I .;: +FEDEL FCLLUTICN COI.!CEHTFATIOFi* , Clrj75Cl+ .,+CliLC!iLeT ICr! FCF F 6FhLLEL 1011tin- + .) €.801? 81 FDPKkTi +I:.EI-:T '.:FH .EF .Id .FhI .H .ZZ~.I~LR~ .Ml,!rraI,!D~b! rklK~TH+j 06510 7 :~:EiTE<~~,.~O> @6:31.5 1) FOE PFT i' , .. 4:~:.+ INFI-IT FcPPplETEE: :+) C 07045 22611 TTCP 07mn 2260 IF (H .LT. -?o.;I GO TO 230 (17055 2270 IF ( D .I~T. 0, ? To ESil) 07060 2280 IF ID.LT. !:I.) I:C TO pzn 070155 22'30 IF 07345 2780 PCTUPN 67350 Erin 07555 2-UE:F:CI-ITIHE FImIINI! CVP!i.EF.UrPHI rHrZrD sCLRS aH\rlrDh;D rld*blDTH: 073<.0+ ). FFM .CMI:x: .F'FM:*:> 072.65 IFiTEGEE 11 LH:; 07370 FEEL MI?I.C:.l rF?rC'3.K4 rK 07375 t;l = 4.24 07350 Y2 = 4.24 073::,5 K3 = 4.24 oZ??O K4 = 4.24 073'35 21e.0 IFrFHI .LT. 12.5) GO TO 2190 074015 2170 I~'F:i:TE~::n~.z171> 074 05 2171 FCjFP!tiTc.i,, 1I:I:~: .e:E I:RO:S l.,lItiD MGKrEL .* ) 07410 21;?0 XTCF 07415 21QO 1F.n .EQ. 0.:~ 150 TO 2230 07420 22CiO IF;= '.I>E. 1:1.;* fin TC LC<.@"' 07425 2210 lalCITE<~i.~~ll) 074.20 2211 FCFP?fiT(/ ..; 1 O:x' r*Oi.EL NET V~LID FOR DEPPEZf ED F:ECEPTOF:S .* > 07455 ciiO.-" 5TOP 07440 221:1:1 IF*:lj .I:E . 2. :j 60 TO 2233 074-15 22.?2 l!!C 1TE 6' OF. .P2:3 1 ) 07450 ZZ21 FCF'PATlYi/ 10:.c.*Ci,EL NOT VALID FOP lrlIND SFEEDS LESS THIiN 07455+MILE~F EP Hnl-!F'*:> 07460 22:::15 ETCF 07465 ZZ28 IFs'H .LT. -SO.? Gn TO 2310 0747n 22'40 IFCD .GT. O.::a GO TO 2330 07475 -.-.= iiqn IFcD .LT. 13.) GO TO f2?0 07480 22<,0 IFIZ-H .L.E.li.j GO TO 2:3&O 074E5 z239 l!:P!TEi, OE .ZzTl j OT~F-~CI227 1 FCFMF~T~.,.'FI 5i:.i: 9:rr~t~~NET VALID DIF'ECTLY RE:DVE HIXIHI; CELL*) 07495 Ef81) STOP 075110 22'30 l,IFITEi@6.~~31? 07505 22'5 1 FDFRRT!./x 10:~: :+OLEL NOT YHLID FOP UFb!II-iD CONDITiGill.* ) . 07510 2300 ZTOF 07515 221(1 CtF:ITEi06.23! 1) 07520 Z311 FEF'Mt7T~~/,; 10X.4OtEL NOT VHLID FOR ~IEEPCUT EECTIGHZ.* ) 07525 2320 ::Tap 07530 2:3:30 IFCH .LT. O. .WID. D .LT. 100.) 60 TO 2310 07535 2332 80 TG 2360 . 07540 2340 IaIE.ITE(OF. .2'341> 7545 2341 FD7flATC.f. r,'. 1 OX .r 07635 2520 IJEGP = U,...9L .