1 / 49

Measurement and Modeling of Fugitive Dust from Off-road DoD Activities Project Number SI-1767 Larry Wagner USDA-ARS-

Measurement and Modeling of Fugitive Dust from Off-road DoD Activities Project Number SI-1767 Larry Wagner USDA-ARS-EWERU Brief to the Scientific Advisory Board March 2, 2010. Co-Performers. Dr. Michael Wojcik and Dr. Robert Foltynowicz Energy Dynamics Laboratory

gefjun
Download Presentation

Measurement and Modeling of Fugitive Dust from Off-road DoD Activities Project Number SI-1767 Larry Wagner USDA-ARS-

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Measurement and Modeling of Fugitive Dust from Off-road DoD Activities Project Number SI-1767 Larry Wagner USDA-ARS-EWERU Brief to the Scientific Advisory Board March 2, 2010

  2. Co-Performers Dr. Michael Wojcik and Dr. Robert Foltynowicz Energy Dynamics Laboratory Remote sensing, lidar aerosol detection and laser system design Dr. John Tatarko, Dr. Mark Casada and Dr. Larry Hagen USDA-ARS Engineering and Wind Erosion Research Unit Soil characterization, grain dust emissions and wind erosion mechanics Dr. Ronaldo Maghirang and Dr. James Steichen Bio. and Ag. Engineering Department, Kansas State University Modeling and control of air emissions from cattle feedlots Kori Moore and Kimberly Cook Energy Dynamics Laboratory PhD and MS students in Environmental Engineering, Utah State Univ. Dr. Philip Woodford Fort Riley Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM) Coordinator

  3. Problem Statement DoD conducts off-road military training and testing activities that can create significant air quality challenges and have the potential to negatively impact local and regional air quality

  4. Technical Objectives • Improve understanding of fugitive dust emission potential of soils from off-road military activities • Determine impact of quantity and duration of activity on wind erosion and fugitive dust generation potential based on military vehicle type • Characterize relevant soil and surface properties to determine fugitive dust emission and wind erosion potential • Determine recovery time of disturbed training lands with respect to wind erosion emission potential • Obtain parameters and develop algorithms to simulate military vehicle disturbance impacts on the soil/surface state • Improve DoD’s ability to achieve source compliance and ambient fence-line monitoring for fugitive dust emissions at their installations • Develop and test prototype, eye-safe, particulate matter (PM) sensing lidar, suitable for monitoring fence-line dust concentration levels

  5. Technical Background

  6. Technical Background Wind Erosion Processes

  7. Technical Background Wind Erosion Processes Sources of Emission

  8. Technical Background Surface Conditions

  9. Technical Background Laboratory wind tunnels used to measure soil movement and loss under controlled wind and surface conditions

  10. Technical Background USER INPUTS Location Field Geometry Soil Component Management Operations DATABASES User Interface Barriers Reports Soils Input Files (Run) Management Output Crop and Decomposition Climate Science Model Weather Generators Hydrology Management SUBMODELS Soil Crop Decomposition Erosion

  11. Technical Background Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS) Modeled Processes • Tillage tool-soil/surface contact results in: • Aggregate and surface crust destruction • Soil consolidation/loosening, mixing, inversion • Vegetation flattening, burial • Surface geometry modification - smoothing, ridging • Tillage operation properties • Travel speed and direction, tillage depth • Type and intensity of soil engaging tools • Predicted changes in soil and surface temporal properties • Surface roughness • Aggregate size distribution • Vegetation/residue amount, location and cover

  12. Technical Background Current fenceline monitoring technologies Aglite U of Iowa • EPA Method 9 • Conceived for smokestack emissions • Relative opacity • Must be “trained” to judge opacity • Transmissometers • Point Sampling • Need many instruments for large areas • Labor intensive • Spatial non-homogeneity • Calibration/communication • Lidar • Wide area monitoring • Relative concentration • Size segragated concentration (Aglite only) • Emission rates/fluxes • Digital Imagery • Digital Opacity Compliance System (DOCS) • Yields statistically different results than Method 9 • Results can be camera dependent

  13. Technical Background Aglite is state of the art for fenceline monitoring of fugitive dust Size segregated PM2.5, PM10, and total suspended particle (TSP) fluxes from tillage and animal feeding operations • 3-wavelength Nd:YAG (1064/532/355 nm) laser • 10 km range, 12 m range bin • Not inherently eye-safe • Portable (housed in a horse trailer) • Angle scanning covers a full hemisphere • Funded by and reports reviewed/accepted by: • EPA & California Air Resources Board (CARB) • NET FLUX = Downwind – Upwind

