Modeling of storm surges and wave heights during few...

Indian Journal of Geo Marine Sciences Vol. 48 (06), June 2019, pp. 867-878

Modeling of storm surges and wave heights during few cyclones over Bay of Bengal using uncoupled and coupled (ADCIRC+SWAN) models

P. Suneeta & K.V.S.R Prasad*

Department of Meteorology and Oceanography, Andhra University Visakhapatnam, India *[E.Mail: [email protected]]

Received 04 January 2017; revised 05 May 2017

In this study, the uncoupled (ADCIRC) and a tightly-coupled SWAN (Simulating Waves at Near shore) + ADCIR (Advance circulation Model) models are used to estimate the storm surge heights along the east coast of India. four cyclones over the Bay of Bengal during 2013, viz; Mahasen ( May 10-17 ), Phailin (October 8-14 ), Helen (November 19-23) and Lehar (November 23-28),. Due to finite element nature of ADCIRC, the mesh (grid) structure was having variable spatial resolution with higher resolution (~5Km) near to the coast and 50 km offshore. The validation of simulated surges from both stand alone and coupled configurations was carried out using observations from tide gauges .The simulated wave heights were validated using observations from Ka-band Altimeter onboard SARAL(Satellite with ARgos and ALtiKa). It is found that the coupled model (ADCIRC+SWAN) performed well compared with the uncoupled model, in predicting the storm surges. The simulated maximum Water level for uncoupled (ADCIRC only) run that considers the astronomical and meteorological forcing was about 2.3 m, at Gopalpur coast (landfall point). The coupled model that considers additional wave radiation stress provides the maximum water level elevation as 3.0 m at the above location. The observed surge height close to this location was 2.9 m. The significant wave heights (SWH) estimated by the models are compared with the SARAL Altika data. More than 12000 observations are used for comparison, It is found that the correlation between the estimated and observed values of SWHs were high and significant in all the four cyclones and the highest correlation of 0.67 was observed in case of Lehar

[Keywords: Storm surges; Wave heights; ADCIRC; SWAN; SARAL; Wave heights]

Introduction Several studies1,6 on cyclone induced storm surges

were done using different models. ADCIRC (Advance circulation model) which has been widely used in United States of America for coastal flood mapping. Most recently coupled versions have been developed which allow for combined modelling of storm surge ADCIRC with storm waves SWAN (Simulating Waves at Near shore). The coupled model (ADCIRC+SWAN) has been used for Thane cyclone over Bay of Bengal7. A few studies 8-14 have been carried out over Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea with focus on Italian coast and for typhoon Maemi in Korean seas using MAST III PROMISE Project 15. Present study is an application of coupled (ADCIRC+SWAN) and uncoupled (ADCIRC only) models to understand the wave and hydrodynamic characteristics associated with the cyclone intensity along the east coast of India. SWAN is a third-generation wave model for obtaining realistic estimates of wave parameters in coastal areas. Most of the countries around the North Indian Ocean are threatened by storm surges associated with severe

tropical cyclones. The unstructured-mesh SWAN spectral wave model and the ADCIRC shallow-water circulation model have been integrated into a tightly-coupled SWAN + ADCIRC models has been tested for four cyclones (Mahesan, Phailn , Helen and Lehar) over Bay of Bengal during 2013. Materials and Methods

We will describe a depth-averaged (2D) model of circulation in spherical coordinates. Accurate discretization of the computational domain using unstructured finite element meshes, and numerical methods capable of capturing highly adjective flows, wetting and drying, and multi-scale features of the solution. The performance and assessment of coupled and uncoupled model was evaluated with all available observations. In the recent literature it is highlighted that coupling of waves, surge and tide is essential for improving the accuracy of predicting storm surge in coastal areas16, 17

ADCIRC (Advanced Circulation) equations are based on the hydrostatic pressure and Boussinesq approxim

