Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Physics

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Performance Evaluation of GPU-Based WRF Model in Simulating a Unique Tropical Cyclone of Arabian Sea:A Case Study of VSCS Vayu


Affiliations
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400 076, India., India
 

Tropical cyclone (TC) Vayu developed from a low-pressure system on 9 June 2019 near the West coast of India. It underwent rapid intensification (RI) to a very severe cyclonicstorm (VSCS) before weakening into a deep depression on 17 June 2019 with a unique track. The present study aims to evaluate the performance of the GPU-WRF model in simulating the unique tropical cyclone Vayu when initialized with different meteorological boundary conditions and the effect of input of time-varying SST data, the track, and the cyclone's intensity. The study also aims to investigate the cyclone's synoptic parameters during its development and intensification. Four simulations are conducted with GFS and NCEP-FNL data with and without SST input. The four-dimensional data assimilation analysistechnique, the fdda analysis nudging scheme, was used on the GFS data with SST input, which showed a significant improvement in track and intensity. The system skirting the Gujrat coastline on 13 June is skillfully captured. Given the appreciable improvement of track and intensity with GFS data using nudging, further investigation of the cyclone's synoptic parameters is done on the same. Overall, comparing the simulated dynamics with the ERA-5 dataset indicated that the model simulated a stronger TC. WRF can skillfully simulate a well-delineated eye wall at the matured stage (wind speed >40 m/s). An anomalously high mid-tropospheric relative humidity (RH) (~90%) is indicated at the developing stage, indicating the onset of RI, during which the system showed RH ~100% at the mid-troposphere. On 14 June, when the system reached VSCS, the simulated storm's low-level relative vorticity was ~359.93 × 10 –5 s -1 , whereas ERA-5's was ~175.39 × 10 –5 s -1 only.The simulated storm cyclone energy (9.35×10 4 knts 2 ) was lower than the observed (11.54 ×10 4 knts 2 ). The significance of the results obtained from the study is that the model can skillfully simulate the track and intensity ofan Arabian Sea TC and capture TC Vayu's cyclogenesis. The study also provides insight into the cyclone's synoptic parameters, such as mid-tropospheric relative humidity, low-level relative vorticity, and cyclone energy, during its development and intensification. The study's findings can be useful in improving the accuracy of tropical cyclone forecasting and enhancing our understanding of the physical processes involved in their formation and intensification for the Arabian Sea region.

Keywords

WRF, GFS, NCEP, SST, Nudging, Cyclone Vayu, GPP.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Mishra K, Sharma M & Mohapatra M, J Earth Syst Sci, 130 (2021) 1.

  • Mohapatra M, Mandal G S, Bandyopadhyay B K, Tyagi A & Mohanty U C, Nat Hazards, 63 (2012) 1601.

  • Mohapatra M & Sharma M, Mausam, 70 (2019) 635.

  • View of Comparative performance of HWRF model coupled with POM and HYCOM for tropical cyclones over North Indian Ocean. Available at: https://mausamjournal.imd.gov.in/index.php/MAUSAM/artic le/view/127/94. (Accessed: 17th March 2022).

  • View of Understanding the rapid intensification of tropical cyclone Titli using Hurricane WRF model simulations. Available at: https://mausamjournal.imd.gov.in/index.php/ MAUSAM/article/view/129/97. (Accessed: 16th March 2022).

  • Nadimpalli R, Osuri K K, Pattanayak S, Mohanty U C, Nageswararao M M & Prasad S K, Nat. Hazards, 81 (2016) 1771.

  • Osuri K K, Mohanty U C, Routray A, Kulkarni M A & Mohapatra M, Nat Hazards, 63 (2012) 1337.

  • Osuri K K, Mohanty U C, Routray A, Kulkarni M A & Mohapatra M, Int J Remote Sens, 33 (2012) 1627.

  • Osuri K K, Mohanty U C, Routray A & Niyogi D, Mon Weather Rev, 143 (2015) 4533.

  • Routray A, Mohanty U C, Osuri K K, Kar S C & Niyogi D, IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens, 54 (2016) 2285.

  • Osuri K K, Mohanty U C, Routray A, Mohapatra M & Niyogi D, J Appl Meteorol Climatol, 52 (2013) 2476.

  • Lakshmi D D, et al., Ocean Eng, 131 (2017) 135.

  • Mohanty U C, Nadimpalli R, Mohanty S & Osuri K K, Mausam, 70 (2019) 57.

  • Munsi A, et al., Atmos Res, 259 (2021) 105678.

  • Lee H S, Yamashita T, Hsu J R C & Ding F, Dyn Atmos Ocean, 59 (2013) 1.

