Evaluation of a Gaussian and a Lagrangian model against a roadside data set,with emphasis on low wind speed conditions

The evaluation of the high percentiles of concentration distributions is required by most national air quality guidelines, as well as the EU directives. However, it is problematic to compute such high percentiles in stable, low wind speed or calm conditions. This study utilizes the results of a previous measurement campaign near a major road at Elimäki in southern Finland in 1995, a campaign specifically designed for model evaluation purposes. In this study, numerical simulations were performed with a Gaussian finite line source dispersion model CAR-FMI and a Lagrangian dispersion model GRAL, and model predictions were compared with the field measurements. In comparison with corresponding results presented previously in the literature, the agreement of measured and predicted data sets was good for both models considered, as measured using various statistical parameters. For instance, considering all NO_x data (N=587), the so-called index of agreement values varied from 0.76 to 0.87 and from 0.81 to 1.00 for the CAR-FMI and GRAL models, respectively. The CAR-FMI model tends to slightly overestimate the NO_x concentrations (fractional bias FB=+14%), while the GRAL model has a tendency to underestimate NO_x concentrations (FB=−16%). The GRAL model provides special treatment to account for enhanced horizontal dispersion in low wind speed conditions; while such adjustments have not been included in the CAR-FMI model. This type of Lagrangian model therefore predicts lower concentrations, in conditions of low wind speeds and stable stratification, in comparison with a standard Lagrangian model. In low wind speed conditions the meandering of the flow can be quite significant, leading to enhanced horizontal dispersion. We also analyzed the difference between the model predictions and measured data in terms of the wind speed and direction. The performance of the CAR-FMI model deteriorated as the wind direction approached a direction parallel to the road, and for the lowest wind speeds. However, the performance of the GRAL model varied less with wind speed and direction; the model simulated better the cases of low wind speed and those with the wind nearly parallel to the road.