4.6 Article

Laboratory Measurements of Heat Transfer and Drag Coefficients at Extremely High Wind Speeds

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
卷 48, 期 4, 页码 959-974

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JPO-D-17-0243.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology [25249013, 16K18015]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25249013, 16K18015] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heat and momentum transfer across the wind-driven breaking air-water interface at extremely high wind speeds was experimentally investigated using a high-speed wind-wave tank. An original multi-heat-balance method was utilized to directly measure latent and sensible heat transfer coefficients. The results show that both heat transfer coefficients level off at low and normal wind speeds but increase sharply at extremely high wind speeds. The coefficients have a similar shape for wind speeds at a height of 10 m. Therefore, the wind speed dependence on the latent and sensible heat transfer coefficients can be represented by that of the enthalpy coefficient even in the extremely high-speed region. To show how significantly the drag and enthalpy coefficients affect the intensity of tropical cyclones, the coefficients were applied to Emanuel's analytic model. The analytic model shows that the difference between the present laboratory and conventional correlations significantly affects the maximum storm intensity predictions, and the present laboratory enthalpy and drag coefficients have the remarkable effect on intensity promotion at extremely high wind speeds. In addition, the simulations of strong tropical cyclones using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model with the present and conventional correlations are shown for reference in the appendix. The results obtained from the models suggest that it is of great importance to propose more reliable correlations, verified not only by laboratory but also by field experiments at extremely high wind speeds.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据