  14. Technical Approach Task 1 Assessment of Wind Erosion Potential from Off-road Vehicle Activity Task 3a Improved Technologies for Active Fence-line Monitoring of Fugitive Dust Emissions Task 1a Pre & Post military vehicle traffic site susceptibility survey on undisturbed off-road sites Optical & soil physical properties measurements • Develop Compact Elastic Lidar System (CELiS) • for SERDP monitoring • Define system requirements • Full system conceptual design Task 1b Laboratory wind tunnel experiments on samples obtained from Task 1a disturbed and undisturbed sites Task 1c Ongoing soil and vegetation recovery survey of disturbed sites selected from Task 1a Fabricate and bench test a CELiS unit Desert Research Institute and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (DRI/PNNL) joint field test exercise Large area, in situ, size segregated measurement of particle deposition dynamics Field test and calibrate CELiS at an existing Desert Research Institute (DRI) campaign site using Aglite as a primary calibration standard Task 1d Update WEPS management module and operation database for off-road vehicle traffic EXIT CRITERIA: Working demonstration unit of an eye-safe fence-line monitor SISON Objective Served: 3a EXIT CRITERIA: Updated WEPS model for military vehicle traffic input wind erosion susceptibility parameters SISON Objectives Served: 1a-1d SISON-10-03 Objectives Served: 1a-1d and 3a

  15. Task 1a Pre- and post-vehicle soil disturbance measurements will be conducted on sites at cooperating DoD installations • Measurements taken at Ft. Riley and additional DoD installations determined in concert with Desert Research Institute’s (DRI) SERDP-funded proposal • At least two soil types (locations) selected at each installation based upon perceived or known vulnerability to wind erosion and/or potential to generate high vehicle dust emissions • Minimum of one tracked and one wheeled vehicle will be used for generating soil disturbances • At least two vehicle speeds will be investigated, and up to five subsequent passes will be made at each site on some plots • Each plot will be replicated three times, if possible

  16. Task 1a Continued To reduce redundant data collection and better correlate measurements across individual tasks: • Some site plots will be additionally sampled for the laboratory wind tunnel studies outlined in Task 1b • Longer term field studies (Task 1c) will also be carried out on a subset of these Task 1a location plots

  17. Task 1a Continued Types of properties to be measured include: • Soil intrinsic properties • Soil temporal & surface properties • Surface vegetative/residue properties • Vehicle/trafficking features

  18. Task 1a Continued Soil temporal properties: • Aggregate size distribution (ASD) • Dry aggregate stability (DAS)

  19. Task 1a Continued Soil surface properties: • Crust fraction present on the surface • Crust thickness, dry crust stability • Mass of loose, erodible soil on crusted surface • Random roughness (RR) • Oriented roughness (wheel track and ridge height, width, spacing and orientation)

  20. Task 1a Continued Surface vegetative/residue properties: • Stem diameter, height, and number • Stem and leaf area indices (SAI and LAI) • Flat vegetative cover • Spatial distribution (clumpiness) of vegetation on the surface

  21. Task 1a Continued Vehicle properties - characterize military vehicles • Weight, speed, number of tires, track width, etc.

  22. Task 1b Characterize relevant temporal and intrinsic soil and surface properties, via laboratory wind tunnel tray studies, to measure total dust as well as PM10 emission potential on a range of off-road disturbed and undisturbed military land soils

  23. Task 1b Continued

  24. Task 1c Characterize relevant temporal and soil and surface properties over time to capture the natural effects of climatic effects (precipitation, heating/cooling, freezing/thawing, etc.) to measure the “recovery” of a disturbed site • Measurements will include: • Soil intrinsic properties (from Task 1a) • Climatic data (meteorological station) • Wind speed and direction • Daily max/min and dew point temperatures • Precipitation and solar radiation • Soil and surface temporal properties • (initial condition from Task 1a) • Vegetative/residue properties • (initial condition from Task 1a)

  25. Task 1d Develop algorithms for specific physical processes to describe effects military vehicles have on off-road soil, surface, and vegetative conditions and incorporate into WEPS • Measurement data required from Task 1a-1c experiments • Soil intrinsic properties • Changes in soil temporal properties • Destruction of aggregates • Compaction (increase in soil density) • Changes in soil surface properties • Destruction of surface crusts • Changes in surface vegetative/residue properties • Destruction in vegetative cover and standing mass • Military vehicle properties • Tracked/wheeled, speed, weight, etc.

