Controlling Errors with Limiters on Spectral Propagation Velocities

Updated 2016/07/31: This post is now outdated. SWAN has been updated to improve its treatment of the spectral propagation velocities, so these limiters are not needed. Please see this post.

Updated 2012/12/26: Added link to published manuscript.

Updated 2012/11/19: Changes to reflect our accepted submission to Ocean Modelling.

As we have gained experience with the coupling of SWAN and ADCIRC, we have noticed that SWAN can focus wave energy due to excessive refraction in regions with coarse mesh resolution. Wave energy can become focused unrealistically at a single mesh vertex, causing the wave properties to become non-physical. In deep water, the significant wave heights can become 150m or larger. In shallow water, the peak wave periods can become 30s or larger, as the energy is pushed into the lowest-discretized frequency bin.

We have developed a few work-around solutions to this problem (Part 1 and Part 2). These solutions have enabled the wave refraction process in the region of interest, and disabled it elsewhere in the computational domain. For example, by enabling selectively the refraction in the northern Gulf of Mexico, we can obtain the following hindcast of the significant wave heights during Hurricane Gustav (2008).

Maximum significant wave heights (m) during Gustav (2008).

Maximum significant wave heights (m) during Gustav (2008).

However, a more robust solution would be the limiting of the spectral propagation velocities, especially the directional turning rate, based on the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) condition. We have implemented recently these limiters in SWAN+ADCIRC. On this page, the limiters are introduced and tested on idealized and realistic applications.

It should be noted that these limiters are not a replacement for increased mesh resolution. The SWAN solution will always be better when the mesh is improved to represent the bathymetric gradients in the region of interest. However, when it is not feasible to increase the mesh resolution, then these limiters can control the largest SWAN errors without affecting the solution elsewhere.

Continue reading

Troubleshooting for SWAN+ADCIRC

Updated 2016/08/02: Added the issue 5.

As we gain more experience with SWAN+ADCIRC, we have noticed a few minor issues with respect to actually running the coupled model. I have listed a few of them here, and I have described how to fix (or at least work around) each problem. Hopefully this page will be useful to new users of SWAN+ADCIRC.

This page will be updated as we encounter new issues. If you encounter an issue that belongs on this page, then please let me know. We want all simulations to step right along:

Time-Stepping

1. The pre-processor adcprep was not compiled for use with the coupled SWAN+ADCIRC.

This is a tricky error to debug when you first encounter it, because the code will write the following error message:

Input file missing

into either the screen output or the Errfile within each sub-directory. However, it is likely that all of the input files will be present in the run directory, including the SWAN input files (fort.26 and swaninit).

Continue reading

Hurricane Gustav (2008) Waves and Storm Surge: Hindcast, Synoptic Analysis, and Validation in Southern Louisiana

MWR2011Hurricane Gustav (2008) made landfall in southern Louisiana on 1 September 2008 with its eye never closer than 75 km to New Orleans, but its waves and storm surge threatened to flood the city. Easterly tropical-storm-strength winds impacted the region east of the Mississippi River for 12-15 h, allowing for early surge to develop up to 3.5 m there and enter the river and the city’s navigation canals. During landfall, winds shifted from easterly to southerly, resulting in late surge development and propagation over more than 70 km of marshes on the river’s west bank, over more than 40 km of Caernarvon marsh on the east bank, and into Lake Pontchartrain to the north. Wind waves with estimated significant heights of 15 m developed in the deep Gulf of Mexico but were reduced in size once they reached the continental shelf. The barrier islands further dissipated the waves, and locally generated seas existed behind these effective breaking zones.

The hardening and innovative deployment of gauges since Hurricane Katrina (2005) resulted in a wealth of measured data for Gustav. A total of 39 wind wave time histories, 362 water level time histories, and 82 high water marks were available to describe the event. Computational models – including a structured-mesh deepwater wave model (WAM) and a nearshore steady-state wave (STWAVE) model, as well as an unstructured-mesh “simulating waves nearshore” (SWAN) wave model and an advanced circulation (ADCIRC) model – resolve the region with unprecedented levels of detail, with an unstructured mesh spacing of 100-200 m in the wave-breaking zones and 20-50 m in the small-scale channels. Data-assimilated winds were applied using NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division Wind Analysis System (H*Wind) and Interactive Objective Kinematic Analysis (IOKA) procedures. Wave and surge computations from these models are validated comprehensively at the measurement locations ranging from the deep Gulf of Mexico and along the coast to the rivers and floodplains of southern Louisiana and are described and quantified within the context of the evolution of the storm.

JC Dietrich, JJ Westerink, AB Kennedy, JM Smith, RE Jensen, M Zijlema, LH Holthuijsen, CN Dawson, RA Luettich Jr, MD Powell, VJ Cardone, AT Cox, GW Stone, H Pourtaheri, ME Hope, S Tanaka, LG Westerink, HJ Westerink, Z Cobell (2011). “Hurricane Gustav (2008) Waves and Storm Surge: Hindcast, Synoptic Analysis, and Validation in Southern Louisiana.Monthly Weather Review, 139(8), 2488-2522.