1 / 15

5 th NOAA Testbeds and Proving Grounds Workshop, April 16-18, 2014

IOOS Coastal and Ocean Modeling Testbed for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 5 th NOAA Testbeds and Proving Grounds Workshop, April 16-18, 2014.

sanjiv
Download Presentation

5 th NOAA Testbeds and Proving Grounds Workshop, April 16-18, 2014

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. IOOS Coastal and Ocean Modeling Testbed for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands • 5th NOAA Testbeds and Proving Grounds Workshop, April 16-18, 2014 • André van der Westhuysen, JoannesWesterink, Juan Gonzalez, Jane Smith, Jamie Rhome, Jesse Feyen, Cristina Forbes, Julio Morell, Aurelio Mercado, • Jay Veeramony, Hugh Cobb, Carlos Anselmi, Ernesto Morales 1/15

  2. Content • Objective • Activities • Modeling requirements • Model selection • Storm case selection • First results: Tidal modeling, Wave impacts • Conclusions 2/15

  3. Objective To extend the present wave/surge operational forecasting capability from mild-sloped coastal areas such as the US East and Gulf of Mexico coasts to steep-sloped areas such as Caribbean and Pacific islands. Facilitate the transition to NOAA’s National Hurricane Center and local WFOs. www.caricoos.org www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo 3/15

  4. Activities • Phase 1: Model, test case and metric selection • Define desired operational model requirements. • Identify candidate models to meet these. • Selection and formatting of test cases. • Define metrics for model evaluation. • Phase 2: Comparison over regional field cases • Model evaluations over complex regional field cases, featuring hurricane meteorological forcing, high-resolution topo/bathy, roughness values from benthic maps and rainfall run-off inputs. • Performance compared: accuracy vs. cost. 4/15

  5. Activities (2) 41115 • Phase 3: Model comparison over reef transects • Detailed cross-reef simulations with coupled spectral wave and hydrodynamic models. • Results compared with observations and phase-resolving wave models. • Phase 4: Recommendations and dissemination • Compile recommendations on advantages/disadvantages of various modeling approaches for operations. • Facilitate the transition to operations at the National Hurricane Center and WFOs. Rincon, PR 5/15

  6. Modeling requirements • Guidance requirements set by National Hurricane Program • Guidance needed to determine which evacuation zones to order • Operational requirements: • Has to flow through AWIPS in order to be usable • Time (and timeliness) is critical – order of minutes • Numerical stability is essential • Advisories every 6 h, but more frequent special advisories issued if storms change quickly • Physics requirements (from COMT1 and otherwise): • Apply probabilistic approaches before landfall – deterministic only after landfall • Evacuation zones are typically “chunky” – high-fidelity output lost in operational application • SLOSH: Use a larger model domain, improve parametric wind model and addition of waves (critical over reefs) • Unknown impact of resolution and physics over reefs • Importance of submerged reefs in tides • Importance of bed friction/percolation 6/15

  7. Model selection • UND: ADCIRC+SWAN, FUNWAVE • NHC: SLOSH+SWAN • NCEP: ADCIRC+WW3, NWPS • UPR: ADCIRC+SWAN • NRL: Delft3D+SWAN, TRITON 7/15

  8. Storm selection for regional cases Marilyn 1995 Hugo 1989 Lenny 1999 George 1998 Isaac 2012 Sandy 2012 (out of area) 8/15

  9. Cross-reef cases (Rincon, PR) DWR Press. Sens. ADCP AWAC (1) DatawellWaverider (33 m, 2D wave spectrum) (1) Nortek AWAC (18 m, 2D wave spectrum) (2) Ocean Sensor Systems Pressure Sensor (6.54 m, 3.33 m) (1) Teledyne Sentinel ADCP (10 m channel) 9/15

  10. Tidal modeling: ADCIRC+SWAN Phase Amplitude M2 Constituent O1 Constituent 10/15

  11. Tidal amplitudes and phases Amplitude Phase M2 Constituent O1 Constituent 11/15

  12. M2 Tidal Amplitude Validation 12/15

  13. M2 Tidal Phase Validation 13/15

  14. Wave impacts: SLOSH+SWAN Hurricane George (1998), landfall NWS/NHC/SSU • Surge only • Surge + Waves 14/15

  15. Conclusions • Testbed to evaluate wave/surge operational modeling in steep-slopedregions such as the Caribbean and Pacific islands. • Features regional-scale and nearshore-scale field cases. To conclude with recommendations for operational environment. • Broad participation from academic and operational communities, with wide range of surge and wave models. • First results: Accurate ADCIRC tidal resultsthrough Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and the Lesser Antilles (not available before). • Very localized difference of about -0.02 m with the observed M2 tidal amplitude on shelf between PR and the USVI (interface between (Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea). M2 phases agree well with observed phases, except along PR south coast (but observations questionable). • Wave inclusion in SLOSH yields significant water level increase at landfall. • More information: testbed.sura.org 15/15

More Related