  • Liu P, Tsimpidi A P, Hu Y, Stone B, Russell A G & Nenes A, Atmos Chem Phys, 12 (2012) 3601.

  • Zittis G, Bruggeman A, Hadjinicolaou P, Camera C & Lelieveld J, Atmosphere (Basel), 9 (2018).

  • Spero T L, Otte M J, Bowden J H & Nolte C G, Nature, 175 (1955) 238.

  • Otte T L, Nolte C G, Otte M J & Bowden J H, J Clim, 25 (2012) 7046.

  • Bowden J H, Otte T L, Nolte C G & Otte M J, J Clim, 25 (2012) 2805.

  • Omrani H, Drobinski P & Dubos T, Clim Dyn, 41 (2013) 2451.

  • Bullock O R, Alapaty K, Herwehe J A, Mallard M S, Otte T L, Gilliam R C & Nolte C G, J Appl Meteorol Climatol, 53 (2014) 20.

  • Cione J J & Uhlhorn E W, Mon Weather Rev, 131 (2003) 1783.

  • Emanuel K, DesAutels C, Holloway C & Korty R, J Atmos Sci, 61 (2004) 843.

  • Trenberth K E & Shea D J, Geophys Res Lett, 33 (2006) 1.

  • Emanuel K, Nature, 436 (2005) 686.

  • Webster P J, Holland G J, Curry J A & Chang H R, Science, 309 (2005) 1844.

  • Sriver R & Huber M, Geophys Res Lett, 33 (2006) 1.

  • Vecchi G A & Soden B J, Nature, 450 (2007) 1066.

  • Powers J G, et al. Bull Am Meteorol Soc, 98 (2017) 1717.

  • Mielikainen J, Huang B, Huang H L A & Goldberg M D, IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens, 5 (2012) 1256.

  • Mielikainen J, Huang B, Huang H L A & Goldberg M D, IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens, 5 (2012) 555.

  • Huang M, Mielikainen J, Huang B, Chen H, Huang H L A & Goldberg M D, Geosci Model Dev, 8 (2015) 2977.

  • Thiebaux J, Rogers E, Wang W & Katz B, Bull Am Meteorol Soc, 84 (2003) 645.

  • Routray A, Mohanty U C, Niyogi D, Rizvi S R H & Osuri K K, Meteorol Atmos Phys, 106 (2010) 107.

  • Nadimpalli R, Osuri K K, Mohanty U C, Das A K, Kumar A, Sil S & Niyogi D, Meteorol Atmos Phys, 132 (2020) 1.

  • Richard A, Bost. Am. Meteorol. Soc.19 (1982) 1.

  • Cangialosi J P & Franklin J L, National Hurricane Center Forecast Verification Report, (2014).

  • Hersbach H, et al., Q J R Meteorol Soc, 146 (2020) 1999.

  • Mandal S, Sil S, Shee A, Swain D & Pandey P C, IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Obs Remote Sens, 11 (2018) 845.

  • Figa J & Stoffelen A, IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens, 38 (2000) 1893.

  • Bentamy A, Grodsky S A, Carton J A, Croizé-Fillon D & Chapron B, J Geophys Res Ocean, 117 (2012) 1.

  • Chakraborty A, Kumar R & Stoffelen A, Remote Sens Lett, 4 (2013) 84.

  • Singh S K, Singh R, Singh C & Singh R, Meteorol Atmos Phys, 134 (2022) 1.

  • Cyclone Warning In India Standard Operation Procedure India Meteorological DepartmentMinistry of Earth Sciences Government of India INSAT 3D-18/0300 UTC India Meteorological Department Ministry ofEarth Sciences Ministry of Earth Sciences Government of India, PREFACE, (2021).

  • Judt F & Chen S S, Mon Weather Rev, 144 (2016) 4395.

  • Mohanty U C, Nadimpalli R & Mohanty S, Mausam, 72 (2021) 167.

  • Hodges K, Cobb A & Vidale P L, J Clim, 30 (2017) 5243.

  • Subrahamanyam D B, Ramachandran R, Nalini K, Paul F P & Roshny S, Natural Hazards, 96 (2019) 431.

  • Jaiswal N, Kumar P & Kishtawal C M, Curr Sci, 117 (2019) 983.

  • Wu L, et al., Geophys Res Lett, 39 (2012) 1.

  • Ramakrishna S S V S, et al., Pure Appl Geophys, 176 (2019) 5445.

  • Kotal S D, Kundu P K & Bhowmik R S K, Nat Hazards, 50 (2009) 389.

  • Ganesh S S, Sahai A K, Abhilash S, Joseph S, Kaur M & Phani R, Adv Earth Space Sci, 7 (2020) 1.