  26. Task 3a Improved Technologies or Active Fence-line Monitoring of Fugitive Dust Emissions • Develop CELiS for SERDP monitoring • Define system requirements • Full system conceptual design Fabricate and bench test a CELiS unit Field test and calibrate CELiS at an existing Desert Research Institute (DRI) campaign site using Aglite as a primary calibration standard EXIT CRITERIA: Working demonstration unit of an eye-safe fence-line monitor SISON Objective Served: 3a Task 3a CELiS: Compact Elastic Lidar System • Why? • Existing fenceline monitoring methods are opacity based (EPA Method 9, digital imagery analysis) • No range resolution (total integrated optical path) • No quantitative PM information • Man-in-the-loop (subjective, expensive) • Why is CELiS better? • Lidar provides range resolved PM concentrations • CELiS will be actively calibrated during its operation • CELiS adjusts to local soil and meteorology conditions • Autonomous operation, no man-in-the-loop • Development path • Determine desired data products • Consult with user & regulatory communities • Design a system that addresses user needs • Fabricate & bench test • Field test in cooperation with Desert Research Institute • Calibrate using Aglite

  27. Task 3a CELiS Concept of Operation CELiS and an optical particle counter are deployed on a fenceline downwind from vehicle operations. vertical 2D scan plot Eyesafe laser scanning for dust clouds OPC w/ wireless link wind direction 1D “waterfall” plot CELiS fenceline CELiS station, weather station and wireless link • 1D or 2D scan mode will measure dust concentrations • OPC provides real time calibration • Use soil types and dry density from soil database

  28. Task 3a CELiS: Building Blocks EYESAFE LASER 1550 nm – 1650 nm Commercial telescope Commercial pan-tilt stage Optical Particle Counter Inexpensive laptop 1.5 mm wavelength Avalanche Photo Diode

  29. CELiS raw photon returns CELiS PM calibrated imagery • Data error checking, averaging, reduction • Size calibration • Report generation Optical particle counter (OPC) size distribution Local meteorology precipitation temperature wind humidity Data Products Time averaged lidar imagery Fenceline mass flux Local soil composition dry density, silt, sand, clay Fenceline PM flux Supporting PM compliance data Task 3a CELiS: Block Diagram SYSTEM INPUTS CELiS PROCESSING CELiS OUTPUTS Expected CELiS Instrument Specifications

  30. Year 1 Project Plan • Task 1a – Ft. Riley field site experiments $60 K • Task 1b – Ft. Riley lab wind tunnel experiments $100 K • Task 1c – Ft. Riley long term “recovery” sites $60 K • Task 1d – Ft. Riley (algorithm development) $1 K • Task 3a – Lidar development (starts in 2nd year) $0 K • TOTAL $221 K

  31. Overall Project Plan

  32. Project Funding

  33. Deliverables • Algorithms and relationships for assessing: • Fugitive dust generation by off-road military traffic • Wind erosion emissions susceptibility from military land soils • Degradation of soil and surface conditions by military traffic • Soil and surface recovery rates driven by weather • Degradation and recovery algorithms incorporated into WEPS • A full CELiS system design • A working prototype of CELiS • At least 6peer reviewed publications • 1 PhD, 1 MS and 2 undergrad students (Utah State University) • 1 Post-Doc, 1 MS and 3-5 undergrad students (Kansas State University)

  34. Backup Slides

  35. Technical Background

  36. CELiS Heritage Aglite WiLD

  37. SERDP Comments Comment: In revising your proposal please focus the work on (1) off road training impact on ranges and the associated effects on wind erosion potential (Task 1) and (2) techniques to improve our ability to conduct fence-line monitoring (technologies described in Task 3). Because of other work being supported, we are not interested in any additional work to assess transport and deposition or a comprehensive prediction system. Response: The proposal has been revised to focus just on the two specified goals, removing all Task 2 items and the Task 3b and 3c items from the proposal. Comment: Moreover, to avoid having to conduct any validation testing as a stand-alone effort and to leverage costs, please contact the Principal Investigator for the proposal Characterizing and Quantifying Emissions and Transport of Fugitive Dust Emissions Due to Department of Defense Activities, Dr. John Gillies of Desert Research Institute, for potential coordination opportunities. Response:Correspondence with John Gillies has allowed us to explore possible sharing of experimental sites, to include PI-SWERL in our suite of soil measurements, and to coordinate the calibration process for the proposed CELiS.