~32" 02640 Z530 Q = (S.2t.E-i)*VPH*EF 07645 254 C X = D3281. 07650 2550 CALL FCCtic:Z .ZFET .HrEl ,PC= ,CZ: 9t.4 .WET IUE:F, 07l55f+ I.,!. fi -1: -1: rq 1>: ;> [l>.b(l 25?(! IF4.9 .En. 0.:~ I~=l~r?I~ 07i.65 292 9 FF !I = I: + .I:I:JIE~. . P.I,I 076.70 25'=0 PFP.:=: = ITFI:L:+. O;JSErJ..;nU 07675 &@0 PETUFN 07650 EPiP 07e.85 J ,C!iFCI-ITUE.- PI~C~~~Z.ZMET~H~K.~~EZ.K~.K~?HRET~UE:~~E,'~~ET~~RET~ 076F1@+ ZLA.1 . :-1 .hi .+ -1: *lIflI:~:) . 07655 Ir!TEGEP CLA.: - 07700 F ECL i:l9C12 vK.3 .C?J rk 077n~ZE.;'~ CFLL :It:rns=;.~~fi:!:.:~:;II_;Z) 07710 Ze.25 I:FLL :I 11:ptj'I';CLfi.: .:-: .:?II?'~') 07715 26JSI IF12 .LE. 5.1) Z~ET=I]. 07720 2&50 IF. W .h3T. I]. 1:s GO TO 2720 07725 26.6.0 IFiH .LT. 0.1, TO 2790 @773n 2680 = ~3 07735 26.30 EXFT = E:-:P(-((~MET/~IG'~)++~>/~.)+E:?P~-C 0.3035 -330 60 TG IFF. 8 z?i.0.;?3n.30~@~3@5@) 0:3 0.1 0 :jzg11 11OtiT 1til:E Ct8134S 326.1:1 1Fn:fiIuiP .LT . 1 1:!nrj. > = .~~I?~~~:~-III.ID- .= Cl:31:150 327n 1Frf:ItiD .GE. InCiO. .fi~~.DbiD .LT. 2000. j H = 081355 :32:?0 IFi:Ill,in .I~E. ;~[I(I.> 6 = -.?::? 08061) 3E?i3 Lt{l,i = 9 .4':'146 0.30-5 :>301:1 150 TO 1I.F:. 0 ;?e.O .???@ .31]20 93~~~0> 08070 33113 CCtiT INIJE 08079 32.20 IFcPIJK; .LT. 1001:l. j A = .@0@@46;+Dlr!D-.98rj 08090 23.20 IF(:DIo:D .GE. lnl:ll!. .firin. 111,lfl.LT. 2nOO.j A = 08085 3340 IF1.11l.lp .liE. ~[IOI). j A = -.~07 ljglJ?(! 3150 LIIld = f.:O.:;P 08055 3?60 GO TO IkP * 4 2?60.24?0.3020,3135n> 08100 337@CONT It4IjE 0.31 05 33:?0 IF 03250 Z7n3 LNlJ = 6. .3'=69? 08255 .:;7in I;O TO IEP. :Pe.nn;~?n,3n~o.2n~n) 086,0 1:741? IF{Itl.:I' .LT. 1 (!on .; )i= .~I~)I:IO::';:*LI,ID- -591 C1:32;.5 ?;+#@ IF; DIaap .I:E. 1 nor). .h!!g. DI,I~ .LT. ;[~nn. :: 17 = OS270 :2761! IF+'LI..il .IT.E. zI!l:10. .r;,pfi. 111,iD .LT. -)OQD.) fi = 08275 37713 IF;III.ID .liE. 4Qon.) FI = .[1@C@0l*fiblD- .::.i4 (1223 .:,78 0 Lrii,! = 6. -7.f 1 I:I~ CISE:::~ 374n I;O TO IFF. 2~;:n .;??[I .30~'0.3ny,~> @SL>'?rJj:::ln IF~II!,:D .LT. 1000.;~ = .OnC~~;~oDl.lD- .Pi5 082?5 2,:E:Zr: IFI.D:.III .I:E . 1 nllfi, .fi:-ci~. irl,lI~ .LT . z000. ;# A = ?8?