Journal of

Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
Effect of Depth-Induced Breaking on Wind Wave Simulations
in Shallow Nearshore Waters off Northern Taiwan during the
Passage of Two Super Typhoons
Shih-Chun Hsiao 1 , Han-Lun Wu 1 , Wei-Bo Chen 2, * , Wen-Dar Guo 2 , Chih-Hsin Chang 2 and Wen-Ray Su 2

1 Department of Hydraulic and Ocean Engineering, National Cheng Kung University,

Tainan City 70101, Taiwan; [email protected] (S.-C.H.); [email protected] (H.-L.W.)
2 National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction, New Taipei City 23143, Taiwan;
[email protected] (W.-D.G.); [email protected] (C.-H.C.); [email protected] (W.-R.S.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +886-2-8195-8611

Abstract: Super Typhoons Maria (2018) and Lekima (2019) were adopted for this case study, al-
though they only passed the northern offshore waters of Taiwan without making landfall. A direct
modification technique was employed to create the atmospheric conditions for a wave-circulation
model to hindcast large typhoon-driven waves. The radius of the modified scale (Rtrs ) for a hybrid
typhoon wind plays an important role in the significant wave height (SWH) simulations during the
passage of typhoons. The maximum increment in peak SWH reached 3.0 m and 5.0 m in the deep



ocean for Super Typhoons Maria (2018) and Lekima (2019), respectively if the Rtrs was increased


from 4 × Rmax (radius of the maximum wind) to 7 × Rmax . The SWHs induced by the typhoon
Citation: Hsiao, S.-C.; Wu, H.-L.; winds in the surf zone were more sensitive to different wave-breaking formulations used in the
Chen, W.-B.; Guo, W.-D.; Chang,
wave-circulation model. The maximum difference in peak SWH reached 2.5 m and 1.2 m for Super
C.-H.; Su, W.-R. Effect of
Typhoons Maria (2018) and Lekima (2019), respectively, when the wave-breaking formulations of
Depth-Induced Breaking on Wind
BJ78 (proposed by Battjes and Janssen in 1978) and CT93 (proposed by Church and Thornton in
Wave Simulations in Shallow
1993) were introduced to the wave-circulation model. The SWH simulations in the surf zone were
Nearshore Waters off Northern
Taiwan during the Passage of Two
insensitive to the wave-breaking criterion (γ) during the passage of typhoons. In shallow nearshore
Super Typhoons. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. waters, the utilization of a constant γ for the wave-circulation model always produces peak SWHs
2021, 9, 706. https://doi.org/ that are smaller than those using γ based on local steepness or peak steepness.
10.3390/jmse9070706
Keywords: depth-induced wave breaking; wave-breaking formulation; wave-breaking criterion;
Academic Editor: Christos Stefanakos shallow nearshore waters

Received: 20 April 2021

Accepted: 24 June 2021
Published: 26 June 2021 1. Introduction
Ocean surface wind waves are a dominant process in coastal, nearshore and offshore
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral regions worldwide. Understanding the characteristics of cyclone-driven extreme waves,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in their variability and historical and projected future changes are important considerations for
published maps and institutional affil-
the sustainable development of coastal and offshore infrastructures and the management of
iations.
coastal resources and ecosystems. The energy in ocean surface waves is transmitted from
the wind. The wind patterns above the ocean surface have been affected as the upper ocean
has warmed, consequently resulting in stronger ocean waves. According to the report
from Reguero et al. [1], the energy of ocean waves, i.e., wave height, has grown over the
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. past seven decades, which could have significant implications for coastal communities and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. ecosystems. Since the contributions of ocean surface waves to extreme total water levels are
This article is an open access article substantial at open coasts, they have mostly been considered in many local studies [2–5].
distributed under the terms and
Predicting wave heights accurately in coastal and nearshore areas is essential for a
conditions of the Creative Commons
number of human activities there, such as renewable energy applications, aquaculture,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
maritime transport and infrastructure; furthermore, information on both swells and wind
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
seas is important to coastal applications. For example, the prediction of locally generated
4.0/).

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9070706 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 2 of 21

wind seas is essential for high-speed passenger ferries, whereas information about the
propagation of low-frequency swells in coastal areas and fjords is critical for the design of
coastal structures or in the planning of marine operations.
Depth-induced wave breaking is one of the most dominant hydrodynamic processes
occurring in coastal regions. This wave breaking not only controls the amount of wave
energy impacting our coastlines and coastal defenses but also plays a crucial role in
driving many nearshore processes, such as sediment transport, bottom morphology [6]
and turbulence, which has been shown to be very important for local ecology [7]. Wave
breaking also induces radiation stresses that drive wave-induced setup and currents [8],
both of which are important for coastal engineering design and management. However,
despite the importance and relevance toward our knowledge of wave hydrodynamics,
depth-induced wave breaking is still poorly understood, which is partially due to its highly
nonlinear nature; therefore, it is heavily parameterized in most wind wave models.
Many parameterizations for the wave-breaking index have been proposed and re-
ported in previous studies. These parameterizations include dependencies of the wave-
breaking index on the offshore wave steepness [9,10], a dissipation rate based on a normal-
ized surf zone width [11], the offshore wave height and the inverse Iribarren number [12].
Ruessink et al. [13] also introduced a parameterization of the wave-breaking index that
linearly increases with the local nondimensional depth based on the peak period.
This study provides a critical and objective assessment of three specialized depth-
induced wave-breaking models and wave-breaking criteria, which are based on state-of-
the-art breaking wave formulations. The aim of this paper is to study the effect of the
depth-induced wave-breaking formulation and wave-breaking criteria on the hindcasts
of SWH in shallow nearshore waters off northern Taiwan during the passage of Super
Typhoons Maria in 2018 and Lekima in 2019, as well as to better understand which hindcast
is more influential in wave height hindcasting inside the surf zone. The details of the
materials and methods are presented in the following section, and the results of model
validation and a series of designed model experiments are described in Section 3. A
discussion and uncertainties of the present study are given in Section 4. Finally, Section 5
summarizes and concludes the paper.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Cases
Super Typhoon Maria was a powerful tropical cyclone that affected Guam (the United
States), the Ryukyu Islands (Japan), Taiwan and East China in early July 2018. Maria
became a tropical storm and passed the Mariana Islands on July 4 and rapidly intensified
the next day due to favorable environmental conditions. Maria reached its first peak
intensity on 6 July, and a second stronger peak intensity with 1-min sustained winds of
270 km/h (equivalent to category 5 super typhoon status on the Saffir-Simpson scale) and
a minimum pressure of 915 hPa was reached on 9 July. Maria finally made landfall over
the Fujian Province, China, early on 11 July after crossing the Yaeyama Islands and passing
the northern offshore waters of Taiwan on 10 July. Figure 1a demonstrates the track and
arrival times of Super Typhoon Maria in 2018.
Super Typhoon Lekima originated from a tropical depression that was developed in
the eastern Philippines on 30 July 2019. Lekima became a tropical storm and was named on
4 August. Under favorable environmental conditions, Lekima intensified and reached its
peak with 1-min sustained winds of 250 km/h (equivalent to a category 4 super typhoon
status on the Saffir-Simpson scale) and a minimum pressure of 925 hPa on 8 August.
Lekima made landfall in the Zhejiang Province, China, on late 9 August and made its
second landfall in the Shandong Province, China, on 11 August after moving across eastern
China. The track and arrival times of Super Typhoon Lekima are illustrated in Figure 1b.
J.J.Mar.
Mar.Sci.
Sci.Eng.
Eng.2021,
2021,9,9,x 706
FOR PEER REVIEW 3 3ofof2321

Figure
Figure1.1.Tracks and
Tracks arrival
and times
arrival of (a)
times of Super Typhoon
(a) Super Maria
Typhoon in 2018
Maria and (b)
in 2018 andLekima in 2019.
(b) Lekima in The locations
2019. of waveofbuoys
The locations wave
adopted in the present study are marked in cyan (Data source: Regional Specialized Meteorological Center (RSMC) Tokyo-
buoys adopted in the present study are marked in cyan (Data source: Regional Specialized Meteorological Center (RSMC)
Typhoon Center).
Tokyo-Typhoon Center).

2.2. Super Typhoon

Information LekimaWave
on Offshore originated
Buoys from a tropical depression that was developed in
the eastern Philippines on 30 July 2019. Lekima
Three wave buoys, namely, Fuguijiao, became and
Longdong a tropical
Suao, storm and
located wasnorthern
in the named
on 4 August. Under favorable environmental conditions, Lekima intensified
and northeastern offshore waters of Taiwan, were selected for model validation because and reached
itsthey
peak with
are 1-min
closest tosustained
the trackswinds of 250
of Super km/h (equivalent
Typhoons Maria into2018a category 4 superintyphoon
and Lekima 2019 (as
status
shown oninthe Saffir-Simpson
Figure scale) and
1). The sampling a minimum
frequency of wavepressure
buoysof is 925
2 HzhPa
foron
10 8min
August.
at the
Lekima made
beginning landfall
of each hourinwith
the an
Zhejiang
accuracy Province, China,
of ±10 cm onSWH
for the late 9measurements
August and made its
according
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 4 of 21

to the annual buoy observation data report from the CWB. Information on the coordinates
of the three wave buoys and their corresponding water depths is listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Information on wave buoys.

