DOCSLIB.ORG

Dear Dr. Garrett, We Have Addressed the Comments from Reviewers 1 and 2 and Incorporated Changes Into a Revised Manuscript. Plea

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dear Dr. Garrett, We Have Addressed the Comments from Reviewers 1 and 2 and Incorporated Changes Into a Revised Manuscript. Plea Dear Dr. Garrett, We have addressed the comments from Reviewers 1 and 2 and incorporated changes into a revised manuscript. Please find the referees’ comments, our point-by-point responses, and a marked up version of the manuscript below. The text in black are the replies uploaded to ACPD. During incorporation of the revisions, we change our minds on a few points. These changes are noted in red text, as are indications for where to find the related changes in the manuscript. Thank you for considering this manuscript for publication in ACP. Thanks, Natalie Wagenbrenner Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., doi:10.5194/acp-2015-761-RC1, 2016 ACPD © Author(s) 2016. CC-BY 3.0 License. Interactive comment Interactive comment on “Downscaling surface wind predictions from numerical weather prediction models in complex terrain with WindNinja” by N. S. Wagenbrenner et al. Anonymous Referee #1 Received and published: 21 February 2016 Review This is very well-written and well-constructed, scientifically sound paper that is of ben- efit to the scientific community. I don’t have any major issues with the paper as-is. However, some discussion of the following issues would strengthen the paper in my opinion: 1. For Figures 1, and 6-8 it would be really helpful to have the Big Southern Butte area Printer-friendly version zoomed in more. I have a hard time seeing what is going on in that region and then the rest of the plots are mostly empty with a few observations scattered downstream. Discussion paper What I would recommend would be to have a zoomed-in plot of the Big Southern Butte area. C1 2. On the same note, it would be helpful if sensor R2, R26 discussed in Fig. 4 were indicated on the map in Fig. 1. ACPD 3. Why is the only meteorological parameter discussed in this paper wind? Is there no parallel for downscaling for other critical fire parameter: relative humidity and temper- Interactive ature? For the general reader some discussion of this in the intro would be helpful for comment the more general audience of ACP. 4. I am under the impression that strongly-forced wind events are the most important factor for high fire spread, and therefore the strengths of this study play to that need. I think this point should be made somewhere, even if it is fairly obvious. 5. WRF-HRRR fields are now available to drive the 1.33 km model. Were any tests conducted to determine the improvement in WRF using HRRR analyses to drive the 1.33 km model instead of NARR? Could this be included as potential future work? 6. I would separate the discussion more clearly into ‘externally forced flows’ (large- scale winds) and locally-forced flows (upslope and downslope). The current text dis- cusses weak external forcing in many places; my opinion is that it would be better to distinguish the two cases by referring to ‘locally-forced’ more when the external forcing is weak. 7. Why was a ‘quasi-large-eddy simulation’ (200-400 m horizontal grid spacing) not conducted with WRF and compared to the other runs? This simply requires turning off the PBL scheme and a few other parameters (WRF-LES settings). A lack of numerical resources is a good argument. While the argument is made that these simulations are not feasible in real-time, the 1.33 km runs are also not feasible in real-time. If the LES run was conducted, then a comparison could be made such as ‘the downscaling Printer-friendly version is equivalently good as the quasi-LES run over the area where the terrain structure is explicitly simulated. There may be issues with CFL criteria with high resolution to- Discussion paper pography in the simulations, but many investigators are starting to use WRF as a LES model with the PBL turned off:::would be curious how these results would compare C2 to the downscaled. In any case, a sentence or two in future work discussing how this could be done in the future would be good. ACPD 8. The potential limitations of the slope flow parameterization and discussion of a com- panion paper is looking at this is discussed but in a rather scattered manner. If a sum- Interactive mary of the strengths and weaknesses of WindNinja were included in the introduction comment this would help make the findings in the body of the paper flow better. 