Developments in ADMS-Airport and its Applications to Heathrow Airport. IAE (Institute of Aviation and the Environment) Cambridge, June

Similar documents
Using sensor data and inversion techniques to systematically reduce dispersion model error

Analysis of Fast-Response NO x Measurements at Heathrow Airport

Dispersion Modeling of the Transport and Dispersion of SO 2 Pollutants Emitted from a Power Plant in Tong Liang

Air Quality Modelling for Health Impacts Studies

AIRCRAFT SOURCES CERC

PLUME RISE MODEL SPECIFICATION

Air Quality Models. Meso scale

Example of Aircraft Climb and Maneuvering Performance. Dr. Antonio A. Trani Professor

BOUNDARY LAYER STRUCTURE SPECIFICATION

17th International Conference on Harmonisation within Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes 9-12 May 2016, Budapest, Hungary

NJDEP TETERBORO AIRPORT AIR QUALITY STUDY

UNCERTAINTY AND VALIDATION OF URBAN SCALE MODELLING SYSTEMS APPLIED TO SCENARIO ANALYSIS IN TUSCANY, ITALY

1.18 EVALUATION OF THE CALINE4 AND CAR-FMI MODELS AGAINST THE DATA FROM A ROADSIDE MEASUREMENT CAMPAIGN

Environmental quality modeling

Dispersion for point sources CE 524 February

ROAD SOURCE MODEL INTERCOMPARISON STUDY USING NEW AND EXISTING DATASETS

FRAPPÉ/DISCOVER-AQ (July/August 2014) in perspective of multi-year ozone analysis

AERMOD Sensitivity to AERSURFACE Moisture Conditions and Temporal Resolution. Paper No Prepared By:

Generating and Using Meteorological Data in AERMOD

Part I: Dry Convection

H PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR THE BENCHMARKING OF AIR QUALITY MODEL REGULATORY APPLICATIONS: THE TARGET APROACH

Comprehensive Analysis of Annual 2005/2008 Simulation of WRF/CMAQ over Southeast of England

UPDATE OF THE ROMBERG-APPROACH AND SIMPLIFIED NO / NO 2 CONVERSION MODEL UNDER CONSIDERATION OF DIRECT NO 2 - EMISSIONS

Department of Meteorology University of Nairobi. Laboratory Manual. Micrometeorology and Air pollution SMR 407. Prof. Nzioka John Muthama

Air Quality Simulation of Traffic Related Emissions: Application of Fine-Scaled Dispersion Modelling

Know and Respond AQ Alert Service. Paul Willis SCOTTISH AIR QUALITY DATABASE AND WEBSITE ANNUAL SEMINAR Stirling 30 th March 2011

1.14 A NEW MODEL VALIDATION DATABASE FOR EVALUATING AERMOD, NRPB R91 AND ADMS USING KRYPTON-85 DATA FROM BNFL SELLAFIELD

Optimal trajectory generation framework for inflight

Paine Field Airport Existing and Future Environmental Assessment, Initiation of Commercial Service Noise Analysis

forest fires, emission estimates, dispersion modelling, air quality, fire growth, meteorology 2.0 METHODS

PMF ANALYSIS OF WIDE-RANGE PARTICLE SIZE SPECTRA COLLECTED ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY ROY M. HARRISON, DAVID C. S. BEDDOWS AND MANUEL DALL OSTO

Heathrow Community Noise and Track-keeping Report: Chertsey

Developments in operational air quality forecasting at the Met Office

List of Exposure and Dose Metrics

EVALUATION OF NEW GENERATION ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELS

G200 & CL605 Analysis

Causes of high PM 10 values measured in Denmark in 2006

MMIF-processed WRF data for AERMOD Case Study: North ID mountain terrain

Chris Doerr Phone: Aircraft Cost Calculator, LLC 1341 W. Mequon Road, Suite 205, Mequon, WI Powered by ACC:

Air Quality at Your Street

IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF RUNWAY ALLOCATION IN AIRCRAFT NOISE PREDICTION

Greater Toronto Area/ Clean Air Council. Air Quality Modeling Pilot Project

Nicolas Duchene 1, James Smith 1 and Ian Fuller 2

The Importance of Ammonia in Modeling Atmospheric Transport and Deposition of Air Pollution. Organization of Talk:

SIMMER WORKSHOP (Science, Policy & Heat-Health Decision Making) Toronto

Meteorological and Dispersion Modelling Using TAPM for Wagerup

H ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION OF ASBESTOS PARTICLES FROM RURAL BUILDING ROOFS. G. Pession 1, T. Magri 1, G. Tinarelli 2

MODELING CHEMICALLY REACTIVE AIR TOXICS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA USING CAMx

A VALIDATION EXERCISE ON THE SAFE-AIR VIEW SOFTWARE. Joint Research Centre NDFM Ispra, Italy 2

A Hybrid ARIMA and Neural Network Model to Forecast Particulate. Matter Concentration in Changsha, China

Directive on the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise

Analytical Model for Dispersion of Rocket Exhaust Source Size Impact Assessment

Methodology for the creation of meteorological datasets for Local Air Quality modelling at airports

Urban background aerosols: Negative correlations of particle modes and fragmentation mechanism

P2.2 REDUCING THE IMPACT OF NOISE ABATEMENT PRACTICES ON AIRPORT CAPACITY BY FORECASTING SITUATIONAL DEPENDENT AIRCRAFT NOISE PROPAGATION

"Modelling air quality in the city"

ADMS 5 Flat Terrain Validation Kincaid, Indianapolis and Prairie Grass

CAS & CAeM Aviation Research and Demonstration Project Paris-CDG airport

A Method for Estimating Urban Background Concentrations in Support of Hybrid Air Pollution Modeling for Environmental Health Studies

High-Resolution Air Quality Modelling in the Oil Sands

C E R C. Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Ltd. Development of boundary layer profiles for offshore dispersion modelling.

Item 1: Edits to Select Appendix S Class I Air Dispersion Modeling Report text

Abstract. 1 Introduction

HIGH RESOLUTION CMAQ APPLICATION FOR THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, ONTARIO, CANADA

Worldwide Data Quality Effects on PBL Short-Range Regulatory Air Dispersion Models

Annual & Hourly Cost Detail

EXPERIMENTAL AND MODELLING STUDIES OF ULTRAFINE PARTICLE CONCENTRATIONS IN URBAN STREET AND BACKGROUND ENVIRONMENT

Boundary Layer Meteorology The wind that shakes the buildings

APPENDIX F AIR QUALITY DATA

Central Ohio Air Quality End of Season Report. 111 Liberty Street, Suite 100 Columbus, OH Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission

Air Quality Modelling under a Future Climate

Brief Overview of GURME Shanghai Project and WMO Shanghai IUWCS

Baltimore Supersite. Measurements of Elemental and Organic Carbon in PM2.5 at Ponca St. Feb./Mar. Nov. 2002

Dr. Thomas A. Seliga

MODELING AND AMBIENT MONITORING OF AIR TOXICS IN CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

ECMWF COPERNICUS REPORT. CAMS95e_CERC airtext Air Quality Forecasting Service for Riga

End of Ozone Season Report

Who is polluting the Columbia River Gorge?

UPDATE #5 TO: A METHODOLOGY TO DETERMINE ANNUAL EFFECTIVENESS OF EMISSION MITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN THE ODSVRA

6.10 SIMULATION OF AIR QUALITY IN CHAMONIX VALLEY (FRANCE): IMPACT OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC OF THE TUNNEL ON OZONE PRODUCTION

Association de Défense des Riverains de l Aéroport, ADRA (France) Bürgerinitiative Südbadischer Flughafenanrainer BISF e.v.