Buoy Name Longitude (◦ E) Latitude (◦ N) Water Depth (m)

Fuguijiao 121.5336 25.3036 30
Longdong 121.9225 25.0978 27
Suao 121.8758 24.6247 23
Data source: The Central Weather Bureau and Water Resource Agency of Taiwan.

2.3. Direct Modification of Typhoon Winds from ERA5

Since the mid-1960s, many parametric cyclone wind models have been proposed [14,15]
and widely used to mimic the wind distribution of typhoons [16–19] because of their sim-
plicity. Parametric cyclone wind models could be used to accurately reconstruct the wind
distributions near the center of the typhoon; however, they are unable to accurately repro-
duce wind speeds in regions far from the center of the typhoon. In contrast, reanalysis
wind data obtained from the dynamical model with data assimilation show a superior
performance for hindcasting the winds outside of the typhoon’s center but are generally
inferior for the hindcasts of maximum typhoon wind speed [20–24]. A direct modifica-
tion technique recommended by Pan et al. [20] was applied in the present study to take
advantage of combining the parametric cyclone wind model and reanalysis wind data and
maintain a reliable structure for the entire typhoon wind field.
 h   i
r WBmax
 W ERA5 − 1 + 1 r < Rmax
h Rmax WEmax

   i
WDM = R − r W (1)
− Rmax WEmax − 1 + 1
WERA5 Rtrstrs Rmax ≤ r ≤ Rtrs
Bmax


WERA5 r > Rtrs


where WDM is the wind speed at an arbitrary grid within the model domain through direct
modification, WERA5 is the wind speed extracted from ERA5 (the fifth-generation reanalysis
of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts for the global climate and
weather) at an arbitrary point in the computational grid, WBmax is the maximum wind
speed of the best track typhoon issued by the Regional Specialized Meteorological Center
(RSMC) Tokyo-Typhoon Center, WEmax is the maximum wind speed of the typhoon among
the hourly ERA5 wind fields, r is the radial distance from an arbitrary grid within the
model domain to the eye of the typhoon, Rtrs is the radius of the modified scale (also
known as the radius of the transitional zone) and Rmax is the radius at the maximum
typhoon wind speed. Rmax can be expressed as a function of WBmax and the latitude of the
typhoon’s center:
Rmax = m0 + m1 × WBmax + m2 (φ − 25) (2)
where φ is the latitude of the typhoon’s center. In Equation (2), m0 , m1 and m2 were set
to 38.0 (in n·mi), −0.1167 (in n·mi·kt−1 ) and −0.0040 (in n·mio−1 ), respectively, according
to the results derived from Knaff et al. [25] for the Western Pacific typhoon basin. Rtrs is
considered to be a key factor in determining the accuracy of wind fields; therefore, various
Rtrs will be employed to create hybrid typhoon wind fields to better understand their effect
on wind wave hindcasting.

2.4. Configuration of the Wave-Circulation Modeling System

A seamless cross-scale hydrodynamic model based on an unstructured grid and
triangular mesh served as the ocean circulation model in the wave-circulation modeling
system. The hydrodynamic model is called SCHISM (semi-implicit cross-scale hydroscience
integrated system model), which has been implemented by Zhang et al. [26] and other de-
velopers around the world. Similar to the SELFE (semi-implicit Eulerian-Lagrangian finite
element/volume model, the predecessor of the SCHISM developed by Zhang and Bap-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 5 of 21

tista [27]), the SCHISM also avoids the severest stability constraints in the numerical model
by means of a highly efficient semi-implicit scheme [28]. Hence, the high-performance
calculations can be performed even when a very high spatial resolution mesh is used in
the SCHISM. The splitting between internal and external modes could derive a numerical
error [29], which is eliminated through the no-mode-splitting technique implemented in the
SCHISM. A depth-averaged (two-dimensional (2D)) ocean circulation model is sufficient
for simulating typhoon-driven hydrodynamics. Additionally, fewer computing resources
and execution times are required for a 2D model. Therefore, a 2D model, i.e., SCHISM-2D,
is selected for wind wave modeling in the present study. The SCHISM and its predeces-
sor SELFE are multipurpose models that have been widely applied to the simulation of
hydrodynamics and water quality transportation in coastal and estuarine environments
in Taiwan, e.g., evaluation of storm tide-induced coastal inundation [30,31], assessment
of tidal stream energy [32,33], transport of suspended sediment and fecal coliform [34,35].
The Manning coefficient and time step were set as 0.025 and 120 s for the barotropic ocean
model, respectively, according to the geological characteristics of the seafloor in the waters
surrounding Taiwan and the numerical stability of the SCHISM-2D.
The WWM-III is a derivative work from the original WWM-II (wind wave model
version III, developed by Roland [36]). The WWM-III is a third-generation spectral wave
model that is able to simulate and predict the ocean surface sea state [37]. The wave action
balance equation governing the WWM-III is solved by the fractional step method on an
unstructured grid. The number of directional bins is 36 with a minimum of 0◦ and a
maximum direction of 360◦ . The number of frequency bins is 36, the lowest limit of the
discrete wave frequency is 0.04 Hz and a highest frequency limit of the discrete wave
period is 1.0 Hz. The peak enhancement factor is specified as 3.3 for the JONSWAP (Joint
North Sea Wave Project, [38]) spectra, while the wave breaking coefficients for the constant
and bottom friction coefficients are 0.78 and 0.067, respectively, in WWM-III.
To enhance the information exchange efficiency between the ocean circulation and
wind wave models and to eliminate the interpolation errors from the two models, SCHISM-
2D and WWM-III take advantage of sharing the same subdomains and parallelization
through the same domain decomposition scheme. Additionally, time steps of 120 s and
600 s were used in the SCHISM-2D and WWM-III models, respectively, to improve the
computational performance of the coupled model, SCHISM-WWM-III. The fully coupled
SCHISM-WWM-III modeling system has been applied to predict, simulate and hindcast
typhoon-driven storm tides and waves [21–24,39], as well as long-term wave energy
resources in the offshore waters of Taiwan [40–42].
For a successful storm surge, tide and wave modeling, the size of the computational
domain must be large enough to accommodate the full typhoon; otherwise, the simulations
would be affected by the boundary conditions [43,44]. The present study developed a
computational domain spanning east longitudes from 105◦ to 140◦ and north latitudes from
15◦ to 31◦ (as shown in Figure 2). This large domain is composed of 540,510 nonoverlapping
triangular elements and 276,639 unstructured grid points. A local-scale bathymetric dataset
covering the area from east longitude 100◦ to 128◦ and north latitude from 4◦ to 29◦ with
a spatial resolution of 200 m was provided by the Department of Land Administration
and the Ministry of the Interior, Taiwan. The latest global-scale bathymetric product
released from the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO), GEBCO_2020 Grid,
was employed to incorporate a local-scale bathymetric dataset (as mentioned above) to
construct the gridded bathymetric data in the SCHISM-WWM-III modeling system.
Eight main tidal constituents (M2 , S2 , N2 , K2 , K1 , O1 , P1 and Q1 ) extracted from a
regional inverse tidal model (China Seas and Indonesia [45]) were utilized to generate the
tidal elevation and horizontal velocity at the ocean boundaries of the SCHISM-WWM-III.
The inverse barometric effect for tidal elevation at the boundary nodes was also considered.
Since wave-generating typhoons were completely within the computational domain in the
present study, open boundary conditions for the waves were not always required [42,46].
 ric dataset covering the area from east longitude 100° to 128° and north latitude from 4°
to 29° with a spatial resolution of 200 m was provided by the Department of Land Admin-
istration and the Ministry of the Interior, Taiwan. The latest global-scale bathymetric
product released from the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO),
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 GEBCO_2020 Grid, was employed to incorporate a local-scale bathymetric dataset 6 of(as
21
mentioned above) to construct the gridded bathymetric data in the SCHISM-WWM-III
modeling system.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Coverage
Coverage of
of the
the computational
computational domain
domain for
for the
the wave-circulation
wave-circulation modeling
modeling system.
system.