@0 ?83n IFi:IIIai:~ .I?E. ~I]~:I(I..sp.rg. rtI,!D .LT. JI::~I],? ti = CIE.3I19 ?:!:4n IFI'I~I.!D .GE. 41:11)0.> = .(~@~UI:IZ~PLID-.~?~~ 083 1 0 2:;s 0 Lrfl,l = ;. I.'>$.'?.? 0~3315.-..-:..:rr.0 .- IGC TO IIF• r:z"?;.O .??PO .502[1.:3135n) @SZzQ'i:f:.r:0 IF(.III,:D .LT. 1 O(IO .:n = .[ICI~~~~~I;I,ID-,47 @:j.325 ?:!:'?[I IFIK,I,:D -1T.E. 1 CII!~. .ht-{D. Itl,lD .LT. :(!01> .>A = @:3.33[1 >'?l:lI:I IF*:DlniD .I:=. 21:101]. .F,;,ND. IIG:D .LT. 40130.j H = 0:33::5 C.310 IF(DLIII .GE. 4000.;a = .GCI[I~J~J~+~~GIII-.~.~~ 03340 .::">O LP(I,I = 5 .?'.;$:?; 08345 '1:?::0 150 TO 11.2. ~::?~1l.~~~n.3~20,3r~y0> 08350 3'350 IF~:DI.,:~I.Li. 1 ~[II:I.)F( = 0001 [16+Dl,iD- ,952 08355 3'?E.0 1Fi:DIJD .GE. 1000. .Fj~iIl. IILID .LT. 2QFI:l. j 13 = @8?6Q 3'370 IFi.T!ItIIl .i:E. >(rI:ln. .firjD. DLID .LT. JClnQ.:, A = 05365 354:3? IF 03:360 5GiQ 152 TO IEF. 0 ~".;<~I.~'??O,'QE@.~CI~@) CI:?:~C.~56.: I~I fi=E:*:F. fie?. :,0::::.5? Q:3870 5030 GETI_'FH 0"e".;&.re 5110 GC TS 1 .I 3;1j..i.:;Q. ::.jl(!..:z5fl.?1?Q.?.1FQ?, IblIP f:3180 5120 13a TC ,.:T:O .~~:~.~:~~r~,.~~~,~.n,~~~:~n..~:~,~,n~,IrdIp 0:.I:$85 51.7.0 ;'J O' j::;:.n. 3:i.:f 13. :,.~,::.n ..;'?~n .:'35(3 ..:.:>I (?? . II,IID 038?0 5141:l 1312 TC .J.~:~[I.~>J~.~~~CI,J~;~:.J~;~~J~I*~CI),ILIID 0:3E'?5 5150 150 TO C4f;l 0.451 1:1.15ln.25:0 .45Ei3*4156.<1, IblID 1389n0 51<.~1iu" Ta .4~5~n..+.~;1:1.-1.-~n.4.5-13.4:3.~1?. IWI~ @:3?[15 51:3[1 13n Tz 8.'~~.::~:~.~.~.~~~,~:~~~,,~:~~~~~,~~~~~,.;~~:~~~:,.11,lIp 08910 5151:l 150 TC . I.FEO.~~~I].~F::O.I.~~~.:'E.~~:.,:~~[I)~Il,lID 0~91'; 52013 150 Ta c.:;:,n..~~;~1~..:.~~~~1.~,;~,1[I. :;:?I Q.:::;J~C:~ . 11,113 O:s?zQ 521I) II;~T3 ~~~~~]~~~~~~J~~~I~~I:;'~~I~JI:I~~~~~[I~~:~~IWID 0392'; 5220 133 TO <~J:~.~.~~'~~.~~:~[:~~~.&.CI.J~,&CI.JJ~@>,IbIID Cl.SQ.30 5230 150 T0 <$'?';0r4'??Ci ..$"?[I .4:J3O,453[1,476n?. IlllID 08935 EFI L? 0894 0 Z1JBFfiUTINE ~IGWRYtCLfi~,XrSIfY) 08445 IF~TEGEF: C LHS 09550 5250 IFcCLfi9 .GT. 0 .AND. CLHS .LT. 7) GO TO 5380 05955 5 I <. 