Chemical reactions at street scale using a Lagrangian particle dispersion model (LPDM)

E550 vs Mustang vs P Owner Hours/Annually

Numerical simulation of the low visibility event at the. Hong Kong International Airport on 25 December 2009

First steps toward a comparison of modelled thermal comfort during a heatwave in Melbourne, Australia

Options for the Most Appropriate Meteorological Data for Use in Short Range Dispersion Modelling. Methods for Undertaking Uncertainty Analyses

MESOSCALE MODELLING OVER AREAS CONTAINING HEAT ISLANDS. Marke Hongisto Finnish Meteorological Institute, P.O.Box 503, Helsinki

AERMOD Technical Forum

Contract number : Atmospheric Chemistry Modelling. Executive Summary. Prepared for CO 2 Capture Mongstad Project Statoil Petroleum AS

2016 Meteorology Summary

Costco Major Development Plan Project Moorabbin Airport. Aviation Impact Assessment

To teach the instrument student knowledge of the elements related to an instrument takeoff and the primary instruments for pitch, bank, and power.

Wen Xu* Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Data assimilation and inverse problems. J. Vira, M. Sofiev

Development of a computer system for control and prevention of air pollution in the Valencia Port (Spain)

MODELING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION DOSE RECONSTRUCTION. Bruce Napier 23 May 2011

Supplementary Appendix

ME 012 Engineering Dynamics

Major Point/Area Sources Name Type Major Emissions Distance (m) Direction CFB Cold Lake Air Force Base NOx, PM, HC, TRS 3km to aircraft West

J4.2 ASSESSMENT OF PM TRANSPORT PATTERNS USING ADVANCED CLUSTERING METHODS AND SIMULATIONS AROUND THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CA 3.

Transcription:

Developments in ADMS-Airport and its Applications to Heathrow Airport David Carruthers Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants IAE (Institute of Aviation and the Environment) Cambridge, June 23 28

Contents Key Factors affecting AQ at Airports Feature of ADMS-Airport Model Performance and sensitivities Heathrow Consultation Mixed Mode and R3

1) Key factors affecting air quality at airports

Key factors affecting air quality at airports Emissions Background concentrations Meteorology Near field dispersion processes Chemical reactions

2) Features of ADMS-Airport

Features of ADMS-Airport An extension of ADMS-Urban Gaussian type model nested in regional trajectory model Includes chemical reaction scheme, meteorological preprocessor, Monin-Obukhov and mixed layer scaling for boundary layer structure Allowance for up to 65 sources: road (15, each with up to 5 vertices), point, line area and volume (15), grid sources (3) and up to 5 runway sources (exhaust modelled as moving jets) Other airport features Hour by hour time varying data Multi-segment line sources e.g. taxi ways GIS link displays line, volume and runway sources

Features: MODELLING EXHAUSTS AS MOVING JETS & THE IMPACT OF WAKE VORTICES Models engine exhausts as moving jet sources As the aircraft accelerates buoyancy and emissions increasingly spread along the runway the exhaust jet sees a faster ambient wind speed, this affects the plume rise The plume from the faster aircraft rises less than that from a slower aircraft Allows for the impact wake vortices may have on jet plume rise

Neutral met conditions, plume trajectory (z p ) (top), vertical spread (s z ) (middle) and z p - s z (bottom) Plume centreline height of the jet exhaust emitted at different points along the runway during takeoff The take-off roll starts at x = with the aircraft moving in the negative x-direction 16 14 Plume centreline height Zp (m) 12 1 8 6 4 Difference between plume centreline height and vertical plume spread (Zp - sigma-z) of the jet exhaust emitted at different points along the runway during take-off The take-off roll starts at x = with the aircraft moving in the negative x-direction 2-1 -5 5 1 15 X (m) Neutral conditions, 5m/s wind Release temperature 232.4 degrees C 4 2 Vertical plume spread of the jet exhaust emitted at different points along the runway during take-off The take-off roll starts at x = with the aircraft moving in the negative x-direction Zp - sigma-z (m) -2-4 -6 18-8 16 14 12-1 Neutral conditions, 5m/s wind Release temperature 232.4 degrees C -12-1 -5 5 1 15 X (m) sigma-z (m) 1 8 6 4 2 Neutral conditions, 5m/s wind Release temperature 232.4 degrees C -1-5 5 1 15 X (m)

