4.2 Article

Modeling Extreme Rainfall, Winds, and Surge from Hurricane Isabel (2003)

Journal

WEATHER AND FORECASTING
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages 1342-1361

Publisher

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/2010WAF2222349.1

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Willis Research Network
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF) [CMMI-0653772, ITR-0427325]
  3. NOAA Cooperative Institute for Climate Science
  4. American Institute of Architects

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Landfalling tropical cyclones present major hazards for the eastern United States. Hurricane Isabel (September 2003) produced more than $3.3 billion in damages from wind, inland riverine flooding, and storm surge flooding, and resulted in 17 fatalities. Case study analyses of Hurricane Isabel are carried out to investigate multiple hazards from landfalling tropical cyclones. The analyses focus on storm evolution following landfall and center on simulations using the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF). WRF simulations are coupled with the 2D, depth-averaged hydrodynamic Advanced Circulation Model (ADCIRC), to examine storm surge in the Chesapeake Bay. Analyses of heavy rainfall and flooding include an examination of the structure and evolution of extreme rainfall over land. Intercomparisons of simulated rainfall from WRF with Hydro-NEXRAD rainfall fields and observations from rain gauge networks are presented. A particular focus of these analyses is the evolving distribution of rainfall, relative to the center of circulation, as the storm moves over land. Similar analyses are carried out for the wind field of Hurricane Isabel as it moves over the mid-Atlantic region. Outer rainbands, which are not well captured in WRF simulations, played a major role in urban flooding and wind damage, especially for the Baltimore metropolitan region. Wind maxima in outer rainbands may also have played a role in storm surge flooding in the upper Chesapeake Bay.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available