Sensitivity analysis of a mathematical model for photochemical air pollution

Tilden, J. W.; Seinfeld, John H.

doi:10.1016/0004-6981(82)90056-7

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The SA technique is useful in air quality planning when concentrations are at a level to be of interest [e.g., Odman et al , 2002]. Examples of sensitivity analysis techniques include the Decoupled Direct Method (DDM) [ Dunker , 1981, 1984; Milford et al , 1992; Gao et al , 1995; Yang et al , 1997]; the Automatic Differentiation in FORTRAN (ADIFOR) [ Carmichael et al , 1997; Zhang et al , 1998]; the variational techniques [ Koda et al , 1979; Gautier et al , 1985]; the perturbation theory techniques [ Marchuk , 1975; Uliasz , 1983]; the Green's function techniques [ Dougherty et al , 1979; Demilrap and Rabitz , 1981; Cho et al , 1987; Vuilleumier et al , 1997]; the indirect method (also known as the brute force method or single‐perturbation method) [e.g., Seigneur et al , 1981; Sillman et al , 1990; Milford et al , 1994; Gao et al , 1996; Hanna et al , 1998; Dennis et al , 1999]; the Fourier amplitude sensitivity test method [ Koda et al , 1979; Falls et al , 1979; Tilden and Seinfeld , 1982]; and the stochastic methods [ Costanza and Seinfeld , 1981; Shorter and Rabitz , 1997; Chen et al , 1997; Tatang et al , 1997; Pun , 1998].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of three probing techniques in a three‐dimensional air quality model

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Probing techniques are useful to provide diagnostic evaluations of air quality models and to indicate the responses of model predictions to changes in emissions. Three probing tools are available in a three-dimensional air quality model, CAMx: the Decoupled Direct Method (DDM), the Ozone Source Attribution Technology (OSAT), and Process Analysis (PA). These tools are evaluated in terms of consistency, complementarity, accuracy and robustness, and computational requirements using the 7-15 July 1995 O 3 episode over the eastern United States. The NO x -versus VOC-sensitivity of O 3 chemistry and relative role of chemistry and transport predicted by the three tools are qualitatively consistent, except that OSAT predicts an NO x -limited O 3 chemistry at a few locations where both DDM and PA predict a VOC-sensitive O 3 chemistry. DDM and OSAT agree well on the top 10 contributors to O 3 formation, but they predict different rankings, with greater importance given to biogenic VOC emissions by DDM and greater importance given to surface anthropogenic NO x emissions by OSAT. The major difference in the DDM and OSAT predictions on the relative impact of sources is that DDM predicts both positive and negative sensitivities whereas OSAT always predicts positive contributions. Compared to the single-perturbation method (brute force method), DDM predicts accurate model responses under the 25% VOC or NO x emission reduction scenarios but inaccurate results under the 75% NO x emission reduction scenario. OSAT predicts accurate model responses under the 25% VOC emission reduction scenario, but inaccurate responses under the 25% and 75% NO x emission reduction scenarios. While these tools provide valuable and complementary information regarding O 3 formation, each of them has limitations in terms of its design and application for the design of emission control strategies. DDM is suitable for such an application for small-to-moderate emission reductions of <40%. OSAT leads to incorrect results for VOC-limited areas because it does not account for the titration/inhibition effect of NO x and/or VOC. PA provides an in-depth understanding of the processes involved in controlling O 3 formation locally. It can be used to understand some of the differences between the results of OSAT and DDM.Citation: Zhang, Y., K. Vijayaraghavan, and C. Seigneur (2005), Evaluation of three probing techniques in a three-dimensional air quality model,

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of three probing techniques in a three‐dimensional air quality model

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Error analysis, uncertainty analysis and sensitivity analysis are terms used to describe similar approaches with similar objectives in the fields of atmospheric science, decision science, ecology, risk analysis, applied mathematics and other fields (see, e.g., Clifford, 1973;Gardner et al, 1980;Tilden and Seinfeld, 1982;Beck and van Straten, 1983;Morgan et al, 1984;Freeman et al, 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these symposia did not discuss in detail the type of framework and quantitative methods presented in this paper. Tilden and Seinfeld ( 1982) approached the problem of parameter uncertainty of an airbasin photochemical air pollution model with the so-called FAST method (Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test). Freeman et al (1986) used first order equations to examine the effect of various input uncertainties on output of a Gaussian dispersion model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for error analysis of a long-range transport model with emphasis on parameter uncertainty

Alcamo

Bartnicki

1987

Atmospheric Environment (1967)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The formulation uncertainty will include a component relating to the representation of the physical-chemical processes and partly attributable to the mathematical integrations. Insight into the models' response to arbitrarily varying inputs for a particular formulation can be studied effectively by methods currently available (Rabitz et al 1983;Tilden et al, 1981;Tilden and Seinfeld, 1982). Complete evaluation of the models demands systematic comparison with quality-controlled observational data over as extensive a model domain as possible.…”

Section: Criteria and Procedures For Quantifying Errors In Eulerian Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

meeting reviews

1985

Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

chapter was the local host. Ninety-seven papers were presented. 2. The Banner I. Miller Award At the close of the conference, it was announced that the winner of the Banner I. Miller Award for the best paper relating to tropical-weather forecasting published formally in the previous two years was Greg J. Holland for his papers, "Tropical Cyclone Motion: Environmental Interaction Plus a Beta Effect," and "Tropical Cyclone Motion: A Comparison of Theory and Observation." 3. Max A. Eaton Prize This award, commemorating the career of the late Capt. Max A. Eaton, U.S. Navy, is presented at each AMS Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology. The prize is given for the best student paper presented at the conference based on objective guidelines such as scientific content, organization, and the presentation itself. This year the winner was V. Mohan Karyampudi for his paper, "On the Mechanisms of West African Jets: A Numerical Study of the Saharan Air Layer and Easterly Waves." The award was announced at the close of the meeting. A panel of three judges, Duane Stevens, Peter Black, and Mark DeMaria, selected the winner from the six participants. 4. Harry Hawkins Memorial Lecture Edward J. Zipser gave the first Harry Hawkins Memorial Lecture, an invited talk presented in honor of Harry Hawkins and his contributions to tropical meteorology. The lecture, "Mesoscale Structure of Hurricanes-A 30-Year Per

show abstract

Sensitivity analysis of a mathematical model for photochemical air pollution

Cited by 16 publications

References 22 publications

Evaluation of three probing techniques in a three‐dimensional air quality model

Evaluation of three probing techniques in a three‐dimensional air quality model

A framework for error analysis of a long-range transport model with emphasis on parameter uncertainty

meeting reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About