Local and Regional Scales Box model domain Main model domain First source Backgound monitoring site U Main model nested within large, area-wide trajectory model

3) Model performance and sensitivities: MODEL SET UP

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 28 29 3 31 32 33 34 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 Heathrow: METEOROLOGICAL DATA 3 1.5 6 3.1 1 5.1 16 8.2 (knots) (m/s) Wind speed 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Heathrow: EMISSION SOURCES Gridded sources for all of London Roads local to Heathrow from LAEI (London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory) and the Heathrow Inventory LTO: taxi-in, taxi-out, landing, approach, initial climb, climb out Other: APU, airside vehicles, car parks, taxi ranks modelled as area or volume sources

Grid sources from London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory Explicitly modelled road sources NOx (g/(km/s)) -.115.115 -.279.279 -.793.793-1.562 1.562-3.124 6 6 12 Kilometers

Taxi out

APU

Heathrow: MONITORING DATA PM from T5 works Hillingdon hospital LHR2 closest monitor Teddington M25 motorway Staines

Heathrow : BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS % Wicken Fen % Wicken Fen NO X NO 2 33 to 6 22 % % 184 to 4 Harwell to % 6 PM Harwell % % Rochester 4 to 184 % Rochester 33 to 135 1 135 to 22 O 3 Lullington Heath % Lullington Heath % NO x as NO 2 (µg/m 3 ) NO 2 (µg/m 3 ) O 3 (µg/m 3 ) PM 1 ( g/m 3 ) Annual average Maximum hourly average 99.79 th percentile Annual average Maximum hourly average 99.79 th percentile Annual average Maximum hourly average 99.79 th percentile Annual average Maximum hourly average 9.41 st percentile of 24 hour averages 98.8 th percentile of 24 hour averages 22 15 215 127 12 84 62 52 188 135 19 124 33 48

3) Model performance and sensitivities: ANALYSIS OF sensitivities: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Co oncentration in (ug/m3) 25 2 15 1 5 NOx monitored NOx calculated NOx NO2 monitored NOx NO2 calculated LHR2 LHR5 LHR6 LHR8 LHR1 LHR11 LHR14 LHR15 LHR16 LHR17 Overall Mean NO X (dark blue and red) and NO 2 (yellow and light blue) monitored and calculated annual mean concentrations at the automatic monitoring sites

1 1 1.1 LHR2 Box and whisker plots for the ratio of (calculated/monitored) concentrations, NO X (top) and NO 2 (bottom)..1 LHR2 LHR5 LHR6 LHR8 LHR1 LHR11 LHR14 LHR15 LHR16 LHR17 22 NO 2 box and whisker plot 1 The lines indicate the 75 th, 5 th and 25 th percentiles and the lines extend from the 95 th to 5 th percentile. 1 1.1.1 LHR2 LHR5 LHR6 LHR8 LHR1 LHR11 LHR14 LHR15 LHR16 LHR17

Comparison of LHR2 monitored and calculated NO 2 15 Calculated Monitored 1 NO 2 (µg/m 3 ) 5 21-Jan-2 26-Jan-2 31-Jan-2 5-Feb-2 1-Feb-2 Detailed time series comparison of monitored (blue) and calculated (red) hourly concentrations at receptor LHR2. 2I Jan 22 mid February 22

LHR2 diurnal variation ADMS-Airport (solid line) compared with measured data (dotted line), different runway use Departure on 27 R Departure 27R (all wind speeds) No departure on 27 R No Departure 27R (all wind speeds) 2 2 175 175 15 15 125 125 1 1 75 75 5 25 Measured ADMS 5 25 Measured ADMS : 5: 1: 15: 2: : 5: 1: 15: 2: Arrival 27R (all wind on speeds) 27R 2 175 15 125 1 75 5 25 Measured ADMS : 5: 1: 15: 2:

Comparison of monitored and calculated NO 2 in mg/m 3 at LHR2 as a function of wind speed for the hours when 27R is operational (blue an red) and the hours when it is not operational (cream and pale blue) separately.

