IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v116y2023i1d10.1007_s11069-022-05702-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relative accuracy of HWRF reanalysis and a parametric wind model during the landfall of Hurricane Florence and the impacts on storm surge simulations

Author

Listed:
  • Md Arifur Rahman

    (The University of Texas at Arlington
    Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET))

  • Yu Zhang

    (The University of Texas at Arlington)

  • Lixin Lu

    (Colorado State University)

  • Saeed Moghimi

    (NOAA National Ocean Service)

  • Kelin Hu

    (Tulane University)

  • Ali Abdolali

    (NOAA National Weather Service
    Lynker
    University of Maryland)

Abstract

Prediction and reanalysis of storm surge rely on wind and pressure fields from either parametric tropical cyclone wind models or numerical weather model reanalysis, and both are subject to large errors during landfall. This study assesses two sets of wind/pressure fields for Hurricane Florence that made landfall along the Carolinas in September 2018 and appraises the impacts of differential structural errors in the two suites of modeled wind fields on the predictive accuracy of storm surge driven thereby. The first set was produced using Holland 2010 (H10), and the second set is the Hurricane Weather Research and Forecasting (HWRF) reanalysis created by the NWS National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). Each is validated using a large surface data set collected at public and commercial platforms and then is used as input forcing to a 2-D coastal hydrodynamic model (Delft3D Flexible Mesh) to produce storm surge along the Carolina coasts and major sounds. Major findings include the following. First, wind fields from HWRF are overall more accurate than those based on H10 for the periphery of the storm, though they exhibit limitations in resolving high wind speeds near the center. Second, applying H10 to the best track data for Florence yields an erroneously spike in wind speed on September 15th when the storm reduced to a tropical depression. Third, HWRF wind fields exhibit a progressively negative bias after landfall, likely due to deficiencies of the model in representing boundary layer processes, and to the lack of assimilation of surface product after landfall for compensating for these deficiencies. Fourth, using HWRF reanalysis as the forcings to Delft3D yields more accurate peak surges simulations, though there is severe underestimation of surge along the shoreline close to the track center. The peak surge simulations by Delft3D are biased low when driven by H10, even though over several locations the H10 model clearly overpredicts surface wind speeds. This contrast highlights the importance of resolving wind fields further away from the center in order to accurately reproduce storm surge and associated coastal flooding.

