An economic air pollution control model-application : photochemical smog in Los Angeles County in 1975

An economic air pollution control model, which determines the least cost of reaching various air quality levels, is formulated. The model takes the form of a general, nonlinear, mathematical programming problem. Primary contaminant emission levels are the independent variables. The objective function is the cost of attaining various emission levels and is to be minimized subject to constraints that given air quality levels be attained.

The model is applied to a simplified statement of the photochemical smog problem in Los Angeles County in 1975 with emissions specified by a two-dimensional vector, total reactive hydrocarbon, (RHC), and nitrogen oxide, (NO_x), emissions. Air quality, also two-dimensional, is measured by the expected number of days per year that nitrogen dioxide, (NO₂), and mid-day ozone, (O₃), exceed standards in Central Los Angeles.

The minimum cost of reaching various emission levels is found by a linear programming model. The base or "uncontrolled" emission levels are those that will exist in 1975 with the present new car control program and with the degree of stationary source control existing in 1971. Controls, basically "add-on devices", are considered here for used cars, aircraft, and existing stationary sources. It is found that with these added controls, Los Angeles County emission levels [(1300 tons/day RHC, 1000 tons /day NO_x) in 1969] and [(670 tons/day RHC, 790 tons/day NO_x) at the base 1975 level], can be reduced to 260 tons/day RHC (minimum RHC program) and 460 tons/day NO_x (minimum NO_x program).

"Phenomenological" or statistical air quality models provide the relationship between air quality and emissions. These models estimate the relationship by using atmospheric monitoring data taken at one (yearly) emission level and by using certain simple physical assumptions, (e. g., that emissions are reduced proportionately at all points in space and time). For NO₂, (concentrations assumed proportional to NO_x emissions), it is found that standard violations in Central Los Angeles, (55 in 1969), can be reduced to 25, 5, and 0 days per year by controlling emissions to 800, 550, and 300 tons /day, respectively. A probabilistic model reveals that RHC control is much more effective than NO_x control in reducing Central Los Angeles ozone. The 150 days per year ozone violations in 1969 can be reduced to 75, 30, 10, and 0 days per year by abating RHC emissions to 700, 450, 300, and 150 tons/day, respectively, (at the 1969 NO_x emission level).

The control cost-emission level and air quality-emission level relationships are combined in a graphical solution of the complete model to find the cost of various air quality levels. Best possible air quality levels with the controls considered here are 8 O₃ and 10 NO₂ violations per year (minimum ozone program) or 25 O₃ and 3 NO₂ violations per year (minimum NO₂ program) with an annualized cost of $230,000,000 (above the estimated $150,000,000 per year for the new car control program for Los Angeles County motor vehicles in 1975).

SteelConverter and Caltech VirtualShaker: Rapid Nonlinear Cloud-Based Structural Model Conversion and Analysis

STEEL, the Caltech created nonlinear large displacement analysis software, is currently used by a large number of researchers at Caltech. However, due to its complexity, lack of visualization tools (such as pre- and post-processing capabilities) rapid creation and analysis of models using this software was difficult. SteelConverter was created as a means to facilitate model creation through the use of the industry standard finite element solver ETABS. This software allows users to create models in ETABS and intelligently convert model information such as geometry, loading, releases, fixity, etc., into a format that STEEL understands. Models that would take several days to create and verify now take several hours or less. The productivity of the researcher as well as the level of confidence in the model being analyzed is greatly increased.

It has always been a major goal of Caltech to spread the knowledge created here to other universities. However, due to the complexity of STEEL it was difficult for researchers or engineers from other universities to conduct analyses. While SteelConverter did help researchers at Caltech improve their research, sending SteelConverter and its documentation to other universities was less than ideal. Issues of version control, individual computer requirements, and the difficulty of releasing updates made a more centralized solution preferred. This is where the idea for Caltech VirtualShaker was born. Through the creation of a centralized website where users could log in, submit, analyze, and process models in the cloud, all of the major concerns associated with the utilization of SteelConverter were eliminated. Caltech VirtualShaker allows users to create profiles where defaults associated with their most commonly run models are saved, and allows them to submit multiple jobs to an online virtual server to be analyzed and post-processed. The creation of this website not only allowed for more rapid distribution of this tool, but also created a means for engineers and researchers with no access to powerful computer clusters to run computationally intensive analyses without the excessive cost of building and maintaining a computer cluster.

In order to increase confidence in the use of STEEL as an analysis system, as well as verify the conversion tools, a series of comparisons were done between STEEL and ETABS. Six models of increasing complexity, ranging from a cantilever column to a twenty-story moment frame, were analyzed to determine the ability of STEEL to accurately calculate basic model properties such as elastic stiffness and damping through a free vibration analysis as well as more complex structural properties such as overall structural capacity through a pushover analysis. These analyses showed a very strong agreement between the two softwares on every aspect of each analysis. However, these analyses also showed the ability of the STEEL analysis algorithm to converge at significantly larger drifts than ETABS when using the more computationally expensive and structurally realistic fiber hinges. Following the ETABS analysis, it was decided to repeat the comparisons in a software more capable of conducting highly nonlinear analysis, called Perform. These analyses again showed a very strong agreement between the two softwares in every aspect of each analysis through instability. However, due to some limitations in Perform, free vibration analyses for the three story one bay chevron brace frame, two bay chevron brace frame, and twenty story moment frame could not be conducted. With the current trend towards ultimate capacity analysis, the ability to use fiber based models allows engineers to gain a better understanding of a building’s behavior under these extreme load scenarios.

Following this, a final study was done on Hall’s U20 structure [1] where the structure was analyzed in all three softwares and their results compared. The pushover curves from each software were compared and the differences caused by variations in software implementation explained. From this, conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of each analysis tool when attempting to analyze structures through the point of geometric instability. The analyses show that while ETABS was capable of accurately determining the elastic stiffness of the model, following the onset of inelastic behavior the analysis tool failed to converge. However, for the small number of time steps the ETABS analysis was converging, its results exactly matched those of STEEL, leading to the conclusion that ETABS is not an appropriate analysis package for analyzing a structure through the point of collapse when using fiber elements throughout the model. The analyses also showed that while Perform was capable of calculating the response of the structure accurately, restrictions in the material model resulted in a pushover curve that did not match that of STEEL exactly, particularly post collapse. However, such problems could be alleviated by choosing a more simplistic material model.