1 1 Measured v ADMS modelled 8 6 4 2-1 -8-6 -4-2 2 4 6 8 1-2 -4-6 8 8 76 6 72 68 64 4 6 56 52 2 48 44 4 36-1 -8-6 -4-2 2 4 6 8 1 32 28-2 24 2 16-4 12 8 4-6 8 76 72 68 64 6 56 52 48 44 4 36 32 28 24 2 16 12 8 4-8 -8 Measured v Model 2-1 Measured LHR2-1 CERC predicted 1 1 8 8 6 4 2-1 -8-6 -4-2 2 4 6 8 1-2 -4-6 -8-1 8 6 76 72 68 64 4 6 56 52 2 48 44 4-1 -8-6 -4-2 2 4 6 8 1 36 32 28-2 24 2 16-4 12 8 4-6 -8-1 8 76 72 68 64 6 56 Measured v Model 3 52 48 44 4 36 32 28 1 1 24 2 16 8 8 12 8 4 8 6 6 76 72 68 4 4 64 6 56 2 52 2 48 44 4-1 -8-6 -4-2 2 4 6 8 1-1 -8-6 -4-2 2 4 6 8 1 36 32-2 28-2 24 2-4 16-4 12 8-6 4-6 8 76 72 68 64 6 56 52 48 44 4 36 32 28 24 2 16 12 8 4-8 -8-1 -1 Polar plots of NO x at LHR2 with background concentrations subtracted. Radius: wind speed in m/s.

181 2 Base Case NOX 18 175 15 179 125 1 No orthing (metres) 178 75 177 5 4 176 3 175 2 1 174 5 2 173 1 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 51 511 512 Easting (metres) 2 4 6 8

Annual NOX due to aircraft and other airport sources (1km x 1km)

181 8 Base Case NO2 18 7 179 6 Norrthing (metres) 178 5 177 4 176 35 175 3 2 174 1 173 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 51 511 512 Easting (metres) 2 4 6 8

Base Case ozone 181 18 179 178 45 42 39 36 Northing (metres) 177 176 175 33 3 27 24 174 21 173 18 15 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 51 511 512 Easting (metres) 2 4 6 8

181 181 5 5 18 45 18 45 179 4 179 4 Northing (metres) 178 177 176 175 174 173 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 51 511 512 Easting (metres) 181 2 4 6 8 PM1 due to -All sources (top left) -Airport and other airport sources (top right) -Road sources (bottom) Northing (metres) 18 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 35 3 25 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 Northing (metres) 178 177 176 175 174 173 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 51 511 512 Easting (metres) 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 51 511 512 Easting (metres) 5 2 4 6 8 45 4 35 3 25 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 35 3 25 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 2 4 6 8

3) Mixed Mode and R3 Consultation

Scenarios for Mixed Mode and R3 2 runways operating in Segregated Mode 22 Base Case 21 SM 215 SM 2 runways operating in Mixed Mode 215 MM 3 runways; Segregated Mode on existing long runways & Mixed Mode on proposed short runway 22 R3 23 R3

Page 41, Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport: Consultation Document, Department for Transport, November 27

Predicted NO 2 concentrations 22 Base Case 21 SM 215 SM 181 18 179 178 Northing (metres) 177 176 175 174 173 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 51 511 512 Easting (metres) 215 MM 22 R3 23 R3 181 18 179 178 Northings (metres) 177 176 175 174 173 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 51 511 512 Eastings (metres)

Conclusions Key factors affecting pollutant concentrations in the neighbourhood of airports include the following: Emissions including primary NO 2 Background concentrations e.g. O 3 Meteorology Near field dispersion processes, buoyancy of the aircraft exhausts Chemical reactions Heathrow Mixed Mode and R3 Consultation period over; DfT preparing response