0 tJF. 1TE a: i16. ,536 1 > 08?GG 5.7e.1 FCFP?ST(i/ 1 OX ,*TFiE:ILITY CLRSZ NOT EECOGNIZAELE .* ) 08965 5370 5TuP 08970 SPZQ IF0 PETIJFN 03000 .5450 CENTINIjE 09035 5460 5D TO i5S?O-';?4nr~??Or&Q4C11E.C1*?0~614~). CLRS 09010 5:5..30 IFF'; .LT. -4) .;:Ic;'i'= 242.36+X+* -494 09015 591:tQ IF<:< .I~E. .? .&PITI. :x: .LT. 2.:' _IT.'<= E47.5 +i:o+.i92 0302G 5?1C: IF(:.: .I:€. 2.) %IiFY= 215.2 *:<**.:343 @'in255920 F'ETI-iCN 0903O SP4l:l IF::-{ .LT. .?> .~IC'f=16~.*:~:**.44~ 0302.5 5950 IF;::< .SE. .9 .FIND. :.! .LT. 1.5) SIG'i=172.*:<++.707 03040 S9i0 IF<:*: .6E. 1.5) SICY=lGl .+X**.Si4 090-4.'. 5370 PETLIFN 09050 5950 IFiX .LT. .8) zIG'f= 120. *:<+*.3?2 09055 GOO0 IFI::? .SE. .8 .AND. :=: .LT. 1.5? TIGU= 128.4 *X**.6?2 050C.0 6010 IF,:*: .GE. 1.5) SIG'(= 121.77*).:*+ .:%I7 lj?Oi5 <.@:O PETLIPN 09070 6040 IFiS .LT. .6? sIGY= 86.Q&*X**.341j - - 09073 6090 IF<:=: .GE. .ij .fiND, i: .LT. 1.5> :zIG'i= ?8.65*35+*.588. , 090.50 E.0130 IFcX .GE. 1.5) sIGj'= 8.3 -6 +:-:*+ -926 030:35 e.07 0 FETIJF.N 030'30 6090 IFiX .LT. .7> ZIGY= 65.*5*+ .3@4 0'3035 610Q IFCX .6E. .7 .AND. 1x1 .LT. 1.5) SIGP= i'O.+X*+.4?4 091 00 E.1 10 IF*.:=: .GE. 1 .5) SIGY= 61.*s*+ .~2 091 05 5.120 FETI_:FN 03110 6140 IFCX .LT. .6) SIGY= 49. *X+*.263 091 15 6150 IF.':.: .GT. .i .riND. X .LT. 1.5) f 16i'= 53.5*Y** .435 03120 6160 IFCX .6T. 1.5 .fiHD. N .LT. 3.0) ZIG'i= 44. +%**.i53 031Z.5 5170 IF'X .B:. 3.0) , "-IGY= 39.6*X++.876 09130 6180 RETL!FN 04 135 END 09140 SUFFCQTI NE SIGNAt 09320 33;. 0 IoIF ITE 0 c:c, .'3:3& 1 ) $9325 :??E. 1 FEF.FfiT I'.; / 1OX. *t 15THflCE TOO GFEfiT HCDEL NOT WPLI CfiI:LE+ > 0Q220 3::70 .ZTEF 09335 33313 blFITEi l?cr3381) .. . 09310 3381 FCFVHT 10 FFCGFGW H IlJt3'r'c IrlFl?T .OliTPl?T 9 TPFE6 .TfiFEY) 20 DIEEM? ICti raPrI. 16.; 105* THI t F iC13F FC( I: FLI:~-!LI;TE: TF;E I:~~(CENTFFTICNF cC3 A L IN5 TC?aFCE 106- f fiT EfilI~CF ri ;il:rEEF [?F CErEFTCF?. I?*iFill-lT!HE FELCO 109. I~CPLLESIIq.1H ICb It( TIjZE 11fiLL; ,'C~IFCI_ITIrlE SIGflfi . 112 DIP!EtiYIE?I :~il..!~-'~.~.:,:v..:aT.i~.ya ,I-11-r~24> 115 LIEEH?IGt! ::FEFf : 140+ STHEEIGHT GF LII'!ITI?U3 LIg IC.F.:.l.