A Gharagozlou, JC Dietrich, A Karanci, RA Luettich, MF Overton (2020). “Storm-driven erosion and inundation of barrier islands from dune- to region-scales.” Coastal Engineering, 158, 103674, DOI: 10.1016/j.coastaleng.2020.103674
CC Massarra, CL Friedland, BD Marx, JC Dietrich (2020). “Binary Building Attribute Imputation, Evaluation, and Comparison Approaches for Hurricane Damage Data Sets.” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 34(3), 04020036, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001433.
In December 2013, experiments were performed in this region to study mechanisms that influence near-shore surface transport. Satellite imagery showed a visible brackish surface plume at Destin during low tide. The goal of the present study is to quantify variability in the plume signature due to changes in tidal and wind forcing. Density-driven flows near Destin Inlet are modeled with the recently-enhanced, three-dimensional, baroclinic capabilities of the ADvanced CIRCulation (ADCIRC) model. Modeled tides, salinities and plume signature are validated against in-situ observations and satellite imagery. Model results reveal substantial changes in the length, width and orientation of the plume as the wind direction varied on consecutive days due to winter cold fronts. During a period of near-constant winds and variability in tidal amplitude, the model predicted a larger plume during spring tides than during neap conditions. Coriolis effects on the plume are minimized due to its small scale nature. Therefore, when the wind forcing is weak, the plume signature spreads radially from the inlet with slight preference to the down-shelf. The Choctawhatchee Bay plume is representative of other small-scale plumes formed in river-dominated and micro-tidal environments, and this work demonstrates the sensitivity of these plumes to changing environmental conditions.
R Cyriac, JC Dietrich, CA Blain, CN Dawson, KM Dresback, A Fathi, MV Bilskie, HC Graber, SC Hagen, RL Kolar (2019). “Wind and tide effects on the Choctawhatchee Bay plume and implications for surface transport at Destin Inlet.” Regional Studies in Marine Science, 35, 101131, DOI: 10.1016/j.rsma.2020.101131.
Thirty-nine combinations of global damage response variables were investigated. Of these models, six DS and one complete failure model met the evaluation criteria. Maximum significant wave height was the only significant hazard variable for the DS models, while maximum 3-s gust wind speed, maximum surge depth, and maximum water speed were found to be significant predictors for the complete failure model. Model prediction external accuracy ranged from 81% to 87%.
CC Massarra, CJ Friedland, BD Marx, JC Dietrich (2019). “Predictive Multi-Hazard Hurricane Data-Based Fragility Model for Residential Homes.” Coastal Engineering, 151, 10-21, DOI: 10.1016/j.coastaleng.2019.04.008.
A Thomas, JC Dietrich, TG Asher, M Bell, BO Blanton, JH Copeland, AT Cox, CN Dawson, JG Fleming, RA Luettich (2019). “Influence of Storm Timing and Forward Speed on Tide-Surge Interactions during Hurricane Matthew.” Ocean Modelling, 137, 1-19, DOI: 10.1016/j.ocemod.2019.03.004.
To determine needed advancements in storm forecasting, the U.S. Coastal Research Program (USCRP) hosted a Storm Processes and Impacts workshop for coastal stakeholders 16-18 April 2018, in St. Petersburg, Florida. The attendees included local coastal managers, emergency managers, state and regional agencies, federal agency scientists and engineers, academics, and private industry scientists and engineers. Workshop objectives were to synthesize present capabilities for modeling storm processes and forecasting impacts and to prioritize advancements. In addition, the workshop provided an opportunity to bridge the apparent gap between the research of coastal scientists and engineers and the information being distributed publicly and to emergency managers before, during, and after storm events.
N Elko, JC Dietrich, M Cialone, H Stockdon, MV Bilskie, B Boyd, B Charbonneau, D Cox, KM Dresback, S Elgar, A Lewis, P Limber, J Long, TC Massey, T Mayo, K McIntosh, N Nadal-Caraballo, B Raubenheimer, T Tomiczek, A Wargula (2019). “Advancing the Understanding of Storm Processes and Impacts.” Shore & Beach, 87(1), 41-55.
Storm surge prediction models rely on an accurate representation of the wind conditions. In this paper, we examine the sensitivity of surge predictions to forecast uncertainties in the track and strength of a storm (storm strength is quantified by the power dissipation of the associated wind field). This analysis is performed using Hurricane Arthur (2014), a Category 2 hurricane, which made landfall along the North Carolina (NC) coast in early July 2014. Hindcast simulations of a coupled hydrodynamic-wave model are performed on a large unstructured mesh to analyze the surge impact of Arthur along the NC coastline. The effects of Arthur are best represented by a post-storm data assimilated wind product with parametric vortex winds providing a close approximation. Surge predictions driven by forecast advisories issued by the National Hurricane Center (NHC) during Arthur are analyzed. The storm track predictions from the NHC improve over time. However, successive advisories predict an unrealistic increase in the storm’s strength. Due to these forecast errors, the global root mean square errors of the predicted wind speeds and water levels increase as the storm approaches landfall. The relative impacts of the track and strength errors on the surge predictions are assessed by replacing forecast storm parameters with the best known post-storm information about Arthur. In a “constant track” analysis, Arthur’s post storm determined track is used in place of the track predictions of the different advisories but each advisory retains its size and intensity predictions. In a “constant storm strength” analysis, forecast wind and pressure parameters are replaced by corresponding parameters extracted from the post storm analysis while each advisory retains its forecast storm track. We observe a strong correlation between the forecast errors and the wind speed predictions. However, the correlation between these errors and the forecast water levels is weak signifying a non-linear response of the shallow coastal waters to meteorological forcing.
R Cyriac, JC Dietrich, JG Fleming, BO Blanton, C Kaiser, CN Dawson, RA Luettich (2018). “Variability in Coastal Flooding Predictions due to Forecast Errors during Hurricane Arthur.” Coastal Engineering, 137(1), 59-78. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000419.