  38. SERDP Comments Comment: In the revised proposal provide better linkages between technical objectives/tasks and subtasks to specific SON objectives and describe how they will/will not be addressed. Response: Tasks 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d have been re-organized for clarity, which together all address one SON objective. Task 3a addresses another SON objective. A flow chart has been added to the revised proposal that clearly shows the relationships between the four Task 1 items and the SON objective it addresses as well as the Task 3a item and its SON objective. In addition, linkage with the DRI/PNNL joint field test exercise is identified, which is proposed for the CELiS field calibration task as discussed with John Gillies.

  39. SERDP Comments Comment: Provide more detail in Task 1.a on how the sampling process mitigates against disruption of surface features of soil samples. Response: Loose mobile material on crusted surfaces will be removed during sampling at the site and analyzed in the lab. The surface crusts will be documented and carefully placed in wind tunnel trays and packaged to minimize transportation damage. During the wind tunnel tray experiments, the goal is to obtain the emission potential caused by sand abrasion of these crusts. Crusts are more sensitive to the actual crust stability and thickness properties than the continuity of the crust on the surface, where cracks often develop under dry conditions. Similarly, soil samples from disturbed areas will be placed in trays and transported to the lab for testing. Both the amount of mobile material and dry stability of the immobile material in the soil control response of disturbed surfaces to wind erosion. In general, substantial amounts of soil erosion and thus, surface modification, must occur in order to cause downwind PM10 air quality violations. Note that this is now Task 1b in the revised proposal.

  40. SERDP Comments Comment: Justify the importance of Task 1.b to the overall goals of the project and explain how it will be accomplished in the proposed time period of the project. Response: This task has been relabeled Task 1c in the revised proposal. The overall goal of this task is to determine the natural “healing rate” of disturbed surfaces over time due to specific climatic and wind erosion events. Also, the final state of the disturbed surface will be compared with the original undisturbed state to determine how closely the site returns to the original undisturbed state. If insufficient natural events occur, the experimental plots can have one or more artificial weather events simulated, e.g. rainfall, etc., applied and measurements taken afterwards. Termination of the individual studies can then occur without significant data loss using such procedures.

  41. SERDP Comments Comment: Clarify how the Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS) model, which was developed for agricultural applications, would be applicable to DoD lands. Response: WEPS is a modular model that updates surface conditions on a daily basis and predicts wind erosion emissions including saltation/creep, suspended dust and PM10. Predictions for PM2.5 emissions will be added during this research. Most WEPS modules can be directly applied to DoD lands because WEPS uses physically-based parameters. WEPS users may add additional data to the WEPS climate database to refine local weather simulations. Additional parameters needed for simulating vehicle disturbance, recovery from disturbance, and crust/clod abrasion for a range of soils on DoD installations will be developed in this study. Comment: Provide a clear connection to regulatory interests (i.e., Environmental Protection Agency) as part of methods/findings acceptance and transition. Response:Emission factors for PM10 emissions caused by wind on DoD lands are generally not available. WEPS can be used to provide emission source strength data on an hourly or sub-hourly basis for input into the diffusion models used by EPA for simulating downwind impacts. For example, WEPS emission predictions were used by EPA personnel to evaluate health hazards posed by potential particulate emissions from the Indiana Harbor Confined Disposal Facility. (Hagen, L.J., Schroeder, PR. and Thai, L. 2009. Estimated particulate emissions by wind erosion from the Indiana Harbor Confined Disposal Facility. ASCE Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management 13: 21-28.)

  42. SERDP Comments Comment: Please be advised that SERDP intends to form a Technical Advisory Committee to assist in coordinating all fugitive dust projects. Response: Noted. Comment: Provide a letter of support from Fort Riley. Ensure that the letter indicates any logistic/cost issues. Response:A letter of support from Ft. Riley has been included in the revised proposal package. Comment: Replace annual reports with one Interim Report. We encourage your suggestions as to the appropriate timing of this report. Response:Done. The end of the 2nd year (2011) has been selected to coincide with John Gillies Interim Report date. Comment: Remove the Science Advisory Board meeting in 2010. Include In-Progress Review meetings in February 2011 and April/May 2012. Change the Symposium month to December. Response:These changes have been made in the revised proposal.