&C-;IIETEFS :@ 193 23 FCFKt3Tc 1.z:. lFl4EPlI:t:fN HEIGHT 1: . FS.2. I'iETEFS ? 196 28 FCiri-iTi;?:.: .osECE?Tc.; LC::&TIEM* .:i:.: .~PECEFTCP* .-)X.+CC~ICEHTF'~~T~~~{+./. 199+~6:1'r+C.E.*.1T,:<.+ 244 FERD'5.) LEN-P .EF.?CF.ADT ITHETFIYUYC'ST YHL 245 Q=EF*'CF+&:T&I .,:E-7 25 HC=HL*:;.FET 253 ? E=I>/.:x:NL TL- ' c 20 110 YOP.2 I=lFIXNL 25, QL2C I,=E 2.2 51:1nz I:CNTI~~I-IE ~c.5IJF: ITE< II,~F I .:I .> tE.9 FEPI=FEF I*Z:PET 27 1 F EF~=FEF~*:-:PET 274 ZEFl=SEF':*:.:P.ET 27 7 ZEFZ=:EFZ* >:mET 28 0 H=H*:-:KET 21 3 IJ IUTH=IA IDTH*:=:P!ET 236 CNTF=lIHTF.*>.PET EGg* F'EF1!ZEr"l fiFE TtiE CCE-DINFiTEG IIF fiN END FOIflT DF TKE LINE 2?2* SOlJF'C E 11.1 ::(jl-;F'ilE I:CG-~ 1P1i3TET. 295. EEPEy.IEP2 APE TPE CCC-T,i!-iHTEf CF THE OTHEF END POINT OF THE 2QP* LIt!E :~FI-!~C'EIN ICLfF'CE CCZFTiIr!'TEP. 301* H 15 THE EFFEl:TI3::E EMIEzIZii +EIl:.HT @F THE SnClFCE IN EETEES. 304* CNTR IS TFE IJIDTH CF TPE CEtiTEP ZTFIr" 'rl? 307* IAIIDTH 1: TC;E HI~;Pl,lfi':' I,:II;TH ill', FCF' AT GFAIiE 31o* NNL IS THE tiUME.EE GF Lhr?EZ FOE THE AT-GFALE HIStildFt'f - 313 NL=:x:NL 316 IF<%PIL .GT -1.) >:F~L=YNL-~. ' 319 DELW=(W IDTH-CNTF)..*:-XiL 322 C.:RITE 424* GZ IZ THE MEFCUPE E:ETIJEEN COCFDIPIATET irn?. 4.27 lrlRITE( 1G:FI ,18) I:? 43 0 WRITE* IMP1 .t;S> 433* CONVEPT CGCPDINATE ?>'TTEM -0 THFT HIGHl~lhY 43C.t IS ORIENTATED fiLZNG ZEPC EEGFEES cfi6TI-i ZYZTEM) 439 XI=PEP 1 442 Y 1 =TEPI ' 44 5 X2=FEP2 44 9 Y2=SEP2 . - 45 1 DX=XE-X I 454 DY=Y2-Y 1 457 CRLL ATHC'DX IDY .FiNl:H vPfiN6, 460 PEPl=Yl *:Ir!i.Ft{l;H :~+:ilrCC: i. firt13-4, 463 ~Epl='fl*l~O~ 478 ' IFCTHETA .LT -0. lTHETti=THETH+?ii0. 43 1 IF1:THETR .SE.:::iO .:lTHETfi=THETfi-36n. 494 T =THETR/57.2?53 437* T IS THE WIN DIPECTIOH IN FHDIRNS 490 SIHT=SIH(T> 49 3 COST=COS 539 52- i -:.p)*GT 59 2 Xl=F ' ":T+: 1 r~at~ 593 Ylr, . - 'Y.T-P~*I:OST 598 X2rF.L - "!T+ZP*COST 601 Y2=SL t 'iT-P2*C.OST 604 5 ?5,> FCPPfiTC l?.:.E.E15 .:) 607 53154 FLirATf l>:.:E18.7> 610* :.:l t'il I?;€ THE DCI,IP~I,IIW~IFNP CFOC'tlItiI! DIT'TABCES (C-) 613* ' fF FECEF'TC? 1c.I: FFCT" Er'2F'CXNT FEF1 .:EF'l CF THE LIr'E TOl-lF 516* :<2.'r'S hEE TSE I:CI,INI,IIpD i.pD CFC::I,IIrip 111ITfiNCES i k K' 61?