9. The weakness with windninja simulating lee-side flows is an important point, as many fires occur on the ‘downslope’ side of mountain ranges. Does this weakness also happen during strongly forced conditions? It was not clear to me. Interactive comment on Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., doi:10.5194/acp-2015-761, 2016. Printer-friendly version Discussion paper C3 Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., doi:10.5194/acp-2015-761-RC2, 2016 ACPD © Author(s) 2016. CC-BY 3.0 License. Interactive comment Interactive comment on “Downscaling surface wind predictions from numerical weather prediction models in complex terrain with WindNinja” by N. S. Wagenbrenner et al. Anonymous Referee #2 Received and published: 23 February 2016 The authors compare different WRF simulations and a diagnostic model against wind observations over an isolated mountain. Spacial emphasis is given to quantify the added value of downscaling the WRF simulations with the diagnostic model (Wind- Ninja). The topic is relevant to progress in our understanding of the ability of mesoscale simulations, and diagnostic models, to reproduce the wind over complex terrain. The observational dataset is quite unique. The article is well written and the conclusions are supported by the results. Perhaps it could be highlighted that none of the WRF Printer-friendly version simulations is able to represent the mountain. Only the simulation at 1.33 km of hori- zontal resolution starts to “see” something (fig. 1). More specific comments, all of them Discussion paper of minor character, are provided below. C1 I therefore recommend acceptance of the manuscript pending to minor revisions ACPD SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. Page 5, line 9: Please define the FDM acronym. 2. Page 5, line 25: I believe you are using the Kain-Fritsch scheme to represent the Interactive cumulus in WRF. If so, please update the reference. comment 3. Page 6, line 4: The first model level of WRF-UWis 40m a.g.l. Later in the manuscript it is mentioned that these winds are interpolated to 3 m using a log profile. Is this inter- polation taking into account the atmospheric stability? Or the atmosphere is assumed to be neutral? I say this because the target height, 3 m a.g.l, is far from 40 m a.g.l. and the interpolation method could play a major role in the evaluation. 4. Page 7, line 7: The NAM model has the first level at 200 m and the horizontal resolution is 12 km. NAM is obviously not representing the mountain at all. RAP provides information of the winds in the valley. It would be informative to have some discussion of this here pointing out why NAM is used even though the mountain is not represented at all. 5. Page 13: liens 11-15: None of the WRF simulations have enough horizontal reso- lution to represent the mountain. Only at 1.3 km WRF starts to see something. The WRF predictability probably comes from the simulation of the flow in the Snake River Plain. It may be interesting to compute anomalies with respect to the mean flow and compare them with the equivalent observations to see if there is any benefit as a result of increasing the horizontal resolution. 6. Page 14: It will be good to show a spatial plot showing the under prediction of windward and ridge top locations. Printer-friendly version 7. Page 18, first paragraph Summary: You should mention that the horizontal resolu- Discussion paper tions are too coarse to represent the mountain in the WRF simulations. C2 Interactive comment on Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., doi:10.5194/acp-2015-761, 2016. ACPD Interactive comment Printer-friendly version Discussion paper C3 1 Reply to Reviewer 1 2 1. Figures 1 and 6-8 will be updated to show a zoomed in version of the butte. Zooming in on the butte 3 would be nice for the left panel of Figure 1, however, it’s not really possible for the other three panels, 4 since the butte is represented by just one or two pixels; therefore, we chose to leave these figures as is. 5 Additionally, these figures depict the domain extent used in our downscaling simulations and so there is 6 value in leaving extents in the figures as is. 7 2. R2 and R26 will be added to Figure 1. Added in Figure 1, p. 34. 8 3. The diagnostic model evaluated in this paper, WindNinja, is only designed to downscale the flow. 9 WindNinja includes physics for modeling the mechanical and thermal effects of the terrain on the flow 10 field. WindNinja is capable of interpolating other parameters (e.g., temperature and relative humidity) 11 to a finer grid, but does not provide any additional physics (e.g., conservation of energy) or 12 parameterizations to simulate terrain effects on these parameters. For these reasons, WindNinja does 13 not output additional downscaled weather parameters. Additionally, wind varies more spatially than 14 temperature and RH, so is more important to predict at a high resolution. Wind is known to often be the 15 driving environmental variable for wildfire spread and behavior. We will clarify these points in the 16 paper. Some discussion on this was added in lines 101-104.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents
    CALPUFF Modeling System Version 6 User Instructions April 2011 Section 1: Introduction Table of Contents Page 1. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 CALPUFF Version 6 Modeling System............................................................... 1-1 1.2 Historical Background .......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Overview of the Modeling System ....................................................................... 1-7 1.4 Major Model Algorithms and Options................................................................. 1-19 1.4.1 CALMET................................................................................................ 1-19 1.4.2 CALPUFF............................................................................................... 1-23 1.5 Summary of Data and Computer Requirements .................................................. 1-28 2. GEOPHYSICAL DATA PROCESSORS.......................................................................... 2-1 2.1 TERREL Terrain Preprocessor............................................................................. 2-3 2.2 Land Use Data Preprocessors (CTGCOMP and CTGPROC) ............................. 2-27 2.2.1 Obtaining the Data.................................................................................. 2-27 2.2.2 CTGCOMP - the CTG land use data compression program .................. 2-29 2.2.3 CTGPROC - the land use preprocessor
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Assistance for Improving Emissions Control the Role Of
    This Project is Co-Financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey This Project is c This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey Technical Assistance for Improving Emissions Control Service Contract No: TR0802.03-02/001 Identification No: EuropeAid/128897/D/SER/TR The Role of Emissions Dispersion Modelling in Cost Benefit Analysis Applied to Urban Air Quality Management: Part 1-the Approach (Version 2: 18 May 2012) This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the Consortium led by PM Group and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. Contracting Authority: Central Finance and Contracting Unit, Turkey Implementing Authority / Beneficiary: Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation Project Title: Improving Emissions Control Service Contract Number: TR0802.03-02/001 Identification Number: EuropeAid/128897/D/SER/TR PM Project Number: 300424 This project is co-financed by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey The Role of Emissions Dispersion Modelling in Cost Benefit Analysis Applied to Urban Air Quality Management: Part 1 – the Approach Version 2: 18 May 2012 PM File Number: 300424-06-RP-200 PM Document Number: 300424-06-205(2) CURRENT ISSUE Issue No.: 2 Date: 18/05/2012 Reason for Issue: Final Version for Client Approval Customer Approval Sign-Off Originator Reviewer Approver (if required) Scott Hamilton, Peter Print Name Russell Frost Jim McNelis Faircloth, Chris Dore Signature Date PREVIOUS ISSUES (Type Names) Issue No. Date Originator Reviewer Approver Customer Reason for Issue 1 14/03/2012 Scott Hamilton, Peter Russell Frost Jim McNelis For client review / comment Faircloth, Chris Dore CFCU / MoEU 300424-06-RP-205 (2) TA for Improving Emissions Control 18 May 2012 CONTENTS GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Predicting Air Quality Near Roadway Intersections Through the Applicat
    University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2004 Predicting Air Quality Near Roadway Intersections Through The Applicat Brian Kim University of Central Florida Part of the Environmental Engineering Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Doctoral Dissertation (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Kim, Brian, "Predicting Air Quality Near Roadway Intersections Through The Applicat" (2004). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 200. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/200 PREDICTING AIR QUALITY NEAR ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF A GAUSSIAN PUFF MODEL TO MOVING SOURCES by BRIAN Y. KIM B.S. University of California at Irvine, 1990 M.S. California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, 1996 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in the College of Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2004 ABSTRACT With substantial health and economic impacts attached to many highway-related projects, it has become imperative that the models used to assess air quality be as accurate as possible. The United States (US) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently promulgates the use of CAL3QHC to model concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) near roadway intersections.
    [Show full text]
  • MARK R THEOBALD.Pdf
    TESIS DOCTORAL / Ph.D THESIS An Intercomparison of Modelling Approaches for Simulating the Atmospheric Dispersion of Ammonia Emitted by Agricultural Sources Mark R. Theobald Madrid 2012 E.T.S.I. Agrónomos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Departamento de Química y Análisis Agrícola Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos An Intercomparison of Modelling Approaches for Simulating the Atmospheric Dispersion of Ammonia Emitted by Agricultural Sources Autor: Mark R. Theobald Licenciado en Ciencias Físicas (MPhys hons) Directores: Dr. Antonio Vallejo Garcia Doctor en Ciencias Químicas Dr. Mark A. Sutton Doctor en Ciencias Físicas Madrid 2012 Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was funded by the European Commission through the NitroEurope Integrated Project (Contract No. 017841 of the EU Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development). The European Science Foundation also provided additional funding through COST Action 729 for the attendance of conferences and workshops and for the collaboration with the University of Lisbon (COST-STSM-729-5799). Firstly I would like to thank my two supervisors Dr. Mark A. Sutton and Prof. Antonio Vallejo for their support and guidance throughout this work. I am grateful to Mark not only for his willingness to discuss and direct this work no matter where he was in the world or whatever time of day it was, but also for the support and encouragement I received when I was at CEH Edinburgh. I am also grateful to Antonio for guiding me through the labyrinths of University bureaucracy. I would also like to thank the other research groups with whom I have collaborated throughout this work. Thanks to all my colleagues at CEH Edinburgh with a special mention to Bill Bealey for his help developing the SCAIL model and to Sim Tang for providing the ALPHA samplers and technical support.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Chemical Dispersion Models Using Atmospheric Plume Measurements from Field Experiments EPA Contract No
    September 2012 FINAL REPORT FINAL REPORT Evaluation of Chemical Dispersion Models using Atmospheric Plume Measurements from Field Experiments EPA Contract No: EP‐D‐07‐102 Work Assignment No: 4‐06 and 5‐08 Prepared for: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Mail Code: C439‐1 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Prepared by: ENVIRON International Corporation 773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115 Novato, California, 94998 Under Subcontract to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill September 2012 06‐20443M6 UNC–EMAQ 4‐06.018.v4 September 2012 FINAL REPORT UNC–EMAQ 4‐06.016.v4 i September 2012 FINAL REPORT Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 OVERVIEW OF APPROACH .................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Field Experiments used in the Evaluation ............................................. 2 1.3.2 Models Evaluated .................................................................................. 2 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT ........................................................................ 2 2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Development of the Next Generation Air Quality Models for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Applications
    Development of the Next Generation Air Quality Models for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Applications Final Report: Volume 2 - CALPUFF Users Guide (CALMET and Preprocessors) March 2006 Prepared For: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA Contract No. 1435-01-01-CT-31071 Prepared By: Earth Tech, Inc. 196 Baker Avenue Concord, Massachusetts 01742 (978) 371-4000 Contents A. OVERVIEW A-1 A.1 Background A-1 A.2 Overview of the Modeling System A-4 A.3 Major Model Algorithms and Options A-14 A.4 Summary of Data and Computer Requirements A-23 B. GEOPHYSICAL DATA PROCESSORS B-1 B.1 TERREL Terrain Preprocessor B-3 B.2 Land Use Data Preprocessors (CTGCOMP and CTGPROC) B-17 B.3 MAKEGEO B-31 B.4 NIMA DATUM REFERENCE INFORMATION B-42 C. METEOROLOGICAL DATA PROCESSORS C-1 C.1 READ62 UPPER AIR PREPROCESSOR C-1 C.2 PXTRACT PRECIPITATION DATA EXTRACT PROGRAM C-12 C.3 PMERGE PRECIPITATION DATA PREPROCESSOR C-19 C.4 SMERGE SURFACE DATA METEOROLOGICAL PREPROCESSOR C-29 C.5 BUOY OVER-WATER DATA METEOROLOGICAL PREPROCESSOR C-39 D. PROGNOSTIC METEOROLOGICAL DATA PROCESSORS D-1 D.1 CALMM5 D-1 D.2 CALETA D-25 D.3 CALRUC D-40 D.4 CALRAMS D-48 D.5 3D.DAT OUTPUT FILE D-53 E. CALMET MODEL FILES E-1 E.1 User Control File (CALMET.INP) E-5 E.2 Geophysical Data File (GEO.DAT) E-49 E.3 Upper Air Data Files (UP1.DAT, UP2.DAT,...) E-61 E.4 Surface Meteorological Data File (SURF.DAT) E-66 E.5 Overwater Data Files (SEA1.DAT, SEA2.DAT, ...) E-70 E.6 Precipitation Data File (PRECIP.DAT) E-74 E.7 Preprocessed Diagnostic Model Data File (DIAG.DAT) E-78 E.8 Prognostic Model Data File (PROG.DAT) E-82 E.9 3D Model Data Files (3D.DAT) E-84 E.10 Terrain Weighting Factor Data File (WT.DAT) E-102 E.11 CALMET Output Files E-109 Volume II & III References A.
