Development and Validation of Accumulation Term (Distributed and/or Point Source) in a Finite Element Hydrodynamic Model
2.1. Addition of a Source/Sink Term—Used for Both Distributed and Point Sources
2.2. Procedures to Extract Streamflows from the National Water Model
- The feature must end in the wet domain (reduction for IO purposes).
- The feature may not also begin in or “near” the wet domain (remove redundant features and find the uppermost reach of a river/stream).
- If a feature ends “near” the wet domain, further visual quality control must be conducted to determine if it should be added. This is necessary because the coarser resolution of the NWM stream network occasionally results in features being misaligned with the ADCIRC model water representation and automated procedures for comparing the NWM feature outlet to the ADCIRC water domain will not correctly identify all features that should be included. “Nearness” is defined by a user specified buffer (given in meters) and should be smaller than the typical element size in the upland rivers.
3. Verification of Methodology
3.1. Idealized Test Cases—Distributed Sources (Precipitation)
3.2. Idealized Test Cases—Point Source (Lateral Inflows) versus Boundary Flux
4. Application and Further Study
4.1. Study Area
4.2. Sensitivity to Input Time Interval for Distributed Sources
4.3. Validation of New Source Terms for Hurricane Irene
4.3.1. Streamflow Input
4.3.2. Comparison of Results with Old and New Methodologies
- Influence of precipitation: TWR15 less TW
- Influence of new riverine methodology: TWP4 less TWF4
- Influence of additional NWM sources available with the new methodology: TWP78 less TWF4
4.3.3. Validation of Model Results
- The new methodology provides a way to incorporate riverine input in regions of an ADCIRC mesh without fully refining the model domain all the way to the model boundary, as was previously required in the river flux boundary condition methodology. The new methodology is consistent with the previous methodology; however, it is recommended that large rivers (particularly those that are near the coastal region, e.g., Mississippi River) should continue to be input into ADCIRC using the river flux methodology, as it distributes the streamflow across the entire river instead of inputting at a single point. Additionally, any larger feature where accurate results are required above the point source input location should also be simulated using the river flux boundary.
- The addition of riverine streamflow through lateral inflows can substantially impact both upland regions and the coastal transition zone, particularly if the peak riverine flows coincide with the storm surge. However, timing is specific to each storm and coastal impacts are also dependent upon the timing and magnitude of the streamflows. Although there was little coastal impact due to the riverine sources during Hurricane Irene, there was substantial flooding near the main Tar River reach (1–2 m), which would not be captured without the additional 74 NWM sources. The collection of more HWMs near major riverine reaches (after extreme weather events) would be helpful for further validating the methodology; although riverine flooding is noted in Figure 13d, no change is noted in the HWM analysis for the TWP4 and TWP78 simulations since most of the HWMs are not located in the immediate riverine area.
- The addition of precipitation over the wet ADCIRC nodes impacted a larger area, with a 10–20 cm increase in maximum water surface elevations throughout Pamlico Sound and the wet riverine reaches (Figure 13b) and higher localized impacts where temporal changes of 30–50 cm were noted in the Neuse River (Figure 12). The distributed source is more readily spread out over the water nodes but does not begin to accumulate over upland regions until they have already wetted due to riverine flooding or storm surge. HWM analysis indicates that the addition of precipitation provides the most improvement in the best-fit slope: 0.846 for TWR15 and 0.852 for TWP78R15, as compared to 0.808 for the current state of the model (TWF4).
- Due to the amount of data required, it is recommended that precipitation be input at intervals of 15 or 30 min to maximize accuracy in rainfall input and minimize data processing.
- More efficient and frequent data entry (for both distributed and point sources) utilizing the ADCIRC coupling cap within the NOAA Environmental Modeling System framework  instead of file IO.
- One of the greatest needs is more accurate bathymetry in the upland rivers. While several databases exist for coastal bathymetry, much of the inland hydrology data is collected for individual studies and is not as readily (or publicly) available. Nor is it in a format that is readily applied to hydrodynamic models, since they are not as finely resolved as the riverine cross-sections created for typical hydrologic models (e.g., HEC-RAS ). A method for finding accurate and representative “average” cross-sectional bathymetries for the rivers must be developed.
- Additional studies with other storms may provide more information about conditions when the existing flux boundary riverine input is more accurate than using the lateral source term. No hard and fast rules can be developed from a single study and further guidance would be useful for modelers.
