4.3 Article

Evaluation of Typhoon Waves Simulated by WaveWatch-III Model in Shallow Waters Around Zhoushan Islands

期刊

JOURNAL OF OCEAN UNIVERSITY OF CHINA
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 365-375

出版社

OCEAN UNIV CHINA
DOI: 10.1007/s11802-019-3829-2

关键词

waves; typhoon; WaveWatch-III; Zhoushan Islands

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFA0604901, 2016YFC 1401002, 2016YFC1402000]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41776 183, 41606024, 41506033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we simulated typhoon waves in the shallow waters around the Zhoushan Islands using the WaveWatch-III (WW3) model version 5.16, the latest version released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Specifically, we used in-situ measurements to evaluate the performance of seven packages of input/dissipation source terms in the WW3 model. We forced the WW3 model by wind fields derived from a combination of the parametric Holland model and high-resolution European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) wind data in a 0.125 degrees grid, herein called H-E winds. We trained the H-E winds by fitting a shape parameter B to buoy-measured observations, which resulted in a smallest root mean square error (RMSE) of 3 m s(-1) for B, when treated as a constant 0.4. Then, we applied the seven input/dissipation terms of WW3, labelled ST1, ST2, ST2+STAB2, ST3, ST3+STAB3, ST4, and ST6, to simulate the significant wave height (SWH) up to 5 m during typhoons Fungwong and Chan-hom around the Zhoushan Islands. We then compared the SWHs of the simulated waves with those measured by the in-situ buoys. The results indicate that the simulation using ST2 performs best with an RMSE of 0.79 m for typhoon Fung-wong and an RMSE of 1.12 m for typhoon Chan-hom. Interestingly, we found the simulated SWH results to be relatively higher than those of the observations in the area between Hangzhou Bay and the Zhoushan Islands. This behavior is worthy of further investigation in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据