Advertisement

Ocean Dynamics

, Volume 68, Issue 11, pp 1543–1557 | Cite as

Impact of ocean–wave coupling on typhoon-induced waves and surge levels around the Korean Peninsula: a case study of Typhoon Bolaven

  • Ji-Seok Hong
  • Jae-Hong MoonEmail author
  • Taekyun Kim
  • Joon-Ho Lee
Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on the 9th International Workshop on Modeling the Ocean (IWMO), Seoul, Korea, 3-6 July 2017

Abstract

Typhoon-induced waves and surges are important when predicting potential hazards near coastal regions. In this paper, we applied a coupled modeling system for ocean–wave interaction to examine prediction capabilities for typhoon-induced waves and surges around the Korean Peninsula. To identify how ocean–wave coupling impacts wave and surge simulations during typhoon conditions, a set of comparative experiments was performed during Typhoon Bolaven (2012): (1) a fully coupled ocean–wave model, (2) a one-way coupled ocean–wave model without surface current feedback and ocean-to-wave water levels, and (3) a stand-alone ocean model without considering wave-based sea surface roughness (SSR). When coupled with the ocean model, the surface current reduced significantly the wave height on the right-hand side of the advancing typhoon track and improved prediction accuracy along the southern coast of Korea. Compared with the observed surge levels, the simulated surge height yielded improved results for peak height magnitude and timing compared with the uncoupled model. For wave-to-surge feedback, we found that wave-induced SSR plays an important role by modulating wind stress in the surface layer. The modulated wind stress directly affected the surge height, which improved surge peak prediction during the typhoon.

Keywords

Wave–ocean interaction Sea surface roughness Typhoon Wave energy Storm surge 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the three reviewers who provided important and insightful comments that significantly improved the manuscript.

Funding information

This work was funded by the Korea Meteorological Administration Research and Development Program under Grant KMI2018-07610.