INDIAN J. MAR. SCI., VOL. 48, NO. 06, JUNE 2019

868

ations and have been discredited in space using the finite element Generalized Wave-Continuity Equation formulation and in time using a finite difference method18. ADCIRC includes a variety of options for boundary forcing (elevation, zero normal boundary fluxes, variable spatial and temporal free surface stress and atmospheric pressure forcing functions in addition to Coriolis and tidal potential forcing terms). In Cartesian coordinate system these equations can be written as

SWAN predicts the evolution in geographical space ⇀ x and time t of the wave action density spectrum N(→ x,t,σ,θ) with σ the relative frequency and θ the wave direction, as governed by the action balance equation19

. totx g C N C N SN c U Nt

… (1)

The terms on the left-hand side represent, respectively, the change of wave action in time, the propagation of wave action in ⇀ x-space (with ∇⇀ x the gradient operator in geographic space, ⇀ cg the wave group velocity and ⇀ U the ambient current vector), depth- and current- induced refraction and approximate diffraction (with propagation velocity or turning rate cθ), and the shifting of σ due to variations in mean current and depth (with propagation velocity or shifting rate cσ). The source term, Stott, represents wave growth by wind; action lost due to white capping, surf breaking and bottom friction; and action exchanged between spectral components in deep and shallow water due to nonlinear effects. The associated SWAN parameterizations are given by Booij et.al 19

ADCIRC and SWAN run in series on the same local mesh and core. The two models “leap frog” through time, each being forced with information from the other model. Because of the sweeping method used by SWAN to update the wave information at the computational vortices, it can take much larger time steps than ADCIRC, which is diffusion- and also Courant time-step limited due to its semi-explicit formulation and its wetting- and-drying algorithm. For that reason, the coupling interval is taken to be the same as the SWAN time step. On each coupling interval, ADCIRC is run first, because we assume that, in the near shore and the coastal flood plain, wave properties are more dependent on circulation. At the beginning of a coupling interval, ADCIRC can access the radiation stress gradients computed by SWAN at times corresponding to the beginning and end of the previous interval. ADCIRC uses that information to extrapolate the gradients at all of its time steps in the current interval. These extrapolated gradients are used to force the ADCIRC solution as described previously. Once the ADCIRC stage is finished, SWAN is run for one time step, to bring it to the same moment in time as ADCIRC. SWAN can access the wind speeds, water levels and currents computed at the mesh vertices by ADCIRC, at times corresponding to the beginning and end of the current interval. SWAN applies and the models may pass information via external files20 .The mean of those values to force its solution on its time step. In this way, the radiation stress gradients used by ADCIRC are always extrapolated forward in time while the wind

ρ0= density of air column

SUNEETA & PRASAD: MODEING OF STORM SURGES DURING FEW CYCLIONES OVER BAY OF BENGAL

869

speeds, water levels and currents used by SWAN are always averaged over each of its time steps.

Parallel coupling framework: The METIS domain-decomposition algorithm is applied to distribute the global mesh over a number of computational cores21. An emerging practice is to couple models through a generic framework, such as the Earth System Modelling Framework (ESMF), the Open Modelling Interface (Open MI) Environment22 or the Modelling Coupling Toolkit (MCT) 23 .The decomposition minimizes inter- core communication by creating local sub-meshes with small ratios of the number of vertices within the domain to the number of shared vertices at sub-mesh interfaces. The decomposition also balances the computational load by creating local sub-meshes with a similar number of vertices; the local meshes decrease in geographical area as their average mesh size is decreased. The model domain extends from 50˚E to 100˚E and from 10˚S to 25˚N. The variation of bathymetric features within model domain are shown in Fig. 1(a). Model bathymetry is taken from 2 minute Earth Topography (ETOPO-2) dataset as modified by National Institute of Oceanography (NIO, Goa) for the Indian Ocean domain24 , Total number of horizontal triangular grid elements is 21370 and the number of corresponding nodes is 11023. High resolution and high density grids are placed at the coastal regions and for BOB (Bay of Bengal) region where the bathymetric features are more complex compared to other off-shore counterparts in the Indian Ocean. The spatial grid resolution at the coast is 5 km which expands to 50 km for the off-shore model boundaries. The model can be forced with surface elevation at the open boundary, zero land boundary flux, variable spatial and temporal free surface stress and atmospheric pressure. Mesh generation package SMS25 (Surface-water Modeling System)was used for generating the computational grid. The finite element unstructured mesh used for the simulations is shown in Fig. 1(a).

The advantage of using unstructured mesh is its capability to resolve sharp gradients in bathymetry, especially in near-shore areas8. Physical phenomena of tides and storm surge waves can be resolved using a coarse grid in deep waters, whereas the resolution is critical and needs to be higher in coastal and near-shore waters for better estimates26,27 , hence the grid resolution of 1 km near shore is sufficient for precise computation of surge heights along the east coast of India, the bottom friction coefficient used in the

coupled model is 0.0028 with 10 s as the time step28 for coupled run. The model time step for SWAN and the coupling time interval was set to 600 s.

The bottom friction formulation in SWAN used the friction coefficient proposed by that permits spatially varying roughness length. The value of 0.05 is used as the bottom roughness length scale29. The nested boundary condition of time varying two-dimensional wave energy spectra from a coarse resolution (0.25°×0.25°) SWAN run for the larger Indian Ocean domain is prescribed along the open ocean boundary of the study area. Earlier study30 reported the application of SWAN wave model for the Indian Ocean. Information on cyclones has been taken from IMD31-34. In order to force the numerical storm surge model ADCIRC, meteorological parameters from Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) Centres have been used.

In particular, surface forcing data from the National Centre for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) have been used through Operational Model Archive and Distribution System35 project. The NOMADS (NOAA Operational Model Archive and Distribution System) framework was developed to facilitate climate model and observational data inter-comparison capabilities as discussed in documents such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 36 (IPCC, 2001), and advances a direct recommendation by the National Academies of Science, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC) to improve multi-model ensemble diagnostics capabilities (National Academies of Science, NRC, 2007). Input parameters are PRMSL (pressure at

Fig. 1(a) — Bathymetric variation of the ADCIRC model domainused for predicting storm surge


870

mean sea level), UGRD (10 m U component of wind), and VGRD (10m V component of wind)36. The simulated surge heights were validated against tidal observations from a network of Tide Gauges along the east coast. These tidal observations were provided by ESSO-Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services (INCOIS). Apart from this, an observation from SARAL/AltiKa is a follow-on mission to ENVISAT ESA’s mission and uses the same ground track. Have been used to validate the simulated wave heights from coupled configuration of the model.

Results and Discussion The above models are tested for four cyclones over

Bay of Bengal during 2013. The tracks are shown in Fig. 1 (b) Mahasen (10 -17 May )

A low pressure system that formed over southeast Bay of Bengal on 8th May 2013 intensified into a cyclonic storm on 11th May 2013. The cyclonic 31 storm recurred to north north-easterly direction on 13th and 14th May and further intensified and crossed Bangladesh coast on 16th May 2013. It further weakened into a well-marked low pressure area over Nagaland in the early morning and moved away towards Myanmar as a low pressure area in the morning of 17th. The maximum wind speed was 85 km/h and the lowest central pressure was 990 h Pa. We observe the maximum surge height occurred at the Bay of Bengal around 0.30 m. as shown in fig 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c). Phailn (08-14 October)

A depression was formed on 4th October within the Gulf of Thailand to the west of Pnom Penh in Cambodia. Over the next few days, it moved westwards within an area of low to moderate vertical wind shear, before it passed over the Malay Peninsula, it moved out of the Western Pacific basin on 6th October. After it had developed into a cyclonic storm and passed over the Andaman and Nicobar Islands into the Bay of Bengal. During the next day Phailin intensified rapidly and became a very severe cyclonic storm on 10th October, equivalently to category 1 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale. On 11th October, the system became equivalent to category 5 hurricane before it started to weaken during the next day as it approached the Indian

Fig. 2(a) — Storm surge heights using coupled model with NCEP-R wind forcing for the cyclone Mahasen (10-16 May 2013). Track is also shown in the figure

Fig. 1(b) — 2013 cyclone tracks data collected from IMD (IndianMeteorological Department) Cyclone Periods are (Phailin-October 8-14, Lehar- November 23-28, Helen-November 19-23and Viyar (Mahasen)-May 10-17).


871

state of Odisha. It made landfall later that day, near Gopalpur in Odisha coast around 16:00 UTC. It subsequently weakened over land. The maximum wind speed was 215 km/h and the lowest central pressure was 940 hPa. The simulated maximum Water level for uncoupled (ADCIRC only) run that considers the astronomical and meteorological forcing was about 2.3 m, at Gopalpur coast. (Figs.3 a-c) .The coupled model that considers additional wave radiation stress provides the maximum water level elevation as 3.0 m at the above location. IMD reported 32, maximum of storm surge of 2-2.5 m in the low lying areas of Ganjam

district of Odisha. Our estimations are slightly higher (3m or beyond) than IMD model in the NCEP-R (through NCMRWF-R produced slightly underestimated surge) for some parts of costal Odisha and coastal West Bengal. As Mentioned in figs, we have used meteorological forcing data from both NCEP and NCMRWF. The grid-wise maximum simulated surge heights during October 08-12 for both NCEP-R AND NCMRWF-R are shown in Fig. 3(c).

Helen (19 - 22 November) The depression moved west-northwest wards and

intensified into a deep depression in the night of 19th Nov. 2013 and further into a cyclonic storm, ‘HELEN’ in the morning of 20th Nov. at about 330 km east-southeast of Machilipatnam. On 22nd November, It moved initially westwards33 and then west-southwest wards and crossed Andhra Pradesh coast close to south of Machilipatnam (near lat. 16.1°N and long. 81.2°E) between 0800-0900 UTC of 22nd Nov. 2013 as a cyclonic storm with a wind speed of 80-90 kmph gusting to 100 km ph. It then weakened gradually while moving west-southwest wards across Andhra Pradesh and lay as a low pressure area over coastal Andhra Pradesh and neighbourhood in the early morning of 23rd Nov. The maximum wind speed 100 km/h and the lowest central pressure was 990 hPa. Maximum surge heights simulated by ADCIRC at Visakhapatnam were around 0.25-0.50 m.( Figs 4a-c.).

Lehar (23- 28 November) The system moved northwest wards/west-north

west wards as it lay to the south of the upper

Fig. 2(b) —Analyzed storm surge height in NCEP-R from ADCIRC+SWAN coupled model valid from 10 to 16 May 2013. Observedcyclone track (in pink color) is overlaid over the simulated surge height.

Fig. 2(c) —Maximum surge height occurred at the Bay of Bengalsimulated by ADCIRC model for meteorological forcing fromNCEP during May 10-16, 2013.


872

Fig. 3(a) — Analyzed storm surge height in NCEP-R from ADCIRC model valid from October 10 at 00:00UTC to October 12 at 12:00UTC. Observed cyclone track (in brown color) is overlaid over the simulated surge height.

Fig. 3(b) — Analyzed storm surge height in NCEP-R from ADCIRC+SWAN coupled model valid from 8th to 14th Oct 2013. Observed cyclone track (in pink color) is overlaid over the simulated surge height

Fig. 3(c) — Maximum surge height simulated by ADCIRC model for meteorological forcing from NCEP (left panel) and NCMRWF(right panel) during October 8-12, 2013. The surge height simulated using NCMRWF forcing is somehow underestimated in comparisonto the same simulated using NCEP forcing.


873

troposphere steering ridge which moved northward from its position near latitude 13.0°N on the day of genesis to latitude 17°N on the day of landfall. The best track position and other parameters of the Very Severe Cyclonic Storm ‘Lehar’. It weakened into a severe cyclonic storm at 1200 UTC of 27th November and lay cantered near latitude 14.5°N and longitude 85.0°E. It weakened into a depression and crossed Andhra Pradesh34 coast near latitude 15.9°N and longitude 81.1°E (close to south of Machilipatnam) around 0830 UTC of 28th November, 2013. It weakened into a well-marked low pressure area over coastal Andhra Pradesh at 1800 UTC of 28th November,2013. The maximum wind speed was 100 km/h and the lowest central pressure was 990 hPa. Maximum surge height simulated by ADCIRC at central Bay of Bengal was around 0.50-0.75m. (Figs. 5a-c).

Fig. 4(c) — Maximum surge height simulated by ADCIRC atVishakhapatnam coast (indicated that gray color) model formeteorological forcing from NCEP during Nov 05-22, 2013.

Fig. 4(a) — Analyzed storm surge height in NCEP-R from ADCIRC model from 00UTC to 1200UTC how they are changed anddeveloped from 15th to 22 Nov 2013.

Fig. 4(b) — Analyzed storm surge height in NCEP-R from ADCIRC+SWAN coupled significant wave height how it is changes fordifferent days that are valid from 15 to 22 Nov 2013. Observed cyclone track (in Red color) is overlaid over the simulated surge height.


874

Model validation

Validation with Tide Gauge Data In order to validate the ADCIRC simulated surge

heights, we have obtained tide-gauge observations from Indian Centre for Ocean Information System (INCOIS). Time series surge heights simulated from ADCIRC only and ADCIRC+SWAN models using the tide gauge data of 10 stations . For the Aerial Bay, Campbell Bay, Nan cowry and Paradip stations, the both the model configurations show very good agreement with the observed sea level variations. However, the model shows slight over estimation for the stations Ennore, Kakinada, Nagapattinam, Tuticorin and Visakhapatnam.

In case of Krishnapatnam station, model shows slight underestimation. Overall it can be inferred that the agreement between model simulation and tide gauge observations is good. Another interesting point

Fig. 5(a) —Analyzed storm surge height in NCEP-R from ADCIRC model valid from 24th to 28 Nov 2013 Observed cyclone track (in.GREEN color) is overlaid over the simulated surge height.

Fig. 5(b) — Analyzed storm surge height in NCEP-R from ADCIRC+SWAN coupled model valid from 24 to 28 Nov 2013. Observedcyclone track (in red color) is overlaid over the simulated surge height

Fig. 5(c) —Maximum surge height simulated by ADCIRC modelfor meteorological forcing from NCEP during Nov 24-28, 2013.


875

that can be noted is that the agreement between simulation and observations is better whenever wave coupling has been used, i.e., the coupled configuration of ADCIRC+SWAN outperforms the ADCIRC only configuration as far as the comparison of the simulated and observed surges is concerned.(Figs 6 a-c.)

Validation with Altimeter Data Apart from this, observations from SARAL/AltiKa

have been used to validate the simulated wave heights from coupled configuration of the model. The SARAL mission results from the common interest of

both CNES and ISRO in studying ocean from space using altimetry system and in promoting maximum use of the ARGOS Data Collecting System. In the present document, we focus on the AltiKa part of the overall SARAL mission.

Coupled model validation for significant wave height (SWH) has been carried out by considering SARAL ALTIKA instantaneous (swh) data obtained for the respective date and time. This validation has been performed over various cyclones such Phailin, Mahesan, Helen and Lehar, those occurred in 2013. These two sets of data i.e the model output and the SARAL data are first collocated both spatially for 0.1 degree radius and temporally for 60 min time difference.

Then the statistical analysis is carried out. It can be observed that for the case of Phailin the correlation was found to be 0.5 is shown in the Table 1, while for Mahesan case it was higher up to 0.6 as number of points are above two thousand as shown in table Similarly for Helen and Lehar correlation coefficient is 0.5 and 0.7 as shown in the Figure 7(a), 7(b), 7(c) and 7(d) respectively.

Fig. 6(a) — Aerial bay

Fig. 6(b) — Campbella Bay.

Fig.6 (c) — Paradip.

Table 1 — Bias, RMSE, Correlation and Maximum Wave Height of all Cyclones. Based on these results we observe the four cyclones give the good correlation with the observed data.

Cyclone Name

Maximum Wave height

(m)

Bias (m)

RMSE (m)

Correlation coefficient

Number of points

(N)

MAHASEN 7.3 -0.46 0.58 0.64 2118 PHAILIN 14.4 -0.65 0.78 0.49 2955 HELEN 5.4 -0.55 0.82 0.54 5646 LAHER 8.3 -0.43 0.74 0.67 1333


876

Conclusion Uncoupled (ADCIRC) and coupled (ADCIRC+

SWAN) models are tested for four cyclones ,viz; Mahasen, Phailin, Helen and Lehar, over Bay of Bengal, to estimate storm surge heights and wave heights. These estimated are compared with the observations and also with the SARAL/ALTIKA data. The spatial grid resolution at the coast is 5 km which expands to 50 km for the off-shore model boundaries was usedFor model simulation. The computation for ADCIRC and swan models performs in identical grid structure in tight-coupling mode with a coupling time interval of10 min. The landfall point of ‘Phailin’ was near gopalpur the simulated maximum Water level for uncoupled (ADCIRC only) run that considers the astronomical and meteorological forcing was about 2.3 m, at Gopalpur coast. The coupled model that considers additional wave radiation stress provides the maximum water level elevation as 3.0 mat the above location; our results are supported by Murty et.al 28.

These model outputs were validated against observations from Altimeter for 4 cyclones whereas from tide gauge for a particular PHAILIN cyclone.

The correlations between the estimated and observed obtained from SARAL ALTIKA are computed for the four cyclones and the highest correlation of 0.67 was obtained in case of Lehar. The time series surge heights simulated from coupled and uncoupled models for Aeriel Bay, Campbell Bay, Nan cowry and Paradip stations the both the model configurations show very good agreement with the observed sea level variations. For example in Para dip station tide gauge water level 3.3m while the coupled model also showed 3.3 m, it was found that over all the couple configuration is able to produce the storm surge height more faithfully in comparison to its un-coupled counterpart.

Acknowledgement The first author would like to thank Dr. Raj Kumar

and Abhisek Chakrabarthy Space Application Centre, Ahmadabad for guidance and providing facilities to undertake project work.

References 1 Dube, S.K., Rao, A.D., Sinha, P.C., Murty, T.S., Bahulayan,

N., Storm surge in the Bay ofBengal and Arabian Sea: the

Fig. 7(a)-(d) Phailin validation; (b) Mahasen Validation; (c) Helen validation; (d) Leher Validation


877

problem and its prediction. Mausam 48 (2) (1997), pp. 283– 304.

2 Dube, S.K., Chittibabu, P., Rao, A.D., Sinha, P.C., Murty, T.S. Extreme sea levels associated with severe tropical cyclones hitting Orissa coast of India. Mar. Geod. 23 (2000), pp.75-90

3 Westerink, J.J., Luettich, R.A., Jr., Feyen, J.C., Atkinson, J.H., Dawson, C., Powell, M.D. Dunion, J.P., Roberts, H.J., Kubatko, E.J., Pourtaheri, H. , “A Basin to Channel Scale Unstructured Grid Hurricane Storm Surge Model as Implemented for Southern Louisiana”, MoWea Rev. 136 (2008), pp.833 -864.

4 Muccino, J.C., Gray, W.G., M.G.G. Foreman, .Calculation of vertical velocity in hreedimensional, shallow water equation, finite element models. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids,25 (1997), pp.779-802.

5 Atkinson, J.H., Westerink , J.J., Luettich , R.A., Two-Dimensional Dispersion Analysis of Finite Element Approximations to the Shallow WaterEquations, Int. J. fr.Num.Met.in Fluids , 45(2004): pp.715-749

6 Dawson, C.N., Westerink, J.J., Feyen, J.C., Pothina, D., Continuous, Discontinuous and Coupled Discontinuous Continuous Galerkin Finite Element Methods for the Shallow Water Equations, Int. J. for. Num. Met. in Fluids, 52 (2006), pp.63-88

7 Bhaskaran, P.K., Gayathri, R., Murty, P.L.N., Subba Reddy, B., Sen, D. a numerical study of coastal inundation and its validation for Thane cyclone in the Bay of Bengal. Coast. Eng (2014). 83, pp. 108-118

8 Dietrich, J.C., Development and Application of Coupled Hurricane Wave and Surge models for Southern Louisiana. (Ph.D Thesis)University of Notre Dame (2010), pp. 337.

9 Dietrich, J.C., Zijlema, M., Westerink, J.J., Holthuijsen, L.H., Dawson, C.N., Luettich Jr., R.A., Jensen, R.E., Smith, J.M., Stelling, G.S., Stone, G.W.,. Modeling hurricane waves and storm surge using integrally-coupled, scalable computations. Coast. Eng. 58 (2011),pp.45–65.

10 Houston, S.H., Shaffer, W.A., Powell, M.D., Chen, J.,. Comparisons of HRD and SLOSH surface wind fields in hurricanes: implications for storm surge modeling. Weath.Forec.14 (1999), pp.671–686.

11 Ozer, J., Padilla-Hernandez, R., Monbaliu, J., Alvarez Fanjul, E., Carretero Albiach, J.C., Osuna, P., Yu, J.C.S., Wolf, J. A coupling module for tides, surges and Waves. Coast. Eng. 41 (2000), pp. 95–124.

12 Dube S. K., Jismy Poulose, Rao A D ,“Numerical simulation of storm surge associated with Severe cyclonic storms in the Bay of Bengal during 2008-11”, mausam, 64(2013), pp.193- 202

13 Gayathri, R., Murty, P.L.N., Bhaskaran, P.,K., Srinivasa Kumar, T.,. A numerical study of hypothetical storm surge and coastal inundation foraila cyclone in the Bay of Bengal. Environ. Fluid Mech. 16 (2) (2015), pp. 429-452.

14 Murty P.L.N., Prasad Bhaskaran , K., Gayathri, R., Bishnu priya Sahoo, Srinivasa Kumar, T., Subba Reddy. B., Numerical study of coastal hydrodynamics using a coupled model for Hudhud cyclonein the Bay of Bengal. Est, Coast. Shelf Sci.183 (2016), pp. 13-27

15 Monbaliu, J., Hargreaves, J.C., Carretero, H., Gerritsen, R., Flather Wave modeling in the PROMISE project. Coast. Eng 37 (1999), pp.379–407

16 Christian Ferrarin , Aron Roland, Marco Bajo, , Georg Umgiesser, Andrea Cucco, Silvio Davolio , Andrea Buzzi , Piero Malguzzi, , Oxana Drofa, . Tide-surge-wave modeling on forecasting in the Mediterranean sea with Focus on the Italian coast. Ocean model. 61 (2009) , pp. 38–48

17 Indu Jain, Chitti babu, Neetu Agnihotri, Dube, P. S. K., Sinha, P. C., Rao, A. D., Numerical storm surge Model for India andPakistan. Nat Hazards 42 (2007) , pp.67–73

18 Luettich, R.A., Westerink, Jr., J.J. Scheffner, N.W., ADCIRC: an advanced three-dimensional circulation model for shelves. coasts and estuaries, report 1: theory and methodology of ADCIRC-2DDI and ADCIRC-DL, Dredging Research Program Technical Report , U.S. Ar. Eng Water / Experi. Station,DRP-92-6 (1992), pp.137.

