• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>Air Waste Management Association's annual conference exhibition >Comparison of ISCST3 and AERMOD Results for Fugitive Dust Sources
【24h】

Comparison of ISCST3 and AERMOD Results for Fugitive Dust Sources

机译：ISCST3和Aermod结果对逃逸尘埃源的比较

获取原文
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

As a pending replacement for the well-used ISCST3 model, the AERMET/AERMOD modeling system has been evaluated on multiple field data sets to prove its apparent superiority, in general, for estimating impacts from elevated point sources. What has not been so well evaluated is the performance of AERMOD for low-level fugitive dust sources, most typically, in-plant haul roads. When modeling impacts for comparison against National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) allowable concentration increments for particles smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), the modeled low-level fugitive dust impacts from plant road traffic often dominate over the contributions by stack emission points. Therefore, it is important for industrial facility managers, consultants, and regulatory agency staff to be aware of the implications of switching to the AERMET/AERMOD system. The scientific community lacks long-term monitoring of source emissions and impacts that might be used to evaluate model performance for fugitive dust sources. Therefore, this paper presents a comparison of the concentration predictions of the existing PCRAMMET/ISCST3 modeling system and the current version of the AERMET/AERMOD modeling system, with respect to roadway fugitive dust emissions simulated as both volume and area sources, using the same raw meteorological data set In comparing results for the ISCST3 and AERMOD dispersion models, it was found that AERMOD predicted higher maximum annual and 24-hour concentrations for the groundlevel line source when simulated as adjacent volume sources. This was the case for each of the five years of meteorology, with AERMOD giving values from 10% to a factor of two higher than ISCST3. While haul roads have typically been simulated with volume sources, this study also looked at model comparisons when simulating a road as an area source. In this case the results were mixed, with ISCST3 more often giving higher results.
机译：作为使用良好的ISCST3模型的待替代，已经在多场数据集中评估了AERMET / AERMOD建模系统，以证明其表观优越性，通常用于估计来自升高点源的影响。尚未如此良好评估的是Aermod对低级逃逸尘埃源的性能，最典型的是植物牵引道路。当对抗国家环境空气质量标准的比较和预防较小劣化（PSD）允许的颗粒的建模时，用于直径小于10微米的颗粒（PM10），来自植物道路交通的模型低水平逃逸粉尘影响往往占据主导地位堆栈排放点的贡献。因此，对于工业设施管理人员，顾问和监管机构工作人员来说，要了解切换到Aermet / Aermod系统的影响是重要的。科学界缺乏对可能用于评估逃亡尘埃源型号表现的源排放和影响的长期监测。因此，本文介绍了现有的PCRammet / ISCST3建模系统的浓度预测和当前版本的AERMET / AERMOD建模系统的浓度预测，相对于往返体积和面积源，使用相同的原料在比较ISCST3和Aermod分散模型的结果中设定的气象数据，发现当像相邻的卷源模拟时，Aermod预测地面线源的最高年度和24小时浓度。这是气象五年中的每一个的情况，Aermod将值从10％的价值增加到2倍，比ISCST3高。虽然通常用卷源模拟运输路线，但该研究还研究了模拟作为区域来源的道路时的模型比较。在这种情况下，将结果混合，ISCST3更常常提供更高的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号