References

  1. Barbariol F, Benetazzo A, Carniel S, Sclavo M (2013) Improving the assessment of wave energy resources by means of coupled wave-ocean numerical modeling. Renew Energy 60:462–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benetazzo A, Carniel S, Sclavo M, Bergamasco A (2013) Wave–current interaction: effect on the wave field in a semi-enclosed basin. Ocean Model 70:152–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bleck R (2002) An oceanic general circulation model framed in hybrid isopycnic-Cartesian coordinates. Ocean Model 4(1):55–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Booij NRRC, Ris RC, Holthuijsen LH (1999) A third-generation wave model for coastal regions: 1. Model description and validation. J Geophys Res: Oceans 104(C4):7649–7666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowyer PJ, MacAfee AW (2005) The theory of trapped-fetch waves with tropical cyclones—an operational perspective. Weather Forecast 20(3):229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown JM, Amoudry LO, Mercier FM, Souza AJ (2013) Intercomparison of the Charnock and COARE bulk wind stress formulations for coastal ocean modelling. Ocean Sci 9(4):721–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charnock H (1955) Wind stress on a water surface. Q J R Meteorol Soc 81(350):639–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craig PD, Banner ML (1994) Modeling wave-enhanced turbulence in the ocean surface layer. J Phys Oceanogr 24(12):2546–2559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dietrich JC, Zijlema M, Westerink JJ, Holthuijsen LH, Dawson C, Luettich RA et al (2011) Modeling hurricane waves and storm surge using integrally-coupled, scalable computations. Coast Eng 58(1):45–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fairall CW, Bradley EF, Rogers DP, Edson JB, Young GS (1996) Bulk parameterization of air-sea fluxes for tropical ocean-global atmosphere coupled-ocean atmosphere response experiment. J Geophys Res Oceans 101(C2):3747–3764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fairall CW, Bradley EF, Hare JE, Grachev AA, Edson JB (2003) Bulk parameterization of air–sea fluxes: updates and verification for the COARE algorithm. J Clim 16(4):571–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fan Y, Ginis I, Hara T (2009a) The effect of wind-wave-current interaction on air-sea momentum fluxes and ocean response in tropical cyclones. J Phys Oceanogr 39(4):1019–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fan Y, Ginis I, Hara T, Wright CW, Walsh EJ (2009b) Numerical simulations and observations of surface wave fields under an extreme tropical cyclone. J Phys Oceanogr 39(9):2097–2116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haidvogel DB, Arango H, Budgell WP, Cornuelle BD, Curchitser E, Di Lorenzo E, Fennel K, Geyer WR, Hermann AJ, Lanerolle L, Levin J, McWilliams JC, Miller AJ, Moore AM, Powell TM, Shchepetkin AF, Sherwood CR, Signell RP, Warner JC, Wilkin J, Levin J (2008) Ocean forecasting in terrain-following coordinates: formulation and skill assessment of the Regional Ocean Modeling System. J Comput Phys 227(7):3595–3624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halliwell GR (2004) Evaluation of vertical coordinate and vertical mixing algorithms in the HYbrid-Coordinate Ocean model (HYCOM). Ocean Model 7(3–4):285–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hopkins J, Elgar S, Raubenheimer B (2016) Observations and model simulations of wave-current interaction on the inner shelf. J Geophys Res Oceans 121(1):198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacob R, Larson J, Ong E (2005) M× N communication and parallel interpolation in community climate system model version 3 using the model coupling toolkit. Int J High Perform Comput Appl 19(3):293–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janssen PA (1989) Wave-induced stress and the drag of air flow over sea waves. J Phys Oceanogr 19(6):745–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kara AB, Hurlburt HE, Wallcraft AJ, Bourassa MA (2005) Black Sea mixed layer sensitivity to various wind and thermal forcing products on climatological time scales. J Clim 18(24):5266–5293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kirby JT, Chen TM (1989) Surface waves on vertically sheared flows: approximate dispersion relations. J Geophys Res Oceans 94(C1):1013–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kumar N, Voulgaris G, Warner JC, & Olabarrieta M (2012) Implementation of the vortex force formalism in the coupled ocean-atmosphere-wave-sediment transport (COAWST) modeling system for inner shelf and surf zone applications. Ocean Model 47:65–95Google Scholar
  22. Larson J, Jacob R, Ong E (2005) The model coupling toolkit: a new Fortran90 toolkit for building multiphysics parallel coupled models. Int J High Perform Comput Appl 19(3):277–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Legates DR, McCabe GJ (1999) Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res 35(1):233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moghimi S, Klingbeil K, Gräwe U, Burchard H (2013) A direct comparison of a depth-dependent radiation stress formulation and a vortex force formulation within a three-dimensional coastal ocean model. Ocean Model 70:132–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moon IJ, Kwon SJ (2012) Impact of upper-ocean thermal structure on the intensity of Korean peninsular landfall typhoons. Prog Oceanogr 105:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mori N, Takada R, Yasuda T, Mase H, Kim SY (2009) Effects of wave radiation stress and vertical mixing on storm surge. In: Proceedings of coastal dynamics 2009: impacts of human activities on dynamic coastal processes (with CD-ROM) (pp. 1–11)Google Scholar
  27. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I—A discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10(3):282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Olabarrieta M, Warner JC, Kumar N (2011) Wave-current interaction in Willapa Bay. J Geophys Res Oceans 116(C12)Google Scholar
  29. Phillips OM (1977) The dynamics of the upper ocean. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Ricchi A, Miglietta MM, Barbariol F, Benetazzo A, Bergamasco A, Bonaldo D et al (2017) Sensitivity of a Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone to different model configurations and coupling strategies. Atmosphere 8(5):92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rusu L, Soares CG (2011) Modelling the wave–current interactions in an offshore basin using the SWAN model. Ocean Eng 38(1):63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rusu L, Bernardino M, Soares CG (2011) Modelling the influence of currents on wave propagation at the entrance of the Tagus estuary. Ocean Eng 38(10):1174–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sabatino AD, Murray RBOH, Heath MR (2016) Modelling wave-current interactions off the east coast of Scotland. Ocean Sci 12(4):875–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saha S, Moorthi S, Wu X, Wang J, Nadiga S, Tripp P et al (2014) The NCEP climate forecast system version 2. J Clim 27(6):2185–2208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shchepetkin AF, McWilliams JC (2005) The regional oceanic modeling system (ROMS): a split-explicit, free-surface, topography-following-coordinate oceanic model. Ocean Model 9(4):347–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor PK, Yelland MJ (2001) The dependence of sea surface roughness on the height and steepness of the waves. J Phys Oceanogr 31(2):572–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang P, Sheng J (2016) A comparative study of wave-current interactions over the eastern Canadian shelf under severe weather conditions using a coupled wave-circulation model. J Geophys Res Oceans 121(7):5252–5281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Warner JC, Sherwood CR, Signell RP, Harris CK, Arango HG (2008) Development of a three-dimensional, regional, coupled wave, current, and sediment-transport model. Comput Geosci 34(10):1284–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Warner JC, Armstrong B, He R, Zambon JB (2010) Development of a coupled ocean–atmosphere–wave–sediment transport (COAWST) modeling system. Ocean Model 35(3):230–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Willmott CJ, Robeson SM, Matsuura K (2012) A refined index of model performance. Int J Climatol 32(13):2088–2094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zheng P, Li M, van der A DA, van der Zanden J, Wolf J, Chen X, Wang C (2017) A 3D unstructured grid nearshore hydrodynamic model based on the vortex force formalism. Ocean Model 116:48–69Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018
corrected publication September/2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ji-Seok Hong
    • 1
  • Jae-Hong Moon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Taekyun Kim
    • 2
  • Joon-Ho Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Earth and Marine Sciences, College of Ocean SciencesJeju National UniversityJejuRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Unit of Ice Sheet and Sea Level ChangesKorea Polar Research InstituteIncheonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations