Comparison of the Complex Terrain Algorithms Incorporated into Two Commonly Used Local-Scale Air Pollution Dispersion Models (ADMS and AERMOD) Using a Hybrid Model
Comparison of the Complex Terrain Algorithms Incorporated into Two Commonly Used Local-Scale Air Pollution Dispersion Models (ADMS and AERMOD) Using a Hybrid Model
复制标题
使用混合模型比较复杂地形算法并入两种常用的局部尺度空气污染扩散模型（ADMS 和 AERMOD）
DOI：
10.1080/10473289.2011.609750
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
E. Vanvyve
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Carruthers;M. Seaton;C. McHugh;Xiangyu Sheng;E. Solazzo;E. Vanvyve
摘要ADMS和AERMOD是两种应用最广泛的用于监管目的的离散模型。因此，重要的是要了解模型预测的差异以及这些差异的原因。前面已经讨论了平坦地形模型的处理，本文的重点是它们对复杂地形的处理。本文讨论了复杂地形对气流和扩散的影响，以及如何在ADMS和AERMOD中处理这些影响，然后对两种不同情况进行了计算：（i）相对平坦的高原地区（Clifty Creek发电站，美国）深谷上方的源;（ii）丘陵地形中山谷中的源，其中地形高于烟囱顶部（Ribbondale水泥厂，英国）。在这两种情况下，模型的预测是明显不同的。在Clifty Creek，ADMS表明地形显著增加了最大表面浓度，而AERMOD复杂地形模块几乎没有影响。在里伯斯代尔，AERMOD预测，由于烟羽对邻近山丘的影响，最大小时平均表面浓度会大幅增加（18倍）;尽管ADMS预测了烟羽的影响，但浓度的增加要小得多，因为ADMS中的气流模型预测了山丘周围流线的一些横向偏差。ADMS和AERMOD是两个最广泛使用的监管大气扩散模型在世界范围内，这两个模型被接受或推荐使用在许多国家。因此，它们经常用于环境影响评估，许可申请等，因此，重要的是监管机构，政策制定者和环境顾问了解模型预测的差异和这些差异的原因。本文使用了一个混合模型系统，允许对模型的特定组件进行比较，在这种情况下，重点放在模型对复杂地形扩散影响的处理之间的差异上。
ABSTRACT ADMS and AERMOD are the two most widely used dispersion models for regulatory purposes. It is, therefore, important to understand the differences in the predictions of the models and the causes of these differences. The treatment by the models of flat terrain has been discussed previously; in this paper the focus is on their treatment of complex terrain. The paper includes a discussion of the impacts of complex terrain on airflow and dispersion and how these are treated in ADMS and AERMOD, followed by calculations for two distinct cases: (i) sources above a deep valley within a relatively flat plateau area (Clifty Creek power station, USA); (ii) sources in a valley in hilly terrain where the terrain rises well above the stack tops (Ribblesdale cement works, England). In both cases the model predictions are markedly different. At Clifty Creek, ADMS suggests that the terrain markedly increases maximum surface concentrations, whereas the AERMOD complex terrain module has little impact. At Ribblesdale, AERMOD predicts very large increases (a factor of 18) in the maximum hourly average surface concentrations due to plume impaction onto the neighboring hill; although plume impaction is predicted by ADMS, the increases in concentration are much less marked as the airflow model in ADMS predicts some lateral deviation of the streamlines around the hill. IMPLICATIONS ADMS and AERMOD are the two most widely used regulatory atmospheric dispersion models worldwide and both models are accepted or recommended for use in many countries. Consequently they are frequently used for environmental impact assessments, permitting applications, etc. It is therefore important for regulators, policy makers, and environmental consultants to understand the differences in the predictions of the models and the causes of these differences. This paper uses a hybrid model system that allows specific components of the models to be compared, with the focus in this case on the differences between the models' treatment of the impacts on dispersion of complex terrain.