- Finally, the coupling with the NWM thus far is static in location and efforts are ongoing to create a dynamic coupling, whereby the upstream connection point will move as the floodplain wets (due to surge or riverine flooding). This will allow for more accurate upland flooding as the source will more accurately reflect the actual location of the incoming streamflow. A careful balance must be maintained when the input location is chosen since the ADCIRC hydrodynamic model is not made to be a hydrologic routing model and will not be as accurate as the hydrologic model itself in the furthest upland regions. However, this dynamic coupling in conjunction with further improvements to the wet/dry module within ADCIRC will improve the overall accuracy for the upland riverine flooding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- Blake, E.S.; Zelinsky, D.A. National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Harvey (AL092017); NOAA Technical Report; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Hurricane Center: Miami, FL, USA, 2018; p. 77.
- Cangialosi, J.P.; Latto, A.S.; Berg, R. National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Irma (AL112017); NOAA Technical Report; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Hurricane Center: Miami, FL, USA, 2021; p. 111.
- Stewart, S.R.; Berg, R. National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Florence (AL062018); NOAA Technical Report; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Hurricane Center: Miami, FL, USA, 2019; p. 98.
- Wahl, T.; Jain, S.; Bender, J.; Meyers, S.D.; Luther, M.E. Increasing risk of compound flooding from storm surge and rainfall for major US cities. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 1093–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, S.R. National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Matthew (AL142016); NOAA Technical Report; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Hurricane Center: Miami, FL, USA, 2017; p. 96.
- Van Cooten, S.; Kelleher, K.E.; Howard, K.; Zhang, J.; Gourley, J.J.; Kain, J.S.; Nemunaitis-Monroe, K.; Flamig, Z.; Moser, H.; Arthur, A.; et al. The CI-FLOW Project: A System for Total Water Level Prediction from the Summit to the Sea. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2011, 92, 1427–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Dresback, K.M.; Fleming, J.G.; Blanton, B.O.; Kaiser, C.; Gourley, J.J.; Tromble, E.M.; Luettich, R.A.; Kolar, R.L.; Hong, Y.; Van Cooten, S.; et al. Skill assessment of a real-time forecast system utilizing a coupled hydrologic and coastal hydrodynamic model during Hurricane Irene (2011). Cont. Shelf Res. 2013, 71, 78–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, A.; Huiquig, L. Latest Development in NWS’ Sea Lake and Overland Surges From Hurricanes Model. In Proceedings of the 18th Symposium on the Coastal Environment, American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting; Boston, MA, USA, 1 April 2020, p. 10. Available online: http://ams.confex.com/ams/2020Annual/mediafile/Manuscript/Paper370583/SLOSH_MPI_AMS-2020.pdf. (accessed on 15 October 2022).
- NOAA Water Initiative. Available online: https://www.noaa.gov/water/explainers/noaa-water-initiative-vision-and-five-year-plan (accessed on 1 May 2020).
- Zscheischler, J.; Westra, S.; van den Hurk, B.J.J.M.; Seneviratne, S.I.; Ward, P.J.; Pitman, A.; AghaKouchak, A.; Bresch, D.N.; Leonard, M.; Wahl, T.; et al. Future Climate Risk from Compound Events. Nat. Clim. Change 2018, 8, 469–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flowerdew, J.; Horsburgh, K.; Wilson, C.; Mylne, K. Development and evaluation of an ensemble forecasting system for coastal storm surges. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc. 2010, 136, 1444–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Beardsley, R.C.; Chen, C.; Xu, Q. Coastal Flooding in Scituate (MA): A FVCOM Study of the 27 December 2010 Nor’easter. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 2013, 188, 6030–6045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bowler, N.E.; Arribas, A.; Mylne, K.R.; Robertson, K.B.; Beare, S.E. The MOGREPS short-range ensemble prediction system. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2008, 134, 703–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tromble, E.M.; Kolar, R.L.; Dresback, K.M.; Hong, Y.; Vieux, B.; Luettich, R.A.; Gourley, J.J.; Kelleher, K.E.; Van Cooten, S. Aspects of Coupled Hydrologic-Hydrodynamic Modeling for Coastal Flood Inundation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling, Reston, VA, USA, 4–6 November 2009; Spaulding, M.L., Ed.; ASCE: Seattle, WA, USA; pp. 724–743. [Google Scholar]
- Ray, T.; Stepinski, E.; Sebastian, A.; Bedient, P.B. Dynamic Modeling of Storm Surge and Inland Flooding in a Texas Coastal Floodplain. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011, 137, 1103–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres, J.M.; Bass, B.; Irza, N.; Fang, Z.; Proft, J.; Dawson, C.; Kiani, M.; Bedient, P. Characterizing the hydraulic interactions of hurricane storm surge and rainfall–runoff for the Houston–Galveston region. Coast. Eng. 2015, 106, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ye, F.; Zhang, Y.J.; Yu, H.; Sun, W.; Moghimi, S.; Myers, E.; Nunez, K.; Zhang, R.; Wang, H.V.; Roland, A.; et al. Simulating Storm Surge and Compound Flooding Events with a Creek-to-Ocean Model: Importance of Baroclinic Effects. Ocean. Model. 2020, 145, 101526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Ye, F.; Yu, H.; Sun, W.; Moghimi, S.; Myers, E.; Nunez, K.; Zhang, R.; Wang, H.V.; Roland, A.; et al. Simulating Compound Flooding Events in a Hurricane. Ocean. Dyn. 2020, 70, 621–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiller, R.V.; Kouraftalou, V.H. Modeling River Plume Dynamics with the Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model. Ocean. Model. 2010, 33, 101–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, F.; Huang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Moghimi, S.; Myers, E.; Pe’eri, S.; Yu, H. A Cross-Scale Study for Compound Flooding Processes During Hurricane Florence. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2021, 21, 1703–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, C.; Kovalenko, S.; Akan, C.; Tripathee, B.; Resio, D. Preliminary Design and Development of a Coupled Water Resources Resiliency Model of the St. Johns River Watershed Florida, USA. Proceedings 2020, 48, 19. [Google Scholar]
- Leuttich, R.A.; Westerink, J.J. Formulation and Numerical Implementation of the 2D/3D ADCIRC Finite Element Model Version 44. Available online: https://adcirc.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2255/2013/07/adcirc_theory_2004_12_08.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2022).
