Application of Ocean Wave Prediction Model to China Sea

S.A. Sannasiraj and Chan Eng Soon

ABSTRACT
As part of an exercise to benchmark the wave forecasting capabilities of APEC member
economies, a third generation wave model WAM [The WAMDI group (1988)] has been
employed to hind cast wave characteristics for a given wind field. The study area covered the
Yellow sea bounded by 115o-130oE and 31o-40oN. The effect of open boundaries was expected
to be minimal given the prescribed wind field. Wave measurements from two buoys were used
for comparisons between computation and measurements. The spatial resolutions considered
were 1/6o and 1/12o. Comparisons between the model results and the buoy observations showed
that the model fairly reproduced the observed characteristics of waves. Significant deviation,
however, was observed in the prediction of wave directions.

1. INTRODUCTION
Major improvements in wave prediction have been made since the early sixties when the first
generation models were developed. In early models, non-linear wave-wave interaction was not accounted
for and hence, overestimated the predictions for a given wind input. Second-generation wave models
[Janssen et al. (1984); Golding (1983); Holthuijsen and De Boer (1988)] were developed to include the
non-linear wave-wave interactions. The shape of the spectrum was, however, prescribed and the models
had problems predicting the combined wind wave and swell. As a consequence, third generation models
evolved without any restriction on the shape of the two-dimensional spectrum. WAM (WAve Model) was
the first effort in the third generation series. To date, WAM has been well tested and widely used for
operational work worldwide. It was developed by the WAMDI group at the Max Plank Institute for
Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany [Komen et al. (1994)]. This state-of-the-art spectral wave model was
suitable for deep and intermediate water depths. Recently, SWAN [Ris et al. (1997)] - Simulating WAves
Nearshore, was developed to account for near shore wave transformation. The governing principles of
SWAN are essentially same as that of WAM. The implicit treatment of the propagation terms in the
transport equation also distinguished SWAN from the deep-water WAM. The implicit method provided an
unconditionally stable propagation scheme.
At the Tropical Marine Science Institute, National University of Singapore, WAM has been
implemented successfully to predict the wave conditions in Singapore waters and ambient seas. The
model was implemented to provide the boundary influence for circulation and transport models,
especially in predicting and assessing the structure of physical parameters in the water column. The wave
model has been applied to the South China Sea region bounded by the longitudes 99oE and 121oE and
latitudes 0oN and 24oN. A coarse grid with a resolution of one-third degree was used. The wind data was
obtained from Meteorological Service Department, Singapore, with a grid resolution of 5o along
longitudes and 2.5o along latitudes. The predictions were compared with ERS-2 data for December 1999.
In overall, the predicted significant wave heights and wave directions agree well with the satellite data.
In order to refine the wave predictions at even smaller scales, it was necessary to benchmark the
predictions with field measurements. The availability of reliable field measurements, however, was scarce
due to reasons ranging from the costs to the quality of the data measured. In connection with the wave

7-1
The Sixth OMISAR Workshop on Ocean Models

modeling exercise under OMISAR (Ocean Model and Information System for APEC Region), the wave
modeling effort was reconfigured to yield a higher resolution prediction for the region bounded by the
longitudes 115oE and 150oE and latitudes 20oN and 50oN. The wind data collected by Korea
Meteorological Administration (KMA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
in the period Nov. 1 to Dec. 31, 2000, were used as the driving force. Predictions were carried out with a
bathymetry grid resolution of one-sixth and one-twelfth degrees. The wind data, however, was
interpolated from the grid resolution of one-fourth degree. In this paper, the results of the exercise are
presented and compared with the field wave data for the same duration. The buoy measurements provided
by Korea Meteorological Administration, Korea, were obtained through the OMISAR project.

2. WAM MODEL
The WAM model was developed based on the spectral energy balance equation. The main features
of the third-generation wave model include non-linear wave-wave interaction, dissipation due to white
capping and bottom friction. The evolution of the two-dimensional wave spectrum, F(f, θ,t) in spherical
coordinates, is governed by the transport equation.
∂F −1 ∂ 
.
 ∂ .  ∂ . 
+ (cos φ )  φ cos φ F  + λ F  + θ F  = S (1)
∂t ∂φ   ∂λ   ∂θ  
where φ is latitude and λ is longitude. ‘S’ is a source term accounting for contributions from wind,
Sin, non-linear quadruplet wave-wave interactions, Snl, energy dissipation due to seabed influence, Sbot,
and white capping, Sdis.
S = Sin + Snl + Sbot + Sdis (2)
The left hand side of Eq. (1) represents the local rate of change of wave energy density, and changes
due to propagation in geographical space, shifting of frequency, depth and current refraction. The
WAMDI group (1988) and Komen et al. (1994) described the WAM model in detail. Gunther et al. (1992)
described the model application in the various stages.

3. APPLICATION
WAM is specifically designed for global and shelf area applications. On considering the location of
KMA buoys and the nearly closed domain of Yellow sea, the application in the present study was
restricted to the domain 115oE-130oE and 31oN-40oN. The two buoys were well within the modeled
domain. Fig. 1 shows the model domain considered and the bathymetry. To evaluate the significance of
grid resolution on the wave characteristics estimation, the model was run with two different grid spacing,
at 1/6o and 1/12o respectively. The wind data provided by KMA at a resolution of 0.25ox0.25o was used in
both cases. A typical wind vector diagram at 1200hrs, 10th Dec. 2000 is shown in Fig. 2. A propagation
time step of 360s and a source term integration step of 180s were adopted in the present case study.
Simulations were carried out from 1st of November 2000 to 30th of December 2001. It was noted that the
typical wind vectors for the months of November and December (Fig. 2) were northerly winds and
consequently, waves propagated from north to south. This meant that the boundary fluxes of wave energy
into the computational domain from its south boundary, if any, could be ignored for this period.

4. COMPARISON WITH BUOY DATA

The significant wave heights, wave directions and mean wave periods were extracted at every three

7-2 Printed on recycled paper

 The Sixth OMISAR Workshop on Ocean Models

hours from the wave model. Fig. 3 shows the comparison of simulated wave characteristics with the
measured wave parameters at buoy location, 37.14oN, 126.01oE during November 2000. The agreements
of significant wave heights and mean wave periods were found to be reasonably good. The predicted
wave directions however, deviated from measured directions on some days. A fifteen-point running
average was used to plot the wave period and wave direction obtained from the buoy records. A similar
comparison of wave data at the location, 34.48oN, 125.46oE is shown in Fig. 4. The model predicted the
significant wave heights and mean wave periods reasonably well while significant deviations are evident
in the wave directions. Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show the wave characteristics during December 2000 at the
locations 37.14oN, 126.01oE and 34.48oN, 125.46oE, respectively. In the comparisons, two sets of grid
resolution were used. The difference was minimal. The fine grid model could however be improved by
having a finer resolution wind input as well as the reduction of propagation and source integration time
steps.
Fig. 7 shows the wave height contours over the Yellow sea at 1200hrs, 10th Dec. 2000. These
contours were obtained from the model with a grid resolution of 1/6o x 1/6o. The wave height contours
obtained from finer grid resolution of 1/12ox1/12o are plotted in Fig. 8. The waves built up with the fetch
distance from the north boundary.

5. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the results of a benchmarking exercise have been presented. The third generation wave
model, WAM was successfully tested over the region with grid resolutions of 1/6o and 1/12o. The
predicted significant wave height and mean wave period were compared with the buoy measurements and
satisfactory agreements were obtained. The wave direction, however, did not agree well with the data.
Without a similar resolution of wind input, the finer bathymetric grid in the computation did not yield any
improvements in the wave prediction.

REFERENCES
Golding, B. (1983) A wave prediction system for real time sea state forecasting. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 109, 393-
416.

Gunther, H., Hasselmann, S. and Janssen, P.A.E.M. (1992) The WAM model cylce 4 – Technical Report No. 4.
Modellberatungsgruppe, Hamburg.

Holthuijsen, L.H. and De Boer, S. (1988) Wave forecasting for moving and stationary targets. In: Computer
modelling in Ocean Engineering, ed. Schrefler, B.A., Zienkiewicz, O.C., Rotterdam, pp.231-234.

Janssen, P.A.E.M., Komen, G.J. and de Voogt, W.J.P. (1984) An operational coupled hybrid wave prediction model.
J. Geophys. Res., 89, pp.3635-3654.

Komen G. J., L. Cavaleri, M. Donelan , K. Hasselmann , S. Hasselmann and P. A. E. M. Janssen, Dynamics and
modelling of ocean waves, Cambridge university press, 1994.

Ris, R.C., Booji, N., Holthuijsen, L.H., Padilla-Hernandez, R. (1997) SWAN Cycle 2 User manual – Simulation of
Waves in the Nearshore zone. Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.

The WAMDI Group. (1988) The WAM Model - A third-generation ocean wave prediction model. Journal of
Physical Oceanography, 18, pp.1775-1810.

Printed on recycled paper 7-3

The Sixth OMISAR Workshop on Ocean Models

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work is supported from the research project sponsored by Defence Science and Technology
Agency, Singapore. The authors acknowledged the data provided by OMISAR.

7-4 Printed on recycled paper

 The Sixth OMISAR Workshop on Ocean Models

Fig. 1 The Yellow sea and its bathymetry

Fig. 2 Wind vector over the Yellow sea at 1200hrs, 10th Dec. 2000

Printed on recycled paper 7-5

The Sixth OMISAR Workshop on Ocean Models

Buoy @ 37.14N, 126.01E

Measured
Coarse grid
Fine grid
Time (Date in Nov.2000)
20 22 24 26 28 30

3
Hs (m)

0
504 528 552 600 624 648 696 720 744
480 576 672
360
Wave direction (deg.)

270

180

90

0
504 528 552 600 624 648 696 720 744

10 480 576 672

Mean Wave period (sec)

0
504 528 552 600 624 648 696 720 744
480 576 672
Time (Hours counting from 01-11-2000 @ 00:00hrs)

Fig. 3 Comparison of significant wave height, mean wave direction and mean wave period
between model results and buoy measurements. The simulations were from 0000hrs 20th Nov.
2000 to 2300hrs 30th Nov. 2000 [BUOY @ 37.14oN, 126.01oE]

7-6 Printed on recycled paper

 The Sixth OMISAR Workshop on Ocean Models

Buoy @ 34.48N, 125.46E

Measured
Coarse grid
Fine grid
Time (Date in Nov. 2000)
20 22 24 26 28 30
4

3
Hs (m)

0
504 528 552 600 624 648 696 720 744
480 576 672
360
Wave direction (deg.)

270

180

90

0
504 528 552 600 624 648 696 720 744
480 576 672
10
Mean wave period (sec)

0
504 528 552 600 624 648 696 720 744
480 576 672
Time (Hours counting from 01-11-2000 @ 00:00 hrs)

Fig. 4 Comparison of significant wave height, mean wave direction and mean wave period
between model results and buoy measurements. The simulations were from 0000hrs 20th Nov.
2000 to 2300hrs 30th Nov. 2000 [BUOY @ 34.48oN, 125.46oE]

Printed on recycled paper 7-7

The Sixth OMISAR Workshop on Ocean Models

Buoy @ 37.14N, 126.01E

Measured
Coarse grid

Time (Date in Dec.2000) Fine grid

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

3
Hs (m)

0
48 144 240 336 432 528 624 720
0 96 192 288 384 480 576 672
360
Wave direction (deg.)

270

180

90

0
48 144 240 336 432 528 624 720

10 0 96 192 288 384 480 576 672

Mean Wave period (sec)

0
48 144 240 336 432 528 624 720
0 96 192 288 384 480 576 672
Time (Hours counting from 01-12-2000 @ 00:00hrs)

Fig. 5 Comparison of significant wave height, mean wave direction and mean wave period
between model results and buoy measurements. The simulations were from 0000hrs 1st Dec.
2000 to 2300hrs 31st Dec. 2000 [BUOY @ 37.14oN, 126.01oE]

7-8 Printed on recycled paper

 The Sixth OMISAR Workshop on Ocean Models

Buoy @ 34.48N, 125.46E

Measured
Coarse grid

Time (Date in Dec. 2000) Fine grid

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
4

3
Hs (m)

0
48 144 240 336 432 528 624 720
0 96 192 288 384 480 576 672
360
Wave direction (deg.)

270

180

90

0
48 144 240 336 432 528 624 720
0 96 192 288 384 480 576 672
10
Mean wave period (sec)

0
48 144 240 336 432 528 624 720
0 96 192 288 384 480 576 672
Time (Hours counting from 01-12-2000 @ 00:00 hrs)

Fig. 6 Comparison of significant wave height, mean wave direction and mean wave period
between model results and buoy measurements. The simulations were from 0000hrs 1st Dec.
2000 to 2300hrs 31st Dec. 2000 [BUOY @ 34.48oN, 125.46oE]

Printed on recycled paper 7-9

The Sixth OMISAR Workshop on Ocean Models

Fig. 7 Significant wave heights at 1200 hrs, 10th Dec.00, obtained from the WAM model with a
grid resolution of 1/6o x 1/6o

Fig. 8 Significant wave heights at 1200 hrs, 10th Dec.00, obtained from the WAM model with a
grid resolution of 1/12o x 1/12o

7 - 10 Printed on recycled paper