  43. SERDP Comments Comment: Revise your budget, as necessary, to address the above comments. Response: A revised budget has been created. It has been extended to include a fourth year to allow more time for the 3rd year long-term disturbed site “healing” experiments to reach their natural conclusion and to also match the termination of John Gillies proposal. Comment: Plan for a start date no earlier than May 1, 2010 in your first year. Response:A start date of June 1, 2010 has been selected. Comment: For each sub-performer receiving greater than $10,000, provide a separate budget sheet. Response:See both KSU BAE’s and SDL’s detailed budgets included in the revised proposal. Comment: Provide all cost information rounded to the nearest dollar. Response:All cost information has been rounded to the nearest dollar.

  44. SERDP Comments Comment: Provide a revised cost-by-task table/spreadsheet. Response: A revised cost-by-task spreadsheet table has been prepared and included in the revised proposal. Comment: Provide a Gantt chart detailing the project schedule. Response:A revised cost-by-task spreadsheet table has been prepared and included in the revised proposal (page 20). Comment: Figure 1 on page: Given you are including the capability to measure the 3-D wind field in Task 3a., are you now in part also addressing SON Objective 3.c.? Response:No. The revised proposal is now proposing a lidar that cannot compute 3-D wind fields.

  45. SERDP Comments Comment: Task 1a.: On page 4 at the bottom you mention that PI-SWERL through SI-1729 will be used on unpaved roads. Note from DRI's proposal (bottom of page 12 to top of page 13) that they also will be using PI-SWERL on off-road, disturbed and undisturbed surfaces. This will increase the amount of correlations you can consider with your own measurements beyond what you indicate. Response:Yes, that is correct. The PI-SWERL will give us additional information that we do plan to use to attempt to correlate with our current laboratory wind tunnel methods of determining potential wind erosion susceptibility and fugitive dust emissions possible from an experimental site. DRI is attempting to use the PI-SWERL as an indicator tool for unpaved road dust emissions generated from military vehicle trafficking. It is our expectation that it should theoretically work for that purpose. We also expect that it may work for indicating fugitive dust emissions possible from off-road sites, provided it does not overwhelm the DustTrack sensors.

  46. SERDP Comments Comment: Task 1c.: Second to last sentence of the methods section: You can't assume the military will mark something off-limits from training for the duration of the study. You're going to have to negotiate this with the installations involved and see what they'll agree to. Response: It is understood that some sites may endure additional training and other planned disturbance activities prior to the natural termination dates. Such circumstances will be discussed prior to site selections with DoD personnel responsible, as noted, so that such sites can be properly terminated prior to such activity (or to allow additional pre- and post-disturbance impacts to be measured for possible continuation of the study on those sites following such additional activity).

  47. Reviewer Comments Comment Reviewer 10553: Suggest re-working proposal with elimination of CFD component (no real additional value for the cost). Would also suggest that all of Phase 3 (development of an integrated dust emission monitoring system) is not necessary and hence should be treated as a separate proposal. Response: The de-scoping of the proposal has eliminated all task 2 items, which included the CFD component. Also, tasks 3b and 3c have also been eliminated, which included the integrated dust emission monitoring system. The appropriate budget modifications have been made to reflect the new balance of work.

  48. Reviewer Comments Comment Reviewer 169: Task 3a-c are very ambitious but are described in very general terms. Converting lidar backscatter to aerosol mass and size distribution is far from trivial, and lidars are of course relatively costly… require specialized operators. Is this system…more fit for purpose than transmissometers? Removal of this task would… substantially reduce project costs. Comment Reviewer 10454: The timeline may be a little optimistic… The modeling aspect may take longer as the validation of VAEPRS model may be delayed…The budget seems to be more skewed toward field testing… however, the modeling portion of the budget may be underestimated. Response: The scope of this task was substantially reduced, eliminating VAEPRS and eliminating the integrated meteorology measurements. The CELiS lidar will be engineered and packaged specifically for a technician level operator and will be as turnkey as possible. A lidar system provides range-resolved concentration information, while a transmissometer provides only total path obscuration – extracting concentration from a transmissometer takes careful calibration. The appropriate budget modifications have been made to reflect the new balance of work.

  49. Transition Plan • Engineering and Wind Erosion Research Unit (EWERU) works closely with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) • Assisting implementation of Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS) • in 2200 field offices nationwide for cropland conservation planning • Energy Dynamics Laboratory (EDL) has a close relationship with the remote sensing group at Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) • We have provided technical support for lidar system fabrication and operation for 4+ years • DPG operates 4 different lidar systems • Developmental testing of CELiS will occur at DPG • EDL has a growing list of licensed technologies • Venture capitalist buy-in for $4M for a water scrubber full development cycle • Some units going into production this year. (Purestream) • Venture capitalist has approached EDL to develop technology for carbon market, carbon cap & trade economy

More Related