A Comparison of Model Performance between AERMOD and AUSTAL2000

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of the test cases used in this study

Emitted Substance	General Setting	Field Study
SO2	Flat, rural, two stacks, without buildings	Bowline power plant, Haverstraw, NY14
SO2	Flat, rural, two stacks, with building downwash	Bowline power plant, Haverstraw, NY14
SO2	Mountainous, rural, one stack	Westvaco paper plant, Luke, MD15
SF6	Flat, urban, one stack	Indianapolis, IN16
SF6	Flat, rural, volume source	Duke Forest, NC17

Figure 1. Predicted SO₂ concentration distribution (annual average) of (a) AERMOD and (b) AUSTAL2000 for the Bowline test case without buildings. × = the source.

Figure 2. Predicted SO₂ concentration distribution (annual average) of (a) AERMOD and (b) AUSTAL2000 for the Bowline test case with the power plant building. × = the source.

Figure 3. Q-Q plot for all of the receptor points of the Bowline test case with simple terrain (1-hr average). ▪ = AERMOD, ▽ = AUSTAL2000. The solid line indicates the 1:1 rank correlation of the distributions. The dotted lines illustrate the factor of 2 over-and underestimates.

Table 2. FB for each test case and atmospheric stability

	Bowline—Simple Terrain		Bowline Building Downwash		Westvaco		Indianapolis		Duke Forest
Atmospheric Stability	AERMOD	AUSTAL2000	AERMOD	AUSTAL2000	AERMOD	AUSTAL2000	AERMOD	AUSTAL2000	AERMOD	AUSTAL2000
Total	1.01	0.44	0.28	−0.74	0.15	1.49	0.01	1.68	0.43	0.01
Very stable	1.99	2.00	0.25	2.00	0.12	1.62	0.09	2.00	–	–
Stable	1.94	2.00	0.03	2.00	0.59	1.90	0.89	2.00	–	–
Neutral	0.89	1.23	0.19	−0.77	0.74	1.61	0.27	1.79	–	–
Unstable	−0.63	1.06	−1.06	0.12	1.01	1.63	0.07	1.85	–	–
Very unstable	−1.05	−1.33	−1.10	−0.37	0.07	1.21	0.38	1.99	–	–
Notes: Stability classes segregated after Klug–Manier.11

Figure 4. Q-Q plot for all of the receptor points of the Bowline test case with the power plant building (1-hr average). ▪ = AERMOD, ▽ = AUSTAL2000. Solid and dotted lines symbolize the same as in Figure 3.

Figure 5. Q-Q plot for all of the receptor points of the Westvaco test case (1-hr average). ▪ = AERMOD, ▽ = AUSTAL2000. Solid and dotted lines symbolize the same as in Figure 3.

Schulman , L.L. and Hanna , S.R. 1986 . Evaluation of Downwash Modifications to the Industrial Source Complex Model . J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. , 36 : 258 – 264 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Strimaitis , D.G. , Paine , R.J. , Egan , B.A. and Yamartino , R J. 1987 . EPA Complex Terrain Model Development: Final Report , Research Triangle Park , NC : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards . EPA/600/3-88/006

 Google Scholar

Murray , D.R. and Bowne , N.E. 1988 . Urban Power Plant Plume Studies , Palo Alto , CA : Electric Power Research Institute . EA-5468

 Google Scholar

Hanna , S.R. , Egan , B.A. , Purdum , J. and Wagler , J. 1999 . Evaluation of ISC3, AERMOD, and ADMS Dispersion Models with Observations from Five Field Sites , San Antonio , TX : Hanna Consultants .

 Google Scholar

2009 . AUSTAL2000—Program Documentation of Version 2.4 , Dunum , Germany : Janicke Consulting .

 Google Scholar