Suggested Citation

  • Md Arifur Rahman & Yu Zhang & Lixin Lu & Saeed Moghimi & Kelin Hu & Ali Abdolali, 2023. "Relative accuracy of HWRF reanalysis and a parametric wind model during the landfall of Hurricane Florence and the impacts on storm surge simulations," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 116(1), pages 869-904, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:116:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-022-05702-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-022-05702-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-022-05702-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-022-05702-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. V. Cardone & A. Cox, 2009. "Tropical cyclone wind field forcing for surge models: critical issues and sensitivities," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 51(1), pages 29-47, October.
    2. Donald T. Resio & Nancy Powell & Mary Cialone & Himangshu S. Das & Joannes J. Westerink, 2017. "Quantifying impacts of forecast uncertainties on predicted storm surges," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 88(3), pages 1423-1449, September.
    3. Kelin Hu & Qin Chen & Sytske Kimball, 2012. "Consistency in hurricane surface wind forecasting: an improved parametric model," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 61(3), pages 1029-1050, April.
    4. Mark D. Powell & Peter J. Vickery & Timothy A. Reinhold, 2003. "Reduced drag coefficient for high wind speeds in tropical cyclones," Nature, Nature, vol. 422(6929), pages 279-283, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhaoqing Yang & Sourav Taraphdar & Taiping Wang & L. Ruby Leung & Molly Grear, 2016. "Uncertainty and feasibility of dynamical downscaling for modeling tropical cyclones for storm surge simulation," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(2), pages 1161-1184, November.
    2. Kelin Hu & Qin Chen & Sytske Kimball, 2012. "Consistency in hurricane surface wind forecasting: an improved parametric model," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 61(3), pages 1029-1050, April.
    3. Amirinia, Gholamreza & Mafi, Somayeh & Mazaheri, Said, 2017. "Offshore wind resource assessment of Persian Gulf using uncertainty analysis and GIS," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 915-929.
    4. Eric Oliver & Jinyu Sheng & Keith Thompson & Jorge Blanco, 2012. "Extreme surface and near-bottom currents in the northwest Atlantic," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 64(2), pages 1425-1446, November.
    5. Adam Bechle & Chin Wu, 2014. "The Lake Michigan meteotsunamis of 1954 revisited," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 74(1), pages 155-177, October.
    6. Wang, Hao & Wang, Tongguang & Ke, Shitang & Hu, Liang & Xie, Jiaojie & Cai, Xin & Cao, Jiufa & Ren, Yuxin, 2023. "Assessing code-based design wind loads for offshore wind turbines in China against typhoons," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 669-682.
    7. Andrew B. Martinez, 2020. "Forecast Accuracy Matters for Hurricane Damage," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-24, May.
    8. Donald T. Resio & Taylor G. Asher & Jennifer L. Irish, 2017. "The effects of natural structure on estimated tropical cyclone surge extremes," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 88(3), pages 1609-1637, September.
    9. Vahid Valamanesh & Andrew T. Myers & Sanjay R. Arwade & Jerome F. Hajjar & Eric Hines & Weichiang Pang, 2016. "Wind-wave prediction equations for probabilistic offshore hurricane hazard analysis," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 83(1), pages 541-562, August.
    10. V. Cardone & A. Cox, 2009. "Tropical cyclone wind field forcing for surge models: critical issues and sensitivities," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 51(1), pages 29-47, October.
    11. Jian Yang & Yu Chen & Hua Zhou & Zhongdong Duan, 2021. "A height-resolving tropical cyclone boundary layer model with vertical advection process," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 107(1), pages 723-749, May.
    12. Wang, H. & Ke, S.T. & Wang, T.G. & Zhu, S.Y., 2020. "Typhoon-induced vibration response and the working mechanism of large wind turbine considering multi-stage effects," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 740-758.
    13. Chi-Sann Liou, 2007. "Sensitivity of high-resolution tropical cyclone intensity forecasts to surface flux parameterization," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 41(3), pages 387-399, June.
    14. WoongHee Jung & Aikaterini P. Kyprioti & Ehsan Adeli & Alexandros A. Taflanidis, 2023. "Exploring the sensitivity of probabilistic surge estimates to forecast errors," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1371-1409, January.
    15. Hung-Ju Shih & Chih-Hsin Chang & Wei-Bo Chen & Lee-Yaw Lin, 2018. "Identifying the Optimal Offshore Areas for Wave Energy Converter Deployments in Taiwanese Waters Based on 12-Year Model Hindcasts," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, February.
    16. Wei, K. & Arwade, S.R. & Myers, A.T. & Hallowell, S. & Hajjar, J.F. & Hines, E.M. & Pang, W., 2016. "Toward performance-based evaluation for offshore wind turbine jacket support structures," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 709-721.
    17. Yashvant Das, 2018. "Parametric modeling of tropical cyclone wind fields in India," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 93(2), pages 1049-1084, September.
    18. Bruce Harper & Thomas Hardy & Luciano Mason & Ross Fryar, 2009. "Developments in storm tide modelling and risk assessment in the Australian region," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 51(1), pages 225-238, October.
    19. Wang, H. & Ke, S.T. & Wang, T.G. & Kareem, A. & Hu, L. & Ge, Y.J., 2022. "Multi-stage typhoon-induced wind effects on offshore wind turbines using a data-driven wind speed field model," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 765-777.
    20. Pulong Ma & Georgios Karagiannis & Bledar A. Konomi & Taylor G. Asher & Gabriel R. Toro & Andrew T. Cox, 2022. "Multifidelity computer model emulation with high‐dimensional output: An application to storm surge," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 71(4), pages 861-883, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:116:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-022-05702-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.