- Dresback, K.; Szpilka, C.; Xue, X.; Vergara, H.; Wang, N.; Kolar, R.; Xu, J.; Geoghegan, K. Steps Towards Modeling Community Resilience Under Climate Change: Hazard Model Development. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Courant, R.; Friedrichs, K.; Lewy, H. On the Partial Difference Equations of Mathematical Physics. IBM J. Res. Dev. 1967, 11, 215–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bilskie, M.V. (University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia USA). 2D Rainfall-Runoff Module for ADCIRC; presented to the ADCIRC Coordination monthly webinar on 26 June 2022.
- Gochis, D.J.; Barlage, M.; Dugger, A.; FitzGerald, K.; Karsten, L.; McAllister, M.; McCreight, J.; Mills, J.; RefieeiNasab, A.; Read, L.; et al. The WRF-Hydro Modeling System Technical Description, Version 5.0; NCAR Technical Note; National Center for Atmospheric Research: Boulder, CO, USA, 2018; p. 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NOAA National Water Model Reanalysis Model Data on AWS. Available online: https://docs.opendata.aws/nwm-archive/readme.html (accessed on 15 February 2021).
- Kinnmark, I. The Shallow Water Wave Equations: Formulation, Analysis and Application. Lect. Notes Eng. 1986, 15, 1–87. [Google Scholar]
- Lynch, D.R.; Gray, W.G. A Wave Equation Model for Finite Element Tidal Computations. Comput. Fluids 1979, 7, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolar, R.L.; Westerink, J.J.; Cantekin, M.E.; Blain, C.A. Aspects of Nonlinear Simulation using Shallow Water Models Based on the Wave Continuity Equation. Comput. Fluids 1994, 23, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, C.; Davis, J.M. Tidal and Long-Wave Propagation: A Finite Element Approach. Comput. Fluids 1975, 3, 125–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchok, T.; Rogers, R.; Tuleya, R. Validation schemes for tropical cyclone quantitative precipitation forecasts: Evaluation of operational models for U.S. landfalling cases. Weather. Forecast. 2007, 22, 726–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Qi, Y.; Langston, C.; Kaney, B.; Howard, K. A real-time algorithm for merging radar QPEs with rain gauge observations and orographic precipitation climatology. J. Hydrometeor 2014, 15, 1794–1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Zhang, J.; Gourley, J. Multi-Radar Multi-Sensor Precipitation Reanalysis, Version 1.0; Open Commons Consortium Environmental Data Commons. 2018. Available online: https://edc.occ-data.org/nexrad/mosaic/ (accessed on 15 April 2021).
- Flamig, Z.; Vergara, H.; Gourley, J. The Ensemble Framework For Flash Flood Forecasting (EF5) v1.2: Description and Case Study, Geosci. Model Dev. 2020, 13, 4943–4958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geoghegan, K.M.; Fitzpatrick, P.; Kolar, R.L.; Dresback, K.M. Evaluation of a Synthetic Rainfall Model, P-CLIPER, for Use in Coastal Flood Modeling. Nat. Hazards 2018, 92, 699–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Hydrologic Engineering Center. HEC-HMS Hydrologic Modeling System, Technical Reference Manual CPD-74B; Hydrologic Engineering Center: Davis, CA, USA, 2000.
