higher concentrations with WRF-Chem MOZART_MOSAIC-4bins with FINN emissions

497 views
Skip to first unread message

Ana Carla Fernandez

unread,
Jun 16, 2018, 12:40:09 AM6/16/18
to wrf-chem-fire_emiss, Yunha Lee

Hi All,

My name is Ana Carla, I am a Ph.D student at Washington State University and I am currently working with WRF-Chem MOZART_MOSAIC-4bins with FINN emissions and I am getting a really highly PM and Ozone surface concentrations in my simulations.

One of my first ideas of why this could be happening pertains to the to fire emissions, I am thinking the WRF-Chem isn’t doing well the fire vertical distribution. Since wrffirechemi* file has 2D fields, I looked inside wrfout* files to analyze ebu_oc variable, and as I suspected that variable is concentrated close to the surface (see attached image), so it is not correctly vertical distributed. So, my question is:

Does someone know how the wrf-chem, with the configuration that I mentioned before, does the fire vertical distribution? 

WRF_Chem_verticail_profile_ebu_oc.png

Luke Conibear

unread,
Jun 17, 2018, 12:42:58 PM6/17/18
to Ana Carla Fernandez, wrf-chem-fire_emiss, Yunha Lee
Hi Ana,

What version of WRF-Chem are you using? What are your relevant chemistry namelist settings (e.g. chem_opt, biomass_burn_opt, plumerisefire_frq, scale_fire_emiss, etc.)? Are you using fire_emiss and if so what is your wrf2fire_map for this?

Best,

Luke Conibear
EPSRC Funded CDT in Bioenergy
University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
Profiles: Engineering Environment Linkedin


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wrf-chem-fire_emiss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wrf-chem-fire_emiss+unsub...@ucar.edu.



--
Luke Conibear

Mary Barth

unread,
Jun 17, 2018, 6:46:20 PM6/17/18
to Luke Conibear, Ana Carla Fernandez, wrf-chem-fire_emiss, Yunha Lee
Hi Ana,

It seems that the likely reason is whether the plume rise option is on or not. As Luke asked, please share your namelist options so that we can be sure they’re set correctly. 

Regards,
Mary

Sent from my iPad

Ana Carla Fernandez

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 2:32:02 PM6/18/18
to wrf-chem-fire_emiss, acfdezv...@gmail.com, yunh...@wsu.edu

Hi Luke, thanks for your answer.

First, I am using the 3.9.1 version of WRF-Chem.

 

My namelist chemistry settings are:

chem_opt                            = 202

biomass_burn_opt                    = 2

plumerisefire_frq                   = 30

scale_fire_emiss                    = .true.,

 

Yes, I am using fire_emis (fire_emis_mozart4mosaic4bin.inp). And my wrf2fire_map variable is described as follow:

 

wrf2fire_map = 'co -> CO', 'no -> NO', 'so2 -> SO2', 'bigalk -> BIGALK',

    'bigene -> BIGENE', 'c2h4 -> C2H4', 'c2h5oh -> C2H5OH',

    'c2h6 -> C2H6', 'c3h8 -> C3H8','c3h6 -> C3H6','ch2o -> CH2O', 'ch3cho -> CH3CHO',

    'ch3coch3 -> CH3COCH3','ch3oh -> CH3OH','mek -> MEK','toluene -> TOLUENE',

    'nh3 -> NH3','no2 -> NO2','open -> BIGALD','c10h16 -> C10H16',

    'ch3cooh -> CH3COOH','cres -> CRESOL','glyald -> GLYALD','mgly -> CH3COCHO',

    'gly -> CH3COCHO','acetol -> HYAC','isop -> ISOP','macr -> MACR', 'mvk -> MVK',

    'oc -> OC;aerosol','pm10 -> PM10;aerosol','pm25 -> PM25;aerosol',

    'bc -> BC;aerosol'

 

I attached the namelist file here. Please let me know if there is any wrong setting I am using here. 

 

Thank you so much in advance! 

namelist.input

Luke Conibear

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 4:09:56 PM6/18/18
to Ana Carla Fernandez, wrf-chem-fire_emiss, Yunha Lee
Hi Ana,

Mary will know more than me.

Though it might help to subtract BC and OC from PM2.5, and PM2.5 from PM10 in the speciation (example below) to avoid double counting.

'pm25 -> PM25 + -1.0*BC + -1.0*OC;aerosol',
'pm10 -> PM10 + -1.0*PM25;aerosol'

Best,
Luke

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wrf-chem-fire_emiss+unsubscribe...@ucar.edu.



--
Luke Conibear

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wrf-chem-fire_emiss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wrf-chem-fire_emiss+unsub...@ucar.edu.



--
Luke Conibear

Caterina Mogno

unread,
May 7, 2020, 5:32:05 PM5/7/20
to wrf-chem-fire_emiss, acfdezv...@gmail.com, yunh...@wsu.edu

Hi all,


I am getting a similar problem but on top of the model. I have  non-physical concentrations of sulphate, and I believe it is linked somehow to fire emissions.

 

Concentrations for aerosols up to vertical level 26 are reasonable (top of model pressure is 50hPa, total 33 layers).
However, for the last 6-7 layers (27-33) I get non physical concentrations of sulphate.

They starts as little points, and then propagate becoming bigger by the times goes by. (I have attached a series of images).

It happens both when using chem_opt=201 and 202.

 

Doing some testing, I find out that if I switch off fires completely, these concentrations disappear. I further tested with:

 

1)    1 Checked for small negative values in the fire emissions and set them to zero.

2)    2 Reduced the plumerise frequency to be equal to the chemical timestep (6 min in my case).

3)    3 Switched off the plumerise by putting plumerise_freq=0.

4)    4 Put a low threshold on the maximum values of the fire emissions.

 

However, in all these other test case the sulphate concentration is still there at the top.

 

Has someone got the same problem? Or could suggest a way around?

 

I have attached for completeness my namelist.input and the wrf2fire_map for fire_emiss.

 

Thank you very much in advance for your help!

 

Best,

 

Caterina

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wrf-chem-fire_emiss+unsub...@ucar.edu.



--
Luke Conibear

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wrf-chem-fire_emiss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wrf-chem-fire_emiss+unsub...@ucar.edu.



--
Luke Conibear
1.PNG
2.PNG
3.PNG
namelist.input
fire.inp
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages