---
title: Impact of estimation methods of drag coefficient at sea surface on typhoon Haiyan using high-resolution air-sea-wave coupled model
tags:  #台風 #海面抵抗係数 #大気海洋波浪結合モデル #haiyan  
author: [Ninomiya Lab, Kanazawa Univ](https://www.docswell.com/user/airsea)
site: [Docswell](https://www.docswell.com/)
thumbnail: https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/L7LMG9QQJR.jpg?width=480
description: Wave Workshop 2019
published: June 08, 26
canonical: https://www.docswell.com/s/airsea/57N4R1-2026-06-08-124247
---
# Page. 1

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/L7LMG9QQJR.jpg)

Impact of estimation methods of drag coefficient
at sea surface on typhoon Haiyan using high‐
resolution air‐sea‐wave coupled model
Kanazawa Univ.
Kyoto Univ.
Kyoto Univ.
Junichi Ninomiya
Nobuhito Mori
Tetsuya Takemi


# Page. 2

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/4EMYQVKKEW.jpg)

Motivation
• To examine the sensitivity of parameterization of drag
coefficient on super typhoon using high resolution
modeling.
Drag Coef.
C D10 N   /( U102 N )


# Page. 3

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/PER982X6J9.jpg)

Drag Coefficient (Roughness) bulk formulas
• Wind dependent formula (Charnock)
•
.
∗
.
∗
• Wave dependent formula (Taylor and Yelland)
•
.
.
∗
• Drag limitation
•
<‐>


# Page. 4

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/P7XQ8D6DEX.jpg)

Model Setup
• Initial and boundary condition
COAWST (Warner et al., 2008)
• WRF
Air
• NCEP FNL (Spectral nudging for upper air)
• 1 deg., 6 hour
WRF
• MGDSST (under WRF run only)
• 0.25 deg., daily
• ROMS
• SODA v3.4.2
• 1/4 deg., 5 day
• SWAN
• WW3 (NOAA Reanalysis)
• 1/2 deg., 3 hour
• Topography
• GEBCO (Ocean:‐100 ~ ‐2000)
• Initial TY Bogus
Sea
Wave
ROMS
SWAN


# Page. 5

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/37K9KX1D7D.jpg)

Monthly Averaged Temperature of SODA
Mean MLD
MLD@2013
Mixing Layer Depth (in Nov.)


# Page. 6

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/LJ3WZ5QPJ5.jpg)

Model Setup for TC Haiyan
• Period
d02
• Nov. 5th, 2013 – Nov. 10th
5 days
• Coupling Interval: 600 s
d01
• Domain
Model
Resolution
Horizontal Grids Vertical Grids
Directions
etc.
Dt [s]
WRF D01
3 km
1334x667
56
10
WRF D02
1 km
2002x703
56
10/3
ROMS
3 km
1334x667
40
10
SWAN
3 km
1334x667
Dir.: 24
Freq.: 24
(0.05‐0.5Hz)
300


# Page. 7

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/8JDKRD93EG.jpg)

Simulation Cases
A) WRF
• WRF 2 domain run using MGDSST.
• Roughness (z0) is NOT limited.
B) Wind w/o max z0
• Full coupled run with Charnock formula.
• Roughness is NOT limited.
C) Wind w/ max z0
• Full coupled run with Charnock formula.
• z0<=2.85x10‐3.
D) Wave
• Full coupled run with Taylor‐Yelland formula (wave slope).
• z0<=2.85x10‐3.


# Page. 8

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/VEPKWXZP78.jpg)

Characteristics of TY
A
B
C
D
Case A, B, C, D
SST [℃]
Wind w/o max z0


# Page. 9

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/27VV8LWV7Q.jpg)

Black: BestTrack
Red: Simulation
Max. Wind Speed
Case A: WRF
Case B: Wind w/o max z0
Case C: Wind w/ max z0
Case D: Wave


# Page. 10

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/5JGL5XD17L.jpg)

Black: BestTrack
Red: Simulation
Max. Storm Surge
Case B: Wind w/o max z0
Case C: Wind w/ max z0
Case D: Wave


# Page. 11

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/47QYZ81NEP.jpg)

Max. Significant Wave Height
Case B: Wind w/o max z0
Case C: Wind w/ max z0
Case D: Wave
Black: BestTrack
Red: Simulation


# Page. 12

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/KE4W32R3J1.jpg)

Wave Height around
TY
Case B
Time:
20191106 120000 –
20191107 120000
Line: wind speed
Color: wave height
Blue vec.: wind dir.
Red vec.: wave dir.
Case B – C
Case B – D


# Page. 13

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/L71Y1MQZJG.jpg)

Roughness
around
TY
Case B
Case A
Time:
20191106 120000 –
20191107 120000
Line: z0 (interval 0.002)
Color: wind speed
Blue vec.: wind dir.
Red vec.: wave dir.
Case C
Case D


# Page. 14

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/G7WG83M6E2.jpg)

Latent Heat FluxCase
around
TY
B
Time:
20191106 120000 –
20191107 120000
Line: wind speed
Color: upward latent
heat flux
Blue vec.: wind dir.
Red vec.: wave dir.
Case C
Case D


# Page. 15

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/4JZL8VQRE3.jpg)

Change of Water Temperature along Track
Case B
Difference of water temperature along
TY track.
20131108 00:00 – 20131105 00:00
Black line: bottom
Black circle: TY center (at 125°E)
Case C
Case D


# Page. 16

![Page Image](https://bcdn.docswell.com/page/YE6WP561EV.jpg)

Conclusions
• We carried out simulations with different drag coefficient using high resolution
model.
• Typhoon characteristics
• Full coupled run without roughness limitation had good agreement with typhoon
pressure of Best Track but it overestimated wind.
• Full coupled run with roughness limitation estimated weak typhoon but it had good
agreement with wind speed of Best Track.
• The track errors estimated every simulation were within 1 degree.
• Impact of drag limitation
• Typhoon intensity, latent heat flux
• Impact of wave information
• No significant impact on typhoon and ocean, wave response
• However, this study is only a case study. The characteristics of HAIYAN have
high strength and linear track. If these characteristics change, results are
expected to change.
(e.g. please check my ppt or text at waveworkshop 2013)