    [Show full text]
  • Calpuff Real Case Studies
    Modelling exercise with Calpuff. Real case studies. Activity 4. Tools for response management Action 4.2. Airborne Pollution Propagation from water incidents ARCOPOL The Atlantic Regions’ Coastal Pollution Response Version: 1.0 Last updated on: 30/12/201 1 Author: Patricia Simal Campos, Vicente Pérez-Muñuzuri, Breogán Gómez Hombre Responsible partner: MeteoGalicia. Consellería de Medio Ambiente, Territorio e Infraestructuras. Involved partners: CETMAR, MeteoGalicia- Consellería de Medio Ambiente, Territorio e Infraestructuras, INTECMAR, IST, CIIMAR, Agencia de Medio Ambiente y Agua de Andalucía, Irish Marine Institute, C.R. de Bretagne, C.R. d’Aquitaine Table of contents Page 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7 2. The CALPUFF Modelling System .......................................................................... 7 3. Model Selection ...................................................................................................... 9 4. Emergency episodes ........................................................................................... 10 4.1. Kerosene spill in O Burgo estuary - A Coruña (September 2nd 2011) ....... 10 4.1.1. Description of the emergency ............................................................... 10 4.1.2. Meteorological conditions ..................................................................... 12 4.1.3. Surface weather station near the incident ............................................ 14 4.1.4. Air
    [Show full text]
  • WHO. Guidance for Identifying Populations at Risk from Mercury Exposure. Issued by UNEP DTIE Chemicals Branch
    UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME DTIE CHEMICALS BRANCH GUIDANCE FOR IDENTIFYING POPULATIONS AT RISK FROM MERCURY EXPOSURE August 2008 Issued by UNEP DTIE Chemicals Branch and WHO Department of Food Safety, Zoonoses and Foodborne Diseases Geneva, Switzerland ii Disclaimer: This publication is intended to serve as a guide. While the information provided is believed to be accurate, UNEP and WHO disclaim any responsibility for possible inaccuracies or omissions and consequences that may flow from them. UNEP, WHO, or any individual involved in the preparation of this publication shall not be liable for any injury, loss, damage or prejudice of any kind that may be caused by persons who have acted based on their understanding of the information contained in this publication. The designation employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply any expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations, UNEP, or WHO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or any of its authorities, or concerning any definition of frontiers or boundaries. This publication is produced within the framework of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC). This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organisation Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen co-operation and increase international co-ordination in the field of chemical safety. The participating organisations are FAO, ILO, OECD, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR and WHO.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Evaluation of CALPUFF and AERMOD Dispersion Models for Air Quality Assessment of an Industrial Complex
    Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research Vol. 74, May 2015, pp. 302-307 Performance evaluation of CALPUFF and AERMOD dispersion models for air quality assessment of an industrial complex S Gulia1, A Kumar2 and M Khare3* 1,2 & *3Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, India Received 18 December 2013; revised 7 October 2014; accepted 23 April 2015 Air quality model (AQM) is an essential tool for management of air quality in near field region of an industrial complex. Model validation study using site specific input data can boost the consistency on accuracy of model’s performance for air quality management. This study describes the validation of CALPUFF and AERMOD for assessment of NOx concentrations in near field region of a steel industry in Bellary district of Karnataka state in India. Relative model performances are evaluated by comparing monitored and predicted pollutants using well referred statistical descriptors. Further, the performance of CALPUFF has evaluated with different dispersion options (i.e., PGT-ISC dispersion curve and similarity theory) and vertical layers option (i.e., two and ten vertical layers) in CALMET, meteorological pre-processor of CALUFF. Both models performed satisfactorily for predicting NOx concentrations. Further, CALPUFF with different dispersion options performed more satisfactorily than AERMOD. CALPUFF with PGT- ISC dispersion curve option performed more satisfactorily than similarity theory based dispersion option for the selected pollutant. In addition to this, CALPUFF with two vertical layers option performed better than ten vertical layers option. The satisfactory performance of CALPUFF over AERMOD might be due to its predicting capability in calm condition, in which all plume dispersion models failed.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Session Oral and Poster Presentation (Red Written Papers Are Not Available)