Eight main tidalofconstituents

2.5. Parameterization Depth-Induced (MWave
2, S2, Breaking
N2, K2, K1, O1, P1 and Q1) extracted from a re-
gionalThree widely used parameterizations forIndonesia
inverse tidal model (China Seas and [45]) depth-induced
characterizing were utilized to generate
wave the
breaking
tidal elevation and horizontal velocity at the ocean boundaries of the SCHISM-WWM-III.
in nearshore shallow waters were adopted in the present study and are briefly reviewed
The inverse
in this barometric
section. effectBeji
Battjes and for [47]
tidalproposed
elevationthat
at the
theboundary nodes
total energy was also consid-
dissipation can be
ered. Since wave-generating typhoons were completely within the computational
distributed over the wave spectrum in proportion to the spectral density based on extensive domain
in the present
laboratory study, open
experiments; boundary
hence, conditions for
the wave-induced wavethebreaking
waves were
(Sbreaknot
) inalways required
the wave action
[42,46].
density function is calculated as follows:

2.5. Parameterization of Depth-Induced Wave BreakingE(σ, θ )

Sbreak (σ, θ ) = Dtotal (3)
Etotal
Three widely used parameterizations for characterizing depth-induced wave break-
ing in nearshore shallow waters were adopted in the present study and are briefly re-
where Sbreak (σ,θ) is the wave-induced wave breaking in spectral space (σ, θ), Dtotal is the
viewed in this section. Battjes and Beji [47] proposed that the total energy dissipation can
total energy dissipation rate due to depth-induced wave breaking, E(σ,θ) is the wave energy
be distributed over the wave spectrum in proportion to the spectral density based on ex-
in spectral space (σ, θ) and Etotal is the total wave energy.
tensive laboratory experiments; hence, the wave-induced wave breaking (Sbreak) in the
wave action
2.5.1. BJ78 density function is calculated as follows:
Model
In the BJ78 model (proposed by Battjes and Janssen [48]), the total energy dissipation
due to depth-induced wave breaking, Dtot_BJ78 is given as follows:

1 2
Dtot_BJ78 = − α BJ Qb f Hmax (4)
4

where α BJ is the proportionality parameter, Qb represents the fraction of breaking waves, f

is the averaged frequency and Hmax represents the maximum individual wave height and
is defined as a proportion of the water depth in the local area (d):

Hmax = γd (5)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 7 of 21

where γ is the wave-breaking index. The fraction of breaking waves, Qb is determined by

the Rayleigh distribution truncated at an upper limit with Hmax (maximum wave height).
Therefore, the fraction of breaking waves is implicitly expressed as follows:
2
1 − Qb

Hrms
= (6)
− ln Qb Hmax

where Hrms is the root-mean-square wave height.

2.5.2. TG83 Model

The TG83 model can be considered a variant of BJ78, and the total energy dissipation
due to depth-induced wave breaking in the TG83 model (proposed by Thornton and
Guza [49]), Dtot_TG83 is formulated as follows:
Z ∞
B3 f
Dtot_TG83 = − H 3 pb ( H )dH (7)
4 d 0

where B is the proportionality coefficient, H is the wave height and pb ( H ) is the fraction of
breaking waves at each wave height. In which, pb ( H ) can be given as follows:

pb ( H ) = W ( H ) p( H ) (8)

where p( H ) is the Rayleigh wave height probability density function and can be expressed
as follows: "  2 #
2H H
p( H ) = 2 exp − (9)
Hrms Hrms

The weighting function, W ( H ) is defined as in the TG83 model:

 n
Hrms
W (H) = (10)
γTG d

where the calibration parameter n = 4, γTG is the wave-breaking index for the TG83 model
and is set to 0.42 according to Thornton and Guza [49,50].

2.5.3. CT93 Model

The total energy dissipation due to the depth-induced wave breaking implemented
in the CT93 model (proposed by Church and Thornton [51]) is related to Hrms through
periodic linear bore theory, which can be given as follows:
 
√ 3
3 π 3 Hrms  1
Dtot_CT93 = − fB M 1 − h (11)

16 d 2 5/2
i 
1 + ( Hrms /γd)

in which M is expressed as follows:

  
Hrms
M = 1 + tanh 8 − 1.0 (12)
γ

2.6. Parameterization of the Wave-Breaking Index

2.6.1. Constant Wave Breaking Criterion (γ)
The parameter γ, given in Equation (4), is an adjustable coefficient that allows for the
effects of the bottom slope on the waves and is one of the important parameters in the
energy dissipation formulation. Miche [52] derived the theoretical value of γ = 0.88 for a
flat bottom. Based on the average of several reasonable wave breaking observations, Battjes
and Janssen [48] suggested a constant breaker index of γ = 0.8. The values for the breaking
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 8 of 21

index γ range from 0.60 to 0.83; however, γ = 0.73 has been used in the most operational
third-generation wave models, which is taken as the averaged value over a larger data
set [9]. In the present study, a value of γ = 0.78 was specified for the SWH simulation
following the results from Chen et al. [21] and Hsiao et al. [22–24] if the wave-circulation
model adopted a constant breaker index.

2.6.2. Wave Breaking Criterion Based on Local Steepness or Peak Steepness

The wave breaking process in shallow nearshore waters is affected by the seafloor
profile (i.e., bottom slope) and incident wave steepness. Battjes and Stive [9] found that
a hyperbolic tangent function could be used for predicting the SWHs in shallow-water
coastal areas and a relationship between the breaking index γ and the wave steepness s0 :

γ = 0.5 + 0.4tanh(33s0 ) (13)

in which s0 can be expressed as follows:

s0 = Hrms0 /λ0 (14)

where Hrms0 is the root-mean-square

p wave height in deep waters, λ0 is the wavelength
and is defined as λ0 = gd/ f , f is the wave period and g is the acceleration of gravity.
The wave breaking criterion in Equation (13) is regarded as the local steepness or peak
steepness based on f .

3. Results
The wind fields during Super Typhoon Maria from 1–15 July in 2018 and Super
Typhoon Lekima from 1–15 August in 2019 were extracted from the ERA5 reanalysis and
were corrected by the direct modification method expressed in Equation (1). The hybrid
typhoon winds derived from Equation (1) with various Rtrs values were imposed in the
SCHISM-WWM-III modeling system to compare the performance of the resulting storm
wave hindcast. The effect of the wave-breaking formulation and wave-breaking criterion
on the simulation of the SWH in the shallow nearshore waters off northern Taiwan during
the passage of Super Typhoons Maria and Lekima was investigated by conducting several
designed model experiments, as listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Designed numerical experiments in the present study.

Wave-Breaking
Scenario Wave-Breaking Criterion Rtrs
Formulation
S_NO1 BJ87 γ = 0.78 4Rmax
S_NO2 TG83 γGT = 0.42 4Rmax
S_NO3 CT93 γ = 0.78 4Rmax
S_NO4 BJ87 Based on Local Steepness 4Rmax
S_NO5 BJ87 Based on Peak Steepness 4Rmax

3.1. Validation for Typhoon-Driven SWHs with Various Rtrs

The inverse distance weighting method was employed to convert the hourly ERA5
and hybrid typhoon winds from the structured grid (at a horizontal resolution of 31 km) to
the unstructured grid for the SCHISM-WWM-III modeling system. Comparisons of the
SWH time series between model hindcasts using the different radii of the modified scale
(Rtrs ) and the corresponding measurements are depicted in Figure 3a–c for the Fuguijiao
(Figure 3a), Longdong (Figure 3b) and Suao (Figure 3c) buoys during the passage of
Super Typhoon Maria in 2018. The hindcasted peak wave heights are underestimated
by 1.5 m and 2.0 m for the Fuguijiao and Longdong wave buoys, respectively, when the
original ERA5 winds are used in the SCHISM-WWM-III modeling system but slightly
overestimate the peak wave height within 0.5 m for the Suao buoy. Modified ERA5 winds
with various Rtrs were imposed on the SCHISM-WWM-III modeling system to improve the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 9 of 21

performance of typhoon wave hindcasts. The hybrid winds with Rtrs = 3Rmax , Rtrs = 4Rmax ,
Rtrs = 5Rmax , Rtrs = 6Rmax and Rtrs = 7Rmax are called the H_3Rmax , H_4Rmax , H_6Rmax ,
H_6Rmax and H_7Rmax winds, respectively. As shown in Figure 3a–c, the hindcasted
peak wave heights for all three wave buoys increased when using a larger Rtrs value. For
instance, the hindcasted peak wave height was raised to 7.5 m for the Fuguijiao wave
buoy by exerting H_4Rmax winds on the SCHISM-WWM-III modeling system (as shown in
Figure 3a). Similar phenomena can be found in Figure 3b (for the Longdong wave buoy)
and Figure 3c (for the Suao wave buoy). The hindcasted peak wave heights were always
underestimated for the Fuguijiao wave buoy even though H_7Rmax winds were utilized.
However, the SCHISM-WWM-III modeling system overestimated the peak wave height
for the Suao wave buoy once the hybrid typhoon winds were used for the meteorological
boundary conditions. Figure 4 illustrates the spatial distribution of the difference in the
maximum hindcasted SWH between adopting the winds from H_4Rmax and the original
ERA5 for Super Typhoon Maria in 2018. Significant differences can be detected along the
track of Super Typhoon Maria, and the extents with differences exceeding 3.0 m occurred
in the deep ocean. The spatial distributions of the difference in maximum hindcasted SWH
between employing the winds from H_5Rmax and H_4Rmax , H_6Rmax and H_4Rmax and
H_7Rmax and H_4Rmax are demonstrated in Figure 5a–c, respectively. The difference in
maximum hindcasted SWH using different winds increased when Rmax was enlarged. The
maximal differences were always distributed over the right side of Super Typhoon Maria
in 2018, where the wind speed was highest (as shown in Figure 5a–c). The same validation
process was conducted to verify the SWH hindcasts for Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019.
Figure 6 presents the comparisons of the SWH time series between model hindcasts using
the different Rtrs values and the corresponding measurements or the Fuguijiao (Figure 6a),
Longdong (Figure 6b) and Suao (Figure 6c) buoys during the period of Super Typhoon
Lekima in 2019. The hindcasts from the use of the H_3Rmax and H_4Rmax winds are more
satisfactory for all three wave buoys. The improvements in the hindcasted peak SWH for
Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019 are obvious; for example, the difference in the maximum
hindcasted SWH between inputting the winds from H_4Rmax and the original ERA5 were
up to 5 m in the deep ocean (as shown in Figure 7). The spatial distributions of the
difference in maximum hindcasted SWH between applying the winds from H_5Rmax and
H_4Rmax , H_6Rmax and H_4Rmax and H_7Rmax and H_4Rmax for Super Typhoon Lekima
in 2019 are shown in Figure 8a,c, respectively. Similar to the hindcasts of Super Typhoon
Maria in 2018, maximal differences were also detected on the right side of Super Typhoon
Lekima in 2019, where the wind speed was strongest and increased with the increase in
Rtrs . According to the resulting storm wave hindcasts of Super Typhoons Maria in 2018 and
Lekima in 2019, the hybrid wind field with Rtrs = 4Rmax , i.e., H_4Rmax winds, was adopted
as the atmospheric forcing for the SCHISM-WWM-III modeling system to conduct a series
of numerical experiments.
 Maria in 2018, maximal differences were also detected on the right side of Super Typhoon
Lekima in 2019, where the wind speed was strongest and increased with the increase in
Rtrs. According to the resulting storm wave hindcasts of Super Typhoons Maria in 2018
and Lekima in 2019, the hybrid wind field with Rtrs = 4Rmax, i.e., H_4Rmax winds, was
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 adopted as the atmospheric forcing for the SCHISM-WWM-III modeling system to10con- of 21

duct a series of numerical experiments.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 23

Figure 3. Cont.

Figure 3. Comparison
Figure 3. Comparison of
of the
the time
time series
series of the SWH
of the SWH between
between the wave simulation
the wave simulation that
that used
used the winds from
the winds the original
from the original
ERA5, from the hybrid winds with various Rtrs and the corresponding observations for the (a) Fuguijiao, (b) Longdong
ERA5, from the hybrid winds with various Rtrs and the corresponding observations for the (a) Fuguijiao, (b) Longdong and
and (c) Suao wave buoys during the passage of Super Typhoon Maria in 2018.
(c) Suao wave buoys during the passage of Super Typhoon Maria in 2018.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 11 of 21
Figure 3. Comparison of the time series of the SWH between the wave simulation that used the winds from the original
ERA5, from the hybrid winds with various Rtrs and the corresponding observations for the (a) Fuguijiao, (b) Longdong
and (c) Suao wave buoys during the passage of Super Typhoon Maria in 2018.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER Figure

REVIEW4. Spatial distribution of the difference in maximum SWH using the winds from H_4Rmax and
12 of 23
Figure Spatial
4.ERA5
the original duringdistribution of the
the passage of Super difference
Typhoon in maximum SWH using the winds from H_4Rmax
Maria in 2018.
and the original ERA5 during the passage of Super Typhoon Maria in 2018.

Figure 5. Spatial distribution of the difference in maximum SWH using the winds from (a) H_5Rmax
Figure
and H_4R5. Spatial distribution of the difference in maximum SWH using the winds from (a) H_5Rmax
max, (b) H_6Rmax and H_4Rmax and (c) H_7Rmax and H_4Rmax during the passage of Super

Typhoon
and Maria in ,2018.
H_4R max (b) H_6Rmax and H_4Rmax and (c) H_7Rmax and H_4Rmax during the passage of Super
Typhoon Maria in 2018.
J.
J. Mar.
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021,
Sci. Eng. 2021, 9,
9, 706
x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 23
13 21

Figure 6. Comparison of the time series of the SWH between the wave simulation that used the winds from the original
Figure 6. Comparison of the time series of the SWH between the wave simulation that used the winds from the original
ERA5,
ERA5, from
fromthe
thehybrid
hybridwinds
windswith
withvarious Rtrs
various , and
Rtrs the
, and corresponding
the observations
corresponding for for
observations the the
(a) Fuguijiao, (b) Longdong
(a) Fuguijiao, and
(b) Longdong
(c)
andSuao wavewave
(c) Suao buoys during
buoys the passage
during of Super
the passage Typhoon
of Super Lekima
Typhoon in 2019.
Lekima in 2019.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 13 of 21
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 23
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 23

Figure 7. Spatial distribution of the difference in maximum SWH using the winds from H_4Rmax and
Figure
the original
Figure Spatial
7.ERA5
7. Spatial duringdistribution
the passage
distribution of the
of Super
of the difference difference
Typhoon
in Lekima
maximum in
SWHinusingmaximum
2019.the winds fromSWH
H_4Rmaxusing
and the winds from H_4Rmax
and the original
the original ERA5 during ERA5 during
the passage the Typhoon
of Super passageLekima
of Super
in 2019.Typhoon Lekima in 2019.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23

Figure 8. Spatial distribution of the difference in maximum SWH using the winds from (a) H_5Rmax
Figure
and H_4R8. max,Spatial distribution
(b) H_6Rmax of the
and H_4Rmax and difference
(c) H_7R in max
max and H_4R maximum SWH ofusing
during the passage Super the winds from (a) H_5Rmax
Typhoon
and H_4RLekima in 2019.
max , (b) H_6Rmax and H_4Rmax and (c) H_7Rmax and H_4Rmax during the passage of Super
Typhoon
3.2. Effect of Lekima in 2019.
the Wave-Breaking Formulation on the Typhoon-Driven SWH Simulation in the
Surf Zone
To assess the effects of different wave-breaking formulations on the wave hydrody-
namics in shallow nearshore waters, three depth-induced wave-breaking parameteriza-
tions, introduced in Section 2.5, were applied to hindcast the typhoon waves with the con-
stant wave breaking criterion (γ) and same wind forcing (Rtrs = 4Rmax winds). As listed in
Table 2, the designed numerical experiments refer to S_NO1 and S_NO3 for the BJ87 and
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 14 of 21

3.2. Effect of the Wave-Breaking Formulation on the Typhoon-Driven SWH Simulation in the
Surf Zone
To assess the effects of different wave-breaking formulations on the wave hydrodynam-
ics in shallow nearshore waters, three depth-induced wave-breaking parameterizations,
introduced in Section 2.5, were applied to hindcast the typhoon waves with the constant
wave breaking criterion (γ) and same wind forcing (Rtrs = 4Rmax winds). As listed in
Table 2, the designed numerical experiments refer to S_NO1 and S_NO3 for the BJ87 and
CT93 wave-breaking models, respectively, with a constant γ of 0.78. A wave-breaking
index of 0.42, namely, γGT , is specified for the TG83 model in the present study, which
is labeled S_NO2 in Table 2. The spatial distribution of the difference in the maximum
SWH between the scenarios of S_NO1 and S_NO2 and S_NO1 and S_NO3 during passage
Super Typhoon Maria in 2018 are depicted in Figure 9. Figure 9a,b illustrate the differences
in S_NO1 and S_NO2 and S_NO1 and S_NO2, respectively. Large storm waves were
generated in the deep ocean and subsequently dissipated due to the decrease in water
depth across a surf zone toward the shore. Although the surf zone usually lies in a shallow
area where the water depth ranges from 5 to 10 m below sea level, nearshore areas with
water depths greater than −20 m are shown in Figure 9 to effectively distinguish among
the difference in hindcasted SWHs by different wave-breaking models. The surf zones
along the north and northeast coasts of Taiwan are quite narrow because these areas are
characterized by a very steep sloping seafloor. The differences in the maximum SWH
between the S_NO1 and S_NO3 scenarios (Figure 9b) are more significant than those
between the S_NO1 and S_NO2 (Figure 9a) scenarios. Two points, namely, P1 and P2,
located in the north and northeastern shallow nearshore waters, were selected to com-
pare the time series of hindcasted SWHs for the S_NO1, S_NO2 and S_NO3 scenarios.
The comparison results are presented in Figure 10a for P1 and Figure 10b for P2. The
differences between the three scenarios can only be found during the passage of Super
Typhoon Maria in 2018, i.e., from midday on 10 July to midday on 11 July in 2018. The
maximal difference in the hindcasted SWH is approximately 2.5 m between the S_NO1
and S_NO3 scenarios for P2 (as shown in Figure 10b). However, the maximal difference
in hindcasted SWH is within 1.0 m between the S_NO2 and S_NO3 scenarios for both
P1
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER and P2 (as shown in Figure 10a,b). Similar results are also shown in Figure 1116(spatial
REVIEW of 23
distribution) and Figure 12 (time series comparison) for Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019.
The maximal differences in hindcasted SWH in the shallow nearshore waters were smaller
for Super
in 2019 Typhoon
than those forLekima in 2019 Maria
Super Typhoon than those forThe
in 2018. Super Typhoon
maximal Maria
difference in 2018. The
in hindcasted
maximal
SWH is approximately 1.5 m at P2 during the passage of Super Typhoon Lekimapassage
difference in hindcasted SWH is approximately 1.5 m at P2 during the in 2019 of
Super Typhoon Lekima
(as shown in Figure 12b). in 2019 (as shown in Figure 12b).