- USGS Current Water Data for the Nation. Available online: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/rt (accessed on 20 April 2022).
- Szpilka, C.M.; Dresback, K.M.; Kolar, R.L.; Moghimi, S.; Myers, E.P. Development of Accumulation Term in ADCIRC Hydrodynamic Model for Inclusion of Precipitation and Inland Hydrology; NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS CS 53; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2022; in press.
- Dietrich, J.; Tanaka, S.; Westerink, J.; Dawson, C.; Luettich, R.; Zijlema, M.; Holthuijsen, L.; Smith, J.; Westerink, L.; Westerink, H. Performance of the Unstructured-Mesh, SWAN+ADCIRC Model in Computing Hurricane Waves and Surge. J. Sci. Comput. 2012, 52, 468–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pringle, W.J.; Wiraset, D.; Roberts, K.J.; Westerink, J.J. Global Storm Tide Modeling with ADCIRC v55: Unstructured Mesh Design and Performance. Geosci. Model Dev. 2021, 14, 1125–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avila, L.A.; Cangialosi, J. National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Irene (AL092011). NOAA Technical Report; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Hurricane Center: Miami, FL, USA, 2011; p. 45. [Google Scholar]
- Powell, M.; Houston, S.; Amat, L.; Morisseau-Leroy, N. The HRD Real-Time Hurricane Wind Analysis System. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 1998, 77, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NOAA Tides and Currents. Available online: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/ (accessed on 20 April 2022).
- Yang, K.; Davidson, R.; Vergara, H.; Kolar, R.L.; Dresback, K.M.; Colle, B.A.; Blanton, B.O.; Wachtendorf, T.; Trivedi, J.; Nozick, L.K. Incorporating Inland Flooding into Hurricane Evacuation Decision Support Modeling. Nat. Hazards 2019, 96, 857–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NOAA Tropical Cyclone Rainfall Data. Available online: https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/tcrainfall.html (accessed on 10 April 2021).
- USGS Flood Event Viewer. Available online: https://stn.wim.usgs.gov/FEV/#2011Irene (accessed on 20 April 2022).
- NOAA/NOS’s VDatum 4.2.2: Vertical Datums Transformation. Available online: https://vdatum.noaa.gov/welcome.html (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Bush, S.T.; Dresback, K.M.; Szpilka, C.M.; Kolar, R.L. Use of 1D Unsteady HEC-RAS in a Coupled System for Compound Flood Modeling: North Carolina Case Study. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moghimi, S.; Vinogradov, S.; Myers, E.; Funakoshi, Y.; Van der Westhuysen, A.; Abdolali, A.; Ma, Z.; Liu, F. Development of a Flexible Coupling Interface for ADCIRC Model for Coastal Inundation Studies; NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS CS 41; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2019; p. 41.
- Bruner, G.W. HEC-RAS, River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual. Available online: https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/documentation/HEC-RAS_4.1_Reference_Manual.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2022).
|Expected WSE Due to Rainfall (cm)||Modeled WSE (cm)|
|Spatial and Temporal||6.48||6.48|
|Average Model Depth within Channel at 24-h (cm)|
|SCENARIO||Lateral inflow (Top)||Lateral inflow (side)||River Flux BC||Steady state|
21 July to 20 August 2011
20 August to 30 August 2011
30 August to 9 September 2011
|TW||Tides + Wind||T||TW||−|
|TWF4||Tides + Wind + Flux4||TF4||TWF4||TF4|
|TWP4||Tides + Wind + Point4||TP4||TWP4||TP4|
|TWP78||Tides + Wind + Point78||TP78||TWP78||TP78|
|TWR15||Tides + Wind + Rain15||T||TWR15||−|
|TWP78R15||Tides + Wind + Point78 + Rain15||TP78||TWP78R15||TP78|
|Neuse River Lower||Neuse River Upper||Tar River||Tar/Neuse Floodplains||Other||57 Tar/Neuse Region||All 92|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Dresback, K.M.; Szpilka, C.M.; Kolar, R.L.; Moghimi, S.; Myers, E.P. Development and Validation of Accumulation Term (Distributed and/or Point Source) in a Finite Element Hydrodynamic Model. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11020248
Dresback KM, Szpilka CM, Kolar RL, Moghimi S, Myers EP. Development and Validation of Accumulation Term (Distributed and/or Point Source) in a Finite Element Hydrodynamic Model. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2023; 11(2):248. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11020248Chicago/Turabian Style
Dresback, Kendra M., Christine M. Szpilka, Randall L. Kolar, Saeed Moghimi, and Edward P. Myers. 2023. "Development and Validation of Accumulation Term (Distributed and/or Point Source) in a Finite Element Hydrodynamic Model" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 11, no. 2: 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11020248