    Table of Session Oral and Poster presentation (red written papers are not available) Session 1 Model Evaluation Session 2 : Air Quality Management ; the EU air quality directive Session 3 Urban Air Quality Modelling Session 4 Model Intercomparison Session 5 Street Canyon Models Session 6 Decision Support System Session 7 Meteorological Pre-Processing CORIA – UMR 6614. CNRS – UNIVERSITE & INSA DE ROUEN – France. Tel: 33 (0)2 32 95 97 82 - Fax: 33 (0)2 32 95 97 80 - E-mail: [email protected] - Http://www.coria.fr Session 1 Model Evaluation CORIA – UMR 6614. CNRS – UNIVERSITE & INSA DE ROUEN – France. Tel: 33 (0)2 32 95 97 82 - Fax: 33 (0)2 32 95 97 80 - E-mail: [email protected] - Http://www.coria.fr Table of contents Session 1 Model Evaluation Oral Presentation. Paper 1 QUALITY ASSURANCE OF URBAN DISPERSION MODELS M. Schatzmann & B. Leitl,Germany Paper 8 INTERCOMPARISON OF THE LAGRANGIAN AND EULERIEAN MODEL PREDICTIONS AT LOCAL SCALE WITH MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS V.Sandu, Romania Paper 13 SIMULATIONS OF ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION IN URBAN STABLE BOUNDARY LAYER E. Ferrero, D. Anfonssi, G Tinarelli, Italy Paper 20 EVALUATION OF A NON-GAUSSIAN PUFF MODEL T. Tirabassi, C. Mangia and U. Rizza, Italy Paper 24 STUDY OF TURBULENCE AND POLLUTANT DISPERSION UNDER NEUTRALLY AND UNSTABLY STRATIFIED ATMOSHERE UNSING A SECOND- ORDER EULERIAN MODEL C.H. Liu and D. Y. C. Leung, China. Paper 31 A LAGRANGIAN-PUFF DISPERSION MODEL: EVALUATION AGAINST TRACER DATA C. Mangia, U. Rizza, Italy Paper 38 EFFECTS OF CONCENTRATION FLUCTUATIONS ON STATISTICAL EVALUATIONS OF CENTERLINE CONCENTRATION ESTIMATES BY ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELS J.
    [Show full text]
  • DUSTRAN 2.0 User's Guide
    PNNL-24049 DUSTRAN 2.0 User’s Guide: A GIS-Based Atmospheric Dust Dispersion Modeling System March 2015 WJ Shaw FC Rutz JP Rishel EG Chapman Prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program under a Related Services Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 PNNL-24049 DUSTRAN 2.0 User’s Guide: A GIS-Based Atmospheric Dust Dispersion Modeling System WJ Shaw FC Rutz JP Rishel EG Chapman March 2015 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program under a Related Services Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Summary The U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) completed a multi-year project to update the DUSTRAN atmospheric dispersion modeling system, which is being used to assist the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in addressing particulate air quality issues at military training and testing ranges. This version—DUSTRAN V2.0—includes (1) a complete replacement of the geographic information system (GIS) platform to include the utilization of open-source GIS software (MapWindow) (2) user profiles to allow multiple users to run individual simulations using separate sites (3) integration of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) AERMOD air-dispersion model for modeling near- field (less than 50 km) releases, including an option to use a formulation for near-field deposition derived from new work by the Desert Research Institute; and (4) updates to the dust source-term module for military vehicles to include additional vehicle and soil types, as well as enhanced formulations for particle deposition.
    [Show full text]
  • A User's Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model
    A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 5) Prepared by: Joseph S. Scire David G. Strimaitis Robert J. Yamartino Earth Tech, Inc. 196 Baker Avenue Concord, MA 01742 January 2000 Copyright © 1998, 1999,2000 by Earth Tech, Inc. All Rights Reserved Table of Contents 1. OVERVIEW ...................................................................1-1 1.1 Background ..........................................................1-1 1.2 Overview of the CALPUFF Modeling System ...............................1-3 1.3 CALPUFF Features and Options.........................................1-11 1.4 Summary of CALPUFF Data and Computer Requirements....................1-15 2. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ......................................................2-1 2.1 Solution of the Puff Equations............................................2-1 2.1.1 Integrated Puff Sampling Function Formulation .......................2-4 2.1.2 Slug Formulation and Sampling Functions ...........................2-7 2.1.3 Sampling Function Testing .......................................2-15 2.2 Dispersion ..........................................................2-23 2.2.1 Atmospheric Turbulence Components ..............................2-24 2.2.2 Buoyancy - Induced Dispersion ...................................2-36 2.2.3 Initial Plume Size ..............................................2-37 2.2.4 Puff Splitting (Vertical Wind Shear) ...............................2-37 2.2.5 The P.D.F. Option for the Convective Boundary Layer .................2-39 2.2.6 Vertical Puff Stretching
    [Show full text]