The FVCOM-GOM hydrodynamic model (<http://fvcom.smast.umassd.edu/research_projects/GB/index.html>) is a sub-model of the Northeast Coastal Ocean Forecast System (NECOFS), operated by UMASSD. This quasi-operational nowcast/forecast system is an element of the Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Observing Systems (NERACOOS, <http://neracoos.org/>), part of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (<http://www.ioos.noaa.gov/>). The underlying circulation model is the Finite Volume Coastal Ocean Model (FVCOM), a finite-element, unstructured grid, primitive equation ocean model that solves for the free surface elevation and three dimensional flow patterns, temperature, and salinity.
The FVCOM-GOM configuration has varying horizontal resolution (0.3-15 km) and 40 layers in vertical terrain-following coordinates. Ocean open boundary values are from a global forecast that uses the HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HyCOM) with assimilation of satellite and in situ data with the Navy Coupled Ocean Data Assimilation (NCODA) system. Tidal harmonic boundary variability is determined from a regional tidal model.
The data files for the time period used in this analysis were acquired from an archived data set available online at <http://www.smast.umassd.edu:8080/thredds/catalog.html>.
Full spectra boundary conditions at each model ocean boundary point are interpolated from the output of the regional 10' Wavewatch III model, updated every hour. Wind forcing was provided at 3-hour resolution from the NOAA North American Mesoscale (NAM) model (12 km resolution) over its domain, with forcing at the most offshore portions of the grid (outside the NAM grid) provided by the NOAA Global Forecasting System (GFS) model at 0.5 degree resolution. The SWAN directional resolution was 6 degrees (60 bins), determined via sensitivity analysis as the coarsest (and hence least computationally expensive) resolution that does not result in the "Garden-Sprinkler Effect" (GSE), wherein swell traveling over large distances inaccurately disintegrates into non-continuous wave fields as a result of frequency and directional discretization. The minimum frequency bin should be set to a value less than 0.7 times the lowest expected peak frequency and the maximum frequency bin should be set at least 2.5-3 times the highest expected peak frequency expected. In order to determine appropriate values, the peak periods from 43 NDBC buoys throughout the wave model domain were analyzed (when available) over the one year period of the study, yielding 297,533 hourly observations. The 99th and 1st percentiles of peak period were 15 s and 3 s, corresponding to frequencies of 0.07 Hz and 0.33 Hz, noting that these values may be biased by buoy limits of detection at high and low frequencies. The frequency range was therefore specified as 0.04-1 Hz. SWAN was allowed to internally determine the frequency resolution as one tenth of each frequency bin for best performance of the discrete interaction approximation (DIA) method of nonlinear 4-wave interactions, resulting in 34 frequency bins. Bottom friction calculations used the Madsen formulation with a uniform roughness length scale of 0.05 m. This value was selected for the best comparison of model output and buoy observations within the domain, and does not correspond to physical roughness values or the bottom roughness used in stress calculations. Wind generation and whitecapping parameterizations follow the modified Komen approach prescribed by Rogers et al. (2003), which reduces inaccurate attenuation of swell energy by whitecapping. Wave model outputs of bottom orbital velocity, bottom representative period, and bottom wave direction were output hourly and interpolated onto the SABGOM model grid.
The same person that conducted this processing step conducted each subsequent processing step.
References:
Rogers, W.E., Hwang, P.A., Wang, D.W., 2003. Investigation of Wave Growth and Decay in the SWAN Model: Three Regional-Scale Applications. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 33, 366-389.
Wave direction, bottom orbital velocities, and bottom periods are calculated internally by the wave model. Near-bed current magnitude and direction are taken from the hydrodynamic model, with the reference height taken as the distance from the cell vertical midpoint to the seabed. GM requires that the current velocity be taken above the wave boundary layer (WBL) but within the log-profile current velocity layer. If the thickness of the WBL calculated using GM exceeds one or more of the deepest grid cells, the current estimate and associated reference height are used from the deepest grid cell at each location where the reference height exceeds the width of the WBL. An estimate must be used for the maximum reference height where the log-profile velocity layer assumption is valid. As discussed in Grant and Madsen (1986), the thickness of the log-profile layer based on laboratory experiments is approximately 10% of the current boundary layer thickness (Clauser, 1956). Because tidal currents, storm currents, and mean flow have a boundary layer thickness on the order of magnitude 10's of meters (Goud, 1987), a maximum value for reference height is set as 5 m. The GM bottom boundary layer model also requires a value for bottom roughness; a uniform value of 0.005 m is used throughout the domain.
References:
Clauser, F.H., 1956. The turbulent boundary layer. Adv. Appl. Mech. 4, 1-51.
Madsen, O.S., 1994. Spectral wave-current bottom boundary layer flows, Proceedings 24th Conf. Coastal Eng., pp. 384-398.
Glenn, S.M., 1983. A Continental Shelf Bottom Boundary Layer Model: The Effects of Waves, Currents, and a Moveable Bed. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Cambridge, MA, 237 pp.
Glenn, S.M., Grant, W.D., 1987. A suspended sediment stratification correction for combined wave and current flows. J. Geophys. Res. 92, 8244-8264.
Goud, M.R., 1987. Prediction of Continental Shelf Sediment Transport Using a Theoretical Model of the Wave-Current Boundary Layer. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Cambridge, MA, 211 pp.
Grant, W.D., Madsen, O.S., 1986. The continental-shelf bottom boundary-layer. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 18, 265-305.
Grant, W.D., Madsen, O.S., 1982. Movable bed roughness in unsteady oscillatory flow. J. Geophys. Res. 87, 469-481.
Grant, W.D., Madsen, O.S., 1979. Combined wave and current interaction with a rough bottom J. Geophys. Res. 84, 1797-1808.
Madsen, O.S., 1994. Spectral wave-current bottom boundary layer flows, Proceedings 24th Conf. Coastal Eng., pp. 384-398.
Madsen, O.S., Poon, Y., Graber, H.C., 1988. Spectral wave attenuation by bottom friction: theory, Proceedings 21st Int. Conf. Coast. Eng., pp. 492-504.
Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.