Figure
Figure 9. Spatialdistribution
9. Spatial distributionof
of the
the difference
difference in
inmaximum
maximumSWH
SWHbetween thethe
between scenarios of (a)ofS_NO1
scenarios and S_NO2
(a) S_NO1 and (b)and
and S_NO2
S_NO1 and S_NO3 during the passage of Super Typhoon Maria in 2018. The areas with water depths greater than −20 m
(b) S_NO1 and S_NO3 during the passage of Super Typhoon Maria in 2018. The areas with water depths greater than
are shown.
−20 m are shown.
J. Mar.Figure 9.2021,
Sci. Eng. Spatial distribution of the difference in maximum SWH between the scenarios of (a) S_NO1 and S_NO2 and (b)
9, 706 15 of 21
S_NO1 and S_NO3 during the passage of Super Typhoon Maria in 2018. The areas with water depths greater than −20 m
are shown.
Figure 9. Spatial distribution of the difference in maximum SWH between the scenarios of (a) S_NO1 and S_NO2 and (b)
S_NO1 and S_NO3 during the passage of Super Typhoon Maria in 2018. The areas with water depths greater than −20 m
are shown.

Figure 10. Time

Time series
series of
ofhindcasted
hindcastedSWHs
SWHsforfor(a)
(a)P1P1and
and(b)(b) P2
P2P2 using the
using S_NO1, S_NO2andand S_NO3 scenarios during
FigureFigure
10. 10. Time series of hindcasted SWHs for (a) P1 and (b) usingthe
theS_NO1,
S_NO1, S_NO2
S_NO2 and S_NO3
S_NO3 scenarios
scenarios during
during the
the passage
passage of of Super
Super Typhoon
Typhoon MariaMaria
in in 2018.
2018.
the passage of Super Typhoon Maria in 2018.

FigureFigure 11. Spatial

11. Spatial distribution
distribution of the
of the differenceininthe
difference themaximum
maximum SWH
SWHbetween
betweenthe scenarios
the of (a)
scenarios ofS_NO1 and S_NO2
(a) S_NO1 and and
and S_NO2
J. Mar.Figure (b)2021,
Sci. Eng. S_NO19, xand
FORS_NO3
PEER during the passage of Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019. The areas with water depths greater than
REVIEW 17 of 23
(b) S_NO111. Spatial distribution
duringof thepassage
difference in the Typhoon
maximumLekima
SWH between
in 2019. the
Thescenarios of (a) S_NO1 andgreater
S_NO2than
and
−20 mand S_NO3
are shown. the of Super areas with water depths
(b)
−20S_NO1 and S_NO3 during the passage of Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019. The areas with water depths greater than
m are shown.
−20 m are shown.

Figure 12. Time

Figure 12. Time series
series of
ofhindcasted
hindcastedSWHs
SWHsfor
for(a)
(a)P1P1and
and(b)(b)
P2P2 using
using thethe S_NO1,
S_NO1, S_NO2
S_NO2 andand S_NO3
S_NO3 scenarios
scenarios during
during the
the passage of Super Typhoon Lekima in
passage of Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019. 2019.

3.3.
3.3. Effect
Effect of
of the
the Wave-Breaking
Wave-Breaking Criterion
Criterion on
on the
the Typhoon-Driven SWH Simulation
Typhoon-Driven SWH Simulation in
in the
the Surf
Zone
Surf Zone
Many
Many parameterizations
parameterizations of of the
the wave-breaking
wave-breaking criterion have been implemented
within wind wave wave spectral
spectral models
models toto yield
yield substantial
substantial improvements
improvements in in model
model hindcasts,
hindcasts,
simulations and
simulations andforecasts.
forecasts.Hence,
Hence, three
three scenarios,
scenarios, called
called S_NO1,
S_NO1, S_NO4
S_NO4 andand S_NO5,
S_NO5, ex-
exploiting
ploiting thethe
BJ87BJ87 wave-breaking
wave-breaking modelmodel Rtrs =R4R
withwith = 4R
trs max wind wind forcing
max forcing and different
and different wave-
wave-breaking
breaking criteriacriteria (γ), applied
(γ), were were applied to hindcast
to hindcast stormstormwaves waves
in theinshallow
the shallow nearshore
nearshore wa-
waters
ters of northern
of northern Taiwan
Taiwan during
during the
the passageofofSuper
passage SuperTyphoon
TyphoonMaria
Mariain in2018
2018 and
and Lekima
Lekima
in 2019.
in 2019. The
The spatial
spatial distributions
distributions of
of the
the difference
difference in in the maximum SWH hindcasted
hindcasted by
S_NO1
S_NO1 and S_NO4 and S_NO1 and S_NO5 during the passage of
and S_NO1 and S_NO5 during the passage of Super Typhoon Super Typhoon Maria in
Maria
2018
in areare
2018 illustrated in Figure
illustrated 13a,b,
in Figure respectively.
13a,b, The differences
respectively. caused
The differences by different
caused wave-
by different
wave-breaking criteria γ are smaller than those caused by different wave-breaking formu-
lations. Figure 14a,b demonstrate the time series of hindcasted SWHs for P1 and P2 using
the S_NO1, S_NO4 and S_NO5 scenarios during the passage of Super Typhoon Maria in
2018. The maximal difference is within 1.0 m at P2 (as shown in Figure 14b) but is less
 Many parameterizations of the wave-breaking criterion have been implemented
within wind wave spectral models to yield substantial improvements in model hindcasts,
simulations and forecasts. Hence, three scenarios, called S_NO1, S_NO4 and S_NO5, ex-
ploiting the BJ87 wave-breaking model with Rtrs = 4Rmax wind forcing and different wave-
breaking criteria (γ), were applied to hindcast storm waves in the shallow nearshore wa-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 ters of northern Taiwan during the passage of Super Typhoon Maria in 2018 and Lekima16 of 21
in 2019. The spatial distributions of the difference in the maximum SWH hindcasted by
S_NO1 and S_NO4 and S_NO1 and S_NO5 during the passage of Super Typhoon Maria
in 2018 are illustrated in Figure 13a,b, respectively. The differences caused by different
breaking criteria criteria
wave-breaking γ are smaller than those
γ are smaller caused
than those by different
caused by differentwave-breaking
wave-breakingformulations.
formu-
Figure 14a,b
lations. demonstrate
Figure the time
14a,b demonstrate theseries of hindcasted
time series of hindcasted SWHs
SWHsfor forP1 andP2
P1 and P2using
using the
the S_NO1,
S_NO1, S_NO4 S_NO4
andand S_NO5
S_NO5 scenariosduring
scenarios during thethepassage
passage of of
Super Typhoon
Super MariaMaria
Typhoon in in
2018.
2018. TheThemaximal
maximal difference
difference isiswithin
within1.01.0mm at at
P2P2(as(as
shown
shown in Figure 14b) 14b)
in Figure but isbut
lessis less
than
than 0.50.5
mm atatP1P1(Figure
(Figure14a).
14a). The
Thesame
samephenomena
phenomena were
werealsoalso
detected in both
detected the spatial
in both the spatial
distribution (as shown in Figure 15a,b) and time series of the hindcasted SWHs
distribution (as shown in Figure 15a,b) and time series of the hindcasted SWHs (as shown in (as shown
in Figure 16a,b) during the passage of Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019. Interestingly, the
Figure 16a,b) during the passage of Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019. Interestingly, the SWHs
SWHs hindcasted by a constant γ (S_NO1 scenario) are usually smaller than those
hindcasted by a constant γ (S_NO1 scenario) are usually smaller than those hindcasted by
hindcasted by γ based on local steepness (S_NO4 scenario) and peak steepness (S_NO5
γ based on local steepness (S_NO4 scenario) and peak steepness (S_NO5 scenario).
scenario).

FigureFigure 13. Spatial

13. Spatial distribution
distribution ofofthe
thedifference
difference in
inthe
themaximum
maximumSWHSWHbetween the scenarios
between of (a) S_NO1
the scenarios of (a) and S_NO4
S_NO1 andand
S_NO4
(b) S_NO1 and S_NO5 during the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW passage of Super Typhoon Maria in 2018. The areas with water depths greater than −20
18 of 23
and (b)mSci.
J. Mar. S_NO1
areEng. and9,S_NO5
2021,
shown. during
x FOR PEER REVIEWthe passage of Super Typhoon Maria in 2018. The areas with water depths greater than
18 of 23
−20 m are shown.