* OF FEITEFTCF IF. I? FFC? ENi'F'CXhT -EF2 IEF2 CF TFE LIt'E ?CL:P GZs* TECT FC;' FiT LEAIT GtiE EhIiFOIBT liFldXtl2 CF FECEFTGP - OTHEF'U1 62!5* CONCENTFfiTXCr4 = 0. 6?8* CHECk.' FCF' FEIIEPTCP LC1s:5lrlItlD OF COC;RCE. IF NOT t ZET CCflC = 6.3 1 IF t::-:l> ~~CIZ.~I:I?.-~~[I.: 634 4402 IF .:-:?? 4JC~4.110~110 637 4404 cc?iTIr,l-:E 640 yz='y.,>-;, f *i;-*Tol).,.(:~;2-~1)) + ~2 643 >:2=0.0 646 P=<~::Y:~-X~)**E+ ('j2-Y1)*+2)*+.5 6-19 50 TO 110 2 4402 IF cX2) 5007500.4405 655 4405 CENTINLIE 658 Y1= '(1-ii ('1'2-'~'1 j./(X2-x1))* XI 661 : ' €53 Gg TO E213 :-. 876 300 ECTTJ=EETC+E~T~ CCc.5~9 IFC ItiD1:-1) ~I!CI.FOQ.~~@ ~6.2 31 (5 :A:H=: 9:: 5 TEF:rI 3- E:&:F<-O .y*< ~.;-h+crlL:k i 111T.pH Z:t++>) 488* TEF:M 4- E:.:Fi-c .To; n.=+H+ZrdL>,.:T 113;" z:o**z) 931* THE AI:@'.;E EI?I_IFTICH 1: .:IF!LhF. TO EI:~-IGTICY '5.E) P 26 IN QQ4*d d LIOF'C'FCOC' CF tiTrCZFPEFIC ?I:IFEFT ICI1 ETTIPlriTES L!ITH THE ADD 3374 OF THE E:,:F'CFiEtiT IFL !N':'CL'.,: Irill; 'I;' . 1000* IIJFI IS CEriTFOL CGZE FOP OClTFlJT 1003 ' IL!F:I = 6 10OF,* IF !! IS LEfl THAN SEFO.. CET FC=I?. eND FET1IF.N. THIS RVO 100?* FF'OSLEF.7 CF IMCCPFECT VLUEC NEAP THE 2ClUECE. 1012 IF(:-:-:<'-;Z(C'.TT) )~:Q.'I;CI r5 1015 5 IFC:-:Y-~VYC~.:T~):~I?..~[I~.:~~~ 101E'* CHLL 6113I'!A TO CBTt?IN UALCiES FCR SY AND CZ 1021 300 CALL SI15plt7 '::-:,:~:'f,~::;T.~'~'.:;~) 10;='4* -2-. f = .ZIS.NA 'ir TVE ZTHNKiFiFI! DEVIATION OF CUHCENTFfiTION IN 1027* Y-D1F:ECTIGV IM? 1-@30* SZ = SIISPII? Z. THE ZTRHDAFD DEVIATION OF [email protected]?CENTFRTION IH 1033* Z-D1F:ECT IOfI ~~M~~ 103~.* IPiITIAL VALUE CF AN SET = 0. 1039 RN=O. 1042* IF TKE FECEFTGF IS AEC'v'E THE LID, PRINT THRT GUT* IET EC = 10-154 AIID FYETUFN . 1043 IF GCI TO 110 inn fi:=o. li10 :1_!ll=o. THL=Z.*I-!L 120 AN=fiN+t . CS = FitI*Tbi~ CC = IIh-1I5 CI! = CE-CT SE = Cfi+Cc, CF = CE+CJ Ci = CC*CC/C~ C7 = SrlW-D..1:2 13= J:E+