  • Paterson L A, Hanstrum B N,Davidson N E & Weber H C, Mon Weather Rev, 133 (2005) 3644.

  • Chih C H & Wu C C, J Clim, 33 (2020) 1031.

  • Balaguru K, et al., Geophys Res Lett, 49 (2022) 1.

  • Singh V, Srivastava A K, Samanta R, Singh A, Kumar A & Singh A K, Indian J Pure Appl Phys, 61 (2023) 175.

  • Klotzbach P J, J Clim, 27 (2014) 2317.

  • Kotal S D, Kundu P K & Roy B S K, Nat Hazards, 50 (2009) 389.

  • Kotal S B, Mausam, 64 (2013) 149.

  • Lin I I, Goni G J, Knaff J A, Forbes C & Ali M M, Nat Hazards, 66 (2013) 1481.

  • Goni G J & Trinanes J A, Adv Earth Space Sci, 84 (2003) 573.

  • Shay L K & Brewster J K, Mon Weather Rev, 138 (2010) 2110.

  • Gospalan A K S, Gopala K V V, Ali M M & Sharma R, J Mar Res, 58 (2000) 721.

  • Ali M M & Jain S, Satellite Altimetry for Indian Ocean Studies, (2006).

  • Bhowmick S A, et al., Curr Sci, 119 (2020) 1510.

  • Trugman A T, et al., J Adv Model Earth Syst, 8 (2016) 1180.

  • Pun I F, Lin I I, Lien C C & Wu C C, Mon Weather Rev, 146 (2018). 661.

  • Singh V K, Roxy M K & Deshpande M, Curr Sci, 119 (2020).

  • Balaji M, Chakraborty A & Mandal M, Int J Climatol, 38 (2018) 2819.

  • Krishnan R, et al., Assessment of Climate Change over the Indian Region: A Report of the Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), Government of India(2020).

  • Terry J, Al R A, Boldi R, Gienko G & Stahl H, Weather, (2022) 1.


Abstract Views: 112

PDF Views: 98




  • Performance Evaluation of GPU-Based WRF Model in Simulating a Unique Tropical Cyclone of Arabian Sea:A Case Study of VSCS Vayu

Abstract Views: 112  |  PDF Views: 98

Authors

Pubali Mukherjee
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400 076, India., India
Balaji Ramakrishnan
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400 076, India., India

Abstract


Tropical cyclone (TC) Vayu developed from a low-pressure system on 9 June 2019 near the West coast of India. It underwent rapid intensification (RI) to a very severe cyclonicstorm (VSCS) before weakening into a deep depression on 17 June 2019 with a unique track. The present study aims to evaluate the performance of the GPU-WRF model in simulating the unique tropical cyclone Vayu when initialized with different meteorological boundary conditions and the effect of input of time-varying SST data, the track, and the cyclone's intensity. The study also aims to investigate the cyclone's synoptic parameters during its development and intensification. Four simulations are conducted with GFS and NCEP-FNL data with and without SST input. The four-dimensional data assimilation analysistechnique, the fdda analysis nudging scheme, was used on the GFS data with SST input, which showed a significant improvement in track and intensity. The system skirting the Gujrat coastline on 13 June is skillfully captured. Given the appreciable improvement of track and intensity with GFS data using nudging, further investigation of the cyclone's synoptic parameters is done on the same. Overall, comparing the simulated dynamics with the ERA-5 dataset indicated that the model simulated a stronger TC. WRF can skillfully simulate a well-delineated eye wall at the matured stage (wind speed >40 m/s). An anomalously high mid-tropospheric relative humidity (RH) (~90%) is indicated at the developing stage, indicating the onset of RI, during which the system showed RH ~100% at the mid-troposphere. On 14 June, when the system reached VSCS, the simulated storm's low-level relative vorticity was ~359.93 × 10 –5 s -1 , whereas ERA-5's was ~175.39 × 10 –5 s -1 only.The simulated storm cyclone energy (9.35×10 4 knts 2 ) was lower than the observed (11.54 ×10 4 knts 2 ). The significance of the results obtained from the study is that the model can skillfully simulate the track and intensity ofan Arabian Sea TC and capture TC Vayu's cyclogenesis. The study also provides insight into the cyclone's synoptic parameters, such as mid-tropospheric relative humidity, low-level relative vorticity, and cyclone energy, during its development and intensification. The study's findings can be useful in improving the accuracy of tropical cyclone forecasting and enhancing our understanding of the physical processes involved in their formation and intensification for the Arabian Sea region.

Keywords


WRF, GFS, NCEP, SST, Nudging, Cyclone Vayu, GPP.

References