Figure 14. Time

14. Time series
seriesseries of hindcasted
of hindcasted SWHsSWHs for
forfor (a)
(a)(a) P1
P1P1
andand (b)
(b)(b) P2
P2P2 using theS_NO1,
using S_NO1, S_NO4 and S_NO5 scenarios during
FigureFigure 14. Time of hindcasted SWHs and usingthe
the S_NO1, S_NO4 and S_NO5
S_NO4 and S_NO5scenarios
scenarios during the
during
the passage of Super Typhoon Maria in 2018.
theofpassage
passage Super of Super Typhoon
Typhoon Maria inMaria in 2018.
2018.

Figure 15. Spatial distribution of the difference in the maximum SWH between the scenarios of (a) S_NO1 and S_NO4 and
Figure 15. Spatial distribution of the difference in the maximum SWH between the scenarios of (a) S_NO1 and S_NO4 and
Figure(b) Spatial
15.S_NO1 distribution
and of the
S_NO5 during thedifference
passage ofin the maximum
Super SWH between
Typhoon Lekima theareas
in 2019. The scenarios of (a) depths
with water S_NO1greater
and S_NO4
than and
(b) S_NO1 and S_NO5 during the passage of Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019. The areas with water depths greater than
−20 mand
(b) S_NO1 are shown.
S_NO5 during the passage of Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019. The areas with water depths greater than
−20 m are shown.
−20 m are shown.
J. Mar. Sci.Figure
Eng. 2021, 9, 706 distribution of the difference in the maximum SWH between the scenarios of (a) S_NO1 and S_NO4 and 17 of 21
15. Spatial
(b) S_NO1 and S_NO5 during the passage of Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019. The areas with water depths greater than
−20 m are shown.

Figure
Figure 16.16. Time
Time series
series of of hindcasted
hindcasted SWHs
SWHs forfor
(a)(a)
P1P1 and
and (b)(b)P2P2using
usingthe
theS_NO1,
S_NO1,S_NO4
S_NO4and
andS_NO5
S_NO5scenarios
scenariosduring
duringthe
the passage of Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019.
passage of Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019.

4.4.Discussion
Discussion and and Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Hindcasting an
Hindcasting an accurate
accuratestorm
stormwave
wave height is highly
height dependent
is highly on the
dependent onaccuracy of
the accuracy
the typhoon wind fields. Reanalysis wind products underestimate typhoon
of the typhoon wind fields. Reanalysis wind products underestimate typhoon winds, winds, e.g.,
Çalışır et al. [53] evaluated the quality of ERA5 and CFSR (Climate Forecast System Rea-
e.g., Çalışır et al. [53] evaluated the quality of ERA5 and CFSR (Climate Forecast System
nalysis) winds and the contribution of reanalysis wind products to a wave modeling per-
Reanalysis) winds and the contribution of reanalysis wind products to a wave modeling
formance in a semi-closed sea. Their results revealed that ERA5 and CFSR tend to under-
performance in a semi-closed sea. Their results revealed that ERA5 and CFSR tend to
estimate wind speeds, and ERA5 performs worse than CFSR at higher wind speeds (such
underestimate wind speeds, and ERA5 performs worse than CFSR at higher wind speeds
as typhoon winds) and better at lower wind speeds. Thus, the utilization of hybrid winds
(such as typhoon winds) and better at lower wind speeds. Thus, the utilization of hybrid
through the superposition method (the combination of reanalysis wind products and par-
winds through the superposition method (the combination of reanalysis wind products
ametric cyclone wind models) or the direct modification method (the combination of rea-
and parametric cyclone wind models) or the direct modification method (the combination
nalysis wind products and the maximum wind speeds of typhoons from the best track
of reanalysis wind products and the maximum wind speeds of typhoons from the best
track data) is the most advantageous to consider storm wave hindcasting in both near-field
and far-field regions of the typhoon’s center. However, uncertainty remains to be clarified;
that is, the radius of the modified scale (Rtrs ) cannot be formulated universally for each
typhoon. Owing to the WBmax is higher than WEmax , the area with stronger winds of a
typhoon is extended as Rtrs increases (according to Equation (1)). This expansion allows the
hindcasted SWHs to grow earlier and attenuate later (i.e., larger) than the measurements (as
shown in Figures 3 and 6). Additionally, as shown in Figure 3b,c, the measured peak SWH
at the Suao wave buoy occurred two hours earlier than that at the Longdong wave buoy.
However, the occurrence time of hindcasted peak SWH at the Suao wave buoy coincided
with that at the Longdong wave buoy. This phenomenon might be due to the low spatial
resolution of the original ERA5 winds (at roughly 31 km), and the periphery circulation of
a typhoon cannot be resolved with such a coarse spatial resolution. Although the wind
field derived from Rtrs = 4Rmax is employed for designing a series of model experiments
based on limited case studies, further studies are still needed to verify it.
Fully coupled ocean circulation and spectral wave numerical modeling systems are
undergoing widespread use for all types of regional applications, such as operational
predictions, wave climate evaluations, extreme storm waves and surge analyses. However,
the wave-induced hydrodynamics during the period of typhoons in shallow nearshore
waters simulated by these modeling systems remain uncertain. The scarcity of field
observations for wave parameters in the surf zone to verify the modeling systems is one of
the most important factors leading to uncertainty.
The SWH simulations in the surf zone are more sensitive to the various wave-breaking
formulations than the various wave-breaking criteria. To reconfirm the result obtained
from Section 3.2, the spatial distribution of the difference in the maximum SWH between
the scenarios of S_NO1 (wave-breaking formulation of BJ87 with constant wave-breaking
criteria) and S_NO2 (wave-breaking formulation of TG83 with constant wave-breaking
criteria) and S_NO1 and S_NO3 (wave-breaking formulation of CT93 with constant wave-
breaking criteria) in the surf zone (sea areas with water depths greater than −20 m are
shown) of southeastern China for Super Typhoons Maria in 2018 and Lekima in 2019 are
shown in Figures 17 and 18, respectively. As seen in Figures 17 and 18, the differences
 ing formulations than the various wave-breaking criteria. To reconfirm the result obtained
from Section 3.2, the spatial distribution of the difference in the maximum SWH between
the scenarios of S_NO1 (wave-breaking formulation of BJ87 with constant wave-breaking
criteria) and S_NO2 (wave-breaking formulation of TG83 with constant wave-breaking
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 criteria) and S_NO1 and S_NO3 (wave-breaking formulation of CT93 with constant wave- 18 of 21
breaking criteria) in the surf zone (sea areas with water depths greater than −20 m are
shown) of southeastern China for Super Typhoons Maria in 2018 and Lekima in 2019 are
shown in Figures 17 and 18, respectively. As seen in Figures 17 and 18, the differences in
inmaximum
maximumSWH SWH between
between thetheS_NO1
S_NO1 and S_NO3
and S_NO3 scenarios
scenarios(Figures
(Figures17b17b
andand18b) areare
18b)
higherthan
higher than those
those between
betweenthe S_NO1
the S_NO1 andand
S_NO2 scenarios
S_NO2 (Figures
scenarios 17a and
(Figures 17a18a)
andfor18a)
bothfor
typhoons.
both Additionally,
typhoons. the surfthe
Additionally, zones
surfwith significant
zones differencesdifferences
with significant in maximum in SWH re-
maximum
sulting
SWH from the
resulting fromvarious wave-breaking
the various formulations
wave-breaking occur on
formulations the on
occur right
theside
rightofside
the of
ty-the
phoons where
typhoons wherethe wind
the speeds
wind speeds areare
stronger. These
stronger. findings
These are identical
findings to the to
are identical result
the de-
result
rived from Section 3.2 and the reports from previous studies
derived from Section 3.2 and the reports from previous studies [54–57]. [54–57].

Figure 17. Spatial distribution of the difference in maximum SWH between the scenarios of (a) S_NO1 and S_NO2 and (b)
Figure 17. Spatial distribution of the difference in maximum SWH between the scenarios of (a) S_NO1 and S_NO2 and
J. Mar.S_NO1
Sci. Eng.and S_NO3
2021, when
9, x FOR Super
PEER Typhoon Maria (2018) made landfall on the southeast coast of China. The areas with water
REVIEW 20 of 23
(b) S_NO1 and S_NO3 when Super Typhoon Maria (2018) made landfall on the southeast coast of China. The areas with
depths greater than −20 m are shown.
water depths greater than −20 m are shown.

Figure
Figure 18.18. Spatial
Spatial distributionof
distribution ofthe
the difference
difference in
inmaximum
maximumSWH
SWHbetween thethe
between scenarios of (a)ofS_NO1
scenarios and S_NO2
(a) S_NO1 and (b)and
and S_NO2
S_NO1 and S_NO3 when Super Typhoon Lekima (2019) made landfall on the southeast coast of China. The areas with
(b) S_NO1 and S_NO3 when Super Typhoon Lekima (2019) made landfall on the southeast coast of China. The areas with
water depths greater than −20 m are shown.
water depths greater than −20 m are shown.
5. Summary and Conclusions
5. Summary and Conclusions
In this paper, the effects of wave breaking formulations and wave breaking criteria
In this paper, the effects of wave breaking formulations and wave breaking criteria in
in hindcasting typhoon-driven storm waves are investigated for shallow nearshore waters
hindcasting typhoon-driven storm waves are investigated for shallow nearshore waters
off northern Taiwan. A fully coupled high-resolution, unstructured grid wave-circulation
off northernsystem,
modeling Taiwan. A fully coupled high-resolution,
SCHISM-WWM-III, unstructured
with a large computational grid was
domain wave-circulation
applied to
modeling
hindcast the wind waves caused by the passages of Super Typhoon Maria inwas
system, SCHISM-WWM-III, with a large computational domain 2018applied
and
toSuper
hindcast the wind waves caused by the passages of Super Typhoon
Typhoon Lekima in 2019. The ERA5 reanalysis product were merged with the max- Maria in 2018
and
imumSuper
windTyphoon
from theLekima
best trackindataset,
2019. The and ERA5
the hybridreanalysis
typhoonproduct were and
wind created merged
servedwith
the maximum wind from the best track dataset, and the hybrid
as the meteorological conditions for the SCHISM-WWM-III modeling system through a typhoon wind created
and served
direct as the meteorological
modification technique. The conditions
hindcasted forSWHs
the SCHISM-WWM-III
during the typhoon modeling system
period were
through a direct to
more sensitive modification
the radius of technique.
the modified The hindcasted SWHs
scale, Rtrs and this during the typhoon
phenomenon was moreperiod
were more sensitive
pronounced at the to
peaktheSWH.
radiusRoftrs the
equalmodified timesRRtrs
to four scale, maxand
(thethis phenomenon
radius was more
at the maximum
pronounced
typhoon wind at the peak
speed) SWH.
is an Rtrs equal
adequate radiustooffour times Rmax
the modified (the
scale forradius at thethe
simulating maximum
storm
typhoon wind speed)
waves induced by Superis anTyphoon
adequate radius
Maria of theand
in 2018 modified scale for Lekima
Super Typhoon simulating the via
in 2019 storm
model validations. A series of numerical experiments were conducted using the SCHISM-
WWM-III modeling system incorporated with modified typhoon winds to better under-
stand the wave hydrodynamics in the shallow nearshore waters off northern Taiwan. The
results derived from the designed numerical experiments reveal that the wave breaking
formulations influence the hindcast of storm waves in the surf zone of northern Taiwan.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 19 of 21

waves induced by Super Typhoon Maria in 2018 and Super Typhoon Lekima in 2019
via model validations. A series of numerical experiments were conducted using the
SCHISM-WWM-III modeling system incorporated with modified typhoon winds to better
understand the wave hydrodynamics in the shallow nearshore waters off northern Taiwan.
The results derived from the designed numerical experiments reveal that the wave breaking
formulations influence the hindcast of storm waves in the surf zone of northern Taiwan. The
maximum difference in peak SWH could reach 2.5 m and 1.2 m for Super Typhoons Maria
(2018) and Lekima (2019), respectively, when the wave-breaking formulations of BJ78 and
CT93 were introduced to the SCHISM-WWM-III modeling system. Regarding the wave-
breaking criterion on the hindcast of typhoon waves in the surf zone of northern Taiwan,
compared with the wave-breaking formulation, the maximum difference in peak SWHs
was relatively non-sensitive to the wave-breaking criterion. The maximum difference in
peak SWH is only 0.5 m using the constant breaking criterion, the breaking criterion based
on local steepness or the breaking criterion based on peak steepness. Another important
finding is that the utilization of the BJ78 wave-breaking formulation usually underpredicts
the typhoon-generated SWHs in shallow nearshore waters than other parametrizations (i.e.,
TG83 and CT93). In future research, it will be important to acquire measurements in the
surf zone where wave hydrodynamics are more sensitive to wave-breaking formulations
and criteria during the passage or landfall of typhoons.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.-C.H. and W.-B.C.; data curation, H.-L.W. and W.-D.G.;
formal analysis, W.-D.G.; investigation, W.-B.C.; methodology, H.-L.W. and W.-B.C.; software, C.-H.C.
and W.-R.S.; supervision, S.-C.H.; writing–original draft, W.-B.C.; Writing–review and editing, S.-C.H.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan,
grant No. MOST 109-2221-E-865-001.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Publicly available datasets were analyzed in the present study. The
data can be found here: https://ocean.cwb.gov.tw/V2/ (accessed date on 26 June 2021).
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the Central Weather Bureau, Ministry of Transportation
and Communications, Taiwan, for providing the survey data and Joseph Zhang at the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, for kindly sharing his experiences using
the numerical model.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Reguero, B.G.; Losada, I.J.; Méndez, F.J. A recent increase in global wave power as a consequence of oceanic warming. Nat.
Commun. 2019, 10, 205. [CrossRef]
2. Stockdon, H.F.; Sallenger, A.H.; Holman, R.A.; Howd, P.A. A simple model for the spatially-variable coastal response to hurricanes.
Mar. Geol. 2007, 238, 1–20. [CrossRef]
3. Hoeke, R.K.; McInnes, K.L.; Kruger, J.C.; McNaught, R.J.; Hunter, J.R.; Smithers, S.G. Widespread inundation of Pacific islands
triggered by distant-source wind-waves. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2013, 108, 128–138. [CrossRef]
4. Wadey, M.; Brown, S.; Nicholls, R.J.; Haigh, I. Coastal flooding in the Maldives: An assessment of historic events and their
implications. Nat. Hazards 2017, 89, 131–159. [CrossRef]
5. Melet, A.; Almar, R.; Hemer, M.; le Cozannet, G.; Meyssignac, B.; Ruggiero, P. Contribution of wave setup to projected coastal sea
level changes. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 2020, 125, e2020JC016078. [CrossRef]
6. Hoefel, F.; Elgar, S. Wave-induced sediment transport and sandbar migration. Science 2003, 299, 1885–1887. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Feddersen, F. Scaling surf zone turbulence. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2012, 39, L18613. [CrossRef]
8. Longuet-Higgins, M.S.; Stewart, R.W. Radiation stresses in water waves; a physical discussion, with applications. Deep Sea Res.
1964, 11, 529–562. [CrossRef]
9. Battjes, J.A.; Stive, M.J.F. Calibration and verification of a dissipation model for random breaking waves. J. Geophys. Res. 1985, 90,
9159–9167. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 20 of 21

10. Nairn, R.B. Prediction of Cross-Shore Sediment Transport and Beach Profile Evolution. Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College London,
London, UK, 1990.
11. Holthuijsen, L.H.; Booij, N. Experimental Wave Breaking in SWAN. In Coastal Engineering 2006; McKee Smith, J., Ed.; American
Society of Civil Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 392–402.
12. Apotsos, A.; Raubenheimer, B.; Elgar, S.; Guza, R.T. Testing and calibrating parametric wave transformation models on natural
beaches. Coast. Eng. 2008, 55, 224–235. [CrossRef]
13. Ruessink, B.G.; Walstra, D.J.R.; Southgate, H.N. Calibration and verification of a parametric wave model on barred beaches. Coast.
Eng. 2003, 48, 139–149. [CrossRef]
14. Jelesnianski, C.P. A numerical calculation of storm tides induced by a tropical storm impinging on a continental shelf. Mon.
Weather Rev. 1965, 93, 343–358. [CrossRef]
15. Jelesnianski, C.P. Numerical computations of storm surges without bottom stress. Mon. Weather Rev. 1996, 94, 379–394. [CrossRef]
16. Dube, S.K.; Sinha, P.C.; Roy, G.D. The numerical simulation of storm surges along the Bangladesh coast. Dyn. Atmos. Ocean. 1985,
9, 121–133. [CrossRef]
17. Ginis, I.; Sutyrin, G. Hurricane-generated depth-averaged currents and sea surface elevation. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 1995, 25,
1218–1242. [CrossRef]
18. Lee, T.L. Back-propagation neural network for the prediction of the short-term storm surge in Taichung harbor, Taiwan. Eng.
Appl. Artif. Intell. 2008, 21, 63–72. [CrossRef]
19. Chen, W.-B.; Liu, W.-C.; Hsu, M.H. Computational investigation of typhoon-induced storm surges along the coast of Taiwan. Nat.
Hazards 2012, 64, 1161–1185. [CrossRef]
20. Pan, Y.; Chen, Y.P.; Li, J.X.; Ding, X.L. Improvement of wind field hindcasts for tropical cyclones. Water Sci. Eng. 2016, 9, 58–66.
[CrossRef]
21. Chen, W.-B.; Chen, H.; Hsiao, S.-C.; Chang, C.-H.; Lin, L.-Y. Wind forcing effect on hindcasting of typhoon-driven extreme waves.
Ocean Eng. 2019, 188, 106260. [CrossRef]
22. Hsiao, S.-C.; Chen, H.; Chen, W.-B.; Chang, C.-H.; Lin, L.-Y. Quantifying the contribution of nonlinear interactions to storm tide
simulations during a super typhoon event. Ocean Eng. 2019, 194, 106661. [CrossRef]
23. Hsiao, S.-C.; Chen, H.; Wu, H.-L.; Chen, W.-B.; Chang, C.-H.; Guo, W.-D.; Chen, Y.-M.; Lin, L.-Y. Numerical Simulation of Large
Wave Heights from Super Typhoon Nepartak (2016) in the Eastern Waters of Taiwan. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 217. [CrossRef]
24. Hsiao, S.-C.; Wu, H.-L.; Chen, W.-B.; Chang, C.-H.; Lin, L.-Y. On the Sensitivity of Typhoon Wave Simulations to Tidal Elevation
and Current. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 731. [CrossRef]
25. Knaff, J.A.; Sampson, C.R.; Demaria, M.; Marchok, T.P.; Gross, J.M.; Mcadie, C.J. Statistical Tropical Cyclone Wind Radii Prediction
Using Climatology and Persistence. Weather Forecast. 2007, 22, 781–791. [CrossRef]
26. Zhang, Y.J.; Ye, F.; Stanev, E.V.; Grashorn, S. Seamless cross-scale modelling with SCHISM. Ocean Modell. 2016, 102, 64–81.
[CrossRef]
27. Zhang, Y.J.; Baptista, A.M. SELFE: A semi-implicit Eulerian-Lagrangian finite-element model for cross-scale ocean circulation.
Ocean Modell. 2008, 21, 71–96. [CrossRef]
28. Zhang, Y.J.; Ye, F.; Yu, H.; Sun, W.; Moghimi, S.; Myers, E.; Nunez, K.; Zhang, R.; Wang, H.; Roland, A.; et al. Simulating
compound flooding events in a hurricane. Ocean Dyn. 2020, 70, 621–640. [CrossRef]
29. Shchepetkin, A.F.; McWilliams, J.C. The regional oceanic modeling system (ROMS): A split-explicit, free-surface, topography-
following-coordinate, oceanic model. Ocean Model. 2005, 9, 347–404. [CrossRef]
30. Chen, W.-B.; Liu, W.-C. Modeling flood inundation induced by river flow and storm surges over a river basin. Water 2014, 6,
3182–3199. [CrossRef]
31. Chen, W.-B.; Liu, W.-C. Assessment of storm surge inundation and potential hazard maps for the southern coast of Taiwan. Nat.
Hazards 2016, 82, 591–616. [CrossRef]
32. Chen, W.-B.; Liu, W.-C.; Hsu, M.-H. Modeling evaluation of tidal stream energy and the impacts of energy extraction on
hydrodynamics in the Taiwan strait. Energies 2013, 6, 2191–2203. [CrossRef]
33. Chen, W.-B.; Chen, H.; Lin, L.-Y.; Yu, Y.-C. Tidal Current Power Resource and Influence of Sea-Level Rise in the Coastal Waters of
Kinmen Island, Taiwan. Energies 2017, 10, 652. [CrossRef]
34. Chen, W.-B.; Liu, W.-C.; Hsu, M.-H.; Hwang, C.-C. Modeling investigation of suspended sediment transport in a tidal estuary
using a three-dimensional model. Appl. Math. Model. 2015, 39, 2570–2586. [CrossRef]
35. Chen, W.-B.; Liu, W.-C. Investigating the fate and transport of fecal coliform contamination in a tidal estuarine system using a
three-dimensional model. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 116, 365–384. [CrossRef]
36. Roland, A. Development of WWM II: Spectral Wave Modeling on Unstructured Meshes. Ph.D. Thesis, Technology University
Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany, 2009.
37. Komen, G.J.; Cavaleri, M.; Donelan, K.; Hasselmann, S.; Hasselmann, P.A.E.; Janssen, M. Dynamics and Modelling of Ocean Waves;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994; p. 532.
38. Hasselmann, K.; Barnett, T.P.; Bouws, E.; Carlson, H.; Cartwright, D.E.; Enke, K.; Ewing, J.A.; Gienapp, H.; Hasselmann, D.E.;
Kruseman, P.; et al. Measurements of Wind-Wave Growth and Swell Decay during the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP);
Deutsches Hydrographisches Institut: Berlin, Germany; Hamburg, Germany, 1973.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 706 21 of 21

39. Chen, W.-B.; Lin, L.-Y.; Jang, J.-H.; Chang, C.-H. Simulation of typhoon-induced storm tides and wind waves for the northeastern
coast of Taiwan using a tide-surge-wave coupled model. Water 2017, 9, 549. [CrossRef]
40. Su, W.-R.; Chen, H.; Chen, W.-B.; Chang, C.-H.; Lin, L.-Y.; Jang, J.-H.; Yu, Y.-C. Numerical investigation of wave energy resources
and hotspots in the surrounding waters of Taiwan. Renew. Energy 2018, 118, 814–824. [CrossRef]
41. Shih, H.-J.; Chang, C.-H.; Chen, W.-B.; Lin, L.-Y. Identifying the Optimal Offshore Areas for Wave Energy Converter Deployments
in Taiwanese Waters Based on 12-Year Model Hindcasts. Energies 2018, 11, 499. [CrossRef]
42. Hsiao, S.-C.; Cheng, C.-T.; Chang, T.-Y.; Chen, W.B.; Wu, H.-L.; Jang, J.-H.; Lin, L.-Y. Assessment of Offshore Wave Energy
Resources in Taiwan Using Long-Term Dynamically Downscaled Winds from a Third-Generation Reanalysis Product. Energies
2021, 14, 653. [CrossRef]
43. Orton, P.; Georgas, N.; Blumberg, A.; Pullen, J. Detailed modeling of recent severe storm tides in estuaries of the New York City
region. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 2012, 117, C09030. [CrossRef]
44. Zheng, L.; Weisberg, R.H.; Huang, Y.; Luettich, R.A.; Westerink, J.J.; Kerr, P.C.; Donahue, A.S.; Grane, G.; Akli, L. Implications
from the comparisons between two- and three-dimensional model simulations of the Hurricane Ike storm surge. J. Geophys. Res.
Ocean. 2013, 118, 3350–3369. [CrossRef]
45. Zu, T.; Gana, J.; Erofeevac, S.Y. Numerical study of the tide and tidal dynamics in the South China Sea. Deep Sea Res. Part I 2008,
55, 137–154. [CrossRef]
46. Liu, Z.; Wang, H.; Zhang, Y.J.; Magnusson, L.; Loftis, J.D. Cross-scale Modeling of Storm Surge, Tide and inundation in
Mid-Atlantic Bight and New York City during Hurricane Sandy, 2012. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2020, 233, 106544. [CrossRef]
47. Battjes, J.A.; Beji, S. Breaking Waves Propagating over a Shoal. In Coastal Engineering 1992, Proceedings of the 23rd International
Conference on Coastal Engineering, Venice, Italy, 4–9 October 1992; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 1992; pp. 42–50.
48. Battjes, J.A.; Janssen, J.P.F.M. Energy Loss and Set-Up Due to Breaking of Random Waves. In Coastal Engineering 1978, Proceedings
of the 16th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 27 August–3 September 1978; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA,
1978; pp. 569–587.
49. Thornton, E.B.; Guza, R.T. Transformation of wave height distribution. J. Geophys. Res. 1983, 88, 5925–5938. [CrossRef]
50. Thornton, E.B.; Guza, R.T. Energy saturation and phase speeds measured on a natural beach. J. Geophys. Res. 1982, 87, 9499–9508.
[CrossRef]
51. Church, J.C.; Thornton, E.B. Effects of breaking wave induced turbulence within a longshore current model. Coast. Eng. 1993, 20,
1–28. [CrossRef]
52. Miche, R. Mouvements ondulatoires des mers en profondeur constante ou décroissante. Annales des Ponts Chaussees 1944, 369–406.
53. Calisir, E.; Soran, M.B.; Akpinar, A. Quality of the ERA5 and CFSR winds and their contribution to wave modelling performance
in a semi-closed sea. J. Oper. Oceanogr. 2021. [CrossRef]
54. Van der Westhuysen, A.J. Modeling of depth-induced wave breaking under finite depth wave growth conditions. J. Geophys. Res.
Ocean 2009, 115, C01008. [CrossRef]
55. Salmon, J.E.; Holthuijsen, L.H. Modeling depth-induced wave breaking over complex coastal bathymetries. Coast. Eng. 2015, 105,
21–35. [CrossRef]
56. Lin, S.; Sheng, J. Assessing the performance of wave breaking parameterizations in shallow waters in spectral wave models.
Ocean Modell. 2017, 120, 41–59. [CrossRef]
57. Pezerat, M.; Bertin, X.; Martins, K.; Mengual, B.; Hamm, L. Simulating storm waves in the nearshore area using spectral model:
Current issues and a pragmatic solution. Ocean Modell. 2021, 158, 101737. [CrossRef]