19 Booij, N., Ris, R.C., Holthuijsen, L.H.: Athird-generation wave model for coastal regions, Part I, Model description and validation. J. Geophys. 104 (1999), pp. 7649–7666

20 Atkinson, J.H., Westerink, J.J., Hervouet, J.M.: Similarities between the wave equation and thequasi bubble solutions to the shallow water equations. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 45(2004), pp. 689–714.

21 Karypis and Kumar, A fast and high qualitymultilevel scheme for partitioning irregular Graphs. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 20(1) (1999) ,pp. 359–392.

22 Moore, R., and Tindall I. An overview of theopen modeling interface and environment (the Open MI), Environ. Sci & Policy, 8 (2005), pp. 279-286.

23 John C. Warner, Christopher R. Sherwood, Richard P. Sign ell, Courtney K. Harris, Hernan G. Arango Development of a three-dimensional, regional, coupled wave, current, and sediment- transport model Comp & Geosci 34 (2008), pp. 1284–1306.

24 Sindhu, B., Suresh, I., Unni krishnan, A S., Bhatkar, N V., Neetu .S, Michael, G S., Improved bathymetric datasets for the shallow water regions in the Indian Ocean. J.EarthSyst. Sci.116 (2007), pp. 261–274.

25 Rao, A.D., Indu, J., Ramana Murthy, M.V.,Murty, T.S., Dube, S.K. Impact of Cyclonic wind field on interaction of surge-wave computations using finite-element and Finite-difference models. Nat. Hazards 49 (2009),pp. 225–239.

26 Dietrich, J.C., Zijlema, M., Westerink, J.J., Holthuijsen, L.H., Dawson, C., Luettich Holthuijsen, L.H., Dawson, C., Luettich, R.A., Jr., Jensen, R.E. J.M., Smith, G.S. Stelling, G.W. Stone Modeling hurricane waves and storm surge using integrally- coupled, scalable computations. Coast. Eng.58 (2011), pp. 45–65.

27 Murty, P.L.N., Sandhya, K.G., Prasad Bhaskaran K., Felix Jose, Gayathri, R., Balakrishnan Nair, T.M., Srinivasa Kumar, T., Shenoi. S.S.C., A coupled hydrodynamic modeling system for PHAILIN cyclone inThe Bay of Bengal. Coast. Eng.93 (2014),pp 71– 81.

28 Madsen, O.S., Poon, Y.K., Graber, H.C. Spectral wave attenuation by bottom friction Theory. Proceedings of the 21st ASCE.Coast. Eng. Conf. (1988), pp. 492–504.

29 Raj Kumar, Bhowmick, S.A., Ray, S., Bhatt, V., Surendran, S., Basu, S., Sarkar, A., Agarwal, V. K. Improvement in predictability of waves over the Indian Ocean. Nat. Hazards49 (2009), pp. 275–291.

30 A Preliminary Report on Cyclonic storm, Viyaru (Mahasen) over Bay of Bengal by IMD (2013).


878

31 Very Severe Cyclonic Storm, PHAILIN over the Bay of Bengal reported by IMD (2013).

32 A Preliminary Report on Severe Cyclonic Storm ‘Helen’ over the Bay of Bengal by IMD(2013).

33 A Preliminary Report on Very Severe Cyclonic Storm ‘Helen’ over the Bay of Bengal by IMD(2013).

34 Glenn K. Rutledge, Jordan Alpert, Wesley Ebisuzaki NOMADS. A Climate and Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Bull. Amer..met.soc. 87,3 (2006), pp.328-341.

35 The NOAA Reanalysis Community Web Forum can be accessed at:http://nomads.ncdc.noaa.gov/NOAAReanalysis/cfsrr

Modeling of storm surges and wave heights during few...

Documents

Transcript of Modeling of storm surges and wave heights during few...