Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling University of California at...
-
Upload
arron-watson -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
3
Transcript of Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling University of California at...
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
Fire Plume RiseWRAP (FEJF) Method vs. SMOKE Briggs
(SB) Method
Mohammad Omary, Gail Tonnesen
WRAP Regional Modeling Center
University of California Riverside
Zac Adelman
Carolina Environmental Program
University of North Carolina
Fire Emissions Joint Forum Meeting, October 17-18, 2006, Spokane, WA
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
Fire Plume Rise Modeling Project Status
• Today’s Presentation– Project Objectives– Plume Rise Modeling Methods– Fire Events Modeled– Results– Summary
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
Acknowledgments
• Tom Moore and FEJF – project design
• Air Sciences - Emissions Inventory
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
Fire Plume Rise Modeling Project Objectives
Compare the plume rise and the vertical emissions distribution for fires, using to methods:
1. The FEJF Approach
2. The SMOKE-Briggs Approach
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
Model vertical layer structure
• CMAQ has 19 vertical layers:– Layer 1: 0 - 36 m– Layer 2-5: 36 - 220 m– Layer 6-10: 220 - 753 m – Layer 11-14: 753 - 1828 m– Layer 15-16: 1828 - 3448 m– Layer 17-19: 3448 - 14,662 m
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
Plume Tophour = (BEhour)2 * (BEsize)
2 * Ptopmax
Plume Bottomhour = (BEhour)2 * (BEsize)
2 * Pbotmax
Layer1 Fractionhour = 1 – (BEhour * BEsize)
BEsize = fire size-dependent buoyancy efficiency
Behour = hourly buoyancy efficiency
Pbotmax = maximum height of the plume bottom
Ptopmax = maximum height of the plume top
BEsize, Ptopmax Pbotmax, and BEhour are provided in the FEJF Phase II fire
report (Air Sciences, Inc., 2006).
1. FEJF Approach
Plume Rise Modeling Methods
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
Plume Buoyancy Efficiency, F (m4/s3), as follows.F = Q * 0.00000258 Q = Heat Flux (btu/day),
Buoyant Efficiency (BEsize)BEsize = 0.0703 * ln(acres) + 0.03
Smoldering Fraction (Sfract)Sfract = 1 – BE size
NOTE: possible bug in implementing smoldering fraction in SMOKE. We expect a larger fraction of emissions in layer 1 in SB.
2. SMOKE-Briggs Approach (SB)
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
Heat Flux from FEPS
• Fire Emissions Productions Simulator (FEPS) was used to determine heat flux:– FEPS was developed by Anderson et al.
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/feps/
– User specifies the fire name, location, start date, end date, size, fuel type and other properties.
– FEPS calculates the hourly emissions and heat release.
– Uncertainty in specifying fire variables in FEPS might affect heat release estimate.
– Not available in batch mode so difficult to use FEPS in SB.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
Fire Type State Date
Fire Size(Acres)
Daily Emissions (tons/day)Heat Flux (btu/day)CO PM2.5 NOx VOC
WFU1 CO July 14 850 3382.6 282.08 72.57 159.18 82,530,000,000
RX2 AZ Nov. 07 2577 3988.1 332.58 85.56 187.68 268,320,000,000
WF3 AZ June 30 9860 19804.3 1651.5 424.9 931.97 1,036,600,000,000
RX OR Sep. 24 1000 173.4 14.46 3.72 8.16 300,030,000
WF OR Aug. 03 7885 25,293.8 2,109.3 542.6 1,190.3 2,237,008,255,600
1WFU= wildland fire use 2RX=prescribed fire 3WF=wildfire
Fire Events
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)
Hei
ght
(m)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Em
is. F
rac.
in L
ayer
1
PBOT
PTOP
LAY1F
FEJF fire CharacteristicsOregon Prescribed Fire
PBOT = Plume BottomPTOP = Plume TopLAY1F = Emissions fraction in Layer 1
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)
Hei
ght
(m)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Em
is. F
rac.
in L
ayer
1
PBOT
PTOP
LAY1F
FEJF fire CharacteristicsOregon Wild Fire
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
Hourly Emissions per Layer Colorado Wild Fire
1 3 5 7 911 13 15 17 19 21 23 L
1 L4 L
7 L10 L
13 L16
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
CO
Ton
s/h
Time
FEJF Plume rise
L1L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10L11L12L13L14L15L16L17L18
Tot
1 3 5 7 911 13 15 17 19 21 23 L
1 L4 L
7 L10
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Time
SB Plume Rise
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
Tot
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
FEJF Profile
050
100150200250300350400450500550600
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Time (h)
To
ns/
h
0500100015002000250030003500400045005000550060006500700075008000
Ma
x L
ay
er H
ieg
ht
(m)
L18L17L16L15L14L13L12L11L10L9L8L7L6L5L4L3L2L1Max LHSB Profile
050
100150200250300350400450500550600
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Time (h)
Ton
s/h
0500100015002000250030003500400045005000550060006500700075008000
Max
Lay
er H
iegh
t (m
)
L12
L11
L10
L9
L8
L7
L6
L5
L4
L3
L2
L1
Max LH
Hourly Emissions Distribution Colorado Wild Fire
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
1 3 5 7 911 13 15 17 19 21 23
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
CO
Ton
s/h
Time
FEJF Plume rise
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14
L15
L16
L17
L18
Tot
1 3 5 7 911 13 15
1719
21
23 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9
L10 L11 Tot
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
CO
Ton
s/h
Time
SB Plume rise
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
Tot
Hourly Emissions per Layer Arizona Prescribed Fire
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
FEJF Profile
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)
Ton
s/h
0500100015002000250030003500400045005000550060006500700075008000
Max
Lay
er H
iegh
t (m
)
L18
L17
L16
L15
L14
L13
L12
L11
L10
L9
L8
L7
L6
L5
L4
L3
L2
L1
Max LH
SB Profile
050
100150200250300350400450500550600650700
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)
Ton
s/h
0500100015002000250030003500400045005000550060006500700075008000
Max
Lay
er H
iegh
t (m
)
L11
L10
L9
L8
L7
L6
L5
L4
L3
L2
L1
Max LH
Hourly Emissions Distribution Arizona Prescribed Fire
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
CO
Ton
s/h
Time
FEJF Plume rise
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14
L15
L16
L17
L18
Tot
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
CO
Ton
s/h
Time
SB Plume rise L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14
L15
Tot
Hourly Emissions per Layer Arizona Wild Fire
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
FEJF Profile
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)
Ton
s/h
0500100015002000250030003500400045005000550060006500700075008000
Max
Lay
er H
iegh
t (m
)
L18L17L16L15L14
L13L12L11L10L9L8L7L6L5L4
L3L2L1Max LH
SB Profile
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)
Ton
s/h
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
Max
Lay
er H
iegh
t (m
)
L15
L14L13
L12L11
L10L9
L8
L7L6
L5L4
L3L2
L1Max LH
Hourly Emissions Distribution Arizona Wild Fire
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
CO
Ton
s/h
Time
FEJF Plume riseL1L2L3L4L5L6L4L8L9L10L11L12L13L14L15L16L17
Tot
13 5
79
1113
1517
1921
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
CO
Ton
s/h
Time
SB Plume rise
L1
L2
L3
L4
Tot
Hourly Emissions per Layer Oregon Prescribed Fire
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
FEJF Profile
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)
Ton
s/h
040080012001600200024002800320036004000440048005200
Max
Lay
er H
iegh
t (m
)
L17L16L15L14L13L12L11L10L9L8L7L6L5L4L3L2L1Max LH
SB Profile
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)
Ton
s/h
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
3600
4000
4400
4800
5200
Max
Lay
er H
iegh
t (m
) L4
L3
L2
L1
Max LH
Hourly Emissions Distribution Oregon Prescribed Fire
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
CO
Ton
s/h
Time
FEJF Plume rise
L1L2L3L4L5L6L7L8L9L10L11L12L13L14L15L16L17L18
Tot
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 1921 23
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
CO
Ton
s/h
Time
SB Plume rise L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14
L15
Tot
Hourly Emissions per Layer Oregon Wild Fire
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
FEJF Sky Profile
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
3600
4000
4400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)
Ton
s/h
0500100015002000250030003500400045005000550060006500700075008000
Max
Lay
er H
iegh
t (m
)
L18L17L16L15L14L13L12L11L10L9L8L7L6L5L4L3L2L1Max LH
SB Profile
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (h)
Ton
s/h
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
Max
Lay
er H
iegh
t (m
)
L15
L14
L13
L12
L11
L10
L9
L8
L7
L6
L5
L4
L3
L2
L1
Max LH
Hourly Emissions Distribution Oregon Wild Fire
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
dail
y fr
acti
on
12
34 5
67
8 910
1112 13
1415
16 1718
CO
_FE
JF
CO
_SB
AZ
_FE
JF_W
F
AZ
_SB
_WF
AZ
_FE
JF_R
X
AZ
_SB
_RX
OR
_FE
JF_W
F
OR
_SB
_WF
OR
_FE
JF_R
X
OR
_SB
_RX
layer
CO_FEJF
CO_SB
AZ_FEJF_WF
AZ_SB_WF
AZ_FEJF_RX
AZ_SB_RX
OR_FEJF_WF
OR_SB_WF
OR_FEJF_RX
OR_SB_RX
Daily Emissions Fractions per Layer
CO FEJF: 45% in surface layer, 45% above 2462 m.
CO SB: most emission between 200 - 1000 m.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
Results
1. The FEJF approach places a large fraction of the emissions in the surface layer, and the plume with the remaining emissions are consistently located at higher layers compared to the SB approach.
2. The plume bottom in FEJF depend on the fire size. It can be as high as several thousand meters above the first layer. In SB the plume bottom is always above the first layer.
3. On daily basis, most of the emissions are in the first layer in FEJF, while in SB most of the emissions in the mid to upper layers.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
Conclusions• The SB approach seems unrealistic since smoldering
emissions should be located in the first layer.• Since emissions occur during the day time when the boundary
layer tends to be well mixed, model results might be insensitive to the vertical location of emissions within the boundary layer.– To the extent that the FEJF approach locates emissions above the
boundary layer, it might have smaller near field impact and greater long range transport.
– If fires occur at times when the boundary is shallow or poorly mixed, the FEJF approach might have a greater near field impact and less long range transport.
Center for Environmental Research and Technology/Environmental Modeling
University of California at Riverside
Conclusions (2)• Air quality modeling using CMAQ or CAMx is needed to
determine of the two approaches would have significantly different air quality impacts, however, the current approach using FEPS is not feasible to model a large number of events.
• Because the differences in near field versus long range transport might depend on the meteorology conditions, it would be necessary to model a large variety of conditions to determine if the choice of FEPS or SB results in consistently different visibility impacts.
• SB approach would have greater near field impacts than FEJF if SMOKE is modified to locate a larger smoldering fraction in layer 1.